The Retention Debate: Safeguarding Projects or Sinking Businesses?
For over a century, cash retentions have been a staple in the UK construction industry, serving as a financial safeguard for clients and main contractors. Designed to ensure project completion and address any potential defects, these retained funds might seem reasonable on paper. However, in practice, they have become a contentious issue, particularly for small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
At the heart of the controversy is the unequal burden retentions place on subcontractors. While the intent behind retentions is to foster accountability and protect against poor workmanship, the reality often paints a bleaker picture: delayed payments, financial strain, and, in the worst cases, insolvencies for smaller firms.
As legislative efforts and industry initiatives aim to address this long-standing issue, the critical question remains: are retentions an outdated relic, or do they still hold a place in modern construction?
The impact of retentions on SMEs
Small- to medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of the construction sector, have been disproportionately affected by retention practices. According to industry veteran Rudi Klein, SMEs have lost over £2.5 billion due to upstream insolvencies, with some estimates suggesting this figure has risen significantly in recent years.
The financial toll is staggering. When retentions are withheld, subcontractors face cash flow shortages, making it challenging to invest in new projects, pay their suppliers, or meet operational costs. In some cases, withheld retention payments represent 50%—or even 100%—of a subcontractor’s profit margin on a project, effectively nullifying their earnings.
Calum Melville of Edison Capital believes the issue demands urgent attention. “We need to be explicit about the shocking behavior of big companies holding on to money that doesn’t belong to them and the fact that unscrupulous outfits are not paying what is owed to their suppliers in the hope that they will go under and resolve the issue for them,” he states. This behavior, he adds, “destroys small businesses, disrupts supply chains, and damages the industry as a whole.”
Real-world examples underscore these challenges. A notable example of these challenges is the legal dispute between Ogilvie Construction and ATG Services Ltd. The disagreement centered on a £1.1 million invoice submitted by ATG, which Ogilvie contested on the grounds that it was sent to an incorrect email address and was therefore invalid. The court rejected Ogilvie’s argument, deeming it ‘frivolous’ and ‘entirely without merit’, ordering the contractor to pay the full amount.
Industry initiatives and responses
In recent years, the construction industry has taken steps to address the contentious issue of retentions. Organizations like Build UK and the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) have advocated for reform, recognizing the harm that retention practices inflict on smaller firms.
Build UK’s ‘roadmap to zero retentions’ by 2025 is one such initiative aiming to phase out retentions across the sector. The roadmap outlines a framework for achieving this goal, emphasizing collaboration, improved contract management, and fair payment practices. However, progress has been slow, with many stakeholders reluctant to relinquish what they see as a crucial tool for ensuring project accountability.
Similarly, the CLC has championed alternatives to retentions, promoting best practices that foster trust and efficiency without the need for withheld payments. Despite these initiatives, adoption has been uneven. Many SMEs report ongoing difficulties in securing retained funds, with 73% of respondents to a 2022 survey by Scotland’s Construction Industry Collective Voice stating they faced severe challenges in accessing their payments. This disparity highlights the deep-seated resistance within the industry and the need for more decisive action.
Legislative developments
Recognizing the limitations of voluntary initiatives, legislative measures have started to gain traction. This year, new secondary legislation in the UK mandated reporting on retentions as part of broader efforts to increase transparency in payment practices. The Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment, No. 2) Regulations 2024 require companies to disclose retention-related information, shedding light on the scale and distribution of withheld funds.
This development represents a significant step forward, providing policymakers and industry stakeholders with data to inform future reforms. However, critics argue that reporting alone is insufficient. Without enforceable penalties for non-compliance or stricter regulations to limit or eliminate retentions, the underlying issues are unlikely to be resolved. Advocates for change, including former SEC Group CEO Rudi Klein, continue to call for comprehensive legislative action to abolish retentions entirely, citing the practice as outdated and counterproductive in a modern construction industry.
Alternatives to retentions
The entrenched practice of retentions in the UK construction industry has proven resistant to voluntary reforms and limited legislative measures. As a result, many experts advocate for exploring alternative methods that maintain accountability without undermining financial stability for subcontractors.
1. Project-Specific Insurance
Insurance-backed guarantees could replace retentions, providing security while ensuring contractors receive payments on time.
2. Escrow Accounts
Escrow accounts offer a fair middle ground, holding funds securely until conditions for release are met.
3. Performance Bonds
Performance bonds guarantee contract obligations without jeopardizing a subcontractor’s cash flow.
4. Digital Contract Management Tools
Digital tools can automate payments and track milestones, reducing disputes and fostering transparency.
5. Industry Behavior Charters
Guidelines promoting fair practices, like withholding only contested sums, could reduce financial strain and build trust.
The issue of cash retentions reflects broader challenges in the construction industry around fairness and financial transparency. While legislative efforts and industry initiatives signal progress, substantial reform is still needed to eliminate exploitative practices and ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders.
As Calum Melville commented, “Action on retentions will eventually have to be at a legislative level. If it can raise standards across the board, create greater transparency and cooperation, and avoid the annual cull of small firms who haven’t been paid for the work they’ve done, then surely it’s worth a try.”
The construction sector has an opportunity to modernize its practices, supporting businesses of all sizes in achieving sustainable growth. The debate around retentions in the UK construction industry underscores a critical crossroads for the sector. While the original intent of retentions—to ensure project quality and accountability—might still hold merit, the practice has proven increasingly incompatible with the realities of modern construction.
For SMEs, retentions represent not just a financial challenge but a systemic imbalance that undermines trust and stability across the industry. Efforts to reform retention practices, from industry roadmaps to legislative mandates, highlight growing awareness of the issue. Yet, meaningful change will require bold action, including adopting alternatives like insurance-backed guarantees, escrow accounts, and performance bonds. These solutions have the potential to safeguard projects without crippling smaller firms, ensuring a fairer and more sustainable industry for all stakeholders.
Sources: