Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd: When Trust in Accreditation Is Undermined. An important clarification from Stuart Penrose Roofing, Est.1993.

Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd is not Stuart Penrose Roofing Est 1993.

Stuart Penrose Roofing was established in 1993. I am not, and have never been, a director, employee, partner or representative of Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd. The two businesses are entirely separate and should not be confused.

Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd, company number NI623233, was incorporated on 5 March 2014. Its registered name remains Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd, although it now presents itself publicly using the shorter name “Penrose Roofing.”

That distinction matters because documented information concerning accreditation claims previously made on its website is now appearing online. I am publishing this article so that customers searching for either business can identify which company that information concerns.

This article addresses the representations made on the company’s website for almost a decade, the written confirmations received from the relevant bodies, and the subsequent findings and intervention of Trading Standards.

What their website claimed for almost a decade

The CompetentRoofer/CPS finding

The most significant representation was the CompetentRoofer logo, now described by NFRC as its Competent Person Scheme or CPS.

NFRC explains that a contractor registered under the scheme can self-certify qualifying roof-refurbishment work as compliant with Building Regulations, without the normal involvement of a building inspector. NFRC also states that the scheme operates in England and Wales.

In written correspondence dated 20 August 2025, NFRC confirmed:

“Penrose Roofing are not CPS registered. The scheme does not run in Northern Ireland.”

Archived website material shows the CompetentRoofer/CPS branding appearing across a period approaching a decade. This was therefore more significant than a logo briefly uploaded and quickly corrected.

The scheme did not operate in Northern Ireland, so the displayed logo could not provide Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd with authority to self-certify roofing work here.

The problem may only emerge when a property is sold

The importance of the CPS logo may not become apparent when the roofing work is completed. It may only emerge years later, when the homeowner decides to sell or remortgage the property.

Where roofing work required Building Control approval, a purchaser’s solicitor, surveyor or lender may seek evidence that the work was properly notified, inspected and completed in accordance with Building Regulations.

A homeowner who saw the CompetentRoofer/CPS logo could reasonably have believed that this regulatory process was being handled through the contractor’s ability to self-certify qualifying work. That is what made the logo particularly important. It did not merely suggest general competence or trade membership; it represented access to a scheme with a specific Building Regulations function.

But NFRC’s written confirmation establishes that Penrose Roofing was not CPS registered and that the scheme did not operate in Northern Ireland. No work undertaken here could therefore have been self-certified by Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd through that scheme.

Belfast City Council warns that carrying out building work without the necessary Building Control approval can result in enforcement action, additional costs and hold-ups that may prevent or delay the sale or remortgage of a home.

Where work requiring approval was completed without an application, a homeowner may need to pursue retrospective regularisation. Building Control Northern Ireland explains that this process can involve a council inspection, the opening up or exposure of completed work and any remedial work required before a certificate can be issued.

Responsibility for dealing with that process rests with the property owner.

This does not establish that every Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd customer lacked Building Control approval, nor that every roof required an application. That would depend upon the work undertaken at each property.

It does explain the potential consequence of displaying the CPS logo in Northern Ireland. A homeowner may have believed that the regulatory requirements surrounding substantial roofing work were being professionally handled, only to discover during a future sale or remortgage that no valid CPS certification could ever have been issued.

The TrustMark finding

The TrustMark representation was also important. TrustMark describes itself as the UK Government-Endorsed Quality Scheme for work carried out in and around the home.

In written correspondence dated 1 September 2025, TrustMark confirmed that Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd did not then hold an active TrustMark registration.

TrustMark stated that its Brand Misuse policy applied, initiated that process and explained that it would request removal of the logo. The logo was subsequently removed.

The wording must remain precise: the correspondence establishes that the company did not hold an active registration at the time of the enquiry. It does not establish its status on every date throughout the website’s history. It does establish that the logo was being displayed when no active registration was held and that TrustMark treated the matter as brand misuse.

The Safe-T-Cert finding

The website also claimed that Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd held Safe-T-Cert accreditation.

Safe-T-Cert confirmed in writing that the company had never held its certification and required the reference and branding to be removed. This was not an expired registration. The written confirmation was that the certification had never been held.

Trading Standards intervened

The concerns were reported to the relevant accreditation bodies and to Trading Standards.

In an email dated 3 November 2025, under complaint reference PR202508-44321, Jamie Davey of the Trading Standards Service wrote:

“Following Trading Standards Intervention with the company Penrose Roofing 2014 we can confirm that they have taken steps to correctly update their company media and various advertisement streams to no longer display any falsely accredited endorsement by a public or private body.”

Trading Standards continued:

“We very much agree that such display of false endorsements mislead homeowners into believing they are dealing with a business that is vetted and accredited when they are not and that consumers mostly rely on these marks when deciding to employ a contractor.”

Those are Trading Standards’ own words following its direct intervention with the company, not my characterisation of what occurred.

Why I feel I must publish this

The present website now presents the other business publicly as “Penrose Roofing”, without the “2014 Ltd” distinction that previously helped consumers separate it from Stuart Penrose Roofing Est 1993

I make no allegation about why that public presentation changed.

The practical concern is that the distinction between two separate businesses is now less obvious, particularly when search results or online commentary refer only to “Penrose Roofing.”

My business has traded since 1993. Its reputation has been built over more than three decades through my own work, customers and standards. I cannot allow documented findings concerning another company to be mistakenly attributed to me because the two businesses share nothing more than the same surname.

For clarity:

• Stuart Penrose Roofing, Est. 1993, operates through penroseroofingni.com.

• Penrose Roofing 2014 Ltd, company number NI623233, was incorporated in 2014 and is a completely separate business.

Anyone checking a contractor’s credentials should verify the exact identity of the business and confirm any claimed accreditation directly with the organisation responsible for the scheme.

That is the minimum level of clarity homeowners should receive before entrusting a company with major work on their home.

If any homeowner believes they relied upon these accreditation representations when commissioning roofing work and has subsequently experienced financial loss, difficulty obtaining Building Control documentation, or problems selling or remortgaging their property, they may wish to obtain independent legal advice based on their individual circumstances.

This article provides a record of the documented findings and is not legal advice.