22nd January 2024
“The second and third remediation orders have been issued under the Building Safety Act 2022 and published within just a few days of each other. With every decision in this new area of law helping building owners, managers and occupiers to understand their responsibilities and rights – we take a look at the key legal and practical takeaways.”
– Asia Munir, Senior Associate, Real Estate Litigation
Under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the BSA), a remediation order (or, RO) is an order requiring a relevant landlord to remedy certain defects in a building by a specified time. The introduction and award of remediation orders reinforces that the focus of the BSA is building safety and improvement of standards. See our previous article for relevant RO definitions and for details of the first remediation order to be granted by the First-tier Tribunal.
As of 15 January 2024, two more remediation orders have been issued. As this is a new area, all developments are useful in clarifying the law and the approach of the tribunals. As such, Walker Morris Real Estate Litigation and building safety experts, Asia Munir and Lewis Couth, highlight the key takeaways from the recent Orchard House [1] and Centrillion Point [2] decisions.
Orchard House is a building originally constructed in the 1960s as an office block and later converted to residential flats. It’s located in Bristol and the RO in this case was issued by the Southern Tribunal.
This application, which wasn’t contested by the landlord, was for works required to remedy fire safety defects. Key points include:
The case demonstrates that a full specification is not always necessary for a RO, and details within a FREAW may be sufficient for setting out the defects and remedial works.
Whilst there is currently no practice direction, listing a trial within less than three months aligns with the Tribunal looking to make decisions within six months of application in claims relating to the Electronic Communications Code.
Centrillion Point is a building originally completed in 2008 as an office block and subsequently converted into residential flats and adjoining mews houses. External works to remove combustible cladding had been carried out in the last couple of years and the application for the remediation order in this case was in respect of required internal remediation works – principally relating to lack of fire compartmentation.
Key points to note include:
The Tribunal commented that section 123 of the BSA requires no more than listing of the specified defects that are required to be remediated – the Centrillion Point highlights that an order doesn’t need to contain granular detail.
Walker Morris’ Real Estate Litigation specialists, working seamlessly with our other cross-discipline Building Safety Act experts, are uniquely placed to help clients from right across the Living sector to successfully navigate all of the legal, regulatory and practical changes brought about by the Building Safety Act.
Our long-standing experience and success in providing strategic risk management, transactional and dispute resolution advice for industry participants in all areas of the sector has contributed to our in-depth understanding of all parties’ commercial perspectives. Our appointment to support the UK Government in relation to remediation orders also places us in the unique position of being able to share information and advice with our clients which is based on hands-on experience of issuing this entirely new form of claim to address unsafe cladding and/or defects.
For tailored advice, assistance or training in connection with remediation orders or the BSA generally, please contact Asia or Lewis.
[1] The Orchard House remediation order decision.
[2] The Centrillion Point remediation order decision.
[3] The Tribunal referred to the approach in the Blue Manchester case – referenced in the Kedai/Leigham Court Road RO and linked above. That approach affords flexibility by allowing the parties to apply to the Tribunal to make a variation of the order.