Remediation contribution orders

This guidance on the use of remediation contribution orders provides a framework for any person considering applying for a remediation contribution order.

How to use this guidance

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) guidance on the use of remediation contribution orders provides a framework for any person considering applying for a remediation contribution order. This guidance does not provide legal advice. Any person considering applying for a remediation contribution order should seek independent legal advice about doing so.

Remediation contribution orders were introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022 to make sure funding to fix building safety defects is made available, and/or funding is obtained to reimburse costs previously incurred in fixing building safety defects. Parties including regulators, leaseholders and landlords can apply to the First-tier Tribunal to request an order be made requiring landlords, developers and/or persons associated with them to make payments to a specified person.

Introduction

A summary of what remediation contribution orders are and how they work.

A remediation contribution order is made by the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal”). It can require a company or companies to pay for the costs of:

remediating certain building defects
taking relevant steps to reduce the risk from those defects, and/or
temporary accommodation and associated reasonable travel costs, removal costs and storage costs where residents have been decanted due to building safety risks

See section 2.5 for more information on what costs can be included in a remediation contribution order.

Landlords, developers, and companies associated with either of these, can be made to pay through a remediation contribution order. Remediation contribution orders are not a fault-based order. This means a company can be made to pay irrespective of whether they caused the defect(s) in question or are able to carry out the works to remediate them. See section 2.2 for more information on who can be required to pay under a remediation contribution order.

Remediation contribution orders can be made in relation to self-contained residential buildings that are at least 11 metres high or have at least 5 storeys; contain at least 2 residential units; and feature at least one relevant defect. A relevant defect is defined in the Building Safety Act 2022 as a defect that has arisen from anything that has been done (or not done), or anything used (or not used), in connection with relevant works, and causes a building safety risk. See sub-section 2.4.2 for more information about relevant defects, including definitions of “building safety risk” and “relevant works.”

Remediation contribution orders can be used in several different ways to make funding available for costs incurred in relation to the remediation of a building. For example, they can be used to:

secure funding for remediation works to take place
provide funding for relevant steps, such as a waking watch
recover costs which a party has incurred through remediation works being carried out, either directly or through a service charge; and/or
recover temporary accommodation costs for decanted residents

See Chapter 5 for more information on how a remediation contribution order can be used, and the factors applicants may wish to consider when considering making an application.

This document does not constitute legal advice. Any person considering making an application for a remediation contribution order should seek their own legal and expert advice, and should not rely on this document.

Key definitions

This chapter defines the key concepts involved in the remediation contribution order process.

This chapter defines the key terminology involved in the remediation contribution order process, including:

who can apply for a remediation contribution order
who can be made to pay through a remediation contribution order
what is meant by “associated persons”
the gateway criteria to pursuing a remediation contribution order
what costs can be included in a remediation contribution order
what is meant by “just and equitable” in the context of remediation contribution order proceedings

Interested persons

Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and accompanying regulations specify the “interested persons” who can apply for a remediation contribution order. These are:

the Secretary of State
the Building Safety Regulator
the local authority for the area in which the relevant building is situated
the fire and rescue authority for the area in which the relevant building is situated
a person with a legal or equitable interest in the relevant building or any part of it. This may include residential leaseholders or a landlord in the building. Equitable interests may not be obvious, and applicants may wish to seek legal advice on who might be covered in any specific set of circumstances.
the Homes and Communities Agency (Homes England)
the named manager in relation to the relevant building
the residents management company (RMC) in relation to the relevant building. An RMC is a company which is party to the lease and has responsibility for the management of the building, whose shares are owned by leaseholders. RMCs usually have the repairing obligation.
the right-to-manage (RTM) company in relation to the relevant building. An RTM company is a company formed by leaseholders to allow them to take over management of their building, under sections 73-74 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. RTM companies usually have the repairing obligation for their building
any other person prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State

Persons who can be made to pay under a remediation contribution order

Section 124(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 specifies which entities an application can be made against (“the respondent”), and, if successful, be ordered to pay under a remediation contribution order. These are:

a current landlord under a lease of the relevant building, or any part of it
a person who was a landlord at the relevant time (14 February 2022), even if they are not currently the landlord
a developer of the building
persons associated (see section 2.3 for a definition of ‘associated persons’) with any of the above entities

The respondent(s) must be a company or partnership. Individuals (where they are not in a partnership) cannot be subject to remediation contribution orders.

Applicants will need to provide evidence to demonstrate that the proposed respondent(s) meets the criteria to be named as such in a remediation contribution order. For more information on the evidence necessary to demonstrate that a respondent meets the criteria, see sub-section 3.1.3.

If an applicant is considering naming an entity incorporated overseas as a respondent, they should seek specialised legal advice on whether, and how, to pursue such an entity. For more information on naming overseas entities in a remediation contribution order application, see sub-section 5.3.2.

Naming multiple respondents

Multiple respondents can be named in a remediation contribution order application. Applicants may find it useful to name multiple respondents to ensure that the full contribution sought can be recovered. For more information on the circumstances where naming multiple respondents may be appropriate, see section 5.3.

Associated persons 

As explained in section 2.2, the Building Safety Act 2022 allows applicants to pursue a remediation contribution order against a partnership or body corporate “associated” with a landlord or developer of a relevant building. Section 121 of the Building Safety Act 2022 sets out the circumstances in which a partnership or body corporate is associated with another, for the purposes of remediation contribution orders, and the relevant timeframe in which the association must have taken place, namely the period from February 2017 to 14 February 2022. The definition of an associated person depends on whether the entity in question is a body corporate or a partnership.

It may not be possible to identify whether an entity may be an associated person from publicly-available documentation alone. Therefore, prospective applicants considering naming an associated person as a respondent should carefully consider the provisions in section 121 and seek specialist legal advice to ensure their intended respondent meets the required criteria.

When a body corporate may be associated with another person, company or partnership 

This section sets out the circumstances where a body corporate is considered to be associated with another person, body corporate or partnership.

A body corporate is associated with another person, if one of the following applies:

on 14 February 2022, that person’s interest in the relevant building was held on trust, and the body corporate was a beneficiary of the same trust at that time
that person was a director of the body corporate between 14 February 2017 and 14 February 2022 (the relevant period)

A body corporate is associated with another body corporate if either of the following applies:

a person was a director of both bodies corporate at any time in the relevant period (between 14 February 2017 to 14 February 2022)
on 14 February 2022, one of the bodies corporate controlled the other, or a third body corporate controlled them both.

The test to determine whether one body corporate controls another will depend on whether the controlled body is a company or limited liability partnership.

A body corporate (X) controls another company (Y), if X possesses or is entitled to acquire any of the following:

at least half of the issued share capital of Y
rights to exercise at least half of the votes exercisable in general meetings of Y
such amount of Y’s issued share capital to entitle X to at least half of the income of Y, if the whole of Y’s income was distributed among shareholders
on the winding up of Y, or under any other circumstances, have rights to receive at least half of the assets of Y which would be available for distribution amongst shareholders

A body corporate (X) controls a limited liability partnership (Y), if X:

holds a majority of the voting rights in Y
is a member of Y and has a right to appoint or remove a majority of other members, or
is a member of Y and controls a majority of the voting rights in Y, either alone or pursuant to an agreement with other members.

A body corporate (X) controls another body corporate (Y) if X has the power to secure that the affairs of Y are conducted in accordance with X’s wishes.

When a partnership may be associated with another PERSON

Under section 121 the Building Safety Act 2022, the definition of a partnership is:

a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890;
a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907; or
a firm or entity of a similar character formed under the law of a country or territory outside of the United Kingdom (and the reference to ‘limited partner’ is to be read accordingly)

A partnership is associated with another person, if either of the following applies:

on 14 February 2022, that person’s interest in the relevant building was held on trust, and the partnership was a beneficiary of the same trust
they were a partner (not a limited partner) in the partnership at any time between 14 February 2017 and 14 February 2022 (the relevant period)

Associated person examples

Below are 2 examples of how the Building Safety Act 2022’s associated persons provision could be applied.

Example 1

Company A is a development company set up in 2017. Company A constructs a building known as Building Heights in 2018 and sells the building to Freeholder A. Company A is then dissolved in 2019.

A local authority carries out an inspection and discovers that Building Heights has relevant defects to the external cladding system of Building Heights. Freeholder A, the owner of Building Heights, has limited financial resources and cannot cover the cost of remediating the defects.

Before being wound up, the directors of Company A were also the directors of Company B between the years 2017-2019.

Company B has significant assets in the jurisdiction (i.e., the United Kingdom). As a person was a director of Company A and Company B during the relevant period, Company B is an associated person to Company A within the meaning of section 121 of the Building Safety Act. An interested person is therefore able to seek a remediation contribution order against Company B, (subject to meeting the relevant criteria and to the Tribunal finding that it is just and equitable to make an order).

Example 2  

Freeholder C is the owner of High Tower, a building constructed in 2006 with combustible insulation used across the whole building. The developer company is dissolved and so are any associated persons (as defined under section 121 of the Building Safety Act 2022) of the developer company.

A regulator has received complaints from leaseholders at High Tower, who are concerned about the fire safety risks at the building. Freeholder C refuses to carry out the works and has limited assets.

Company D holds the majority of voting rights in Freeholder C (and has done since its incorporation) and is a member of Freeholder C with the right to appoint or remove a majority of other members. Company D owns multiple assets in the jurisdiction.

As Freeholder C is controlled by Company D, it is associated with it. An interested person can therefore seek a remediation contribution order against Company D, (subject to meeting the relevant criteria and to the Tribunal finding that it is just and equitable to make an order).

Gateway criteria

The Tribunal can only make a remediation contribution order in relation to relevant defects in relevant buildings. This section defines both of these “gateway criteria”.

relevant building

Remediation contribution orders can only be made in respect of ‘relevant buildings’. Under section 117 of Building Safety Act 2022, a relevant building is a building in England that:

is a self-contained building or a self-contained part of a building
contains at least 2 dwellings
is at least 11 metres high or has at least 5 storeys

As set out in section 117(4), a building is self-contained if it is structurally detached.

Section 117(5) sets out that a part of a building may be ‘self-contained’ if:

the part is divided vertically from the rest of the building
the part could be redeveloped independently of the rest of the building
the services provided via pipes, cables or other fixed installations for occupiers in that part are provided independently, or could be provided without significant interruption to services used by occupiers in the rest of the building if works are carried out

Section 118(2) sets out that the height of the building is to be measured from ground level to the floor of the top storey (ignoring any storey which is a roof-top machinery or plant area or that consists exclusively of machinery or plant rooms). Any storeys below ground level are to be disregarded, and mezzanine floors are only counted as storeys if their internal floor area is at least half of the internal floor area of the largest storey in the building above ground level.

See further guidance on the definition of ‘relevant buildings’.

relevant defect

Remediation contribution orders can be made in relation to costs associated with ‘relevant defects’. See section 2.5 for more information on what costs are included in this definition.

A relevant defect is defined in section 120 of the Building Safety Act as a defect that:

arises as a result of anything done (or not done) or used (or not used) in connection with “relevant works”
causes a building safety risk. A building safety risk is a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from the spread of fire, or the collapse of the building or any part of it

‘Relevant works’ are any of the following:

works relating to the construction or conversion of the building, if the construction was completed between 28 June 1992 and 27 June 2022
works undertaken or commissioned by or on behalf of a relevant landlord or management company, if the works were completed between 28 June 1992 and 27 June 2022
works undertaken after 28 June 2022 to remedy a relevant defect

Where the above criteria is met, examples of relevant defects could include, but are not limited to:

unsafe cladding systems
balconies and other external attachments constructed wholly, or in part, with flammable materials
lack of compartmentation between flats
defective building foundations

A relevant defect may also include anything done (or not done) in connection with the provision of professional services connected to such works (section 120(4)). For example, if an architect or building designer specified an inappropriate use of flammable materials and the contractor followed those designs, a relevant defect could arise in connection with these architectural or design services.

See further guidance on the definition of ‘relevant defects’.

Costs which can be included in a remediation contribution order

This section explains what costs a respondent can be made to pay by a remediation contribution order.

A remediation contribution order can be made for the purpose of meeting costs incurred, or to be incurred, remediating relevant defects in a relevant building. This means that a remediation contribution order can be used to secure funding for, or recover costs of, works to fix, or otherwise in connection with fixing, relevant defects in a building. This includes, but is not limited to:

costs incurred or to be incurred remediating relevant defects in a relevant building
costs incurred or to be incurred in taking relevant steps which either prevent a building safety risk from arising, or reduce the severity of any incident resulting from a building safety risk materialising. ‘Relevant steps’ means preventative or mitigating steps that can be taken to reduce the risk and/or severity of a fire or collapse of the building (or any part of it) resulting from a relevant defect. This include measures such as Waking Watch fire safety patrols or special alarms that allow for simultaneous evacuation of a building.
costs incurred or to be incurred obtaining an expert report relating to the relevant building; and/or
costs associated with temporary accommodation and associated reasonable travel costs, removal costs and storage costs, where a relevant building (or any part of it) has been (or is due to be) decanted:
- to avoid an imminent threat to life or of personal injury arising from a relevant defect in the building
- (in the case of a decant from a dwelling) because works relating to the building created or are expected to create circumstances in which those occupying the dwelling cannot reasonably be expected to live, or
- for any other reason connected with relevant defects in the building, or works relating to the building, that is prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State

Just and equitable

Under Section 124(1) of the Building Safety Act 2022, the First-tier Tribunal can only make a remediation contribution order if they find it “just and equitable” to do so. This provision is intended to ensure the Tribunal will consider whether it is fair to make an order when making its decision.

“Just and equitable” is not a defined term in the Building Safety Act. Therefore, the Tribunal will exercise its discretion in deciding whether its finds something to be just and equitable using long standing principles of fairness, depending on the specific facts of each individual case. Prospective applicants should seek their own legal advice on how the just and equitable test might be applied in their particular set of circumstances and how they should approach this in their application.

Applying for a remediation contribution order

This chapter provides a guide on the process to obtain a remediation contribution order, from initial application stage to the First-tier Tribunal’s final decision.

This process can be divided into the following stages:

gathering evidence to support the application (section 3.1);
submitting an application to the First-tier Tribunal (section 3.2)
the First-tier Tribunal process and the decision (section 3.3)

It is possible for the parties to reach a settlement before the First-tier Tribunal issues a decision – how this might work is outlined in section 3.4.

If an applicant or respondent is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, they may be able to apply to appeal the decision. This process is explained in section 3.3.2.

Section 3.5 explains how parties’ legal costs are distributed in a remediation contribution order case.

Gathering evidence to support a remediation contribution order application

This section outlines the type of evidence that applicants may need to provide to support an application for a remediation contribution order. The BSA2 application form (see section 3.2.2) states no other documents should be filed with the claim form and that when further evidence is needed, the Tribunal will ask that it is sent separately.

At the initial application stage, the applicant will need to identify that the gateway criteria for a remediation contribution order case are met. These criteria are that:

the applicant is an interested person;
the building in question is a relevant building;
the building has or had at least one relevant defect; and
the named respondent(s) is a person against whom a remediation contribution order could be granted (see section 2.2)

Applicants will also be required to indicate the total amount that is being requested by the order (the “contribution sought”) in the application form.

Applicants may consider whether there are any third parties that may be able to provide additional evidence to support their application. Third parties could include current or former leaseholders, other landlords, regulatory bodies, or remediation contractors.

Potential applicants should seek their own legal advice when deciding what evidence is needed to support their case and at what stages of the application process it should be provided.

Evidencing a building is a relevant building

The evidence required to satisfy the Tribunal that a building is a relevant building will vary in each case (see sub-section 2.4.1 for the criteria of “relevant building”). Whether the building is a relevant building or not will be a matter of fact and, in many cases, is unlikely to be controversial or disputed by the respondent(s).

The following are examples of evidence that may be used to demonstrate that the building meets the requirements:

photographs of the building showing the number of storeys,
an official copy of the title register from the Land Registry,
documents relating to planning applications,
a fire risk assessment, or a fire risk appraisal of external walls (FRAEW).

This list is non-exhaustive. Legal advice should be sought on what is likely to be the appropriate evidence in each specific case.

Evidencing a relevant defect

At the initial application stage, applicants must be able to identify that there is, or previously was, at least one relevant defect in the relevant building and provide details of it.

The type of evidence that will be required to show that the building has at least one relevant defect will depend on the specific circumstances.

The following are examples of evidence that may be used to demonstrate the existence of a relevant defect:

a surveyor’s report or other technical reports,
a fire risk assessment,
a FRAEW,
the contents of a landlord’s certificate,
notices or reports issued by local authorities or fire and rescue authorities under the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

This list is non-exhaustive. Potential applicants may need technical and/or legal advice to establish what evidence will be required to prove that the building has at least one relevant defect.

The evidence required in each case will depend on what specific costs, owing to a relevant defect(s), the applicant is claiming for. The applicant may need to provide appropriate supporting evidence to demonstrate that the costs they are seeking, were (or are to be) incurred in relation to the relevant defects.

For example, if an applicant is seeking to recover temporary accommodation costs, they may need to gather evidence showing that the relevant building was decanted and, that the decant was triggered by the building safety risk caused by at least one relevant defect at the building.

At the initial application stage, the applicant may be aware that relevant defects exist, but not yet be aware of their full extent. In this case, the applicant should seek legal advice about steps it should take to obtain further information and advance its case in the Tribunal.

Demonstrating the eligibility of the respondent(s)

The applicant may be required to provide evidence to the Tribunal that a respondent can be subject to a remediation contribution order. This evidence will vary depending on whether a respondent is or was a landlord, a developer or an associated person. For more information on which entities can be subject to a remediation contribution order, see section 2.2.

The following are examples of evidence that may be used to demonstrate the eligibility of a respondent:

a lease of a unit of the relevant building including the landlord’s details
Land Registry documents
Contracts
Planning documents and other publicly-available records accessible from the planning department of the relevant local authority
Companies House public records

This list is non-exhaustive. Legal advice should be sought on what is likely to be, and how to obtain, the appropriate evidence in each specific case.

Determining the contribution sought

In their application, applicants will be required to specify the contribution amount being sought in the order (“the contribution sought”). The contribution sought may be revised after the initial application stage, with the permission of the Tribunal. This sub-section outlines how an applicant might decide the amount to request in their application, and the evidence they could use later in the process to justify it.

When deciding the contribution sought, applicants may wish to consider the amount necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the application. For example:

if their motivation for applying for a remediation contribution order is to secure funding for remediation works to take place, the applicant should consider the expected cost of the works in question.
if the purpose of the remediation contribution order is to recover money already paid and/or charged for remedial work, the applicant should consider the amount already charged and/or paid.
if the applicant is seeking to recover other costs, for example for a waking watch, or decanting costs, they may need to provide evidence that these costs were incurred in connection with the relevant defect in the relevant building, as well as the amount being sought.

See section 5 for further information about the potential uses of a remediation contribution order.

The relevant evidence to support the contribution sought will depend on the facts of the case and purpose of the application. The following are examples of evidence that may be used to demonstrate the contribution sought:

expert evidence of the potential costs of the remediation works;
invoices from contractors in relation to the remedial works;
a statement of account which lists all transactions between a contractor and customer over a given time;
tender documents and quotations for the remedial works;
service charge demands, if demanded from or paid by the leaseholders;
proof of payment of service charges by leaseholders;
invoices for services relating to the implementation of relevant steps, such as waking watch services or the installation of fire alarms;
invoices for accommodation costs for decanted residents.

Applicants should seek their own legal advice on how to establish the appropriate contribution and how that can be evidenced.

Applying for a remediation contribution order

This section sets out the initial application process for a remediation contribution order.

Following receipt of the application form, the Tribunal may ask the applicant to submit further evidence for consideration. Details of this stage is outlined in sub-section 3.2.4.

A remediation contribution order application can be made in respect of a single relevant building. If prospective applicants wish to obtain remediation contribution orders for multiple buildings, they will need to submit separate applications for each building.

Pre-action correspondence

There is no formal pre-action procedure to be followed by applicants before they make an application to the Tribunal. However, engaging in some pre-action correspondence with the proposed respondent(s) may be useful in some cases.

Anyone considering making an application for a remediation contribution order should seek legal advice about whether pre-action correspondence is appropriate in their case, and if so, how this should be prepared

The remediation contribution order application form

Interested persons can apply for a remediation contribution order by completing the BSA2 application form.

The BSA2 form requires applicants to provide the following information:

details of the applicant
the address of the subject property
a brief description of the subject property and the applicant’s connection with the property
details of the specified body/bodies corporate or partnership(s) against which an order is sought (for more information on how to identify the appropriate respondent(s) for an order, see section 5.3)
details of the specified person to whom a contribution would be paid (for more information on who could be named as the recipient of any money awarded by the order, see section 5.4)
details of the contribution sought, specified in pounds sterling (for more information on how this can be calculated, see sub-section 3.1.4)
the reasons for the application. Applicants should include details of the relevant criteria for a remediation contribution order, as well as why the application is necessary and just and equitable (see section 2.6 for more information on the “just and equitable” requirement). If the applicant is seeking to recover costs for purposes other than remediation, for example for a waking watch or costs associated with a decant,, they will need to set out here (and evidence) that these costs were incurred in connection with a relevant defect in the relevant building
whether the applicant is involved in or aware of any other applications involving the same person(s) or property as referred to in the application
whether the applicant would be content with a paper determination if the Tribunal thinks it appropriate (meaning that the application is dealt with entirely on the basis of written representations, without the need for the parties to attend a hearing or make oral representations)
details about the applicant and any witnesses or expert’s availability to appear before the Tribunal
whether there are any specific venue requirements for the applicant or persons attending the hearing
a signed statement of truth

Further evidence requested by the Tribunal

Following receipt of the BSA2 application, the Tribunal may ask the applicant to provide further evidence, which may include a statement of case. The type of evidence requested by the Tribunal will depend on the specific details of the case and the issues in dispute, and examples are outlined at 3.1 above.

Bundling multiple remediation contribution order applications

Under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Tribunal judges have the power to consolidate and/or hear two or more cases together where they raise common issues and relate to buildings in the same Tribunal region. With this power, the Tribunal can choose to ‘bundle’ multiple applications for remediation contribution orders into a single hearing process and decision. For example, the Tribunal has the power to bundle remediation contribution order applications relating to the same applicant, respondent(s), or relevant building.

Applicants are required to complete a separate BSA2 application form for each relevant building, and should not presume their cases will be heard together. Applicants should include details of any other application(s) involving the same person(s) or property that it is aware in section 8 of the BSA2 application form.

It will be at the Tribunal’s discretion whether to issue directions to hear the cases together. See section 3.3 for more information about the Tribunal process. Prospective applicants should not presume the Tribunal will exercise its power to bundle applications in their case.

The Tribunal Process

This section sets out the stages that the applicant may expect to follow once the First-tier Tribunal has received a valid application for a remediation contribution order and considered the application. For more information about the First-tier Tribunal, please visit the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) site.

Applicants should seek their own legal advice during the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal has wide powers to manage the process. However, the Tribunal process may involve the following stages:

directions (instructions issued by the Tribunal which bind both parties) for the applicant and/or respondent to produce a Statement of Case. A Statement of Case typically consists of a document, or multiple documents, that set out the facts of an applicant’s case. It enables the applicant to provide additional detail to support their case.
a case management hearing, where the Tribunal Judge may decide the next steps in the process and may make directions (i.e., instructions to the relevant parties on disclosure of documents and/or the exchange of evidence) setting out how the case will progress and what actions the parties are required to take and when.
a final hearing, that will take place before a remediation contribution order is made, unless the parties have indicated or agreed that they will be content with a paper determination, and the First-tier Tribunal thinks it appropriate,

The timescale of the Tribunal process will vary in each individual case depending on complexity, issues in dispute, and the facts.

The decision

The Tribunal will publish a decision, setting out whether a remediation contribution order is granted. If the Tribunal decides to grant a remediation contribution order, the decision will include the order, specifying the amount which the respondent(s) is/are required to pay, and to whom. It may also specify the timeframe within which the payments must be made. The order may require payment to be made at a specified time, or to be made on demand following the occurrence of a specified event (for example, the beginning of remediation works).

Appealing a decision

If an applicant or respondent is not satisfied with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, or any element of the decision, and there is a point of law which could give grounds for an appeal, they can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal the decision to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (“the Upper Tribunal”). The application form for permission to appeal can be found here. Before applying for permission, it is recommended legal advice is sought on whether there are grounds for an appeal, and the likelihood of permission being granted, and legal support is obtained on making the application.

The procedure to appeal a decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set out in Rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

If the First-tier Tribunal does not grant permission to appeal, then parties may seek permission to appeal directly from the Upper Tribunal under Rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010. Parties should obtain legal advice before launching an application for permission to appeal.

Reaching a settlement

It is possible for parties to reach an agreement outside of the Tribunal process which would make a remediation contribution order unnecessary, if they wish to do so. This allows the parties to explore whether a mutually agreeable solution can be reached that would settle the case ahead of the final trial, and without the need for a remediation contribution order to be made. Applicants should take legal advice to support them during these discussions.

The terms of a settlement between the parties will be set out in a settlement agreement and/or consent order. Applicants should seek legal advice when agreeing these terms, as well as if a party violates the terms of the agreement.

Costs

This sub-section looks at how the parties’ legal costs are dealt with in the First-tier Tribunal. Although it is possible to pursue a remediation contribution order application without taking legal advice, applicants may wish to do so – particularly in complex cases.

The First-tier Tribunal process is cost neutral for remediation contribution orders. This means the parties have to bear their own costs, regardless of the outcome. The First Tier Tribunal does have jurisdiction to order one party to pay the costs of the other party where one party’s behaviour merits it. See sub-section 3.5.1 for more information on this.

If either party to the order is a landlord, then they may then seek to recover their costs through the service charge. There are certain leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act 2022. There is also an option under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to apply to the First Tier Tribunal for an order that the Landlord is not able to pass on these costs through the service charge (see section 3.5.3 for further detail).

Order in respect of costs

Under Rule 13 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the First-tier Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings.

Costs which landlords can pass to leaseholders

The leaseholder protections in Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 limit the legal costs which landlords can pass to qualifying leaseholders at relevant buildings through the service charge.

Under Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022, landlords cannot pass their legal costs to qualifying leaseholders through service charges if they relate to the liability (or potential liability) of any person incurred as the result of a relevant defect. This may include costs relating to legal advice and Tribunal proceedings incurred in pursuit of an application for a remediation contribution order. The terms of some leases may still allow landlords to charge their legal costs to non-qualifying leaseholders through the service charge.

Under section 117(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022, leaseholder-owned buildings are not considered relevant buildings and are therefore not covered by the Act’s leaseholder protections. Where the terms of the lease allow, leaseholders in a leaseholder-owned building may find they are obliged to pay legal costs through the service charge.

Under Paragraph 9(1A) of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022, RTM companies and RMCs can charge both qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders for costs associated with a remediation contribution order application, provided the terms of the relevant lease(s) allow these costs to be recovered through the service charge.

Section 20(c) orders

Leaseholders can prevent their landlord from passing their legal costs to non-qualifying leaseholders, by applying for an order under . A Section 20C order is an order of the First-tier Tribunal, specifying that a landlord’s legal costs are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account when determining the amount payable in the service charge. This means the affected leaseholders will not need to pay the amount demanded. The Tribunal may grant a Section 20C order if it considers it just and equitable in the circumstances.

See more information on applying for a Section 20C order. Find the application form here.

Enforcement of noncompliance

This chapter explores options for enforcing a remediation contribution order decision.

Respondents are expected to comply with the requirements of remediation contribution orders granted against them (subject to any appeals). If they fail to do so, the County Court can enforce a First-tier Tribunal order, as if it were an order for payment made by the High Court or County Court, under Section 27 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The County Court has several powers which they can exercise to enforce a liability to pay the amount specified in a remediation contribution order, including charging orders, winding up proceedings and third-party debt orders. Find general guidance on making a court claim for money to enforce a judgement.

The most appropriate approach will depend on the case.

Creditors should seek legal advice on the most appropriate method for enforcing a remediation contribution order in their case.

Circumstances where a remediation contribution order may be appropriate

This chapter sets out considerations applicants may wish to make when applying for a remediation contribution order under different circumstances.

Before making an application, prospective applicants may need to consider:

how much money are they seeking to recover (see 3.1.4)
how any funds awarded will be spent (see 5.1)
who is the appropriate party to make the application (see 5.2)
who should be identified as the respondent(s) (see 5.3)
who should receive any payment awarded by the Tribunal (see 5.4)
whether their case involves an insolvent landlord (see 5.5)

This chapter also includes several worked examples of remediation contribution order applications in section 5.6. These are purely illustrative.

This is not legal advice. Interested persons who are considering applying for a remediation contribution order should seek their own legal advice when making any of the decisions listed above.

How the funds will be used

How a prospective applicant intends any funds awarded to be used may influence the choices they make when they apply for a remediation contribution order. This section explores the different use cases for a remediation contribution order:

securing funding to make a building safe (see sub-section 5.1.1)
securing funding for interim measures (see 5.1.2)
Securing funding for obtaining an expert report (see 5.1.3)
recovering remediation costs charged to leaseholders (see sub-section 5.1.4)
recovering temporary accommodation and associated costs for decanted residents (see 5.1.5)
recovering remediation costs paid by relevant landlords (see sub-section 5.1.6)
compelling developers to pay for remediation (see sub-section 5.1.7)

This is a non-exhaustive list. How any funds awarded would be used may also influence who is best placed to make the application (see section 5.2) and who should be named as the recipient (see section 5.4).

Securing funding for remediation to take place

Remediation contribution orders can be used to secure funding for remediation works to take place. The person with the right to carry out remediation works – such as a landlord, RTM company or RMC – may not have access to sufficient funds to pay for remediation works themselves. In those circumstances, they could apply for a remediation contribution order to compel another party to provide the necessary funding.

Securing funding for interim measures

Depending on the nature of a defect, it may be appropriate for a relevant landlord to take relevant steps (see 2.5) to mitigate the risk caused by a defect. For example, introducing a waking watch patrol to ensure residents’ safety while remediation is being carried out.

If a relevant landlord does not have access to the funds necessary to pay for these relevant steps, they could apply for a remediation contribution order, to secure the funding from another party.

Prospective applicants should be aware that a single remediation contribution order application could cover both the costs of interim measures and remediation works themselves.

Securing funding for expert reports

Remediation contribution orders can be used to secure funding for expert reports. Expert reports means a report or survey which relates to either relevant defects or potential relevant defects, in a relevant building, and the relevant steps that might be taken in relation to a relevant defect. This could include, for example, fire safety assessments or intrusive structural investigations.

These could be expert reports paid for previously, and a remediation contribution order could be used to reimburse these costs, or it could be a report which is ordered by the First-tier Tribunal as part of proceedings to gather specific evidence on the remedial works and costs required if the evidence provided already is not sufficient.

Recovering remediation costs charged to leaseholders

Leaseholders who have paid remediation costs through their service charge, which are covered by the leaseholder protections in Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 may be able to recover these service charge payments through a remediation contribution order. This includes the costs of interim measures. If a landlord issues a service charge demand which includes remediation costs covered by the leaseholder protections, the demand is not enforceable by the landlord, and leaseholders do not need to pay it. For more information on which costs are covered by the leaseholder protections, see Annex A.

If leaseholders with the benefit of the leaseholder protections have paid a service charge demand for remediation costs, they can apply for a remediation contribution order to recover the funds subject to the leaseholder protections paid in error.

Remediation contribution orders can also be used to recover service charge costs paid by leaseholders before the introduction of the leaseholder protections. Leaseholders, subject to the leaseholder protections of the Building Safety Act, who paid service charge demands relating to remediation of the building prior to 28 June 2022 can apply for a remediation contribution order to recover any costs subject to the leaseholder protections.

Recovering temporary accommodation and associated costs for decanted residents

If the relevant defect is so serious that the residents of the building are no longer able to remain in residence, or the works required to remedy the relevant defect require that the building is vacant, then residents may be required to vacate their flats. This is referred to as a decant.

Where residents have been decanted, landlords may be prepared to arrange and contribute to the costs of alternative accommodation. If they do not, residents may have to make their own arrangements.

If residents do incur costs for temporary accommodation in connection with a decant, these costs may be recoverable through a remediation contribution order. Residents may also be able to recover reasonable costs associated with the decant such as travel costs, removal costs and storage costs.

Recovering remediation costs paid by relevant landlords

If a landlord who has incurred costs in the process of remediating relevant defects, or implementing relevant steps, in their building wishes to recover those costs, they may be able to apply for a remediation contribution order to do so. Parties who could be named as a respondent in such an application include a former landlord who owned the property at the qualifying time, the developer(s) responsible for the defects, or associated persons. However, a landlord may have other mechanisms to compel a developer to pay for remediation – see section 5.1.7 below.

If the landlord is a head lessor, they may be able to also apply for a remediation contribution order to recover costs incurred from the building’s freeholder (see Annex A for an explanation of the leasehold ownership system).

Compelling developers to pay for remediation

The government is clear that developers should pay to remediate historic defects which they caused. Interested persons can apply for remediation contribution orders to compel a developer to pay for defects which they caused to be fixed.

Many developers in England have already accepted responsibility to remediate unsafe buildings which they are responsible for. Major developers have signed the developer remediation contract and committed to remediate buildings that are 11 metres and over in height that they developed or refurbished in England between 5 April 1992 to 4 April 2022. The developer remediation contract commits developers to remediating “life-critical fire safety defects.” See developer remediation contract for more information on developers’ responsibilities under the contract.

The majority of developers who have signed the contract are also members of the Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS). This scheme provides planning and building control prohibitions that impose commercial consequences on any developer who is eligible for the Scheme but chooses not to join or later fails to comply with the Scheme’s membership conditions (which include signing the developer remediation contract). Find the published list of companies who are members of the RAS, and the entities subject to the scheme’s prohibitions.

In general, MHCLG will be responsible for making sure developers comply with their obligations under the developer remediation contract and the RAS, and will hold them to account when they do not.

You may wish to contact the department if the developer has signed the contract or is a member of the RAS and is failing to fulfil their liabilities.

If a developer has not signed the developer remediation contract or joined the RAS, or the defects they are responsible for do not meet the definition of “life critical fire safety defects”, they may still be made to pay for remediation work, using a remediation contribution order.

If granted, a remediation contribution order would compel the developer and/or their associates to pay costs associated with remediating relevant defects (to the amount specified in the order).

Identifying the appropriate applicant

An application for a remediation contribution order can be made by any interested person. However, leaseholders should note that regulators (local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator) do not have a duty to intervene in service charge disputes between leaseholders and landlords. Regulators also have long-standing enforcement powers under the Housing Act 2004, Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and Building Safety Act 2022 to compel landlords to carry out certain works where a building is unsafe and will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to pursue enforcement action, and if so, which of their enforcement powers to use.

Identifying the appropriate respondent(s)

A proposed respondent may not have sufficient assets within the UK to meet any sum awarded. Applicants can name another party against whom an order could be made, or all parties against whom an order could be made. Legal advice should be taken before pursuing this course of action.

The specified amount might not be recoverable from a respondent if they:

do not have access to sufficient funds to pay the specified amount (see sub-section 5.3.1)
are based overseas (see sub-section 5.3.2)

The most appropriate parties to name as additional or alternative respondents will depend on the facts of the case – provided they are eligible to be named as respondents under Section 124(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022.

If the intended respondent lacks the funds to pay for remediation

A respondent may not have access to sufficient funds to pay the specified amount or have sufficient assets within the UK against which an order could be enforced.

A remediation contribution order can still be granted against a respondent even if they are not able to pay the contribution sought. However, applicants might not be able to recover the full amount ordered if the respondent(s) lacks the necessary assets or the ability to secure the necessary funds.

It is not always apparent at the initial application stage whether a company has access to the necessary funds to pay the specified amount. Information on a company’s reported accounts is available on Companies House in respect of previous years. Applicants can also seek specialist advice to determine a respondent’s ability to pay.

If a relevant landlord lacks the funds to carry out remediation, they can investigate opportunities for public funding from the government’s remediation funding schemes. If they have additional costs not covered by government funding, they could seek to recover remediation costs from a developer or associated person using a remediation contribution order. If a landlord does not take the necessary steps to begin remediation works within a reasonable timeframe, they risk enforcement action from regulators.

If the intended respondent is based in an overseas jurisdiction

Although companies incorporated and/or based overseas are eligible to be named as respondents to a remediation contribution order, it can be challenging to engage them in the First-tier Tribunal process and, if the application is successful, enforce an order against them if they do not have assets in the jurisdiction.

A UK-based associated person with sufficient assets in the UK to meet the order could be named as respondent. Information on companies’ directors and financial statements are available with Companies House. Interested persons may also wish to seek specialist legal advice when considering a remediation contribution order application against a person associated with an overseas entity. Prospective applicants should seek specialised legal advice if they are considering applying for a remediation contribution order against an overseas-based company.

Specifying the person who will receive the payment

As explained in sub-section 3.2.2, the BSA2 form requires applicants to specify who should receive any funds awarded by a remediation contribution order (“the recipient”). The recipient can be, but does not need to be, the applicant. It will depend on how the applicant intends for any money awarded to be spent.

Where the application is intended to secure funding for remediation works to take place, an appropriate recipient would be the party with the right to carry out remediation works (this will depend on the terms of the lease, and may be the party with the repairing obligation). Applicants may wish to apply for a remediation order in parallel, to ensure that remediation work is done. See more information on applying for a remediation order.

Where the application is intended to recover costs already incurred by a party in the course of remediation works (such as costs incurred by relevant landlords, or charged to leaseholders), an appropriate recipient would be the party who incurred those costs. For example, if the purpose of a remediation contribution order application is to recoup remediation costs passed to leaseholders, the most appropriate recipient is likely to be the leaseholders themselves, or a trusted representative of the leaseholders if necessary.

Funding remediation when a landlord is insolvent

Interested persons should seek specialist legal and operational advice if they are considering an application for a remediation contribution order to raise or recover funds for remediation, for a building where a landlord is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent.

Example remediation contribution order applications

Below are four examples of how the application process for a remediation contribution order could work in a series of complex scenarios.

These examples are not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. They are purely illustrative and have been provided to demonstrate the stages of the application process for persons considering applying for a remediation contribution order.

Example 1: Offloading

Building A is a is a multi-occupant residential building over 18 meters in height. Before 2022, the freehold of the building was owned by Company B, a UK-based property management company. In March 2022, ownership of the freehold was transferred to Company C, a company registered in an overseas jurisdiction with opaque corporate ownership laws. Responsibility to manage repairs was taken over by an RTM company formed by leaseholders which took responsibility for managing the building.

After the transfer of ownership to Company C, the RTM company assesses the building and becomes aware of defects in Building B which qualify as relevant defects.

The RTM company uses data from Land Registry to identify that Company B was a landlord at the qualifying time, and could therefore be named as a respondent in a remediation contribution order application. The RTM company employs forensic accountants, who identify that Company B is still active and based in the UK and has assets to meet any order.

The RTM company decides to enforce a remediation contribution order against a UK-based company with assets in the UK, and applies for a remediation contribution order against Company B.

To calculate the amount requested from Company B, the RTM company commissions quotes from contractors for the works required to remediate the defects.

The RTM names itself as the recipient of the funds in the application, to use any funds secured by the remediation contribution order to pay for remediation.

Example 2: Compelling developers to pay for remediation

Building D is a multi-occupancy residential unit over 11 meters in height. It was originally developed by Company H in 2005. The freehold of Building D is now owned by Company G (and was in Company G’s ownership on 14 February 2022). In January 2024, the local authority inspects Building D, and identifies several hazards relating to the building’s internal compartmentalisation, which qualify as relevant defects.

These defects were caused by works carried out by Company H. Company H is not a member of the RAS, and has not signed the developer remediation contract.

Company G initiates a programme of works to remediate the defects identified by the local authority. They apply for government funding schemes to meet the costs of remediation, and agree to fund the remainder of the works which would not be eligible for government funding. They enter into a grant funding agreement, and funding is provided.

Company G requests that Company H compensates Freeholder G and taxpayers by paying for the remediation of the defects. Company H refuses. To compel Company H to pay, Company G applies for a remediation contribution order to recover:

the costs borne by Company G
the costs paid by government funding schemes, which Freeholder G will repay to the government in order to fulfil the terms of the grant funding agreement, to fulfil Company G’s obligation to seek to recover costs under the government funding agreement

To demonstrate that Company H was the developer responsible for the relevant defects, Company G gathers planning documentation relating to the building’s construction from the local authority’s planning portal. When deciding what amount to request from Company H, Freeholder G compiles quotes from contractors for the relevant works.

As the purpose of the application is to recover costs for itself, Company G makes the application itself, and names itself as the recipient of funds awarded through any remediation contribution order made by the First-tier Tribunal.

Example 3: Decant costs

Building I is a multi-occupancy residential unit over 18 meters in height, owned by Company J. A local authority inspects the building in September 2024 and identifies several structural safety defects in Building I, which require urgent and intrusive remedial works before the building is safe for residents. As such, the local authority issues Company J with a prohibition notice for Building I, and residents are decanted into temporary accommodation.

The terms of the leases in the building do not specify what party is liable for temporary accommodation costs in the event of a decant, and Company J does not provide residents with compensation for their temporary accommodation costs.

In order to recover their temporary accommodation costs, leaseholders apply for a remediation contribution order. They will need to provide evidence to prove that the reasons for being decanted into temporary accommodation were as a result of relevant defects in a relevant building and evidence of the costs incurred by the individual leaseholders. They name Company J as the respondent on the BSA2 form.

The leasehold system and the leaseholder protections

This Annex provides background on the leasehold system of property ownership.

Remediation contribution orders can be used in relation to the costs of remediating relevant defects in medium and high-rise residential buildings. In England, the structure of such a building is typically owned by an entity called a freeholder, and individual flats are usually owned by leaseholders under the terms of a lease.

A basic understanding of the leasehold system, and the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act 2022, is useful context when considering an application for a remediation contribution order. This section explains aspects of the leasehold system relevant to the use of remediation contribution orders, including:

a glossary of terms relevant to the leasehold system;
who is responsible for the repair of the common parts of the building, that is the parts not occupied by the leaseholders including the exterior of the building;
the leaseholder protections in sections 116 to 125 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Building Safety Act 2022; and
what remediation costs leaseholders and landlords are liable for.

Glossary

For ease of reference in the following section, a glossary of terms relevant to the leasehold system is provided below:

Freeholder: the person who indefinitely owns the land and any buildings constructed on the land.
Head lessee: a landlord who leases some or all of the building directly from the freeholder. A head lease typically covers the entirety of a building.
Landlord: a general term used to describe the person who has management responsibilities for the building, and could mean the freeholder or a head lessor, or another party. depending on the ownership structure of the building.
Leaseholder: a person who has entered into a lease with a landlord, giving them the exclusive right to occupy part of the building for a set period of time.
Managing agent: a person appointed by a landlord, RTM company or RMC, to manage the building as their agent.
Named manager: a commercial company which is party to the lease with the obligation to provide services to the leaseholders, and right to recover service charge, but has no legal interest in the building.
Relevant landlord: any landlord under a lease or superior landlord or any person who was a landlord under a lease at the Qualifying Time (14 February 2022, as defined in Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022).
Repairing obligation: Responsibility for the repair and maintenance as set out in the lease. A repairing obligation in relation to the common parts of the building, includes the exterior envelope. Leaseholders will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the part they occupy.
Resident Management Company (RMC): a company which is party to the lease, whose shares are owned by leaseholders. RMCs usually have the repairing obligation.
Right-to-Manage Company (RTM): a company formed by leaseholders to allow them to take over management of the repair and maintenance of their building, under sections 73-74 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.). RTM companies usually have the repairing obligation for their building.

Responsibility for repairs

For a leaseholder, the terms of their lease will typically set out their landlord’s repairing obligations. If there is a superior interest, the landlord is likely to have an obligation towards its landlord covering repair, maintenance, etc, and this is likely to continue up any further chain to the freeholder. Depending on the ownership structure and lease terms, the repairing obligation for different parts of the building could be held by different entities.

Some or all of the leaseholders can collectively assume the repairing obligation, if they organise an RTM company. See more information on setting up and running an RTM company.

Typically, the leaseholders in a building pay for the repair and maintenance of common parts of the building through a service charge. The service charge will be payable to the landlord, or to the RTM company, if there is one, either of whom may collect the service charge through the services of a managing agent.

Leaseholder protections

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced protections for leaseholders from the costs associated with remediating historical building safety defects.

Sections 116 to 125 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Building Safety Act 2022 limit the costs connected with remediating certain historical building safety issues which can be passed to leaseholders through the service charge.

Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, no service charge is payable for the cost of remediating relevant defects if the landlord / superior landlord at the qualifying time is responsible for the relevant defect (i.e., undertook or commissioned the works relating to the relevant defect, or was the developer / in a joint venture with the develop who undertook or commissioned the works), or is associated with a person responsible for the relevant defect (see section 2.3 for the definition of “associated” in this context).

If the landlord is not responsible for the defects, then the leaseholder protections limit the costs which can be passed to qualifying leaseholders. You can find out whether a lease is a qualifying lease.

Under paragraph 3, if the landlord, or the landlord group if there is one, has a net worth of more than £2 million per relevant building which they own (see section 2.4.1 for a definition of “relevant building”), then qualifying leaseholders do not need to pay for remediation. This is known as the “contribution condition”.

Under paragraphs 4 to 8, if the landlord, or the landlord group, does not meet the contribution condition, then a capped amount, calculated on the basis of the lease’s value, can be charged to qualifying leaseholders. To learn about how the leaseholder contribution caps are calculated, see here.

The Building Safety Act’s leaseholder protections apply retrospectively. This means that no service charge is payable for works covered by the protections, regardless of whether a service charge was demanded or incurred before or after 28 June 2022. For example, if a landlord issued a service charge demand to leaseholders in April 2022 for costs that leaseholders are protected from under the Act, and the charge remained unpaid on 28 June 2022, the leaseholders would not have to pay this charge.

For more information on the leaseholder protections, see the Government’s guidance for leaseholders.

Leaseholders’ and landlords’ liability for remediation costs under the leaseholder protections

Depending on the terms of the lease, leaseholders may be liable to pay through the service charge for any remediation costs incurred by the landlord which are not covered by the leasehold protections. Any costs which cannot be recovered from the leaseholders will have to be met by the relevant landlord.

If a building has multiple landlords, then the formulae in the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022 can be used by those landlords to determine how the landlords split the costs of remediation.

See more information on what costs leaseholders do and do not have to pay. You can check whether you have to pay for any particular remediation costs through your service charge.

Liability in other circumstances

Where remediation costs have been incurred by an RMC, an RTM company or a named manager, those costs may be recovered from their landlord once a notice has been served on their landlord in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022. The landlord must then pay the RMC or RTM, or named manager the amount for which they are liable, or if they do not consider they are liable must lodge an appeal in respect of the notice.

Useful documents

This Annex provides a glossary of helpful links.

The resources listed below are referenced in the guidance and may be useful to refer to when considering or whilst applying for a remediation contribution order.

Appealing a decision of the First-tier Tribunal

Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)

Corporate ownership in the UK

Companies House

Insolvency

Options for when a company is insolvent

Property ownership in England

Guidance on the leasehold system of property ownership

HM Land Registry

Previous decisions on the Building Safety Act 2022 and accompanying Regulations

Residential Property Tribunal cases on the Building Safety Act 2022 and accompanying Regulations – Residential property tribunal decisions

Leaseholder protections