The First Tier Tribunal makes two further Remediation Orders pursuant to section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022

Two recent FTT decisions on Remediation Orders (ROs) pursuant to section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 take the total number of reported decisions to three! 

Orchard House 

The first case related to Orchard House in Bristol[1].  Orchard House is a five storey conversion containing 54 flats. A Fire Risk Appraisal of the External Wall (FRAEW) was commissioned in May 2021 which identified a number of fire safety defects including fire stopping inadequacies and deficiencies in materials used around the windows. When the application was made, the landlord had not carried out any remedial works. The Respondent landlord did not engage in the proceedings and the parties do not appear to have been represented. 

The FTT made a RO. The FTT's RO adopted the recommendations in the FRAEW and gave the landlord six months to carry out the required works (without hearing any evidence on a timeframe for compliance and instead basing the date on their own experience and the unchallenged position of the applicant leaseholder). The FTT's stance of adopting the FRAEW recommendations in entirety has led to some odd requirements including that a “high level of risk management system [is] implemented” and “completion of a post works Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls pursuant to PAS 9980;2022”. The latter appears to go further than the first reported RO decision[2]  in which the FTT decided that it was not proportionate to order a further report at completion of remediation works. Such wording is not contained in the Centrillion Point determination (see below) albeit the judgment does not suggest that the Applicant asked for such wording to be included. 

Centrillion Point 

The second case concerns Centrillion Point in Croydon[3]. Centrillion Point is a 12 storey conversion containing 189 flats. Remedial works had already been carried out to remove combustible cladding. The application related to remediation of internal defects, including compartmentation and internal doors. 

The Respondent landlord initially challenged whether a number of the defects amounted to a “relevant defect” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022. However shortly before the hearing they conceded. By the date of the hearing there was therefore no dispute that an RO should be made or that the defects identified should be the subject matter of an RO. A dispute remained as to the exact wording of the RO and the time limit to be imposed for compliance. 

The Applicant leaseholders argued that the RO should specify a greater level of detail as to how the works should be carried out on the basis that they had lost faith in the landord’s ability to undertake works. The Respondent landlord argued that it was not a function of the FTT to determine how the landlord should carry out the work. The FTT was persuaded by the Respondent landlord’s argument as the wording of section 123 which references an order requiring a “relevant landlord to remedy specific relevant defects in a specified building by a specified time”. The FTT stated that an RO should be “sufficiently precise” so the Respondent knew what it must do to remedy the relevant defects but that is was not necessary to be prescriptive as to what works were necessary. The FTT acknowledged that the extent of precision would vary on a case-by-case basis. 

The FTT, after hearing evidence, ruled that 18 months was a sufficient time frame for remedying the relevant defects which was exactly half way between the landlord and leaseholders’ respective positions. 

We now have three FTT decisions in relation to RO’s. On each occasion the FTT has made a RO. In two of the three determinations the FTT has highlighted that the legislation is not prescriptive as to what works are necessary to remedy relevant defects. The relevant provision puts focus on an order requiring remediation of specific relevant defects rather than the steps to be taken to achieve that remediation. The FTT has however been keen to point out that the extent of precision will vary from case to case. 

For further information in respect of Remediation Orders, please contact Lee Russell, Mark London, or Zoe McLean-Wells. 

[1] Ms S Culpin and Ms D Pring v Stockwood Land 2 Limited (CHI/00HB/HYI/2023/0007 and CHI/00HB/HYI/2023/0012). 

[2] Waite and Ors v Kedai Limited LON/00AY/HYI/2022/0005 & 0006 

[3] Mistry and Ors v Wallace Estates Limited (LON/00AH/HYI/2022/0012)