Building Safety Act 2022: First-tier Tribunal considers application for remediation order under BSA 2022
The First-tier Tribunal considers an application for a remediation order made by leaseholders of a residential development in London under s.123 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
The background
Leaseholders at Block P Wotton Court v FirstPort Property Services Limited [2025] concerned a 12-storey residential apartment block in central London, forming part of a larger development at Virginia Quay. The block was constructed around 2000, and is a relevant building for the purposes of s.117 BSA 2022.
It was agreed between the parties that Block P had relevant defects for the purposes of s.120 BSA 2022. Occupants had been required to vacate the property at short notice in May 2025 and remained excluded from the premises at the time of the hearing . Movement and cracks were identified by structural engineers as sufficiently concerning to require the immediate vacation of properties along the building’s south elevation, with issues relating to the strength of first-floor slabs supporting columns above. Temporary propping had been proposed, to be followed by a permanent strengthening of the floor slab and repairs to the cracking.
All parties were keen for remedial works to be undertaken, but there had been a stall in progress following a case management hearing some months prior. The landlord explained that it had been unable to obtain licenses from flats 2 and 3, where the temporary propping system was to be installed, and proposed to join in the leaseholders of those two flats in order that the FTT could then make a declaration that the landlord was entitled to carry out the proposed works. The leaseholders of flats 2 and 3 did not object in principle to being joined into the proceedings but expressed a number of concerns which the FTT concluded were outside of its jurisdiction with regards to the application for a remediation order.
The decision
The FTT made the remediation order, stating in its judgment that although the temporary support works were required to enable more thorough investigations into the defects at Block P to take place, the remediation order ultimately requires defects to be fully remedied rather than extending only to a temporary fix.
The FTT considered there to be no reason why the making of a remediation order should be delayed as a result of the access issues to flats 2 and 3, and stated that the parties should agree this between themselves or otherwise apply for determination by the courts.
Turning to the remediation order, the FTT stated that this must be set out in broad terms because:
- The remediation order stipulates the defects to be remedied, but not how they are remedied; and
- There remains uncertainty as to precisely what the defects are, and their extent.
The FTT worded the remediation order such that the landlord was required to remedy the cracking defect, together with any underlying cause or causes of the defects. A further building-wide structural engineering survey and investigation was required, and the FTT ordered that a copy of the report be supplied to the leaseholders and the FTT once completed.
With regards to a specified timescale for remediation, the landlord accepted that it was not possible to specify a total time before further investigations were carried out. The FTT proposed a period of 9 months, taking into account the need for the building to be made safe for occupants to return to their homes given the seven-month delay already experienced. The remediation order contained provision allowing for the period to be varied if required.
Advice and action for landlords
This decision indicates the FTT’s approach to an application for a remediation order where the full extent of defects cannot be determined without temporary works being undertaken beforehand. In this case, the remediation order allows for a “belt and braces” statement, requiring the landlord to carry out remediation works to cracks in the building, together with remediation works to the underlying causes of those cracks.
The short time period of 9 months was allocated as a result of a prior delay of 7 months, but the order does allow the parties to apply for variation where necessary. The parties were required to deal with access issues relating to flats 2 and 3 outside of the remediation order proceedings, with the remediation order’s 9-month timeframe perhaps bringing greater urgency to those discussions.
