Building Safety Act 2022: Whether a Housing Association Leaseholder Was an “Accountable Person” Under the 2022 Act

Can a social housing provider leaseholder of residential units within a property be an “accountable person” of a subject property under the Building Safety Act 2022?

The background

In Clarion Housing Group v Globe View House RTM Company Limited [2025], the subject property comprises a mixed-use building in central London containing 86 residential units and 5 commercial units. The property is classed as a higher-risk, occupied building under s.71 of the BSA 2022.

The RTM Company is registered as the principal accountable person for the property, with other registered accountable persons comprising the current freeholder, and the housing association applicant. The housing association is the leaseholder of 27 flats within the building under a headlease granted in 2014 by the respective parties’ predecessors in title. The applicant lets its flats to sub-tenants on a combination of shared ownership underleases, assured shorthold and assured non-shorthold tenancies.

S.72(1) of the Building Safety Act 2022 provides that:

“In this Part an “accountable person” for a higher-risk building is

• a person who holds a legal estate in possession in any part of the common parts…or
• a person who does not hold a legal estate in any part of the building but who is under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any part of the common parts.”

The housing association made an application seeking a declaration that it was not an accountable person for the purposes of the BSA 2022, arguing that it did not hold a legal estate in possession in any of the common parts, and that it was not under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to such common parts.

The decision

The First-tier Tribunal found that the housing group applicant was not an accountable person under the BSA 2022 in respect of the subject property.

Was there a relevant repairing obligation?

Arguing that the housing association was an accountable person, the respondent set out the distinction between the structure and exterior of the building, and the parts of the building provided for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the residents of more than one unit, using services and utilities as its example.

The Tribunal agreed with the housing association that, while it enjoyed rights under the headlease to undertake relevant repairs to items such as services and utilities serving its flats, it was not obliged to do so and accordingly there was not a relevant repairing obligation. The only exception to this was that, in the event that the manager became insolvent, the lease contained an obligation on the housing association to undertake repairs but the FTT did not consider this to be sufficient to impose liability on the housing association.

Was the housing association under any relevant repairing obligation following acquisition of rights to manage?

The RTM Company argued that the housing association was an accountable person in respect of services and utilities forming part of the common parts and routed throughout the building to the social rented flats, as well as the social rented flats themselves (excluding balconies).

The FTT noted that the housing association’s legal estate was held only in respect of the flats and not in respect of any common parts of the building, going on to consider whether it was under a repairing obligation in respect of any common parts and ultimately concluding that, as a result of the acquisition of rights to manage and the transfer of management functions, and the limiting of the housing association’s repairing obligations to only the services serving its flats, it was not.

The Tribunal agreed with the housing association that the lease did not create a relevant repairing obligation for the purposes of the BSA 2022, and found that the housing association was not under any relevant repairing obligation by virtue of the acquisition of rights to manage by the respondent.

Advice and action for landlords

This decision will be of interest to the industry, exploring the interaction between rights to manage and repairing obligations for the purposes of defining an “accountable person” under the BSA 2022.

Buildings such as this can be complex in their ownership and leasehold structures, but this decision supports the view that a head leaseholder such as a housing association, holding a number of individual units but without responsibility for common parts, is unlikely to be classed as an “accountable person” with responsibility for the fire and structural safety of a building.