The First-tier Tribunal Considers Extensions to Remediation Order Deadlines

Background

Millroyd Mill in Brighouse, West Yorkshire, is a residential building with balconies built using timber decking and balustrades that did not meet an acceptable European fire classification. On 4 November 2024, the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) made a Remediation Order under the Building Safety Act 2022 requiring the balcony works to be completed by the 29th May 2026. The Order specified the nature of the remedial works, and it also set requirements for any future application to vary including that such an application had to be supported by a witness statement giving detailed evidence for the request, together with a proposed draft order showing the variation sought.

By the deadline, no work had been done to the balconies. The Tribunal noted that some preliminary planning and liaison with Homes England over grant funding had taken place, and that other fire safety improvements outside the order, such as upgrades to the fire alarm system, had been carried out. But nineteen months after the order, essential works were still to be completed.

The Legal Challenge

On the 1st June 2026, just after the deadline had passed, the applicant management company, Millroyd Island Management Co Ltd, applied through its Managing Agent for a 28-day stay of the order, "pending delivery of our final proposed programme of works" so that it could seek an extension. The Tribunal concluded that a short stay would serve no purpose, since the works plainly could not be completed within 28 days or for a long period afterwards. It therefore treated the application as one to vary the order by extending the time for compliance, for a period not yet specified.

The Tribunal issued directions for a hearing, requiring written submissions and a hearing bundle 14 days beforehand. As the application sought to delay serious fire safety works, the FTT also gave permission for expert evidence. The Respondent leaseholder, complied fully, filing submissions and a detailed indexed bundle. The Applicant did not engage until after midnight on the morning of the hearing.

Mrs Sandra Sollitt, the Respondent (a leaseholder, and one of the original applicants for the Order) had also made an interlocutory application on the 5th July 2026, asking the Tribunal to confirm that anyone attending for the applicant had proper authority. The Applicant made no response by the 12th August deadline.

At the hearing, the applicant was represented by counsel who had been instructed only days earlier, through solicitors also recently instructed, who accepted that the application had not complied with the order, and could offer no justification beyond the late instruction of lawyers. The Managing Agent also offered no good reason for failing to engage earlier, saying that day-to-day management combined with the director litigation had been overwhelming.

The Decision

The Tribunal addressed three main matters at the hearing, which were supported by full written reasons afterwards. In summary, the FTT found:

1. On the authority to act, although there was an additional element of dispute regarding who the company's lawful directors were, the directors who had instructed the applicant's solicitors were those named at Companies House. The Tribunal said it had no alternative but to proceed on that basis pending any contrary court ruling, and so accepted that the representatives had authority.
2. Regarding the late witness statement, the FTT refused to admit the Managing Agent’s statement. The applicant had no reasonable explanation for breaching the directions and had shown "wilful disregard" for them throughout. Expecting Mrs Sollitt to respond on the day to 58 pages served without notice would be unreasonable and prejudicial, amounting to an ambush, especially as she was a litigant in person relying on her husband's lay representation. The statement was also of limited value in any event. It largely explained past delays and outlined proposed works, without expert evidence or clear documentary support such as funding approval, confirmed timelines or design and construction contracts.

• The application to vary was refused. The FTT found that the applicant had failed to prosecute its own application, in that it had not given sufficient reasons for the delay, had not produced a coherent, evidenced plan and timescale, and had not complied with the terms of the Order outlining the change request process. The FTT stated it had no confidence the applicant could deliver the works in a reasonable time, particularly given an admitted inability to engage with the proceedings and the ongoing director litigation. Critically, it also stressed that missing a compliance date does not automatically oblige a Tribunal to vary an order and set new dates.

In conclusion, the Tribunal added that the most appropriate route would be enforcement through the courts, and ideally after the directorship disputes were resolved. The FTT also drew on evidence in the 2024 proceedings, in which the Managing Agent had asked for those proceedings to be stayed so the applicant could proceed under Homes England's supervision alone. The FTT saw this as symptomatic of a desire to avoid Tribunal oversight, further undermining confidence.

Impact and Implications for Landlords and Managing Agents

In summary, the original Remediation Order stands (with the deadline which has passed), therefore the management company is in continuing breach. The potential enforcement via the courts as recommended, may impose terms and the consequences of non-compliance. There are key points the case highlights for both Landlords and Managing Agents, including:

• Missing a remediation deadline does not entitle a responsible party to more time. The Tribunal will expect to be persuaded by evidence.
• Where an order sets out how variation must be sought, including a witness statement and draft order, non-compliance is itself a serious weakness.
• Applications provided after the deadline suggest no credible programme in place and serving lengthy evidence on the morning of a hearing risks exclusion of that evidence.
• Managing agents stretched by day-to-day work should secure legal advice early in order to mitigate potential evidence of incapacity to deliver.
• Governance disputes, which in this case, focused on uncertainty over who the directors are, will not suspend statutory obligations. The Tribunal proceeded on the Companies House position.

Overall, the decision shows the FTT steadfastly defending the tenets of Remediation Orders, rejecting Applications which neither comply with directions nor present a credible plan.