Building safety update: June 2026

The second instalment of the building safety team’s new series of updates on key developments in the sector covers:

• the King’s Speech;
• the latest key cases including decisions on recoverability of litigation costs in RCO proceedings, arguments about lease frustration due to building safety defects, and FTT consideration of the definition of a ‘relevant building’;
• the latest MHCLG building safety actions;
• the second edition of the RICS professional standard for secured lending valuation of multi-storey residential buildings with cladding.

The King’s Speech 2026 – Remediation Bill

Among the 37 bills announced in the King’s Speech is the new Remediation Bill, part of the Government’s Remediation Acceleration Plan. The bill aims to create an ‘endpoint’ for remediation, accelerating the remediation of unsafe cladding affecting 4,310 buildings, only 35% of which have been remediated since the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. The bill will introduce hard deadlines for remediation of higher‑risk buildings (over 18 metres) by 2029, and mid‑rise buildings (11–18 metres) by 2031. Key provisions include:

• a new legal duty on freeholders and other responsible parties to remediate defective cladding, backed by criminal sanctions;

• the extension of liability for remediation costs to construction product manufacturers, closing existing legal loopholes;

• a new register for medium rise buildings (11-18 meters) to identify all remaining buildings which require remediation;

• rights for a third party to step in and carry out remediation works where the responsible party ignores its legal duty to do so;
• wider enforcement powers for the Building Safety Regulator.

A draft bill has not yet been published. For a full overview of the bill and its proposed measures, see pages 59 – 61 of the King’s Speech background briefing notes.

Recovery of remediation costs – Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v EDR Builders Ltd and Hollybrook (UK) Limited

The First-tier Tribunal ordered Hollybrook (UK) Limited to pay £3.68 million to the government to cover the cost of fixing fire safety defects at Hallings Wharf Studios. The tribunal found that all external wall systems posed a fire risk, confirming that any level of fire risk is enough under the Building Safety Act 2022 (following Vista Tower).

It held that the remediation works carried out were reasonable, even if not the cheapest option, and it was acceptable not to revisit the plans when new PAS:9980 guidance was introduced, given how advanced the project was. Cheaper alternatives were rejected, particularly as building regulations would have prevented reusing combustible materials. It was also considered fair to impose liability on Hollybrook as an associated company of the original (now insolvent) developer.

The tribunal refused, however, to allow the government to recover over £1 million in litigation costs, reaching a different conclusion to the tribunal decision in the Empire Square case. The FTT determined that litigation costs were not recoverable by way of an RCO for the following reasons:

• Parliament chose to provide illustrative examples of the type of costs that could be included and made no reference to litigation costs in circumstances where RCOs were to be determined by the FTT – a non-cost shifting tribunal.
• Whilst the wording of section 124(2) of the BSA 2022 is broad, the FTT considered it unlikely that the costs could extend to litigation costs.
• If Empire Square is correct (which the FTT does not appear to accept) then that case can be distinguished on the basis that the proceedings in that case were brought ‘in connection with’ remediating the building – the tribunal determined that the building would not have been remediated without those proceedings.

Building Safety obligations and lease frustration – Into Nominee One Ltd and another v Study Group UK Ltd and another [2026] EWHC 1201

The High Court granted summary judgment for the landlord for over £9 million in unpaid rent, rejecting the tenant’s argument that its 25 year lease of a residential training school had been frustrated by serious fire safety defects and/or the impact of post‑Grenfell legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022. The tenant claimed that the defects made the building unsafe and that the new statutory regime imposed additional remediation obligations which fundamentally changed the nature of the lease.

The court rejected this, holding that the lease was not frustrated. Crucially, it found that the need for remedial works existed under the lease, independently of the BSA 2022, and the legislation did not fundamentally alter the parties’ contractual position. The lease clearly allocated the risk of defects (including latent defects) to the tenant through a broad repairing covenant (including an obligation to rebuild) and excluded any warranty as to fitness for purpose. As a result, the tenant had no real prospect of satisfying the legal test for frustration.

This case demonstrates that building safety defects are unlikely to frustrate a lease where the need for remediation is already covered by the terms of the lease.

When considering the common law principle of frustration, the court will apply this narrowly. See here for the full judgment.

Meaning of ‘relevant building’ under section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022 – A2Dominion South Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2026]

The First-Tier Tribunal held that flats 29 – 40 (in a four-storey section of a mixed‑use development) formed part of the same ‘relevant building’ as flats 1 – 28 (in a seven-storey section of the same development) under section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022. Although flats 29 – 40 would not qualify as a relevant building in isolation, they were not structurally detached or self‑contained from flats 1 – 28. The tribunal emphasised that the flats were:

• structurally linked to the higher‑rise section via stairs and transfer beams;
• not capable of independent redevelopment without substantial works affecting the wider connecting building; and
• dependent on shared services (such as water and electricity) that could not be separated without significant disruption.

The effect of this reasoning brought flats 29–40 within the scope of a remediation contribution order. The configuration of different parts of a development is important when assessing scope under section 124 of the BSA 2022, and even indirect structural links (such as shared stairs or transfer beams) can establish sufficient connection for parts to be treated as a single relevant building.

See here for the full judgment.

MHCLG – latest building safety actions

The government has recently announced several measures aimed at strengthening the building safety regime, as follows:

• A call for evidence (closing 12 August 2026) seeking input from industry, clients, and regulators across the full building lifecycle to inform a 2027 strategy, with a focus on improving competence, skills, and trust across the built environment workforce.
• A consultation (closing 15 July 2026) gathering views on the proposed College of Fire and Rescue, including its functions, funding, and legislative basis, with the core aim of strengthening capability, consistency, and professional development in the fire and rescue sector.
• Plans to work in partnership with the building control sector to reform the system to protect future growth and maintain standards, accepting recommendations made by the Building Control Independent Panel.
• Introduction of a public engagement policy advising ministers and senior civil servants not to attend certain public events with the seven companies most criticised in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report, unless there are exceptional reasons to do so.

RICS publishes updated professional standard ‘Secured lending valuation of properties in multi-storey, multi-occupancy residential buildings with cladding‘

The second edition of this professional standard updates the guidance for valuers obtaining information about residential properties with fire safety concerns. It aligns the framework with legislative developments since 2022, incorporating changes introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 and developments in the external wall system (EWS) process, including clearer guidance on when an EWS1 form should be requested.