Navigating building and fire safety claims: remediation orders

There have been many changes to building and fire safety claims and it is easy to be confused by the evolving landscape. In the third in a six-part series explaining the most important legal vehicles being used, Chris Bates, Sara Stephens and Jamil Sanaullah discuss remediation orders.

Section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 gives the First-tier Tribunal the power to order a ‘relevant landlord’ to remedy certain defects within a specified time frame. A ‘relevant landlord’ in this context means a landlord under a lease of the building or any part of the building who is required to repair or maintain anything relating to the ‘relevant defect’.

Relevant defects

Remediation orders can be made in respect of works to address a ‘relevant defect’, which is defined as a defect which causes a building safety risk, arising as a result of anything done (or not done), anything used (or not used) in connection with ‘relevant works’. Relevant works mean:

(a) Works relating to the construction or conversion of the building;

(b) Works undertaken or commissioned by or on behalf of a relevant landlord or management company; or

(c) Works undertaken to remedy a relevant defect.

Relevant steps

Remediation orders can also be made ordering a landlord to take ‘relevant steps’, which mean steps to prevent or reduce the likelihood of a fire or collapse of the building (or any part of it) occurring as a result of the relevant defect, reducing the severity of any such incident, or preventing or reducing harm to people in, or about the building, that could result from such an incident.

Relevant buildings

Remediation orders can only be made in respect of a ‘relevant building’, which means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building that contains at least two dwellings and is at least 11m high or has at least five storeys. The definition of ‘self-contained part’ of a building was considered (in the context of right to manage claims, but of likely relevance to the 2022 Act) by the Upper Tribunal in two appeals (heard together): Courtyard RTM Co Ltd and others v Rockwell (FC103) Ltd and another; 14 Park Crescent Ltd and another v 14 Park Crescent RTM Co Ltd [2025] UKUT 39 (LC); [2025] EGLR 8. Permission to appeal has been granted in the Park Crescent case and so the Court of Appeal will consider the definition of ‘self-contained part’ in due course.

Who can apply for a remediation order?

An ‘interested person’ can apply for a remediation order. In this context an interested person is defined as:

(a) The Building Safety Regulator;

(b) the relevant local authority;

(c) the relevant fire and rescue authority;

(d) a person with a legal or equitable interest in the relevant building or any part of it; or

(e) any other person prescribed by the regulations, which now includes the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Homes and Communities Agency.

What is their relevance to the new building safety landscape?

Remediation orders are one of a number of tools that can be used to get vital building safety works carried out to buildings. They have been designed to give the FTT broad powers, and are relatively easy, quick and cost-effective to obtain.

In considering the extent to which an applicant would need to establish that ‘relevant defects’ existed, the FTT has decided (in Waite and others v Kedai Ltd (LON/00AY/HYI/2022/0005 & 0016)) that it was not ‘necessary or helpful’ to assign formal burdens of proof on either party, nor was the FTT ‘constrained by formal burdens of proof’. It is an evidence-based exercise – the FTT should consider the inspection reports and expert evidence and also be informed by its own experience and expertise, and any inspection it undertakes of the building in question. Once the FTT has determined relevant defects exist, it should make an order to remedy those defects, though it remains a discretionary award.

The FTT determined (in Waite) that it was important for any remediation order to be sufficiently precise so the landlord knows what it needs to do and for any enforcement in the courts. However, the 2022 Act is not prescriptive as to the works that are needed to remedy any relevant defects, and the extent of precision will vary from case to case. In some cases, a broad schedule will be sufficient. This has been seen in subsequent remediation order cases including in the Vista Tower (CAM/26UK/HYI/2023/0004), Orchard House (CHI/00HB/HYI/2023/0007) and Centrillion Point (LON/00AH/HYI/2022/0012) decisions.

In Centrillion Point, the FTT concluded the 2022 Act appeared not to require too much specificity in the wording of the works required to be carried out and that it may be beneficial for the remediation order to be set out in general terms. If subsequent issues were discovered that required remediation, narrow drafting could allow a landlord to conclude that the additional matters fell outside of the remediation order.

In Vista Tower, the FTT accepted the focus of remediation orders is not to provide redress for non-compliance with a legal obligation (as with claims for damages or specific performance) but on remediation of life-threatening building safety defects, which is in line with general interpretation of various provisions in the 2022 Act. The need to interpret provisions in the Act ‘in light of the purpose of the statute and the context of the statute as a whole’ was highlighted in the Chocolate Box decision (CHI/00HN/HYI/2023/0008).

In the Space Apartments decision (LON/00AP/HYI/2022/0017), the landlord tried to prevent the remediation order being made on the basis that it was willing to undertake the works so an order was unnecessary. The FTT held that the landlord could make an application to the tribunal to vary the order if necessary in the future but if an order was not made the applicant leaseholders were at the mercy of their landlord. Until works were complete, the leaseholders had to continue to live in unsafe flats, which may be unsellable or un-mortgageable. A remediation order would bind the landlord to a firm timetable.

The FTT in Chocolate Box determined that the test for making a remediation order was whether it was ‘just’ and ‘fair’ to do so. However, in the Empire Square decision (LON/00BE/HYI/2023/0013 and LON/00BE/BSB/2024/0602), the FTT disagreed with this approach, determining in this case that the decision is ‘unfettered’, making clear that the words ‘just and equitable’, or similar, do not appear in section 123 of the 2022 Act and that they considered this a deliberate choice by parliament. The FTT concluded that the key consideration was what would be the best answer to achieve remediation of the relevant defects in the building for the safety of the leaseholders. The outcome of that assessment must be within a range of reasonable decisions. It remains to be seen whether such an approach will be upheld by the UT or a higher court.

As noted, remediation orders are one of several tools introduced by the 2022 Act that can be used to get vital building safety works carried out to buildings. Empire Square (which will be discussed further in our subsequent article on remediation contribution orders) highlights the interaction between the different provisions in the 2022 Act, as well as improvement notices under the Housing Act 2004.

Growing significance

The first FTT decision in respect of a remediation order was made less than two years ago. Since then, there have been several (but perhaps not as many as would have been expected) decisions that have shown that the FTT is willing to exercise its discretion to award remediation orders. The FTT has made it relatively easy to apply for such orders as applicants do not need to have all the evidence and detail about the exact works required to remedy any defects that might otherwise be expected in claims relating to defective premises brought in the courts.

This article was originally published in the Estates Gazette on July 2025.