Tribunal refuses landlord’s application to vary remediation order: key lessons for responsible entities
18th July 2025
“This decision is a stark reminder: if you’re a building owner or landlord subject to a Remediation Order, the clock is ticking — and the Tribunal expects visible progress, not excuses”
The First-tier Tribunal (Tribunal) has refused an application by landlord, Wallace Estates Limited (Wallace), to extend a Remediation Order (RO) where vital fire safety works had been delayed at Centrillion Point, 2 Masons Avenue, Croydon, CRO 9WX (Centrillion Point).
This hard line taken by the Tribunal highlights that ROs are not there to be ignored and reinforces the importance of proactive compliance and clear accountability under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). With the government calling for building safety works to “speed up”, it’s important for landlords to act now.
Background
On 4 January 2024, the Tribunal granted a Remediation Order against Wallace at the request of leaseholders, requiring completion of specified works to address building safety defects by 31 May 2025. However, by late April 2025, no works had commenced. A leaseholder alerted the Tribunal, prompting it to seek a response from Wallace.
Wallace responded by applying to vary the RO, seeking an extension of 68 weeks. It was said that the delay was attributed to the developer who had been contracted to carry out the works, although no scope of works had been agreed, and no application had been submitted to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal rejected Wallace’s application, citing several key factors:
- The RO was made against Wallace, not the developer. Wallace remained responsible for compliance under both the RO and the flat leases.
- The RO is not concerned with who pays for the cost of works — it simply requires the works to be completed.
- No works had been started, no scope of works had been agreed, and no BSR application had been submitted.
- Wallace had known since July 2024 that it could not meet the deadline but failed to inform the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal was unwilling — and arguably lacked jurisdiction — to grant an open-ended extension with no defined completion date.
The Tribunal also noted that Wallace was seeking more than double the original timeframe to complete the works, a position it found difficult to justify.
Implications
This decision underscores the Tribunal’s firm stance on enforcing ROs and the high threshold that the Tribunal look likely to set in order for a variation. Responsible entities must:
- Act promptly and transparently if delays arise.
- Maintain clear project timelines and engage with the BSR early.
- Understand that responsibility under an RO cannot be delegated to third parties.
Enforcing a Remediation Order: A three-stage process
Where a party fails to comply with an RO, enforcement via contempt of court proceedings may be appropriate. The process involves:
- Permission from the County Court
As ROs are issued by the First-tier Tribunal, permission must first be obtained from the County Court to enforce the order.
- Application for a Penal Notice
A penal notice warns the respondent that non-compliance may result in contempt proceedings, including fines, asset confiscation, or imprisonment.
- Contempt of Court Application
If a penal notice is granted, a formal application for contempt can be made, supported by affidavit evidence. Sanctions may include:
- No punishment
- A fine or confiscation of assets
- Imprisonment (up to two years)
- Adjournment of sentencing for further consideration
Need advice on the Building Safety Act?
If you are seeking to enforce a Remediation Order or require guidance on compliance obligations under the Building Safety Act, our specialist team at Walker Morris is here to help.
Our people
Paul's contact details
