Marconi House: First-tier Tribunal confirms strict approach to Building Safety Regime time limits

The decision in Shenstone Properties Ltd v Marconi House RTM Company Ltd, addressed a preliminary but decisive issue in respect of notices given under Regulation 3 of the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations): whether an appeal against a requirement to pay a remediation contribution had been made in time, and if not, whether the Tribunal could extend the deadline for appeal.

Background

Marconi House RTM Company Ltd (the Respondent) identified building defects and sought to recover remediation costs from Shenstone Properties Ltd (the Applicant), the freeholder, as a “responsible landlord”.

On 18 November 2025, the Respondent served a notice under the Regulations, demanding approximately £4.1 million (the Notice).

The Regulations prescribe a strict challenge process:

• an appeal must be brought within 30 days of receipt; and
• an extension (of up to a further 30 days) may only be requested within that same initial period.

The Applicant appealed on 29 January 2026. The validity of the appeal therefore depended entirely on when the notice was received.

When was the notice received?

The Applicant maintained that the notice was received on 12 January 2026, and as such, the appeal was in time. The Respondent relied on Royal Mail Special Delivery records which included a signature and photographic confirmation of delivery to the Applicant’s registered office and showed delivery of the Notice on 20 November 2025.

The Applicant relied primarily on a director’s witness statement asserting non-receipt and suggesting that recorded deliveries were sometimes mishandled.

The Tribunal rejected that account for several reasons:

• No cross-examination: the director did not attend the hearing, weakening the evidential weight of the statement and justifying adverse inferences.
• Lack of corroboration: no supporting evidence was provided from other individuals at the premises.
• Signature inconsistency: a signature similar to the one given for delivery of the Notice appeared on a prior notice the Applicant accepted receiving; the Tribunal inferred the same person had signed for both.
• Unconvincing postal explanation: the suggestion of routine Royal Mail mishandling was unsupported and found inherently unlikely.

On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was received on 20 November 2025. The statutory appeal period had therefore expired well before the appeal was issued, rendering it out of time.

Could the Tribunal extend time?

The key legal question was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow the appeal to proceed.

The Applicant argued that the Tribunal’s general case management powers under the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013 permitted an extension of time; however, the Tribunal disagreed, holding that this issue was governed exclusively by the statutory scheme in the Regulations. Its reasoning included:

• Statutory primacy: the specific time limits imposed by statute could not be overridden by general procedural powers.
• Exhaustive extension mechanism: the Regulations expressly define when and how extensions may be granted, indicating a clear intention to limit the Tribunal’s powers.
• Loss of the right of appeal: failure to appeal or seek an extension within the prescribed period extinguishes the right to challenge the notice.
• Policy of expedition: the building safety regime is designed to enable prompt remediation; allowing late appeals would undermine that objective and delay essential safety works.

The Tribunal also noted that the Notice itself was required to set out the relevant time limits, reinforcing the expectation of strict compliance.

Alternative arguments

The Applicant relied on R v Soneji, arguing that the Tribunal should consider the consequences of non-compliance and avoid depriving parties of rights without a fair opportunity to object.

While acknowledging the significant financial consequences, the Tribunal held that strict enforcement of the time limits did not produce unintended prejudice. Non-compliance was therefore fatal.

The Tribunal further indicated that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not have exercised it in the Applicant’s favour. The delay was substantial, no adequate explanation had been provided, and an extension would have prejudiced the Respondent by delaying remediation works.

Key takeaways

This decision highlights the strict operation of the Building Safety regime:

• Deadlines are critical: appeals and any applications for extension must be made within the statutory timeframes.
• Limited flexibility: general case management powers cannot circumvent clear statutory limits.
• Service evidence is decisive: as to proving when a notice is received, objective delivery records will carry substantial weight and unsupported claims of non-receipt are unlikely to succeed.
• Severe consequences: missing both the window to appeal deadline and apply for an extension can result in liability for substantial remediation costs with no right of challenge.

How we can help

This decision reinforces the need for prompt, well‑evidenced responses to building safety notices – our team can support by:

• reviewing and diarising statutory deadlines on receipt of notices
• advising immediately on appeal prospects
• preparing and lodging appeals (and any extension requests) within time
• stress‑testing evidence of service/receipt

We can also assist in implementing internal processes to ensure future compliance and mitigate the risk of losing valuable rights of challenge.

If you would like to discuss your specific circumstances, please get in touch with Asia Munir or Lewis Couth, who would be happy to assist.