In a significant judgment handed down on 8 July 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought by Stratford Village Development Partnership (SVDP) and Get Living plc (Get Living). Therefore upholding the First-tier Tribunal’s (the Tribunal) decision to grant Remediation Contribution Orders (RCO/RCOs) under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

The case, Triathlon Homes LLP v SVDP & Others, is the first binding decision to date on the operation of the RCO regime and provides critical guidance for developers, building owners and leaseholders on (1) the scope, purpose, and (2) the retrospective application of the BSA’s cost recovery provisions.

Background

The case concerned five residential blocks in the East Village Estate in Stratford, originally developed for the 2012 London Olympics. Triathlon Homes LLP (Triathlon), a social housing provider with long leasehold interests in the blocks, applied for RCOs against SVDP (the original developer) and Get Living (its parent company), seeking recovery of over £16 million in remediation costs related to serious fire safety defects.

Although the remediation works were being funded by the Government’s Building Safety Fund (BSF), Triathlon sought to shift the financial burden from the public purse to the developer and its associate, in line with the policy objectives of the BSA.

Key issues on Appeal

The appeal raised two principal grounds:

1. Whether it was “just and equitable” to make RCOs in circumstances where the remediation works were already being funded by the BSF.
2. Whether RCOs can be made in respect of costs incurred before section 124 of the BSA came into force on 28 June 2022.

Court of Appeal’s Findings

1. Just and Equitable to Make RCOs

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that it was just and equitable to make RCOs against both SVDP and Get Living. Key points included:

• Developer Responsibility: SVDP was the original developer and bore primary responsibility for the defects. The BSA’s policy is to place the financial burden on those responsible for unsafe buildings, not the taxpayer.
• Change in Beneficial Owners of Developer: At the time that East Village was constructed, the Olympic Delivery Authority (the ODA) (a public body) set up SVDP for the purpose of funding and developing East Village. After the games, the ODA sold SVDP, which has been owned by Get Living Plc since 2018. SVDP therefore argued that the development had been a public project from which the public, though the ODA, had benefited. The Court of Appeal held that the change in beneficial owners is not relevant; if you invest in a company, you take the risk of unforeseen liabilities attaching to that company.
• Role of Associates: Get Living, as SVDP’s parent and a well-resourced entity, was rightly included under the BSA’s “association” provisions. The Court of Appeal endorsed the Tribunal’s view that the association rules are designed to prevent developers from shielding assets behind thinly capitalised entities.
• Public Funding as Last Resort: The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the availability of BSF funding negated the need for RCOs. It held that public funding should not displace the statutory mechanisms for cost recovery from those responsible.
• No Presumption, But Strong Policy: While the Court of Appeal cautioned against treating RCOs as automatic recovery from developers, it affirmed that the BSA creates a clear hierarchy of liability, with developers and their associates at the top of the chain.

2. Retrospective Application of Section 124

The Court of Appeal confirmed that RCOs can be made in respect of costs incurred in remedying, or otherwise in connection with relevant defects before 28 June 2022. It found:

• Clear Legislative Intent: The BSA is both forward and backward-looking, designed to address historic building safety defects. The Court of Appeal referred to their decision in Adriatic which means that a leaseholder can be protected against service charges even if the person doing the work has already incurred the costs before the commencement of Part 5 of the BSA. For example if a management company incurred costs prior to the BSA, but was unable to claim reimbursement through the service charge because of Schedule 8 of the BSA, then this would leave it with a significant shortfall without any obvious remedy. The BSA must be interpreted in such a way as to make it work as a whole.
• Policy Coherence: Denying retrospective effect would create arbitrary distinctions between leaseholders who had paid for remediation and those who had not, undermining the Act’s protective purpose.
• Judicial Endorsement: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, which emphasised the importance of retrospectivity in achieving the BSA’s aims.

Implications for the Sector

This judgment has wide-reaching implications for developers, landlords, housing associations, and investors:

• RCOs Are a Powerful Tool: The decision confirms that RCOs can be used not only to fund future works but also to recover historic costs, including those already paid by leaseholders or management companies.
• Associates Are Not Immune: Parent companies and other associated entities cannot avoid liability simply because they were not directly involved in the original development.
• Public Funding Does Not Preclude Private Liability: The availability of BSF support does not shield responsible parties from being ordered to reimburse those funds.
• Strategic Risk for Investors: Acquiring entities with historic development liabilities carries significant risk under the BSA, even where the defects were unknown at the time of acquisition.

What we think

This is a landmark decision that cements the role of RCOs as a central mechanism for cost recovery under the BSA. It sends a clear message that the courts will uphold the policy of holding developers and their associates financially accountable, even where public funding is available or where costs were incurred before the Act came into force.

For developers, landlords, and investors, the case underscores the importance of:

• Conducting thorough due diligence on legacy liabilities;
• Engaging early with leaseholders and management companies;
• Preparing for potential RCO applications, even in respect of historic costs.
• Identifying others that may be able or ought to be providing an indemnity in respect of these liabilities

How we can help you with the Building Safety Act

We advise clients across the housing, development, and investment sectors on all aspects of the Building Safety Act. If you’re facing an RCO application, considering enforcement, or seeking to understand your exposure under the Act, our expert team is here to help.