TRW & Co · Real Estate & Construction
Building Safety Lawyers in London
Building safety lawyers in London advise on the Building Safety Act 2022: higher-risk building approvals, accountable person duties, leaseholder protections, remediation orders and claims for historic defects. With the Building Safety Levy live from October 2026 and a Remediation Bill introduced that month, owners, developers and consultants need to understand who pays and how quickly.
Key pointLiability for historic fire safety defects can now reach associated companies and go back 30 years, and the tribunal can order payment without proof of fault, so corporate structure and evidence matter as much as the defect itself.
At a glance
Higher-risk building test
Buildings at least 18 metres or seven storeys with two or more residential units fall under the Building Safety Regulator's gateway and registration regime.
Gateway two timescales
The Building Safety Regulator aims to assess applications within 12 weeks for new higher-risk buildings and eight weeks for existing ones, unless extended.
Leaseholder cost caps
Qualifying leaseholders pay nothing for cladding, and other historic safety costs are normally capped at £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London.
Thirty-year look-back
Section 135 gave Defective Premises Act claims a retrospective 30-year limitation period, and URS v BDW extended this to dependent contribution claims.
Remediation Bill introduced
A Bill introduced on 14 October 2026 proposes a duty to remediate, penalties of up to £500,000 and step-in rights for public bodies.
Swipe or scroll →
What building safety lawyers in London advise on
Building safety lawyers in London advise developers, contractors, consultants, building owners, landlords, investors, lenders and leaseholders on the regime created by the Building Safety Act 2022 and the rules that have grown around it. The work spans regulatory approvals for new tall buildings, duties for occupied buildings, the funding and recovery of remediation costs, and the claims that follow historic defects.
Since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, building safety has moved from a technical building control issue to a board-level legal risk. Liability can now reach associated companies, extend back 30 years and be imposed by a tribunal on a "just and equitable" basis. A new Remediation Bill introduced in October 2026 would add further duties and penalties.
Our work sits between construction, real estate and disputes. We collaborate with our construction and construction disputes teams so that regulatory advice, contracts and claims are aligned.
The legal framework
The Building Safety Act 2022 is the core statute. It works alongside the Building Regulations, the Fire Safety Order and Fire Safety Act 2021, the Defective Premises Act 1972 and landlord and tenant law. Most of the regime applies in England; Wales has adopted parts of it, and Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate building standards systems and their own remediation programmes.
The Building Safety Regulator
The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) oversees higher-risk buildings in England and the competence of the built environment professions. It has moved out of the Health and Safety Executive and is now an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Higher-risk buildings and the gateways
A higher-risk building is one that is at least 18 metres high or has at least seven storeys and contains at least two residential units (hospitals and care homes are also caught during design and construction). New higher-risk buildings pass through three gateways: a fire statement at planning (gateway one), BSR building control approval before work starts (gateway two), and a completion certificate before occupation (gateway three).
According to the government's guidance on building control approval for higher-risk buildings, the BSR will take up to 12 weeks to assess applications for new higher-risk buildings and eight weeks for work to existing ones, unless an extension is agreed. Once approved, changes must go through change control, and work must stop on the affected part of a project until a major change is approved.
Occupied buildings
Occupied higher-risk buildings must be registered with the BSR. Accountable persons must assess and manage building safety risks, prepare a safety case report, keep the "golden thread" of building information, and run a residents' engagement strategy. The principal accountable person is the main point of contact for the regulator.
Remediation and leaseholder protection
Part 5 and Schedule 8 of the Act deal with historic defects. Qualifying leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres or five storeys cannot be charged for cladding remediation, and other historic safety costs passed on to them are capped. According to the government's leaseholder protection FAQs, the cap is normally £10,000, or £15,000 in Greater London, and may be higher or zero depending on the value of the flat. Landlords who are, or are linked to, the developer, or who meet a wealth test, cannot pass these costs on at all.
The Act also gives the First-tier Tribunal power to make remediation orders under section 123 and remediation contribution orders under section 124, and the High Court power to make building liability orders under section 130 against associated companies.
Liability for historic defects and the leading cases
Building safety lawyers in London now spend much of their time on cost recovery. Several routes run in parallel, and choosing between them is a strategic decision.
| Route | Forum | Who can be pursued | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remediation order (s123) | First-tier Tribunal | The relevant landlord | Requires the landlord to fix specified relevant defects by a set time |
| Remediation contribution order (s124) | First-tier Tribunal | Landlord, developer and associated companies | Payment of remediation costs where just and equitable; no need to prove fault |
| Defective Premises Act 1972, s1 | Courts | Developers, contractors and consultants who took on work for a dwelling | Section 135 of the 2022 Act gave a 30-year retrospective limitation period |
| Building liability order (s130) | High Court | Associated companies of the liable body | Extends liability across corporate groups |
| Construction products (ss148 to 149) | Courts | Manufacturers and sellers of products | Claims where products caused a dwelling to be unfit for habitation |
| Contract, warranties and negligence | Courts, adjudication, arbitration | Contractors, consultants and their insurers | Contractual limitation and caps apply; collateral warranties may extend reach |
URS v BDW
In URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, decided on 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court held that a developer could recover remediation costs from its structural engineer even though it was no longer the owner of the buildings. It confirmed that the 30-year retrospective period under section 135 also applies to claims that depend on the Defective Premises Act, such as contribution claims, and that a developer can be owed a duty under section 1 of that Act. A contribution claim can arise once the claimant has paid or agreed to pay, without a judgment or settlement with homeowners.
Triathlon Homes
In Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846, decided on 8 July 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld remediation contribution orders against the developer and its associated company. It confirmed that orders can cover costs incurred before the Act came into force, and that public funding of the works does not make it unjust to order the developer to pay. Our article on remediation contribution orders explains how the tribunal approaches these applications.
After URS and Triathlon, developers should assume that historic fire safety defects will be paid for by someone in the original development chain, not by the public purse or the leaseholders.
Developments in 2026: levy, staircases and the Remediation Bill
The Building Safety Levy
The Building Safety Levy applies to building control applications and initial notices submitted from 1 October 2026. It is charged on new residential floorspace in major developments, broadly schemes of ten or more dwellings or 30 or more student bedspaces, at rates per square metre that vary by local authority area. There are exemptions for affordable housing providers and certain uses, and a reduction for brownfield sites. The levy must be paid before a completion or final certificate is issued, so it should be built into appraisals now. The government's levy guidance sets out the detail.
Second staircases
Revised fire safety guidance requires a second staircase in new residential buildings over 18 metres. The transitional period for schemes designed to the earlier standard has now ended, so projects still in design should be checked against the current guidance before submission.
The Remediation Bill
The Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 14 October 2026. As introduced, it would create a legal duty on those responsible for buildings to identify, assess and fix unsafe cladding without delay, allow the tribunal to impose penalties of up to £500,000 for failing to comply with a remediation order, let local authorities or Homes England step in to carry out works, create a register of medium-rise residential buildings, and make it easier to recover costs from cladding manufacturers.
The Bill would also change the test for claims against product manufacturers under section 149, so that liability turns on whether a product made more than a trivial contribution to a building being unsafe, and would widen the class of claimants to include developers and others who fund remediation. For manufacturers and their insurers, that could reopen exposure that was previously hard to establish.
Building safety lawyers in London are advising clients to review their position now rather than wait for Royal Assent. Owners should map which buildings may fall on the proposed medium-rise register, developers should check whether their remediation programmes would meet the new duty, and product suppliers should review their historic sales and insurance cover. The Bill is not yet law and may change in Parliament. The government's Remediation Acceleration Plan expects that, by the end of 2029, every building over 11 metres with unsafe cladding will have been remediated or have a clear completion date.
How we approach a remediation or compliance matter
Whether the client is a building owner facing a remediation demand or a developer facing a claim, building safety lawyers in London follow a structured approach to control cost and risk.
- Identify the building and the regime. Confirm height, storeys, use and whether the building is higher-risk, a relevant building for leaseholder protection, or both.
- Gather the technical evidence. Obtain the fire risk appraisal of external walls (FRAEW), fire risk assessment, as-built information and any previous surveys, and identify gaps.
- Map the parties. Identify the landlord, the developer, associated companies, contractors, consultants, product suppliers and their insurers, and check corporate links for remediation contribution orders and building liability orders.
- Check funding routes. Assess government funding schemes, developer commitments under the Responsible Actors Scheme and any available warranty or insurance cover.
- Protect limitation and preserve claims. Diarise limitation dates, send pre-action letters or standstill agreements, and notify insurers.
- Choose the forum. Decide between tribunal applications, court proceedings, adjudication under construction contracts or negotiated settlement.
- Manage the works. Put building contracts, warranties and leaseholder communications in place so that remediation proceeds while recovery continues.
The cost of remediation is often paid long before it is recovered. Owners should document every decision, quote and invoice from day one, because the tribunal and courts will examine whether the works and costs were reasonable. A clear evidence trail is the single biggest factor in recovering costs later.
Documents and evidence
Building safety disputes are document-heavy. We usually ask clients to assemble:
- Planning permissions, building control approvals, completion certificates and any BSR correspondence.
- Design and construction contracts, appointments, novations, collateral warranties and third-party rights.
- As-built drawings, product specifications, test certificates and the operation and maintenance manual.
- FRAEWs, fire risk assessments, EWS1 forms where issued, and records of interim measures such as waking watches.
- Leases, service charge accounts, leaseholder deeds of certificate and landlord's certificates.
- Corporate structure charts showing links between landlord, developer and associated companies.
- Insurance policies, notifications and correspondence with insurers.
Risks and common mistakes
These are the issues that most often increase exposure for owners, developers and consultants.
Treating leaseholder protections as optional
Landlords sometimes continue to recover historic safety costs through the service charge without checking whether leaseholders qualify for protection. The protections are retrospective and automatic for qualifying leases, and costs above the cap cannot lawfully be passed on. Landlords who are linked to the developer or meet the wealth test cannot pass on any of these costs. Errors lead to tribunal challenges and reputational damage. Every demand for safety costs should be checked against the landlord's certificate and the leaseholder deeds of certificate.
Assuming limitation has expired
Section 135 extended the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act to 30 years for claims that had already accrued, and the Supreme Court in URS v BDW confirmed that dependent claims, such as contribution claims, benefit too. The Remediation Bill as introduced would go further and disapply the Limitation Act 1980 to remediation orders, remediation contribution orders and building liability orders. Consultants and contractors who closed files years ago should not assume claims are time-barred.
Underestimating gateway two
Gateway two applications must be complete and of good quality, and the BSR can reject or delay incomplete submissions. Construction cannot start on a higher-risk building until approval is given, and major changes stop work on the affected part. Developers who treat gateway two as a formality face programme slippage, cost overruns and disputes with contractors about who bears delay. Build realistic BSR periods into building contracts and funding agreements.
Ignoring corporate group exposure
Remediation contribution orders and building liability orders can reach associated companies, not only the original developer or landlord. Groups that used special purpose vehicles for each development cannot assume that the SPV's insolvency or dissolution ends liability. Investors acquiring residential portfolios or development companies should carry out building safety due diligence and negotiate indemnities and price adjustments accordingly.
Poor communication with residents
Accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings must engage residents and respond to complaints. Leaseholders who feel uninformed are more likely to bring tribunal applications, and the Remediation Bill as introduced would require responsible entities to share remediation plans with residents. Clear, documented communication reduces disputes and supports cost recovery.
Cross-border investors and international contractors
Much of London's residential stock is owned or financed by overseas investors, including funds and families from the Gulf, Singapore, China and Bangladesh. Building safety liability follows the building and the corporate group, regardless of where the owner is based.
Investors should expect building safety due diligence as standard on any UK residential acquisition, covering FRAEWs, leaseholder protection status, remediation funding and potential associated-company exposure. Overseas owners should ensure that their Register of Overseas Entities filings are current and that someone in the UK can receive BSR and tribunal correspondence promptly.
International contractors and product manufacturers face claims under English law even where their contracts are governed by other law, and building liability orders can reach associated companies. Where proceedings must be served abroad, or where a judgment must be enforced overseas, we coordinate with local counsel.
How TRW & Co's building safety lawyers in London help
Our building safety lawyers in London act for owners, developers, contractors, consultants, investors and leaseholders. We do not promise outcomes, but we help clients understand their exposure and make informed decisions quickly.
Regulatory compliance
Advice on higher-risk building status, gateway applications, change control, registration, safety case reports and accountable person duties.
Remediation and funding
Remediation orders, government funding schemes, leaseholder protection analysis and the management of remediation works and contracts.
Cost recovery claims
Remediation contribution orders, Defective Premises Act claims, contribution claims, building liability orders and claims against product manufacturers.
Defending claims
Acting for developers, contractors and consultants facing tribunal applications or court claims, including limitation and insurance coverage issues.
Transactions and due diligence
Building safety due diligence on acquisitions and financings, and drafting indemnities, warranties and price mechanisms.
Residential sales and leases
Advice to landlords and leaseholders on certificates, service charge recovery and the effect of building safety issues on sales and lease extensions.
Where claims are contested, our property litigation team runs tribunal and court proceedings; where advocacy in the higher courts is required, we instruct specialist counsel. For coverage disputes, see our insurance practice. For planning-stage fire statements, see our planning and development practice. Our guide to the Building Safety Act gives more background, and you can browse all our practices.
Checklist for decision-makers
Before acquiring, developing, financing or managing a residential building, building safety lawyers in London would expect you to answer the following.
- Is the building higher-risk, a relevant building for leaseholder protection, or both?
- Is there a current FRAEW and fire risk assessment, and what do they recommend?
- Who is the accountable person and principal accountable person, and is the building registered?
- Which leaseholders qualify for protection, and are the certificates in place?
- Are there links between the landlord and the original developer that affect who pays?
- What limitation dates apply to claims against contractors, consultants and suppliers?
- Has the Building Safety Levy been included in the appraisal for new schemes?
- How would the Remediation Bill, if enacted as introduced, change your obligations?
To discuss a building, a claim or a transaction, contact our London office at Holborn Gate, 330 High Holborn, London WC1V 7QH, or email info@trw.co.
Frequently asked questions
01What is a higher-risk building?
Under the Building Safety Act regime, a higher-risk building is at least 18 metres high or has at least seven storeys and contains at least two residential units. Hospitals and care homes meeting the height test are also covered during design and construction. New higher-risk buildings need Building Safety Regulator approval before work starts and a completion certificate before occupation, and occupied ones must be registered and managed by accountable persons who assess and control building safety risks.
02Can my landlord charge me for cladding remediation?
If you hold a qualifying lease in a building over 11 metres or five storeys, you cannot be charged for removing or remediating unsafe cladding. Other historic safety costs passed to you are capped, normally at £10,000 or £15,000 in Greater London, and may be zero depending on the value of the flat. If your landlord is linked to the developer or meets the wealth test, it cannot pass on these costs at all. Check the landlord's certificate and your deed of certificate.
03What is a remediation contribution order?
It is an order of the First-tier Tribunal under section 124 of the Building Safety Act requiring a landlord, developer or associated company to pay towards the cost of remedying relevant defects, where it is just and equitable. The applicant does not need to prove fault. In Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development Partnership, the Court of Appeal confirmed that orders can cover costs incurred before the Act and that public funding of the works does not prevent an order.
04How far back can claims for defects go?
Section 135 of the Building Safety Act extended the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years for claims that had already accrued, and 15 years for future claims. The Supreme Court in URS v BDW confirmed that claims depending on the Defective Premises Act, including contribution and negligence claims, benefit from the extended period. Contractual and ordinary negligence claims have their own limitation periods, which should be checked case by case.
05When do building safety lawyers in London need to be involved in a new development?
Ideally from the design stage. Fire statements are required at planning for relevant tall buildings, gateway two approval is needed before construction starts, and the Building Safety Levy applies to applications submitted from 1 October 2026. Contracts should allocate BSR delay and change control risk, and dutyholder roles should be clearly assigned. Early legal input helps avoid redesign, programme slippage and disputes about who bears the cost of regulatory delay.
06What does the 2026 Remediation Bill change?
The Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill was introduced on 14 October 2026. As introduced, it would create a legal duty to identify, assess and fix unsafe cladding, allow penalties of up to £500,000 for failing to comply with a remediation order, let local authorities or Homes England step in, create a register of medium-rise residential buildings and make claims against cladding manufacturers easier. It is not yet law, and its content may change in Parliament.
07Does the Building Safety Act apply in Scotland and Wales?
The higher-risk building regime and leaseholder protections described here apply in England. Some parts of the Act apply in Wales, which has its own approach to building safety and remediation. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate building standards systems and their own remediation programmes. Defective Premises Act claims apply in England and Wales. Owners with buildings in more than one UK jurisdiction need advice on each regime.
Sources and official materials
- Building Safety Act 2022 — Core statute: regulator, higher-risk buildings, remediation and liability
- Building control approval for higher-risk buildings — Gateway two assessment, change control and completion
- Leaseholder protections on building safety costs: FAQs — Qualifying leases and cost caps
- URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 — Supreme Court on section 135 and DPA duties
- Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846 — Court of Appeal on remediation contribution orders
- Building Safety Levy: guidance — Levy on new residential development from October 2026
- Guide to the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill — Government summary of the 2026 Bill
- Remediation Acceleration Plan — Government targets for cladding remediation
General information only, current as at 21 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client relationship. It reflects the law of England and Wales unless stated otherwise; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems, and the law changes frequently. Check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.