The Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill would introduce new duties for affected buildings in England, alongside wider changes to building safety law, in line with commitments made by the UK Government in their Remediation Acceleration Plan.
Which buildings and organisations would be affected?
Multi-occupied residential buildings in England over 11 metres high or with at least five storeys, completed before 28 June 2022 would be covered by the duty to assess and remediate. Buildings covered by the Developer Remediation Contract would be excluded because equivalent requirements already apply.
The duties will fall on the organisation or person with the relevant repairing obligation, described as the ‘responsible entity’. This could be a freeholder, a superior leaseholder, a right to manage company, or a resident management company.
Clearer requirements for assessments and action
If the Bill becomes law, responsible entities will have 12 months to ensure that buildings have been assessed, including commissioning a Fire Risk Assessment of External Walls (FRAEW) if one was recommended by a fire risk assessment.
Failure to carry out an assessment within the required timeframe (without a reasonable excuse) will be a criminal offence. This could result in a criminal prosecution or escalating financial penalties for the responsible entity.
Published plans would make progress more visible
Where an FRAEW recommends remedial work, the responsible entity will have to produce a Remediation Compliance Plan setting out the proposed actions and timetable. Corporate responsible entities would also need to identify the director responsible for compliance and provide ownership and corporate information.
Plans would have to be published and proactively shared with residents and leaseholders. The cost of producing the plan could not be passed to qualifying leaseholders.
In practice, agents supporting these plans would need reliable project information and clear arrangements for obtaining decisions from clients. Records of funding applications, procurement, access requests, contractor availability, and steps taken to resolve delays could help explain progress to residents and regulators.
Stronger penalties for delay and obstruction
Deliberate failure to mitigate risks or take remediation steps as soon as reasonably practicable could lead to prosecution and up to two years’ imprisonment, or a financial penalty of up to £500,000 at the discretion of the Regulator.
The UK Government says enforcement should focus on persistent inaction and poor behaviour, with safeguards for leaseholder-controlled companies taking reasonable steps to comply.
A separate offence would address unreasonable obstruction of lawful assessment or remediation. Examples include delaying access or permission for works and raising unreasonable disputes about their scope. Genuine concerns raised in good faith would be protected by a reasonable excuse defence. Agents should therefore document access arrangements, escalate barriers promptly, and keep a clear record of how disputes are being addressed.
Public authorities could take control of stalled work
A proposed ‘Remediation Backstop’ would allow local authorities or Homes England to seek a Remediation Management Order from the First-tier Tribunal where those responsible have failed to act. This would give the authority control over assessments, contracts and remediation, and potentially some day-to-day building services.
For an appointed agent, intervention could change who authorises work and how management instructions are given. The terms of the order would therefore need careful review.
A significant change for tribunal-appointed managers
The Bill would allow a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be treated as the Accountable Person for a higher-risk building where they meet the statutory definition.
This would apply to existing and new section 24 appointments and could allow the manager to take responsibility for building safety duties. It would also bring the enforcement framework and potential criminal liability that apply to other Accountable Persons. Members holding these appointments should review how the proposed change could affect their responsibilities, resources and expertise.
