Contributing to the costs of building safety works

When it comes to building safety defects, parties beyond the original developer or contractor can find themselves on the receiving end of a claim when it comes to those affected seeking compensation.

As a result of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”), a range of new remedies have been introduced to spread the net of responsibility for building safety risks, such as where the original development parties have been wound up or are otherwise no longer able to meet such a claim.

In the case of Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater (Stevenage) Limited 2025, a claim for one of these new remedies was made against the original developer and a group of other associated defendants. The development in question was a property in Stevenage called Vista Tower.

The defendants were ordered to pay over £13m in damages between them to compensate the landlord of the building which had itself been ordered to bear the cost of building safety remediation works. This is a “BSA remediation contribution order”.

Vista Tower was built in the 1950’s as a 16-storey office block, which was then converted into 73 flats. The conversion was undertaken by Edgewater. The property was later sold to Grey GR.

Following the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, a fire safety review of Vista Tower by the local authority identified hazardous combustible materials in the building. Later investigations identified combustible glazing, panels and a lack of cavity barriers or fire stopping. Temporary safety measures were applied including a waking watch while safety remediation works were undertaken.

In the subsequent legal actions, claims were made for damages to cover the costs of the building safety remediation works. A number of key principles relevant to such claims were covered.

Relevant defects

The court which determined the case, known as the First Tier Tribunal (the “FTT”), held that a defect to which the new remedy was to be applied was “anything done (or not done) or anything used (or not used) in connection with relevant works” which “causes a building safety risk”.

Non-compliance with the Building Regulations was “merely one, not the only, way in which something could be a ‘defect’”.

A ‘building safety risk’ is defined under the BSA as “a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from (a) the spread of fire or (b) the collapse of the building or any part of it”. The FTT considered that any risk above ‘low’ risk may be a building safety risk. ‘Low risk’ is understood as the ordinary unavoidable fire risks in residential buildings as an assessment that fire spread would be within normal expectations.

‘Just and equitable’

Another key requirement is that a remediation order can be made where the court decides it is “just and equitable to do so”. Previous decisions of the court on that point were based on providing a remedy for remedial works, with the emphasis “on protection of leaseholders/residents and helping to expedite remedial action.”

It was considered to be helpful to ask whether the relevant remedial works or costs were within a reasonable range. In particular, while it was accepted that some of the remedial works at Vista Tower were not proportionate, the advice to Grey GR was that they were necessary.

As to whether any respondent should be subject to the order, the court accepted that the just and equitable test is broad. It allowed for flexibility in determining liability to ensure funding for necessary remediation work is accessible and prompt or “so that the money can be found”. It also noted that the financial status of respondents should not significantly influence the decision to issue a remediation contribution order.

Edgewater, as the developer, was a “key target, at the top of the hierarchy of liability”. It was found that Edgewater had known of combustible materials in the external wall and had failed to address any defects itself.

Grey GR was also found to be a defendant on a just and equitable basis having been on notice of the fire defects, but which purchased Vista Towers a year after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

There were over 90 other parties who were potentially to be included in the list of those responsible. Ultimately, all but 15 of that group were made subject to the remediation contribution order. In doing so, the court worked its way through a corporate web of companies in order to determine how to apply the new remedy which applies in respect of “associated persons”.

The BSA continues to be developed and applied regarding the issue of building safety defects, and as to how it applies to those only indirectly associated with the original development group.