The appeal of Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development Partnership is due to be heard on 19 March 2025. The appeal will no doubt further test the robustness of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) and address critical issues regarding the allocation of remediation costs and the retrospective application of the Act.

By way of background, Triathlon Homes, the long leaseholder of social and affordable housing in five tower blocks in the former Olympic Village in Stratford, sought Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs) under Section 124 of the Act against the original developer. 

An RCO under the Act is a legal mechanism that allows interested parties to apply to the First-tier Tribunal to require a body corporate or partnership to pay towards remedying specified building safety defects. This order ensures that the costs of essential remediation work are shared by those responsible for the defects, rather than falling solely on leaseholders or residents.

The Tribunal initially ruled that the original developer, Stratford Village Development Partnership (Stratford Village), should bear the costs of rectifying fire safety defects which consisted of both remedial works and remedial measures. More significantly, the Tribunal ordered Stratford Village to pay those costs incurred before the Act's commencement on 28 June 2022.

The appeal which is scheduled to take place next week is expected to address the following key issues: 

Retrospective Application of Section 124: Stratford Village argue that RCOs should not apply to costs incurred before the Act's commencement (i.e. before 28 June 2022) on the basis that Section 124 was not intended to have retrospective effect. 

Responsibility for remediation costs: The policy aim of the Act that the original developer should be responsible for remediation costs is under scrutiny, particularly as the Tribunal did not consider whether Stratford Village were at fault for the defective works (RCOs are a non-fault based remedy). 

“Just and equitable” considerations: The Tribunal's original decision emphasised that it would not be “just and equitable” for costs to be recovered via the Building Safety Fund, which is funded by taxpayers, when responsible parties (such as the original developers) are capable of funding the remediation. 

The outcome of this appeal will be crucial in determining how responsibilities and costs are allocated in similar situations moving forward. If the appeal upholds the Tribunal's decision, it will reinforce the principles of the Act, ensuring accountability for building defects. Conversely, if the appeal overturns the decision, it may prompt a revaluation of the Act's provisions and their application.

Property professionals should closely monitor the developments in this appeal, as it has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Act. The decision will set a precedent for future cases, shaping the landscape of building safety and remediation responsibilities.