Beyond the developer: the expanding reach of Remediation Contribution Orders in England

An entity does not need to have designed, constructed, owned or profited from a building to face a Remediation Contribution Order ("RCO"). A qualifying association with the developer or landlord may be enough. Recent decisions confirm that the jurisdiction is deliberately broad and capable of reaching well beyond the entity that carried out the development works.

This is the first blog in our series on orders that can be made under the Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA"). We begin with RCOs: what they are, who may be exposed, what the recent cases tell us and what developers, landlords and investors should be doing now. Later posts consider Remediation Orders ("ROs") and Building Liability Orders ("BLOs"), and how the three remedies may interact.

What is a Remediation Contribution Order?

Section 124 of the BSA allows an “interested person”, including a leaseholder, landlord, local authority or the Secretary of State, to apply to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) for an RCO. Before considering whether an order would be “just and equitable”, the FTT must be satisfied that the application concerns a relevant building and a relevant defect, seeks an eligible category of costs and is made against a person within the statutory categories.

A relevant building is one that is at least 11 metres high or has at least five storeys, and contains at least two dwellings. The relevant defect must give rise to a building-safety risk arising from the spread of fire or structural collapse.

If those requirements are met, an RCO may require a body corporate or partnership to contribute towards the cost of:

1. remedying the relevant defect; 
2. taking relevant steps in relation to the defect to prevent or reduce the likelihood of a fire/structural collapse, or to reduce its severity (for example, installing an alarm system or operating a waking watch pending permanent remediation); 
3. expert reports; and/or 
4. providing temporary accommodation where this is needed.

An RCO can be made against:

• a current landlord;
• a former landlord as at 14 February 2022;
• a developer; or
• a person “associated” with any of these categories.

Section 121 defines association broadly and it is a wider test than that used for BLOs. It includes common directorships during the five-year period ending on 14 February 2022, as well as group-company and partnership relationships. Once the statutory gateways are established, the FTT has a broad discretion to decide whether making an RCO against the proposed respondent would be just and equitable.

How does an RCO differ from other BSA remedies?

An RCO is intended to secure a financial contribution without requiring an applicant first to establish contractual or tortious liability. Conduct may still be relevant to the FTT's discretion, but fault is not a separate statutory condition. Unlike an RO, which requires defects to be remedied, an RCO requires a specified entity to contribute financially. Unlike a BLO, it is made by the FTT and does not depend on first establishing a “relevant liability” against another company.

When will it be “just and equitable” to make an RCO?

Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership [2025] EWCA Civ 846 and Edgewater (Stevenage) Ltd and others v Grey GR Ltd Partnership [2026] UKUT 18 (LC) confirm that the test is broad and fact-sensitive. It is not a neutral balancing exercise: the statutory purpose of securing remediation and protecting leaseholders informs the FTT's discretion.

The applicant must explain why an order would be just and equitable. That evidential burden is generally modest where the respondent's place in the development or corporate structure and the statutory purpose point towards a contribution. The respondent should then provide specific evidence explaining why an order against it would be inequitable; failure to engage substantively may count heavily against it.

What do the recent cases tell us?

In Triathlon, RCOs were sought against the original developer and its well-capitalised parent after serious fire-safety defects were identified in five residential blocks in the former Olympic Village. The Court of Appeal upheld the orders and confirmed four points:

1. Developer primacy: the BSA creates a clear hierarchy. Parliament intended that a developer (or its associate) sit at the top of the funding chain.
    
2. Public funding is a last resort: the existence of the Building Safety Fund does not make an RCO unnecessary. On the contrary, the public purse should not be the interim funder where a developer or associated company is available and able to pay.
    
3. Motivation is irrelevant: the applicant's motive – whether altruistic or self-interested – is largely irrelevant. Parliament has created the remedy; eligible parties are entitled to use it.
    
4. No need to exhaust other remedies: applicants are not required to pursue contractual or tortious claims before seeking an RCO. Section 124 of the BSA is designed precisely to avoid that delay.

Why it matters: Triathlon confirms that an RCO is not merely a remedy of last resort. Public funding or other private-law claims will not necessarily protect a developer or an associated company.

The appeal remains live, with the Supreme Court due to hear the appeal on 19 November 2026.

In Edgewater, the FTT made RCOs against 76 companies associated with the original developer of Vista Tower, holding them jointly and severally liable for more than £13 million. The respondents included entities linked through common directorships and group structures. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeals and gave the following guidance:

1. Joint and several liability is permissible: the BSA does not prohibit joint and several RCOs. While by no means the starting point in every case, where the tribunal considers it just and equitable, it may impose collective liability without apportionment.
    
2. No requirement for direct involvement or benefit: there is no statutory requirement that a respondent must have carried out the works, received profits, or even been actively involved in the development. Association alone can suffice.
    
3. Evidential silence is dangerous: the tribunal was entitled to draw adverse inferences where respondents failed to explain the nature of their corporate relationship, the absence of benefit or why liability would be unjust. The FTT was entitled to conclude that the RCOs were just and equitable, given its finding that the respondents were not discrete SPVs but formed part of a wider, opaque corporate structure which they had failed to adequately explain in their evidence.
    
4. Appeals face a very high bar: the FTT's discretion under section 124 is fact-sensitive and will only be interfered with on public law grounds such as irrationality. Disagreement with the outcome is not enough.

Why it matters: Edgewater shows that entities at the periphery of a corporate structure may still face liability and that a respondent which does not explain its position with evidence risks leaving the tribunal to draw adverse conclusions.

What should developers, landlords and investors do now?

1. Map historic associations
   Identify relevant group entities, common directors, dormant companies and partnership links during the statutory period. Corporate separation alone will not provide protection.
    
2. Engage early
   Respondents must engage early and substantively with RCO applications. Silence or generic resistance may increase the likelihood of a finding of joint and several liability.
    
3. Preserve the evidence
   Retain records explaining each entity's role, funding, benefit and relationship to the development. The FTT will expect a respondent to explain with evidence why an order would be inequitable in its particular case.
    
4. Review transactions and funding strategy
   Address potential RCO exposure in due diligence, warranties, indemnities and insurance analysis. Public funding or claims against the supply chain should be considered alongside, not instead of, possible RCO liability.

Conclusion 

RCOs give the FTT a deliberately flexible route to place remediation costs on developers, landlords and associated entities. Recent decisions show that corporate distance, public funding and the availability of other remedies may offer limited protection.

The direction of travel is clear: corporate separation alone will not protect an entity where the FTT considers it just and equitable for that entity to contribute.

In the next blog post of this series, we consider ROs and how they can be used to secure the carrying out of remediation works.