Tribunal orders companies to pay £46m in remediation costs over unsafe materials

In Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v Urban Splash Ltd & Ors [2026] UKFTT 1426 (PC), the FTT (Property Chamber) made RCOs against the following respondents: Urban Splash Limited (R1), Urban Splash Developments Limited (R2), Urban Splash Group Holdings Limited (R3), Urban Splash Work Limited (R4) and Stubbs Mill LLP (R11).

Urban Splash developed each of the buildings, while the other four respondents are associated with it for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), the tribunal found.

Just over £60m worth of costs were incurred or will be incurred in remedying the buildings’ defects, £51m of which will be funded by the Government’s Building Safety Fund.

The FTT said the RCO amount was less than the expenditure funded by the BSF, because of the Tribunal’s finding that the Government shared some responsibility.

Commenting on how it decided which firms were responsible, the FTT said that an entity does not become liable merely because it is a developer or is legally associated with one.

"The developer nevertheless stands at the head of the hierarchy as to who should pay remediation costs, which provides a powerful starting point when applying that test," it added.

It continued: "In the case of an associated entity, the nature and strength of its connections with the developer, the relevant buildings and any wider property-centred enterprise are important considerations in deciding whether it should contribute.

“The fact that the alternative may be to leave costs with the taxpayer is important but does not by itself make an RCO just and equitable."

Applying that test to Urban Splash, the FTT said: "We consider it appropriate to make RCOs against it. [Urban Splash] developed all seven Buildings, procured their design and construction, brought them to market and obtained the commercial benefit of doing so.

"Its connection with the Buildings and the resulting remediation liabilities could scarcely be closer."

Detailing its approach to its RCOs against R2, R3 and R4, the Tribunal said that R2 became the principal vehicle through which Urban Splash continued its property development business following a restructuring in 2013, which meant there was “substantial continuity of ownership, control, personnel, purpose and business identity”.

The FTT meanwhile said that R3 is the ultimate parent company and the point at which ownership and control of the surviving Urban Splash enterprise reside.

"R4 performs a different function, principally owning and managing commercial property, but is a longstanding constituent of the same wider property-centred enterprise, operating under common ownership and control,” it said.

“In each case, the connection goes beyond bare statutory association and provides sufficient justification for an RCO."

According to the decision, R11 was established after the buildings had been completed and had no involvement in their construction.

However, its members are the five individuals referred to during the hearing as "the Urban Splash 5", who comprised the senior leadership of Urban Splash.

A spokesperson for Urban Splash told the BBC: “While we are reviewing it and taking legal advice, our focus is finding a constructive way forward with government while continuing to deliver much-needed homes and regeneration across the country.

"Making buildings safe and protecting residents and leaseholders is of fundamental importance to Urban Splash.

"We have remained closely engaged throughout the remediation process, and we are pleased that the tribunal recognised the 'useful and responsible assistance' Urban Splash provided with the post-Grenfell investigations into these buildings."

The spokesperson said the scale of the liability was "significant for a business of our size".

Martin McKeague, real estate litigation partner at Walker Morris who led a team advising the Secretary of State, said: "This outcome is an important step in the Government’s efforts to recover public money spent on building safety remediation. This £46.5 million decision demonstrates that responsibility for remediation can extend beyond the original developer to the wider enterprise, where it is just and equitable to do so."

The Walker Morris team was led by McKeague and directors Asia Munir and David Manda. Counsel were Kerry Bretherton KC of 39 Essex Chambers, Alexander Burrell of 4 Pump Court, Hannah Fry and Samuel Moss of 39 Essex Chambers.

Adam Carey