The Building Safety Act 2022 is one of the most significant reforms to construction law in recent years. Its purpose is to raise standards in the design, construction and management of buildings. In turn the objective is to ensure greater safety across the built environment.
What Has Happened in 2025?
Through the Remediation Bill and other reforms, the government has expanded enforcement powers to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. Registration requirements are also being extended to residential buildings over 11 metres. This allows regulators to take a broader perspective of building risks.
Principal contractors now face tighter fire safety duties at the building control approval stage, meaning compliance must be demonstrated earlier in the process. A revised Construction Products Standard has been introduced, strengthening the ability of regulators to act against unsafe or non-compliant materials. As the built environment is forever changing revisions are likely to been seen close in the future.
The government is also working with developers on a voluntary joint plan to accelerate remediation. New transparency rules will soon require companies to disclose ownership details through Companies House. Together, these measures signal a stronger regulatory approach with greater accountability and clarity of duties.
Remediation
A key aim of the Act is to ensure that anyone involved in unsafe construction contributes to the cost of putting it right. To achieve this, the government is introducing a Building Safety Levy. The levy applies to new residential developments in England that require building control approval. The levy will apply regardless of building height and will sit alongside the UK-wide Residential Property Developer Tax.
Pinsent Masons highlight that, although originally expected sooner, the levy will now take effect in October 2026. It will be charged when building regulation approval is sought and calculated on a per-square-metre basis linked to average house prices. Rates will vary by local authority, with a 50% rate for brownfield sites. Certain developments will be exempt, including social housing, hospitals, schools, temporary accommodation and schemes of fewer than ten dwellings.
The Responsible Actors Scheme, introduced in 2023, reinforces this principle. Eligible developers must register and comply with its conditions or face restrictions on planning permission and building control approval. Together, these measures are designed to generate significant funding for remediation while embedding safety considerations into projects from the beginning.
What does this mean for projects?
For those delivering projects, the Act introduces a clearer and more structured framework for compliance. The BSR now oversees the Gateway regime for higher-risk buildings, scrutinising design and construction information before work can progress. Developers and contractors will need to maintain detailed records at every stage to demonstrate how they are meeting safety obligations.
The National Regulator for Construction Products brings greater certainty to the use of building materials. It places a new emphasis on due diligence in procurement and supply chains. For consumers, the New Homes Ombudsman will provide a formal route to redress. The ombudsman will allow purchasers of new homes to escalate complaints about defects to an independent body.
What have the courts said?
Alongside regulatory reform, the courts have reinforced the policy aim that leaseholders should not bear the financial burden of unsafe construction.
In URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd, the Supreme Court confirmed that developers can recover remediation costs from consultants. They confirmed that s135 of the Act allows limitation periods to be extended for such claims. Aligning with the government’s policy, those responsible for defective work should pay to put it right.
In the case of Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, Triathlon was the long leaseholder. The five buildings were developed by SDVP, a limited partnership and the freeholder of the development.SDVPs three partners were ultimately owned through subsidiaries by Get Living. However, Get Living did not own SDVP at the time of development. The development was then owned by the Olympic Delivery Authority. Through subsidiaries, Get Living also held the long leases to all the private rented housing in the blocks.
The Court confirmed that Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs) can be used to recover costs incurred before the Act came into force.
Remediation Contribution Orders Clarified
Falcon Chambers note that there was no dispute between the parties that the “jurisdictional” or “gateway” requirements necessary for an RCO to be made had been satisfied. There were “relevant defects” in a “relevant building.” Triathlon qualified as an “interested person,” and both SDVP and Get Living fell within the definition of a “specified body corporate or partnership.” The principal issue between the parties was whether it was “just and equitable” to make the order sought in respect of the remedial work currently being carried out to the blocks.
The ability to apply for an RCO is a new and independent remedy, essentially non-fault based. An important factor is that the policy of the Building Safety Act is for primary responsibility for remediation costs to fall on the original developer. The First-tier Tribunal therefore decided that Triathlon was entitled to RCOs against both SDVP and Get Living in respect of the cost of rectifying the defects in the blocks.
Conclusions
The BSA continues to change and adjust the way projects are delivered, and disputes are resolved. The provisions show a clear policy, under which, accountability should rest with those who created the unsafe conditions. In contrast, those on the other end of the process (such as tenants) should be protected. With new regulatory powers, financial contributions from developers, and recent case law reinforcing the principles behind the Act, the construction industry is taking greater responsibility to produce higher standards. For those involved in projects, compliance is no longer just a matter of good practice. It is a legal and financial necessity that will likely define how the industry operates in the years ahead.