The decision
The RO was granted some 11 months later. This indicates that applications for ROs will likely be determined expeditiously by the FTT – certainly by comparison to High Court proceedings. The FTT process will be at a comparatively more efficient and cheaper for applications to get results. The key points of interest arising from the decision are as follows...
Application of the Legislation
The Tribunal acknowledged that the BSA is deliberately drafted broadly for it to work for leaseholders.
Burden of Proof
The Respondent argued that the burden of proof was on the Applicants to establish the existence and extent of the defects.
Expert evidence and site inspection
The Applicants did not, surprisingly, adduce their own expert evidence to establish a “relevant defect”.
Date on which a “relevant defect” creates a “building safety risk”
Under section 120 of the BSA, a “relevant defect” is one which “a) arises as a result of anything done (or not done) … in connection with relevant works, and b) causes a building safety risk.”
Scope of Works
The Tribunal recognised the importance of a RO specifying the required scope of works so that the Respondent knew exactly what it should do to remedy the defects.
Standard of remedial works
The Respondent proposed that any RO should require remediation of any defects in accordance with the standards required by the Building Regulations applicable at the time of the original construction.
“Specified time”
Section 123 of the BSA requires the Tribunal to determine a specified time by which the remedial works should be completed.
Newsletter
Subscribe to receive regular insights and event invitations.
Contact
Devonshires Solicitors LLP 30 Finsbury Circus London EC2M 7DT
Follow us
