Judgment in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anr v De Valk & Ors

On 16 September 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) handed down in its decision in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anr v De Valk & Ors [2025] UKUT 298 (LC), an appeal against the FTT’s determination that paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 prevented Almacantar, the freeholder landlord, from recovering the costs of replacing the original 1960s façade on Centre Point House, part of the Centre Point estate near Tottenham Court Road, from leaseholders who hold qualifying leases, on the basis the façade works are “cladding remediation” for the purposes of paragraph 8.  The original façade comprises a timber-frame and single-glazed windows above spandrel panels.  Over time, its condition had deteriorated and it now requires full replacement.  The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding the works to ‘the façade’ is ‘cladding remediation’ within the meaning of paragraph 8.

This is the second decision in the Upper Tribunal on the construction of paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the BSA (the other case was Lant Street [2024] UKUT 135 (LC)), but this case raised several issues which had not been considered before.  If the Upper Tribunal’s decision stands, then the current position is that:

1. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 “is simply outside of the main leaseholder protection scheme” in that it is not a provision which concerns the remediation of relevant defects, nor is ‘cladding remediation’ a relevant measure to address relevant defects.
2. What is ‘cladding’ falls to be determined as a question of fact, as does the question of whether the ‘cladding system’ is ‘unsafe’, which does not have a limited ambit and encompasses a range of threats to the safety of the building or its residents or nearby members of the public.
3. In consequence:

a) anything of whatever age that can properly be described as a  ‘cladding system’  and that is ‘unsafe’ will fall within the scope of paragraph 8, regardless of whether it is unsafe due to fire, structural issues or other as a result of other hazards or safety concerns;

b) leaseholders cannot seek remediation orders and landlords cannot seek remediation contribution orders in relation to ‘cladding remediation’;

c) the 30-year timeframe that applies to ‘relevant defects’ is of no relevance such that it does not matter when the ‘cladding system’ was placed on a building or when it became ‘unsafe’ – the mere fact the ‘cladding system’ is ‘unsafe’ is sufficient to engage paragraph 8 and prevent a landlord from recovering any service from those who hold qualifying leaseholders;

d) the explanatory notes published with the BSA and which suggest otherwise must, therefore, be wrong;

e) the Upper Tribunal in giving guidance in Lant Street was wrong to suggest that one of the steps to take when deciding whether paragraph 8 is engaged is to ask whether “the relevant measures in respect of which the service charge is claimed comprise the removal or replacement of any part of a cladding system”.

4. A landlord, on advice, who genuinely (if wrongly) considers the BSA is of no application to their remediation works and thus does not call for leaseholder certificates, nevertheless runs the risk of the FTT determining which leaseholders hold a qualifying lease.

Martin Hutchings KC and Harriet Holmes, instructed by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, act for the appellants.

Read the full judgment