Brady Solicitors advises managing agents, freeholders, RTM companies and leaseholders on Building Safety Act proceedings, including remediation orders, remediation contribution orders and service charge disputes.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 made headlines for its changes to lease extensions and collective enfranchisement. Less commented on were six amendments it made to the Building Safety Act 2022, all of which are now in force, and several of which affect proceedings already underway. This article examines each of the amendments and their practical implications.
When the changes took effect
The six sections came into force in two waves. Sections 117, 118 and 119 came into force automatically on 24 July 2024, with Sections 114, 115 and 116 following on 31 October 2024.
| Section | Date in force | What it does |
| s.117 | 24 July 2024 | RTM/ RMC companies can pass Remediation Contribution Order litigation costs through the service charge (where the lease allows). |
| s.118 | 24 July 2024 | Repeals s.125 BSA 2022; resolves conflict with insolvency law over where recovered funds go. |
| s.119 | 24 July 2024 | Insolvency practitioners must notify regulators within 14 days when appointed over a building 11m or 5 storeys high. |
| s.114 | 31 Oct 2024 | Defines ‘relevant steps’ (eg waking watch) and brings their costs within the Schedule 8 protections. |
| s.115 | 31 Oct 2024 | Remediation orders can now cover relevant steps as well as defect remediation; FTT expert report directions made enforceable. |
| s.116 | 31 Oct 2024 | Remediation contribution orders can now cover waking watch, expert reports, and decant costs, including costs already incurred. |
The July 2024 Changes
Section 117: Costs recovery for RTM and RMC companies
Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 normally prevents freeholders from passing Building Safety Act litigation costs through the service charge. Section 117 creates a limited exemption: RTM companies and resident management companies can recover the legal and professional costs of pursuing a remediation contribution order via the service charge, but only where the lease already permits it. The exemption does not apply to freeholders, and it only covers services provided on or after 24 July 2024.
Before this change, the prevention on cost recovery created a practical barrier to obtaining specialist advice. Where legal and professional costs could not be recovered through the service charge, the case for instructing solicitors before deciding how to proceed with remediation works was harder to make commercially. Section 117 does not change that position for freeholders, but it does open a route for the right company structure.
Section 118: Resolving the insolvency conflict
Section 125 of the Building Safety Act 2022 created an unintended problem. Where a freeholder enters insolvency, amounts recovered under the Act could legally flow to creditors rather than being applied to remediation. Section 118 resolves this by repealing section 125 in full, with consequential amendments across sections 116 to 121 and section 164(1)(c) of the Building Safety Act 2022.
Section 119: Insolvency notifications
When an insolvency practitioner is appointed in relation to a responsible person for a higher-risk building or a relevant building (11 metres or 5 storeys or more), they must now notify the local authority and fire and rescue authority within 14 days. For higher-risk buildings (7 storeys or 18m+), the Building Safety Regulator must also be notified. The duty applies to practitioners appointed on or after 24 July 2024.
The October 2024 changes
These three sections expanded what can be sought in remediation proceedings, and they apply retrospectively. Pending applications can benefit under sections 115 and 116; costs incurred before 31 October 2024 can be claimed under section 116. This sits within a broader retrospective approach to the Building Safety Act confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and, by a majority, in Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point. Both decisions are under appeal to the Supreme Court on retrospectivity grounds, with permission granted in November 2025.
Section 114: Defining ‘relevant steps’
Before this section, remediation orders and contribution orders did not expressly include interim safety measures. Section 114 adds a definition of ‘relevant steps’ to section 120 of the Building Safety Act 2022, with the steps intended to prevent or reduce the likelihood of a fire or collapse of the building or any part of it as a result of a relevant defect, reduce the severity of such an event, or prevent or reduce harm to people in or about the building. Waking watch patrols and simultaneous evacuation alarms are identified in government guidance as examples. Crucially, section 114 also amends Schedule 8 so that the cost protections for qualifying leaseholders now extend to relevant steps, not only to permanent remediation works.
Section 115: Remediation orders expanded
The First-tier Tribunal can now order a relevant freeholder to take relevant steps (such as implementing a waking watch) as part of a remediation order, not only to remedy defects by a specified date. In addition to that, Section 115 also makes FTT directions requiring a relevant freeholder to produce an expert report enforceable through the county court. The section applies to proceedings pending on 31 October 2024.
Section 116: Remediation contribution orders expanded
This is the amendment with the widest practical reach. Section 116 broadens the scope of remediation contribution orders to expressly include costs incurred or to be incurred in taking relevant steps, costs incurred or to be incurred in obtaining an expert report, and temporary accommodation costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with a transfer that took place or is to take place. Temporary accommodation costs include the accommodation itself, plus removal, storage and reasonable travel costs. Section 116(7) has two independent limbs: the amendments apply to pending proceedings and to new applications (limb (a)); and they apply to costs incurred before as well as after 31 October 2024 (limb (b)). These operate independently and pre-October costs can be claimed in a new RCO application, not only in one that was already pending.
What we see in practice
The waking watch point is one we’ve encountered directly. In buildings where fire alarm systems were inadequate, managing agents had no choice but to put in 24-hour patrols at around £4,000 a day for some buildings. The costs went through the service charge, and the challenges to the reasonableness of those charges followed. Before the October 2024 amendments, including those costs in a remediation contribution order was an open question. That question has now been answered expressly by section 116.
We have also seen the cost recovery constraint that section 117 addresses. The prohibition on passing litigation advice costs through the service charge meant those costs could not be recovered in many cases, which created a real practical barrier to taking specialist advice before deciding how to proceed with remediation. Section 117 does not change the position for freeholders, but for an RTM company or resident management company where the lease allows cost recovery, it removes that barrier.
On the insolvency side, we have advised RTM companies on their obligations where the responsible party’s financial position was uncertain. Section 119’s notification requirements give regulators a clear route to engage during insolvency proceedings, which in practice means buildings are less likely to fall through the cracks while liability is being resolved.
Frequently asked questions
When did the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 changes to the Building Safety Act come into force?
Three sections (117, 118 and 119) came into force automatically on 24 July 2024 under section 124(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Act. The remaining three sections (114, 115, 116) came into force on 31 October 2024 under SI 2024/1018.
Can waking watch costs be included in a remediation contribution order?
Yes, since 31 October 2024. Section 116 expressly includes costs incurred or to be incurred in taking relevant steps, which covers waking watch. The amendment applies to costs incurred before as well as after that date, and to pending proceedings as well as new applications.
Can an RTM company recover its legal costs of pursuing an RCO through the service charge?
Section 117 creates a limited exemption to the Schedule 8 restrictions for RTM companies and resident management companies. Recovery through the service charge is only permitted where the lease already allows it. The exemption does not apply to freeholders.
Do the October 2024 amendments apply to Building Safety Act proceedings already underway?
Yes. Sections 115 and 116 apply to proceedings pending on 31 October 2024 as well as proceedings commenced after that date. Section 116 also applies to costs incurred before that date regardless of when proceedings were started. Any pending RO or RCO application should be reviewed in light of the expanded scope.
Get advice
The Building Safety Act 2022 is a complex piece of legislation, and every building presents different facts. These amendments expand what is available in remediation proceedings, but applying them requires careful analysis of the specific lease, building, and circumstances. If you are dealing with an RO or RCO application, a waking watch dispute, or an insolvency scenario involving a relevant building, we would recommend taking specialist advice before proceeding.
