For years, the discussion about the Building Safety Act 2022 was dominated by cladding. The images from Grenfell, the remediation debates, and the Building Safety Fund – cladding was the story.
That story changed in April 2026.
In the Technology and Construction Court in London, Mr Justice Constable granted two Building Liability Orders against the associated companies of Ardmore Construction Limited. The case was brought by developer Crest Nicholson over historic Fire Safety defects at Admiralty Quarter, a Portsmouth residential scheme completed between 2007 and 2009. The contractor had entered administration one day before an adjudicator awarded Crest approximately £14.9 million for the defects.
The court extended that liability – including an anticipatory liability for sums yet to be finally determined at trial – across the wider Ardmore group. The message was clear. Corporate restructuring will not let a contractor walk away from historic defects in a building that is still unsafe.
For building owners and Responsible Persons, this judgment is more than a construction law story. It signals that the full weight of the Building Safety Act is now being brought to bear on historic defects. And that the definition of “building safety risk” in the Act is broader than many have assumed.
What is a Building Liability Order, in plain English
A Building Liability Order, or BLO, is a tool created by section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It allows a court to extend liability for building safety defects from the company that originally did the work to other companies in the same corporate group.
In practice, if a contractor went out of business, changed name or restructured to isolate historic work, a court can now extend liability across the wider corporate group. Parent companies, subsidiaries and “associated” entities can be made jointly and severally liable for the cost of the remediation.
Fenwick Elliott, writing on the first BLO ever granted in December 2024, described the effect:
“BLOs represent a significant change from the usual principle that a company is solely responsible for its liabilities and allow the Court to hold associated companies accountable for building safety failings, following the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
The Admiralty Quarter ruling pushed the tool further than the courts had gone before. It was the first time a BLO had been made anticipatorily, before liability was finally determined. And it was the first time a BLO had been used to enforce an adjudicator’s award. Mark Lennon, the Gateley Legal construction partner who acted for Crest Nicholson, summarised the effect:
“This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for the construction industry. It significantly strengthens the ability of developers and building owners to recover remediation costs and reinforces the principle that those responsible for building safety risks will ultimately be held to account across group structures.”
That approach sits within a wider direction of travel confirmed at the highest judicial level. The Supreme Court, in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, stated:
“A central purpose and policy of the BSA in general, and section 135 in particular, was to hold those responsible for building safety defects accountable.”
The takeaway for any Responsible Person is simple. The courts now have the tools, and they are using them.
What counts as a “building safety risk”?
This is the point that matters most for day-to-day facilities management.
The Building Safety Act defines “building safety risk” as a risk to the safety of people in or about a building. It covers the spread of fire and structural failure. Cladding is the most familiar example. It is not the only one.
The Act’s remediation framework – specifically the Remediation Contribution Order, or RCO, under section 124 – has already been used to recover the cost of active fire protection work. In Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, the Court of Appeal in July 2025 upheld an order against the developer and its parent Get Living plc. The order required them to contribute approximately £18 million towards Fire Safety remediation. The recoverable costs expressly included:
- Waking watch arrangements
- Temporary Fire Alarm servicing
- Fire evacuation officer costs
If waking watch and temporary alarm servicing count as “relevant steps” under the Building Safety Act, a permanently defective or unmaintained Fire Alarm system sits squarely within the same framework.
As of April 2026, no standalone BLO or RCO case has been brought where a defective Fire Alarm, inadequate Emergency Lighting or suppression failure was the single cause of action. Every reported case so far has involved cladding or passive fire protection. But that gap is a gap in case law, not in the statute. The legal framework is in place.
Building owners and managers who still think of the Building Safety Act as “a cladding law” are working from an out-of-date map.
The 30-year retrospective: how far back does liability reach?
In URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court resolved one of the most contested provisions of the Act. Section 135 amended the Limitation Act 1980. The new framework is:
- 30 years retrospectively for rights of action accruing before 28 June 2022.
- 15 years prospectively for rights accruing on or after that date.
- 15 years for new section 2A Defective Premises Act claims, covering refurbishment and remedial works.
The practical implication is considerable. Defects in buildings completed as far back as 1995 can now, in principle, form the basis of a claim under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. The Supreme Court confirmed that the retrospective window also extends to “onward” claims in negligence and contribution, not only to direct claims. The Court described section 135 as “both forward and backwards-looking”.
For building owners, this changes the risk profile significantly. Design flaws in a Fire Detection system installed in the late 1990s or early 2000s, uncorrected for twenty years, are no longer time-barred simply because they are old. Records that were thought safe to dispose of under a six-year limitation assumption are now a liability to have destroyed.
The golden thread: why Fire Alarm documentation has legal weight
One of the less-discussed but most practical changes introduced by the Building Safety Act is the “golden thread” requirement.
The golden thread is a statutory digital record-keeping regime for higher-risk buildings – defined as buildings at least 18 metres or seven storeys high, with at least two residential units. It came into force on 1 October 2023.
For Fire Safety, the golden thread must include:
- Fire Detection and prevention systems: alarm systems, sprinkler installations and Fire Doors.
- Maintenance logs for regular inspection of Fire Safety equipment.
- Up-to-date certification of safety equipment, including Fire Alarms, Fire Extinguishers and emergency exits.
This is not guidance. It is a legal requirement. Failing to transfer golden thread information when responsibility for a higher-risk building changes hands can result in prosecution, a fine and up to two years’ imprisonment.
The wider message behind the requirement is the one that matters most. Fire Alarm commissioning records, as-installed drawings, service logs and test certificates are no longer “just paperwork”. For higher-risk buildings, they are a statutory record. For every other building, they are the evidence you will rely on the moment a question is asked. Whether that question comes from an enforcement officer, a loss adjuster or a court, the records speak for themselves.
What a Responsible Person should be doing right now
This is an informational overview, not legal advice. Your Fire Risk Assessment and a competent Fire Safety professional should determine your exact obligations for your specific building.
The courts have made their direction of travel clear. The practical implications for those carrying duties under the Building Safety Act and wider building safety regulations come down to five things.
- Know which category your building falls into. A higher-risk building (at least 18 metres or seven storeys, with 2 or more residential units) carries the full golden thread regime. Other buildings still carry duties under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, but the documentation expectations differ.
- Check what records actually exist for your Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems. Commissioning documents, service history, certification and test logs should be accessible, current and complete.
- Do not dispose of old Fire Safety records based on an assumption of a six-year limitation. The 30-year retrospective window means historic records may now carry real evidential value.
- Be clear on who the Responsible Person is. Not in name only, but with a proper understanding of what the role involves in law.
- Where there is doubt, get a qualified view. A compliant system is cheaper to maintain than an incident or a prosecution to defend.
If you are not sure where your building stands, a short review can set out the current position of your Fire Alarm and Emergency Lighting documentation and provision. The Building Safety Act is not going backwards. The buildings that are ready for it will pass through the coming years very differently from the buildings that are not.