Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill: What developers and landlords need to know

The Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill (“Bill”) received its first reading in the House of Lords on 9 June 2026. Introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, it proposes a significant expansion of the protections and remediation framework established by the Building Safety Act 2022 (“Act”). If enacted, it would substantially shift how responsibility for historical building safety defects is allocated across the residential leaseholder sector.

At this early stage, the Bill’s prospects are uncertain. Private Member’s Bills in the House of Lords do not benefit from guaranteed parliamentary time and many do not progress beyond second reading. Nevertheless, the Bill identifies perceived gaps in the current regime and proposes solutions that may influence Government policy or further legislation. Developers, building owners, investors, funders, professional advisers and managing agents would be well-advised to familiarise themselves with its key proposals, summarised below.

Prohibition on passing remediation costs to leaseholders

The Bill would prohibit the recovery of remediation costs for “systemic defects” from protected leaseholders in any residential building in England and Wales containing one or more leasehold properties. Notably, there would be no minimum height or storey threshold – a marked departure from the Act’s current regime, which differentiates between higher-risk buildings (“HRBs”) (in England, being buildings at least 18m tall or with at least seven storeys, with at least two residential units) and buildings of at least 11 metres or five storeys (again, with at least two residential units). Any lease or contractual term purporting to impose such liability on a protected leaseholder would be void.

Protection would extend to any leaseholder of a dwelling in a relevant building, (unless they were at any material time the developer), with no long-lease, residence or property-number requirement. Service charge demands for remediation costs would be void, and leaseholders who have made such payments on or after 14 February 2022 could seek repayment through the First-tier Tribunal within six years.

If this is enacted, residential investors, building owners and managing agents would need to reassess service charge strategy, acquisition due diligence and leaseholder communications across mixed portfolios, not only HRBs.

The “Systemic Defect”

The Bill introduces the term “systemic defect” to describe a defect arising from design, construction, conversion, extension, alteration, refurbishment or repair that was not caused or contributed to by the leaseholder, and presents an immediate or potential risk to safety. Listed categories include unsafe cladding, deficient fire stopping or fire breaks, unsafe balconies, structural deficiencies, compartmentation failures, and electrical, gas or utility defects in common parts. Additional categories may be specified by regulations. The burden of proving a defect falls outside these categories rests on the building owner or responsible person.

This broader definition means remediation risk extends well beyond cladding, and the expansion of “relevant building” may increase litigation around whether leaseholders contributed to a defect.

Joint and several liability for responsible persons

Remediation costs would be imposed on a joint and several basis on the developer, the building owner at the time of the relevant works, the contractor, and any manufacturer or supplier of a defective component. The current building owner may also be liable unless it can demonstrate that:

• it neither knew nor could reasonably have discovered the defect at the time of the acquisition, and
• had taken all reasonable steps to identify and pursue responsible persons.

The insolvency of one responsible person would not extinguish the remediation liability of the others.

Historic project records, supply-chain evidence and acquisition due diligence would become central to assessing remediation risk.

Building Safety Regulator (“BSR”) enforcement powers

The BSR would be empowered to investigate breaches, issue remediation notices, apply to the High Court for injunctions, and prosecute offences. Remediation notices would require interim or emergency safety works within six months, and all other works within 24 months. Criminal exposure would fall on responsible persons who fail to comply without reasonable excuse, potentially including the developer, building owner, relevant contractors, manufacturers and suppliers. Responsible persons would be required to apply for a remediation completion certificate.

Building owners, developers and managing agents would need robust systems for responding to BSR notices, monitoring deadlines and coordinating evidence of completion.

Consequences for non-compliant developers

A developer who is a responsible person for an unremediated systemic defect would be prohibited from commencing, continuing or completing any new residential development, or from applying for planning permission, until remediation is complete. Planning authorities would be required to refuse permission to prohibited developers. The Secretary of State would maintain a public register of developers – broadly comparable to the existing Responsible Actors Scheme, but with further statutory force.

Developers and investors with residential pipelines would need to factor unresolved remediation liabilities into planning strategy, transaction timetables and funding arrangements.

Recoupment from manufacturers and suppliers

The Bill would provide developers and other responsible persons who have incurred remediation costs a right to claim in the High Court against the manufacturer or supplier of a defective product, regardless of that entity’s country of operation. The manufacturer or supplier would bear the burden of proving compliance with applicable building regulations and standards at the time of installation. Claims must be commenced within six years of costs being incurred. Secondary legislation may address procedure, including group proceedings.

Developer licensing

The Bill proposes a licensing regime for developers of “large residential buildings”. A large residential building is defined as either 11 metres high or at least five storeys. Operating without a BSR-issued licence would be a criminal offence. Licensing criteria would include not being subject to a development prohibition under the Bill, no director or senior officer conviction under the Act, and suitable arrangements for identification, reporting and remediation of building safety defects. The BSR would publish a register of licences granted, refused, suspended or revoked.

Interestingly, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommended licensing for principal contractors working on HRBs, rather than developers. 

Residential developers and funders would need to treat licensing status and compliance history as core diligence items, with consequences for corporate governance, timetables and funding conditions.

Leaseholders’ rights and remedies

Protected leaseholders would be given a right to require the building owner to disclose, within 28 days, all fire safety and structural assessments, BSR correspondence, warranty and insurance documentation, identity of responsible persons, and any remediation programme or timetable. Leaseholders who suffer loss would be entitled to bring claims in the County Court or the First-tier Tribunal, with a limitation period that would not commence until the leaseholder knew or ought reasonably to have known of both the defect and the identity of the responsible persons. Recoverable losses would expressly include increased insurance premiums, interim protection costs (such as fire monitoring patrols), mortgage or remortgage costs attributable to the defect, and diminution in value.

Additionally, the Bill would require the appointment or designation of a Leaseholder Remediation Ombudsman within 12 months of passage, and the Secretary of State would be obliged to publish and annually update a Remediation Acceleration Plan.

Building owners, managing agents and professional advisers would need to prepare for more structured information requests and potential claims, while leaseholders and resident-led companies may have clearer routes to information and redress.

What to watch

The Bill’s second reading has not yet been scheduled, and significant amendment is likely if it progresses. Several areas are left to secondary legislation – including developer licensing detail, recoupment claim procedure, and group proceedings – meaning the full practical impact would not be known until regulations are made.

Whether or not the Bill achieves Royal Assent, it articulates the direction in which some stakeholders wish to see the remediation regime travel. Stakeholders across the sector would do well to consider its implications now.

The Government’s position on the Bill is not yet clear, though in this year’s King’s Speech it announced its own plans for a Remediation Bill to close loopholes enabling recourse against construction product manufacturers, alongside the Government’s remediation acceleration plan. That plan sets deadlines to remediate HRBs of 18 metres or more by end of 2029, and buildings of 11–18 metres by end of 2031. The Government’s Remediation Bill will also contain sanctions (potentially including criminal prosecution), and a third party such as Homes England may be given backstop rights to step in and carry out works where the responsible party has failed to do so.

For more developments and insights on Building and Fire Safety, please see here.

This Insight is for information purposes and you should seek professional advice on your particular circumstances. Please contact Niamh Tenison, Richard Flenley or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact, if you have any queries.