---
title: "Remediation Contribution Orders: What the £46.5m Urban Splash Ruling Means for Leaseholders"
url: https://manage.management/blog/remediation-contribution-orders-what-the-urban-splash-ruling-means-for-leaseholders
description: "What a remediation contribution order is, who can apply under section 124 of the Building Safety Act and what the £46.5m Urban Splash ruling means for you."
author: "Franklin Baeza"
published: 2026-11-06T06:34:53.000Z
updated: 2026-11-06T07:36:32Z
categories: ["Maintenance & Safety","Governance & Compliance"]
publisher: Manage.Management
language: en-GB
---

# Remediation Contribution Orders: What the £46.5m Urban Splash Ruling Means for Leaseholders

What a remediation contribution order is, who can apply under section 124 of the Building Safety Act and what the £46.5m Urban Splash ruling means for you.

A remediation contribution order (RCO) is a First-tier Tribunal order under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 that makes a developer, landlord or associated company pay to fix building safety defects. On 5 November 2026 the tribunal ordered five Urban Splash companies to pay £46,500,650 for seven Manchester buildings, by 4pm on 3 December 2026. £741,594 of that goes straight to a resident-side management company, with no reduction, which matters to every RMC and RTM company paying for remediation.

This guide explains what the decision, [Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government v Urban Splash Ltd & Ors [2026] UKFTT 01426 (PC)](https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions/secretary-of-state-for-housing-communities-and-local-government-v-urban-splash-ltd-and-ors-man-slash-00bn-slash-bsb-slash-2024-slash-0001-0007), means for leaseholders and resident directors. It is written by Manage.Management, the UK block management platform for RTM and RMC directors, leaseholders and managing agents.

## Key takeaways

- The tribunal ordered Urban Splash Limited and four related companies to pay £46,500,650, jointly and severally, for remediation at seven Manchester buildings.
- It cut the publicly funded part by 10% to reflect the government's share of responsibility for the wider building safety crisis, but stressed this was not a finding that government caused 10% of the defects.
- Moho Management Company Ltd will receive £741,594 directly, in full, because the 10% reduction only applied to public money.
- A waking watch claim of £218,443.86 failed because the costs were not shown to be reasonably incurred, so evidence is everything.
- Any person with a legal or equitable interest in a building, including leaseholders, RMCs and RTM companies with an interest, can apply for an RCO.
- The Supreme Court hears the Triathlon Homes appeal on whether RCOs can cover costs incurred before 28 June 2022 on 19 November 2026.

## What did the tribunal decide in the Urban Splash case?

The tribunal made RCOs against five companies for £46,500,650 in total, payable by 3 December 2026. It found £60,638,548 (including VAT) had been reasonably spent or was reasonably to be spent on relevant defects across the seven buildings, of which £51,510,063 was funded by the Building Safety Fund.

The application was brought by the Secretary of State in 2024 after the government had paid for the works through the Building Safety Fund. The defects included combustible materials, ineffective cavity barriers and failures of compartmentation, according to [Building magazine's report of the ruling](https://www.building.co.uk/news/urban-splash-ordered-to-pay-government-465m-over-building-safety-fund-claim/5145012.article). The decision was heard by a panel sitting between 27 April and 1 July 2026 and runs to more than 880 paragraphs.

| Building | Amount ordered | Paid to |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Burton Place | £20,659,363 | Secretary of State |
| Moho Building (public funding) | £15,683,023 | Secretary of State |
| Moho Building (management company costs) | £741,594 | Moho Management Company Ltd |
| Chips Building | £4,235,103 | Secretary of State |
| Emmeline House | £1,825,000 | Secretary of State |
| The Box Works | £1,585,849 | Secretary of State |
| Christabel House | £1,324,867 | Secretary of State |
| Sylvia House | £445,851 | Secretary of State |
| Total | £46,500,650 |  |

Source: the [tribunal's full decision](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6aec4f261c837137040e7d83/Urban_Splash_Decision_-_Final.pdf), paragraphs 857 to 882. The Moho public funding figure is net of a £600,000 settlement paid by the architect's companies, which were released from the case after mediation.

## What is a remediation contribution order?

An RCO is an order that requires a specified company or partnership to pay money towards the cost of fixing relevant defects in a relevant building. Under [section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/124), the tribunal can make one if it considers it "just and equitable" to do so.

The building must be a "relevant building" under [section 117](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/117): a self-contained building in England with at least two dwellings that is at least 11 metres high or has at least 5 storeys. A "relevant defect" under [section 120](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/120) is one that causes a building safety risk and arises from works in the 30 years before 28 June 2022.

Since 31 October 2024, amendments by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 make clear that an order can cover expert reports, temporary accommodation when residents are decanted and costs "otherwise in connection with" relevant defects, not only the building works themselves.

## Who can apply for an RCO, and who can be made to pay?

Any "interested person" can apply, and that includes anyone with a legal or equitable interest in the building. The companies that can be ordered to pay are the current landlord, the landlord at 14 February 2022, the developer, and anyone associated with them.

Interested persons listed in section 124(5) are:

- the Secretary of State
- the Building Safety Regulator
- the local authority for the area
- the fire and rescue authority for the area
- a person with a legal or equitable interest in the building or any part of it, which covers leaseholders and resident-owned companies holding an interest
- anyone else prescribed by regulations

"Associated" is defined widely by [section 121](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/section/121). It catches companies that shared a director in the five years before 14 February 2022, and parent or sister companies under common control. In this case, though, the tribunal refused orders against four other respondents, including two family investment companies and a residential investment fund company that did meet the "associated" test. That shows the test is only the gateway; the tribunal still asks whether making that company pay is fair.

## Why did the tribunal knock 10% off?

The tribunal reduced the publicly funded costs by 10% because government shared responsibility for the regulatory failures behind the building safety crisis. It said the cut was a fairness adjustment, not an apportionment of blame.

The panel treated about 20% as the outer limit of any such adjustment and gave the argument less weight because several buildings were found not to have complied with the Building Regulations or guidance at the time. It also held that developers sit at the top of the Act's hierarchy of who pays, and that the Building Safety Fund is a last resort, not a reason to refuse an order.

Crucially for resident-led blocks, the reduction did not apply to the £741,594 the Moho management company had spent itself, because the government-responsibility reason only concerns public money.

## What does this mean for RMC and RTM directors?

If your company has paid for remediation work, this ruling shows the tribunal will order a developer group to repay you in full, provided your costs are evidenced. The Moho management company did not even have to apply itself: section 124(2) allows the order to name any payee.

The cautionary point is the waking watch. The Secretary of State also claimed £218,443.86 for a waking watch and fire alarm installation at Moho. The fire alarm element was dropped, and the tribunal accepted a waking watch was probably necessary, but it rejected the claim because there was no professional or expert scrutiny showing the amount was reasonable (paragraphs 222 to 223). Interim safety costs are recoverable in principle, but only with the paperwork to back them.

Directors of resident-owned buildings should also check whether their block is a relevant building at all. Section 117(3) excludes buildings where the leaseholders have bought the freehold through collective enfranchisement or a right of first refusal, and buildings whose freehold is leaseholder owned. The government's [27 October 2026 announcement](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-people-protected-as-government-acts-to-make-more-homes-safe) proposes new funding for these collectively owned blocks, as covered in our guide to the [Remediation of Unsafe Cladding Bill](https://manage.management/blog/remediation-of-unsafe-cladding-bill-what-it-means-for-leaseholders-and-resident-directors).

## How should a resident-led block prepare for an RCO claim?

Start by building the evidence file now, while invoices and reports are fresh. The steps below follow what the tribunal looked for.

1. **Confirm the building qualifies.** Check the height (11 metres or 5 storeys), the number of dwellings and whether the freehold is leaseholder owned, as these decide whether section 124 applies.
2. **Trace the developer and its group.** Use Companies House to identify the developer, the landlord on 14 February 2022 and any companies sharing directors or under common control.
3. **Get expert reports.** A fire risk appraisal of external walls (PAS 9980) or a structural report defines the relevant defects and their cost, and the cost of the report itself is recoverable.
4. **Tender and document every cost.** Keep quotes, contracts, invoices, payment records and professional sign-off. Use [Section 20 consultation](https://manage.management/blog/section-20-consultation-a-step-by-step-checklist-for-blocks) where the lease requires it.
5. **Justify interim measures.** For a waking watch or alarm, record why it was needed, how the provider was chosen and why the rate was reasonable.
6. **Take legal advice before applying.** RCO cases are long and technical; this one took more than two years. Check whether the government, the regulator or the local authority is already pursuing the same developer.

Keeping these records in one place matters, because the [accountable person duties](https://manage.management/blog/building-safety-act-accountable-persons-what-rmc-and-rtm-directors-are-responsible-for) already require much of the same information. The Manage.Management [building safety tools](https://manage.management/features/building-safety) and [document management](https://manage.management/features/document-management) store reports, certificates and invoices against each building so the evidence is ready if a claim is needed.

## Do leaseholders still pay for remediation while this happens?

Qualifying leaseholders cannot be charged anything for cladding remediation, and their contribution to other relevant defects is capped. These protections in [Schedule 8 of the Building Safety Act 2022](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/schedule/8) apply whether or not an RCO is ever made.

Under Schedule 8, no service charge is payable for relevant defects if the landlord at 14 February 2022 was the developer or associated with it (paragraph 2), or if the landlord group was worth more than £2 million per relevant building (paragraph 3). Leases worth less than £325,000 in Greater London or £175,000 elsewhere pay nothing for relevant defects (paragraph 4). Otherwise, the total cap for non-cladding defects is £15,000 in Greater London and £10,000 elsewhere, rising to £50,000 or £100,000 for leases worth over £1 million or £2 million (paragraph 6).

RCOs matter most where these protections leave a gap: for non-qualifying leaseholders, resident-owned freeholds and management companies that have paid costs themselves. For a wider look at what leaseholders can do when a block is unsafe, see our guide to [leaseholders' rights after the Canning Town evacuation](https://manage.management/blog/block-evacuated-over-a-structural-defect-leaseholders-rights-after-canning-town).

## What happens next?

Urban Splash's companies must pay by 4pm on 3 December 2026, subject to any appeal. The bigger date is 19 November 2026, when the [Supreme Court hears Stratford Village Development Partnership v Triathlon Homes](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0156).

The Supreme Court gave permission on one ground only: whether an RCO can cover costs incurred before section 124 came into force on 28 June 2022. The Court of Appeal said it can. If that is overturned, claims for early waking watches and remediation started before mid-2022 could shrink. Meanwhile, the Remediation of Unsafe Cladding Bill would add a legal duty to remediate, with fines of up to £500,000 for those who fail to act.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can leaseholders apply for a remediation contribution order themselves?

Yes. Section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 lets any person with a legal or equitable interest in a relevant building apply to the First-tier Tribunal. That includes leaseholders, and also RMCs or RTM companies holding an interest. Applicants must show the building qualifies, identify relevant defects and costs, and persuade the tribunal it is just and equitable to order the developer, landlord or associated company to pay.

### Did the Urban Splash ruling find the government 10% responsible?

No. The tribunal reduced the publicly funded costs by 10% as a fairness adjustment, reflecting the government's accepted share of responsibility for the wider building safety crisis. It said expressly that this was not a finding that government caused 10% of the defects or costs. The reduction did not apply to the £741,594 spent by the Moho management company.

### Can a waking watch be recovered through an RCO?

In principle, yes. Interim safety measures such as a waking watch can fall within an RCO as costs connected with relevant defects. In the Urban Splash case, though, a £218,443.86 waking watch and fire alarm claim failed because there was no expert or professional evidence that the amount was reasonable. Keep procurement records, quotes and reasons for every interim measure.

### Does an RCO apply to a building the leaseholders own?

Usually not. Section 117(3) of the Building Safety Act excludes buildings where leaseholders have collectively enfranchised or used a right of first refusal, and buildings whose freehold is leaseholder owned. These blocks fall outside the main remediation regime. The government announced on 27 October 2026 that it plans new funding for internal fire safety defects in collectively owned and enfranchised buildings.

### How long does an RCO claim take?

Expect a long process. The Urban Splash orders were sought in 2024 and decided on 5 November 2026, after a hearing of more than two months. Smaller single-building claims can move faster, but applicants still need expert evidence on defects and costs, corporate records showing who is associated, and legal advice. Check whether a public body is already pursuing the developer first.

## Make the developer pay, with evidence

The Urban Splash ruling confirms that developer groups at the top of the Building Safety Act's hierarchy will be made to pay, and that resident-side companies can recover their own costs in full. The difference between winning and losing a cost item was the quality of the evidence. Directors who keep reports, tenders and invoices organised now will be best placed to recover them later.

Last reviewed: 6 November 2026 by Franklin Baeza, Manage.Management. This article is general information for England and Wales, not legal advice. Check the current position with a qualified adviser before acting.

---

Source: [Remediation Contribution Orders: What the £46.5m Urban Splash Ruling Means for Leaseholders](https://manage.management/blog/remediation-contribution-orders-what-the-urban-splash-ruling-means-for-leaseholders) on the Manage.Management blog.