Remediation Orders: What does “relevant defect” mean?

The First tier Tribunal’s January 2026 decision in Canary Riverside Estate marks one of the most influential interpretations to date of the Building Safety Act 2022 and sets a clear direction for how “relevant defects” and “building safety risks” will be assessed going forward. 

Background

By way of a reminder, a Remediation Order under the Building Safety Act 2022 is an order to require a relevant landlord to remedy ‘specified relevant defects’ in certain buildings within a timeframe.

A relevant defect is defined as a defect arising as a result of anything done (or not done) or anything used (or not used) in connection with relevant works; and b) which causes a building safety risk. 

Building safety risk is itself defined as a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from a) the spread of fire; or b) the collapse of the building or any part of it. 

A relevant defect is also a requirement for a remediation contribution order.

Key points:

1. The Canary Riverside decision extends the scope of “relevant defect”: The Tribunal confirmed that any risk of fire spread or structural collapse, however small, is sufficient to constitute a “building safety risk”. This lowers the bar for establishing a relevant defect and broadens the scope of buildings and construction features that may fall within the regime - but the judgment also recognises that not every defect will require building work to remedy/address/mitigate, it is a matter of discretion as to whether an order is made, although the Tribunal did not give any further guidance on how this discretion might be exercised.
2. Historic compliance is not a defence: The Tribunal also made clear that defects must be assessed using current knowledge and as assessed as at the date of the hearing, rather than the Building Regulations in force at the time of construction. 

This approach was evident in the Tribunal’s detailed examination of seven external wall types at Canary Riverside. 6 of the 7 were found to contain relevant defects, despite some having received “low” risk ratings under PAS 9980 assessments.

This means that a PAS 9980 ‘low’ rating is not the only decisive factor in determining a relevant defect and cannot, on its own, be relied upon to avoid liability. 

The Tribunal made this very clear stating: “Our task is to determine whether there is a building safety risk present, not whether the risk is a low or tolerable one, and we consider that a risk is present.” 

The references to building safety risk is to any risk however small. There is no threshold test.  The Tribunal went on to say that in determining whether there is a building safety risk, it is more useful to determine the degree to which there has been compliance with Building Regulation B3 and B4 and that compliance with Approved Document B may not of itself be sufficient. 

What does this mean for developers and building owners? 

Developers and building owners may face remediation obligations for what they perceive to be an acceptable level of risk and even where construction was compliant at the time the building was built.

Practical implications for remediation projects and property management 

1. Expect wider and deeper investigations
   The low threshold for a relevant defect means that more intrusive surveys, testing and fire engineering input - even where previous assessments suggested minimal risk, should be anticipated .
2. Estate wide remediation strategies
   Mixed use and multi block estates will require coordinated approaches, with consistent treatment of wall systems and fire stopping issues across buildings.
3. Revisit contractual and insurance positions
   Given the complexity in passing liability back to contractors, developers and owners should review historic warranties, latent defects insurance and indemnities to understand exposure.
4. Evidence 
   Because defects are assessed based on present day knowledge, expert evidence is critical. Owners /managers seeking to resist Remediation Orders or Remediation Contribution Orders will need comprehensive fire engineering and structural assessments that go beyond regulatory compliance at time of build.
5. Expect increased use of Remediation Orders and Remediation Contribution Orders
   The Tribunal’s readiness to impose both orders signals an assertive enforcement environment.

In short: Canary Riverside resets expectations for the building safety landscape.  The decision confirms an expanded interpretation of “building safety risk,” prioritises modern standards over historic compliance and places substantial responsibility on building owners (and potentially developers subject to, for example Remediation Contribution Orders).  For those involved in remediation project or management of buildings, proactive planning, comprehensive investigations and strategic risk management are now essential. 
 
And finally, one further thought from this decision, the definition of a building safety risk includes as one possibility, ‘ the spread of fire’.  This includes ‘flames, heat, light, gasses and smoke generated from burning material’

Click here for the decision.

This decision on what amounts to a risk under section 120 of the Building Safety Act has received support from the Upper-tier Tribunal’s decision issued on 27 January 2026 relating to the appeal regarding remediation contribution orders in what is commonly known as the Vista Towers case.

Our content explained