In the recent First-tier Tribunal decision of City of Lincoln Council v Plantview Limited, the Council sought a remediation contribution order (RCO) under the Building Safety Act 2022 against Plantview Limited in slightly unusual circumstances.
Plantview was the freeholder of One the Brayford in Lincoln, a mixed-use building (residential flats with commercial premises on the ground floor).
On 25 April 2025 Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Authority served a prohibition notice that One the Brayford “must not be used for sleeping or resting on a permanent and/or temporary basis…”
Some residents left the property between 25-29 April 2025, and the City of Lincoln Council arranged and funded emergency accommodation over that weekend and subsequently secured other temporary accommodation, all of which it paid for, which it said it did in accordance with its statutory duties as a local housing authority.
On 1 October 2025, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Authority withdrew the prohibition notice. It is not entirely clear whether any action had been undertaken to the building between April and October. The Fire and Rescue Authority in their letter of withdrawal stated ”the matter….have now been removed or remedied”. Plantview’s position was that the prohibition notice had been wrongly issued and was invalid. Plantview was in the process of appealing the notice when it was withdrawn.
The Council claimed against Plantview for its direct cost of re-housing residents as well as the cost of staff overtime and legal costs in connection with the re-housing. The tribunal was asked to decide as a preliminary issue whether such a claim could be made.
Under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which deals with RCOs, a local authority for the area in which the building is situated is an “interested person” and can seek such an order.
Section 124 has been amended by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to provide that temporary accommodation costs (which are defined) can be the subject of a RCO.
The First-tier Tribunal therefore decided that
the cost of temporary accommodation are costs that can be subject to a RCO
1. the overtime and legal costs of the Council could not be subject to a RCO. The tribunal found section 124 (5) to be of “central importance”. This clause defines temporary accommodation costs including both:
2. the overtime and legal costs of the Council could not be subject to a RCO. The tribunal found section 124 (5) to be of “central importance”. This clause defines temporary accommodation costs including both:
- 2.1 the costs of accommodation
- 2.2 other costs resulting from the decant, including removal costs, storage costs and reasonable travel costs. The Tribunal drew a distinction between these costs which it felt were “outward” facing as opposed to overtime and legal costs which it felt were “internal” facing.
3. The fact that the Council had or would incur the temporary accommodation costs pursuant to its statutory duties as a local housing authority did not preclude the recovery under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022 did not prevent the making of an RCO.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.