For years, discussion about the Building Safety Act 2022 was dominated by cladding. The images from Grenfell, the remediation debates, 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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
The practical implication is considerable. Defects in buildings completed as far back as 1992 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 be destroyed.
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:
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.
For Fire Alarm Systems, the records that fulfil this requirement align with BS 5839-1:2025 - the standard covering design, installation, commissioning and maintenance for non-domestic Fire Alarm Systems. For Emergency Lighting, the equivalent documentation baseline is BS 5266-1:2025. A BAFE SP203-1 Registered contractor's maintenance programme is structured specifically to produce the service logs, test certificates and as-installed records that standards require.
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.
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.
If you are not sure where your building stands, Blake Fire & Security Systems offers a free review of your Fire Alarm and Emergency Lighting documentation and provision. Family-run and Essex-based since 1979, we are BAFE SP203-1 Registered for Fire Alarm design, installation and maintenance and BAFE SP203-4 Registered for Emergency Lighting - both backed by NSI Gold accreditation since 2005. A clear documentation review today means you know exactly where you stand if an enforcement officer, loss adjuster or court asks tomorrow. Call us today on 01702 447800 or email info@blakefire-security.co.uk to arrange your free review. 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.
A Building Liability Order (BLO) is a court tool created by section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It allows courts to extend liability for building safety defects from the original contractor to other companies in the same corporate group - meaning parent companies, subsidiaries and associated entities can be made jointly and severally liable for remediation costs. In April 2026, the Technology and Construction Court granted anticipatory BLOs against the Ardmore group over Fire Safety defects at Admiralty Quarter, Portsmouth - the first time the tool was used before final liability was determined. For building owners, BLOs signal that historic defects cannot be escaped through corporate restructuring.
Yes. The Building Safety Act defines "building safety risk" as any risk to the safety of people in or about a building - including the spread of fire. In Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership, the Court of Appeal in July 2025 upheld a Remediation Contribution Order that expressly included waking watch costs, temporary Fire Alarm servicing and fire evacuation officer costs. If temporary Fire Alarm servicing is a recoverable cost under the Act, a permanently defective or unmaintained Fire Alarm sits squarely within the same framework. Building owners treating the Building Safety Act as a cladding law only are working from an out-of-date position.
Section 135 of the Building Safety Act amended the Limitation Act 1980 to create a 30-year retrospective window for rights of action that accrued before 28 June 2022, confirmed by the Supreme Court in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21. Defects in buildings completed as far back as 1992 can now, in principle, form the basis of a claim. Records previously assumed safe to destroy under a six-year limitation assumption may now carry real evidential value. Responsible Persons should not dispose of historic Fire Safety documentation - service logs, commissioning records and test certificates - without considering this extended window.
The golden thread is a statutory digital record-keeping regime for higher-risk buildings - at least 18 metres or seven storeys high, with two or more residential units - that came into force on 1 October 2023. For Fire Safety, it must include Fire Detection and prevention systems (alarm systems, sprinkler installations, Fire Doors), maintenance logs and up-to-date certification of equipment, including Fire Alarms. Failing to transfer these records when building responsibility changes hands can result in prosecution, a fine and up to two years' imprisonment. Blake Fire & Security Systems' BAFE SP203-1 Registered Fire Alarm maintenance produces the service logs and test certificates that support golden thread compliance.
Five actions follow from the Building Safety Act's enforcement direction. First, identify whether your building is higher-risk (at least 18 metres or seven storeys, with two or more residential units) - this determines the full golden thread regime. Second, audit whether commissioning records, service history, certification and test logs actually exist for your Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems. Third, stop disposing of historic Fire Safety records: the 30-year retrospective window makes six-year limitation assumptions outdated. Fourth, confirm that the person named as the Responsible Person has a genuine legal understanding of the role. Fifth, where doubt exists, commission a qualified review - a compliant system is cheaper to maintain than a prosecution to defend.
