Who Pays for Safety? Lessons from Almacantar v de Valk

In this Newsflash episode, Lizzie Collin sits down with Richard Snape, Head of Legal Training at Davitt Jones Bould to discuss the Upper Tribunal decision in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anor v Penelope de Valk & Ors. They explore leaseholder protections under Part 5 of the Building Safety Act, including what constitutes a “relevant defect,” how cladding remediation is treated, and the implications for qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders.

Richard and Lizzie discuss:

 • How the Tribunal considered what constitutes a “relevant defect” under Part 5 of the Building Safety Act.
 • The significance of qualifying versus non-qualifying leaseholders in determining liability for service charges.
 • How the ruling clarifies the treatment of cladding remediation and structural safety risks.
 • Key takeaways for landlords, leaseholders, and practitioners managing building safety compliance and historic defects.

The case highlights ongoing uncertainty in building safety law and demonstrates the importance of careful drafting, strategic advice, and understanding leaseholder protections when negotiating property rights. This episode explores the court’s approach to historic defects and cladding issues, offering insight relevant to those involved in service charge management.

Other Cases Mentioned:

•  Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anor v Penelope de Valk & Ors [2025]

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking.This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Transcript

Hi, Richard.

Hello. What have you been doing since I last saw you?

Well, yes, we just got off the webinar. 10 minutes ago, 15/20 minutes ago, I've made a coffee. So we're here to talk about a case from the upper tribunal from the 16th of September, and it's a case called Alma canter centre point nominees number one, and Penelope de vulc and others, if I pronounce any of that right, and it's about the leaseholder protections in part five of the Building Safety Act. So we've done a few podcasts on Centrepoint before. So can you give us a bit of background into this one?

Yeah, it's features and not just building safety. I believe features in cases galore. This is Centrepoint house, and then the Centrepoint tower, which is linked to it, which is in what's in central London, Tottenham Court Road, Oxford Street, St Giles, High Street, well known sort of center I mean, center point towers was one of the first skyscrapers in London. And remember we did a case, for instance, soft moths and Secretary of State about all the easements which involved center point. Back in 1979 it was built of a novel design, which means it's falling to bits, basically between 1963 and 1966 was center points, kind of complex. And say it was built with timber frame work, at hard timber framework and timber so windows and they were set in. There was single glazing within the timber, and then there was cladding beyond it. And it's yet another of these, like a case which clarifies things that should have been clarified all other already, because they should have been included within the Building Safety Act itself, not least of which the definition of planning, you know, which is fairly fundamental to what the ACT intends, intended to do. So that's some of the background. What happened some time ago is, well, it's had problems from, from its inception, from it's actually been built as center point house, but they the there was a design defect whereby the the window frames had little gaps in them, which were necessary for some reason, the expansion and the likes and the spandrels at the bottom as well, and it was allowing water ingress, and the water ingress was dislodging the Windows, and Windows started to fall on people. Well, not on people, but they still didn't fall out. So Alma Cantor, who are the owners, the freeholders wanted to carry out work and add the cost of service charge. And 13 of the including Penelope de Volk, which is a great name, objected the one they wanted to charge the lease holders was just over, over 250,000 pounds each be a service charge. It's quite amazing to do this work, but these three people, these 13 people, sorry, objected on the grounds that the building safety, at least all the protections, the badly drafted piece of legislation them to man, would prevent them charging via service charge, because they were qualified. Qualifying leaseholders we discussed in courses before, but I won't go into the detail the old day if we're trying to explain what qualifying leaseholder is. But the gist of it is that you're a qualified leaseholder from February the 14th, 2022 Valentine's Day, they then leaseholder on a long lease of more than 21 years. It was their principal home, or they didn't have more than three dwellings anywhere throughout the UK. That's that's a simplification in the extreme, but that's the gist of it. And the service charge leaseholder protections were there for applying. Should I tell you what the problem was? Yes, please. Oh, there was several issues, but primarily it's within the definition of a relevant defect. You can't charge qualifying leaseholders for relevant defects, but a relevant defect is defined under Section 120 of the Building Safety Act as anything done or not done, or anything used or not used in connection with the works and causes a building safety risk and the relevant defects is also relevant steps. Nowadays, you have to take steps to protect or minimize risks. But relevant defects, or defects going back 30 years when we're in the legislation, or this part of the legislation came into force, which was June the 28th 2022 so going back to June the 28th 1992 and the initial defects went back to the mid 1960s that was the landlord's argument. Therefore it. Not a relevant defect, and we can charge you for it. There was also a question mark over, what is actual cladding? Because, again, you know, the legislation amazing. It doesn't make clear what cladding actually is, and also it's got to render the premises unsafe. Landlord was trying to argue that can means unsafe in relation to fire safety. And there was no problem with fire safety. It was just structural problems. And that was the various arguments. First tier tribunal found against the landlord. Shall I tell you what the other tribunal
said?

Yes, please.

It's the same thing. The first issue is it a relevant defect? Does it need to be a relevant defect?

Well, schedule eight of paragraph eight of the the Act says that no service charge is payable under a qualifying lease for cladding remediation. And the of a tribunal basically decided that that means it doesn't have to be a relevant defect. If it's cladding remediation, there doesn't need to be any relevant defects. So it could therefore be defects going back to the 1960s or even beforehand. But they went on to say they so you have to still be a qualifying leaseholder. So the poor non qualifying leaseholders could still be charged a fortune. But not these 13 individuals. They went on to say that that it has to render the property unsafe. And unsafe doesn't mean to be unsafe in relation to fire safety. It could be structural safety too. It could be any meeting that renders the property unsafe. And they said that there's no real definition of what unsafe is in paragraph eight of schedule eight, but it's something that should affect the safety of the building or the residents or members of the public, you know, down on the on the street and the likes and this, you know, potential for things falling on people obviously renders the premises unsafe. So it came within the definition. And the other thing they dealt with is that what constitutes cladding, and they said confirming the refused reverse the Tribunal's decision that it's a question of fact. I mean, it's basic cladding system. In paragraph eight is defined as forming the outer wall of an external wall system. And so you couldn't claim for you still have to pay for an inner wall. But the outer wall, on the facts, was plus the windows therein was unsafe. It goes against the guidance, which is non statutory, the government guidance, but they're against so many things the tribe may not have decided over the years do go against the statutory guidance. They also pointed out that Michael Gove, who was behind this when he was the Secretary of State for leveling up, sort of made clear that people shouldn't have to pay for unsafe buildings and the likes. And therefore that was within the you know what the legislation intended. So the landlord couldn't charge the qualifying leaseholders, but could charge if you were non qualifying leaseholder, because the status of the leaseholder on February the 14th, 2022

So why is this case significant? What are the implications?

Well, it's yet another example in England, the building safety Wales builders now being published for Wales, but that's a long way down the line. But in England, then qualifying leaseholders and relevant buildings, meters or more or five or more stories cannot be charged for safety work and cladding and the likes, even if it's cladding, either it's not a relevant defect, and even if the defect goes back 60 odd years and they if you're a non qualifying leaseholder, or you're not in a relevant building because it's only 10 meters in height or four stories, let's say you can be charged huge sums. The latest discussion is that lots of solicitors and residential conveyancing, conveyancing practices, I should say, are not doing Building Safety Act properties or think they're not the people you need. We really to worry about and explain the law to other people who are the non qualifying these soldiers or not in relevant buildings. And I would be very, very careful mentioning that, do you realize you could be paying a huge service charge bill because there's no caps. Why they had to have this sort of distinction between qualifying and non qualifying leaseholds is beyond me. The Welsh version, which is in very much in its infancy, says that everybody in the 11 meters or five story height building will have the benefit of service charge, capsule safety, work, which makes life easier. I suppose the other implications is yet another thing to be wary of, if you'll find the reversion of these blocks. But. You can be charged up. You can't charge qualifying leaseholders yet again, and that's it Lizzie. 

Thank you very much, Richard.