Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar v De Valk

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has dismissed Almacantar’s appeal and confirmed that leaseholders with qualifying leases at Centre Point House do not have to pay service charges for the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding, even though the façade defects originated in the 1960s - long before the Building Safety Act’s 30-year “relevant period.” The judgment in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 & No.2 v Penelope De Valk & Others (2025) is a landmark in Cladding Remediation Case Law, because it squarely answers a question not previously decided: Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 operates independently of the “relevant defect” concept and its 30-year temporal limit. Where cladding forming the outer wall of an external wall system is unsafe, no service charge is payable by qualifying leaseholders - full stop.

The Case in One Sentence

In this cladding remediation case law Almacantar (freeholder) sought to recover service charges for a façade replacement scheme at Centre Point House. The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s outcome that qualifying leaseholders pay nothing for cladding remediation because Paragraph 8 applies to unsafe cladding even if the defect arose outside the Building Safety Act’s 30-year “relevant period” - and the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

Property and Factual Backdrop

Centre Point House (CPH) sits adjacent to the iconic Centre Point Tower. The six-storey residential building contains 36 interlocking duplex flats, most with projecting balconies. Its east and west elevations are a distinctive timber-framed glazed façade with spandrel glazing “wraps,” pressure plates, glazing tapes, and mastic joints - an experimental envelope for its time (constructed 1963–1966; residential conversion circa 1987).

Over decades the façade deteriorated due to water ingress and trapped moisture; timber members degraded and risked failure. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found the façade “inherently defective from completion” and “not in good and substantial repair,” with progressive decay driven by 'interstitial condensation' (the intersection between panels) and failed seals.

To resolve the risks, Almacantar proposed a steel stick curtain wall superimposed on the existing timbers, fixed back to the concrete frame, effectively making the timber non-structural (the “Proposed Scheme”).

Leaseholders challenged liability for service charges, invoking the Building Safety Act Part 5 “leaseholder protections.” The FTT accepted that while the landlord’s repairing covenant captured the works, qualifying leaseholders owed no service charge for cladding remediation. Almacantar appealed.

The Legal Issues on Appeal

The Upper Tribunal granted permission on five grounds (Ground 5 admitted at the Upper Tribunal hearing stage), the first four being central to the outcome:

Does Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 (cladding remediation) require a “relevant defect”?
Almacantar argued that all protections in Schedule 8 turn on a “relevant defect,” which by statute must arise from “relevant works” within the 30-year period ending 28 June 2022. Because CPH’s cladding pre-dated that, Paragraph 8 should not bite. Leaseholders argued Paragraph 8 is deliberately different: it never mentions “relevant defect,” only “unsafe” cladding forming the outer wall of an external wall system.

If Paragraph 8 stands alone, do the CPH façades constitute a “cladding system” forming the “outer wall” of an external wall system?
Almacantar said the façade is the exterior wall itself, not cladding. The FTT (after site view and expert evidence) had found it is cladding attached to an underlying structure—therefore a cladding system.

What does “unsafe” mean in Paragraph 8?
Almacantar contended “unsafe” should be read narrowly as fire-unsafe cladding; the FTT applied a broader, ordinary meaning: anything that presents a safety risk (here, failure of glazing or components falling, risking injury or death).

Assuming (1)–(3) are resolved for leaseholders, does Paragraph 8 capture the Proposed Scheme in full?
The FTT held the Scheme addressed the unsafe outer wall cladding system—so Paragraph 8 applied.

Presumption of “qualifying lease” (Paragraph 13, Schedule 8)
A subsidiary procedural question: how far the FTT’s application of the statutory presumption (treating certain leases as “qualifying” unless the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain certificates) binds the parties. The UT ultimately refused to admit a late point seeking to undermine those findings.

The Tribunal’s reading of the Building Safety Act 2022

Paragraph 8 is autonomous - no “relevant defect” gateway

The UT’s central holding: Paragraph 8 is a distinct protection that does not import the “relevant defect” concept or the 30-year period. The words are “clear and unambiguous”: “No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation.” “Cladding remediation” is then defined only by two elements - outer wall of an external wall system and unsafe - and makes no reference to “relevant defects” or “relevant measures.” The Tribunal found that structure deliberate and faithful to the broader policy intention that leaseholders should not “pay a penny to fix dangerous cladding.”

The Upper Tribunal noted recent appellate guidance (e.g., Adriatic and Triathlon) which treated Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 9 as “categories of costs that Parliament decided should not be claimable at all” from qualifying leaseholders—irrespective of contribution conditions or other gateways. That framing supported the standalone nature of Paragraph 8.

Practical effect: even if historic construction occurred before June 1992 (outside the 30-year window), if the outer wall cladding is unsafe, qualifying leaseholders pay nothing toward its removal/replacement via service charges.

What Counts as “Cladding” and “Outer Wall”?

Almacantar argued the façade was the building’s exterior, not an applied “cladding system.” The UT treated this as a factual issue and saw “no justification at all” to disturb the FTT’s findings: CPH has an underlying concrete frame; onto it are fixed timber ladder frames, glazing, spandrel panels, insulation, and aluminium pressure plates - creating the external envelope that transfers wind load but is non-structural to the building frame. That is “apt to meet the description of cladding.”

On “outer wall,” the UT adopted the approach in Lehner v Lant Street: within an “external wall system,” it is the outer wall (not an inner wall) that brings Paragraph 8 into play. The Tribunal affirmed the FTT’s factual conclusion that CPH’s façade was the outer wall of an external wall system.

“Unsafe” means Unsafe

The UT rejected a narrow “fire-risk only” reading. “Unsafe” gets its ordinary meaning and is not tethered to the “building safety risk” definition used for “relevant defects.” The FTT had found a serious risk to residents and the public (e.g., failure of clamp strips/screws leading to window or spandrel panel detachment) and so held the system unsafe; the UT endorsed that approach. Unsafe can include risks from degradation, not only combustibility.

The “qualifying lease” presumption point (Ground 5)

On Ground 5, Almacantar tried to argue that the FTT’s application of the Paragraph 13 presumption (treating specified flats as qualifying leases) should not be treated as definitive. The UT declined to let the new point in: the FTT had simply applied the presumption because the landlord had not taken reasonable steps to obtain qualifying lease certificates. The UT dismissed Ground 5 as a new, unargued point and left the FTT’s practical findings undisturbed, noting also that “qualifying lease” status is fixed as at 14 February 2022.

Download Judgement

Why this matters: Liability and the “30-year” question

The judgment squarely addresses a tension many practitioners have felt since 2022:

Parts of Schedule 8 hinge on a “relevant defect” in a 30-year window.

Paragraph 8 does not.

By confirming that Paragraph 8 is not confined by the 30-year “relevant period,” the UT has effectively extended the reach of leaseholder non-liability for unsafe cladding to any era of construction—so long as the statutory conditions are met (qualifying lease; cladding forms the outer wall of an external wall system; cladding is unsafe). This is the heart of Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar.

Does this “extend liability” beyond 30 years?

Yes - in a service-charge sense. The BSA’s 30-year period (section 120) sets out what counts as a “relevant defect” and thereby defines other Schedule 8 protections and the powerful Remediation Orders (s.123) / Remediation Contribution Orders (s.124). But Paragraph 8 operates without that restriction. The Tribunal expressly recognised the consequence: where unsafe cladding is not a “relevant defect” (because it predates the 30-year period), leaseholders still do not pay via service charges; leaseholders also cannot seek s.123 Remediation Orders for that non-relevant-defect cladding, and landlords cannot seek s.124 contribution orders for it. Instead, the cost-burden falls where the lease places repairing/remedial obligations - typically on the landlord - without recovery from qualifying leaseholders. That is a real-world extension of financial responsibility beyond the 30-year horizon.

In other words, the 30-year limit does not cap the landlord’s exposure to fund cladding remediation when Paragraph 8 applies; it merely caps the statutory routes linked to “relevant defects.” The Upper Tribunal calls this outcome explicable and consistent with the policy “that no leaseholder living in their own flat would pay a penny to fix dangerous cladding.”

Implications for Stakeholders

Freeholders and Superior Landlords

Budgeting: You may face full funding obligations for unsafe cladding on pre-1992 buildings (and any other out-of-window cases) where qualifying leaseholders are present. Service charge recovery is barred by Paragraph 8.

Strategy: You cannot rely on the “relevant defect” framework to reclaim from leaseholders. Nor will Remediation Contribution Orders assist for non-relevant-defect cladding. You must look instead to other avenues—e.g., contractual claims (warranties if any survive), insurance, third-party recoveries (product claims if limitation allows), or government schemes where available.

Scope of works: Expect close scrutiny of whether the scheme is truly “cladding remediation” and whether each element is tied to the unsafe outer wall cladding system. The FTT had parsed CPH’s fabric in detail; that approach will likely repeat elsewhere.

Managing Agents and RMCs

Certification discipline: The Paragraph 13 presumption matters. If you want to displace qualifying-lease status, you must take “all reasonable steps” to obtain certificates—inaction will leave you presumed liable. The UT left the FTT’s application of that presumption intact.

Resident safety: “Unsafe” is broad. It can capture falling-object risks and facade instability from age-related degradation. Commission competent façade investigations and risk assessments that speak directly to safety, not just “repair.”

Developers and Product Manufacturers

Litigation posture: While the 30-year window shapes DPA claims and BSA product-liability routes, service-charge non-recovery under Paragraph 8 means landlords will look upstream to recover costs. Expect increased pressure to settle or defend long-tail claims where limitation is arguable or where other legal routes exist.

Leaseholders

Powerful protection: If you hold a qualifying lease, you should not be charged for unsafe cladding remediation - regardless of when the cladding was installed - provided it forms the outer wall of an external wall system. Evidence and careful definition of the “cladding system” remain vital.

The Tribunal’s Reasoning : Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar

Statutory construction approach

The Upper Tribunal started with the text of Paragraph 8 and refused to read in extra words. It acknowledged the broader coherence of Part 5 (sections 116–124) and Schedule 8 but stressed that Parliament intentionally drafted Paragraph 8 differently. It saw no drafting error to “correct” under the precent set in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (2000), and it declined to treat overview provisions (e.g., s.116; s.122) as limiting Paragraph 8’s plain words. The Tribunal drew support from Court of Appeal commentary in Adriatic and Triathlon highlighting Paragraphs 8 and 9 as “no service charge payable” carve-outs.

Cladding system and outer wall: facts, not labels

Almacantar leaned on definitions from standards and guidance (including PAS 9980) to argue CPH’s façade wasn’t “cladding.” The Upper Tribunal accepted those materials as context but held that the FTT’s factual evaluation controls after a multi-day hearing, expert evidence, and a site view. The façade is a non-loadbearing external envelope attached to a structural frame - i.e., cladding - and it forms the outer wall of the external wall system. That satisfied Paragraph 8(2).

Unsafe: ordinary meaning, broad application

The Tribunal carefully contrasted the two-limb definition of “relevant defect” (link to “relevant works” + “building safety risk”) with the single word used in Paragraph 8: “unsafe.” The absence of the more elaborate definition signalled intent. The FTT’s finding of serious safety risk (e.g., potential detachment of glazing/spandrel panels due to decayed timbers and failed seals) was enough. The Upper Tribunal expressly rejected the idea that “unsafe” must mean “fire-unsafe.”

Consequences the Tribunal acknowledged

The Upper Tribunal recognised that leaseholders and landlords lose access to certain BSA orders when cladding is not a “relevant defect” (because it predates the 30-year period). That is a trade-off Parliament chose: leaseholders are protected from paying, but they also cannot seek a Remediation Order; similarly, landlords cannot seek Remediation Contribution Orders for those costs. The Tribunal found this entirely consistent with the legislative scheme and public commitments made by ministers.

Practical checklist - Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar

Test the Paragraph 8 elements early

Does the building have qualifying leases (as at 14 Feb 2022)?
Do the works concern removal/replacement of parts of a cladding system?
Does that system form the outer wall of an external wall system?
Is the cladding unsafe (document concrete safety risks, not just disrepair)?

Does the building have qualifying leases (as at 14 Feb 2022)?Do the works concern removal/replacement of parts of a cladding system?Does that system form the outer wall of an external wall system?Is the cladding unsafe (document concrete safety risks, not just disrepair)?

Map what’s in Paragraph 8 vs what’s not

Paragraph 8 costs are not recoverable from qualifying leaseholders.
Non-Paragraph-8 items (e.g., internal works, unrelated repairs) may still be recoverable—be disciplined in cost attribution and scope definition.

Paragraph 8 costs are not recoverable from qualifying leaseholders.Non-Paragraph-8 items (e.g., internal works, unrelated repairs) may still be recoverable—be disciplined in cost attribution and scope definition.

Be rigorous with qualifying-lease certification

If you intend to rebut the presumption, take all reasonable steps to obtain certificates per Paragraph 13. Document those steps. Inaction leaves the presumption intact.

If you intend to rebut the presumption, take all reasonable steps to obtain certificates per Paragraph 13. Document those steps. Inaction leaves the presumption intact.

Think funding stack, not just service charges

Explore insurance, legacy warranties, product claims (subject to limitation), government programmes (where available), and commercial negotiations with historic actors. Paragraph 8’s shield compels creativity.

Explore insurance, legacy warranties, product claims (subject to limitation), government programmes (where available), and commercial negotiations with historic actors. Paragraph 8’s shield compels creativity.

Key Takeaways

Paragraph 8 stands alone. It is not conditioned on a “relevant defect” or the 30-year “relevant period.” If outer-wall cladding is unsafe, no service charge is payable by qualifying leaseholders—regardless of when the cladding was installed.

“Unsafe” is broad. It includes non-fire safety risks such as component detachment from degraded façades; the ordinary meaning applies.

Cladding is a factual question. CPH’s façade was cladding: a non-loadbearing external envelope attached to a structural frame, forming the outer wall of the external wall system. Expect tribunals to rely on site-specific evidence over labels.

Financial exposure extends beyond 30 years (in practice). Even for pre-1992 façades, landlords cannot levy service charges on qualifying leaseholders for unsafe cladding remediation. The 30-year limit still governs relevant defects and BSA orders, but Paragraph 8 bypasses that gate for service-charge recovery.

Procedural discipline matters. The Paragraph 13 presumption will apply unless the landlord takes all reasonable steps to obtain qualifying-lease certificates. Don’t sleep on it.

Appeal dismissed. Almacantar lost on Grounds 1–4; Ground 5 (qualifying lease presumption) was not admitted as a new point and in any event did not undermine the outcome.

Final Thoughts - Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar v De Valk

The decision in Cladding Remediation Case Law Almacantar v De Valk is significant. By refusing to read extra conditions into Paragraph 8, the Upper Tribunal has delivered a clean rule: unsafe outer-wall cladding + qualifying lease = no service charge. For estates with older envelopes and experimental façades, the implications are significant. Freeholders must plan for direct funding of cladding works where the safety case is made out, and project teams must draft scopes and evidence packs that cleanly tie works to the unsafe cladding element.

From an industry perspective, this is Parliament’s policy choice playing out in practice: keeping leaseholders out of the firing line for dangerous cladding, irrespective of when it was installed, and nudging owners, developers, and manufacturers to resolve long-tail safety liabilities by other legal and commercial means. Expect this judgment to be cited frequently in negotiations, Section 20 consultations, and First Tier Tribunal proceedings over the coming year.

Contact

Contact us today to discuss how our cladding remediation advice can support your remediation scheme and ensure its success.

With offices in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester, Norwich & Plymouth we can help with Cladding Remediation schemes on sites across the UK.

Our cladding remediation consultancy advice ensures a meticulous, compliant, and safety-focused approach. Our expertise and dedication to excellence ensure that your building will meet all regulatory requirements and provide a safe environment for its occupants.

For more information on all aspects of this service see the collection of articles in our blog.

For more information on our Cladding Remediation services, please give us a call.

If you would rather we called you please fill in our Contact Us form and a member of the team will call you back.