AC-2024-LON-0001595 - [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Following receipt of the Transfer Request the SoS received a letter from the Deputy Mayor of London dated 21 September 2023, and from the RMCs dated 25 September 2023, setting out objections to the transfer of the buildings to Rydon for remediation works. These letters were not provided to Rydon for comment at the time. On 27 September 2023, officials met with the RMCs and KDG.

The SoS sought further information from Rydon, to evaluate the Transfer Request and the feasibility of the works proposed. Rydon provided various responses in early October 2023, and officials from the Department discussed those responses with representatives of Rydon by videoconference on 9 October 2023. Rydon’s proposed works were to the PAS 9980 standard.

The SoS commissioned a third party (Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd) to review and advise on a desk-top assessment submitted by Rydon identifying the scope of works. Jacobs’ conclusion was that Rydon’s proposed approach to the remediation was “a reasonable alternative” and that Jacobs would support the Transfer to Rydon if that was the approach the Department chose to take.

The Department collated information relevant to the Transfer Request and produced a detailed decision dossier (“Dossier”) considering all relevant matters then before the Department. The Dossier, which is described by the SoS as “a working document which evolved over time”, was used to inform submissions developed for consideration by the SoS. The Dossier sets out various considerations deemed to be relevant to the Designation Decision (and the Clause 7.7(B) Decision and Clause 13.2 Decision).

A Ministerial Submission (“the First Submission”) was prepared and put to the SoS on 14 December 2023 for a decision as to both designation and transfer. The version of the First Submission before the Court is partially redacted for reasons of Legal Professional Privilege. Whilst this is queried by the Claimant, no issue arises before me on the question of privilege. The First Submission summarised the issues as:

“(1)

Whether to ‘designate’ Rydon Group Holdings Limited (‘Rydon’’) as a developer that is unfit to carry out or procure remediation for which it is responsible under the Developer Remediation Contract and – if you decide not to designate Rydon – (2) whether to accept a request by Rydon, a signatory of the Contract, to take responsibility for remediating [the Cable Street Buildings] that are in the Building Safety Fund (BSF)”.

The First Submission contained the ‘Recommendation’ that the SOS: (i) notes that the case is being brought to his attention because “it carries a higher than usual legal and reputational risk, and may involve a clause in the Contract that has not been material to previous transfer decisions”: (ii) decides whether to designate Rydon under Clause 7.7 of the Contract; (iii) if he decides to so designate Rydon, decide the route by which the Cable Street Buildings should be remediated choosing between Option 1A (which would require Rydon to fund the RE to carry out remediation to a scope set against PAS 9980) or Option 1B (which would leave the buildings in the BSF with the effect that they would be remediated to the now withdrawn CAN standard with Rydon being expected to reimburse the Department); and (iv) if he decides not to designate Rydon, decide whether to agree or to reject the request to transfer the responsibility for remediating the Cable Street Buildings to Rydon. The First Submission did not recommend rejecting the Transfer Request due in part to the fact that Rydon was already involved in carrying out remediation works elsewhere. It was estimated that under Option 1A, the scope of works would be around £0.6m whereas under Option 1B, it would be £10.7m.

The First Submission had four annexes, A to D. Annex A was the letter from the Deputy Mayor of London dated 21 September 2023. Annex B was Rydon’s letter requesting the Transfer.

Annex C to the First Submission sets out an “Analysis of evidence on whether to designate Rydon” and highlights certain matters arising out of the fact that Rydon’s conduct and performance in connection with building safety has been under consideration by the Inquiry, and which the SoS may consider potentially relevant to his decision. These included the evidence that Rydon’s failings reflected the “prevailing culture and practice in parts of the industry”, that there will likely be other developers guilty of similar practice whose BSF transfer requests have been met; that Rydon may be able to evidence changes in its practice and management since the impugned refurbishment of Grenfell Tower in 2014/15; and that such refurbishment was carried out by Rydon Maintenance rather than Rydon Group.

Annex D to the First Submission sets out an “Analysis of Rydon’s transfer request using standard criteria”. Of the eight criteria (a) to (h) set out in the Policy Document, Annex D identifies the following as being the most pertinent:

a)

– whether the Department has confidence that the developer will meet the target timelines under the Contract;

b)

– whether the BSF applicant has a legitimate expectation that works would continue in the BSF;

h)- whether the developer is deemed to be a Designated PD.

The First Submission advised that there was insufficient evidence in relation to (a) and (b), and that (h) was dependent on the Designation Decision.

The SoS indicated his initial decision by way of a readout on 4 January 2024. That initial decision was to designate Rydon under Clause 7.7 of the Contract, for the Cable Street Buildings to be remediated to the CAN standard, and for Rydon’s designation to apply in respect of all buildings where works were ongoing. A draft decision letter to that effect was produced and put to the SoS on 8 February 2024.

A second ministerial submission (“the Second Submission”) was sent to SoS on 8 February 2024. This recommended that SoS designate Rydon in respect of the Cable Street Buildings but recommended that he should not make a decision about the status of the buildings where work is not confirmed, complete or at an advanced stage “in order to avoid unnecessary delay to remediation”. The Second Submission went on to recommend that the SoS send a letter to Rydon in the form of a draft provided to inform Rydon of the decisions made. In a readout to the Second Submission, the SoS confirmed that whilst he had decided to designate Rydon in respect of the Cable Street Buildings, he would not issue a direction in respect of those other buildings.

The SoS’s reasons for his decisions are set out in the final approved Decision Letter of 28 February 2024.