[2025] UKUT 157 (LC)

The authors of the MAF report did not attend the hearing; there was no need for the leaseholders, who relied upon their report, to call them because there was no dispute about the contents of the report. Indeed, by the date of the hearing MRL had put together a specification of works and put it out to tender.

In its later decision the FTT summarised what happened at the hearing on 27 March. It said that at the outset of the hearing it “put to the parties its concerns” that the building might be a higher risk-building, that the recommended works did not include dealing with substantial amounts of timber on the walkways, balconies and roof terrace, that the courtyard contained wooden planters and planting, and that it wanted to know what account had been taken of the risks generated by the bin store, flat entrance doors, louvres and panels to windows and balconies. The FTT decided to adjourn the hearing; it wanted the authors of the MAF report to have the opportunity to consider and respond to the FTT’s concerns.

Mr Selby KC explained to the FTT at the March hearing that MRL no longer wanted to work with MAF and, if required to produce a further report, it wanted to instruct Building Envelope Fire Solutions (“BEFS”). He asked for a direction listing precisely what the FTT wanted BEFS to report on. The FTT gave directions for the hearing to be re-listed and for it to conduct a site visit on the day of the adjourned hearing. It set out the following requirements (the “Respondent” of course being MRL):

“5.

The tribunal (being satisfied that the cladding to the external courtyard

walls is a Relevant Defect and that it will be included in a Remediation

Order) is concerned regarding the following issues:

Whether the following are a relevant defect and their remediation be

required in a Remediation Order

(a)

Balconies

(b)

Communal walkways

(c)

Flat entrance doors

(d)

Louvres and panels

(e)

Roof terrace

(f)

Bin store

Whether the flat entrance doors are identified as relevant defects.

Confirmation of and proof of remediation of communal doors.

6.

The Respondent to provide a report from Building Envelope Fire

Solutions which addresses Relevant Defects (as defined by the Building

Safety Act 2022) and the extent to which remediation works are required

to the above, and if so in what respect.”