[2025] UKUT 298 (LC)

In our view the FTT was correct in its construction of the word “unsafe.” There is no justification for limiting the ambit of paragraph 8. The words used are clear and unambiguous and no limitation is included relating to “fire risk”. As we have already observed, the definition of “relevant defect” includes a number of conditions which relate to works done or not done and which result in a “building safety risk” as defined. Those restrictions have not been applied to paragraph 8 and we consider that the word “unsafe” must be given its ordinary and natural meaning.

So far as the suggestion that the resulting impact on landlords would be extraordinary we adopt Mr Bates’ submissionthat this simply accords with the policy of the BSA and as observed in Adriatic in the Upper Tribunal “what might be seen as unfair results are… simply a reflection of life in the new world of the 2022 Act.”

Accordingly we dismiss Grounds 1 to 4 of the appeal.