Author: admin

The recent decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) in Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.1 Ltd & Anor v Penelope de Valk & Others [2025] UKUT 298 (LC) offers clarity on how courts will interpret the recovery of cladding remediation cost through service charges under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022).

The Facts

Almacantar Centre Point Nominees No.1 Limited and Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No.2 Limited (Almacantar) are the freehold owners of Centre Point House, 15A St Giles High Street London WC2H 8LW (CPH). Around 1987 a substantial part of CPH, which was constructed in the 1960s, was converted into residential leasehold flats and it currently comprises 36 duplex flats.

CPH has a hardwood timber-framed window façade, which has deteriorated over several years. Almacantar proposed a scheme to address the deterioration of the façade and sought a determination from the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), as to liability for the costs of the proposed works to remedy the defective façade.

The FTT held that the proposed works did fall within the landlord’s repairing obligations, and the leaseholders would be liable under the service charge provision to contribute to the remediation costs. However, the FTT found that several of the leaseholders, who held qualifying leases, were entitled to rely on the “leaseholder protections” under the BSA 2022 and were not required to pay any part of the service charge attributable to “cladding remediation”.

Almacantar appealed the decision.

Upper Tribunal Decision

Relevant Defect

A central issue for the UT was whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 of the BSA 2022, which exempts qualifying leaseholders from paying service charges for cladding remediation should be interpreted independently of sections 116 and 122 of the BSA 2022. These sections provide that only certain service charges linked to “relevant defects” are not payable; “relevant defects” would include works carried out in a 30-year period from when the provision came into force, so from 28 June 1992.

The UT held that Paragraph 8 is clear and unambiguous, it protects qualifying leaseholders from payment of the cost of remediation of unsafe cladding. Paragraph 8 was not limited by reference to “relevant defect”, and no additional qualification should be read into it.

The UT held that although other parts of the BSA 2022 provide a structured package of leaseholder protections to the 30-year limit, paragraph 8 operates separately and does not fall within that package of remediation. It was held that Paragraph 8 mitigates against the time-limit in respect of unsafe cladding.

Cladding System or Not?

Almacantar raised a technical argument that the façade of CPH is not separate cladding, which could form part of any “cladding system” under Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 BSA 2022. They argued that the façade at CPH is not an outer skin, instead it forms the exterior of the building itself. Accordingly, the proposed works would not constitute cladding remediation works.

The UT held that the question of whether a building includes cladding is one of fact. The requirement under Paragraph 8 that cladding remediation involves the “outer wall of an external wall system” does not require two separate systems. It was held that the FTT correctly classified CPH’s cladding as a cladding system.

Meaning of Unsafe

The definition of cladding remediation under Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 of the BSA 2022 includes the removal or replacement of any part of a cladding system that is “unsafe”. Almacantar argued that the term “unsafe” should be narrowly interpreted to mean inherently unsafe cladding, primarily posing a fire risk and should not cover cladding becoming unsafe over time through degradation or structural decay over time. A broader interpretation, they said would have sweeping consequences, capturing many older buildings, which they claimed Parliament could not have intended.

The UT held that the use of the term “unsafe” is broader than a limitation to fire risk, they agreed with the FTT that unsafe means something more than simply out of repair and encompasses a range of threats to building safety, residents and the public. In this case evidence showed serious degradation at CPH, including loose panels, failing timber and compromised external seals which created a real safety risk.

Qualifying Leases

The status of the leases was initially uncertain, however, the FTT relied on the presumption outlined in paragraph 13 of Schedule 8 BSA 2022 and determined that the leaseholders held “qualifying leases” as defined in section 119 of the BSA 2022. As a result, they were entitled to the protections afforded to qualifying leaseholders. Almacantar argued that the FTT had wrongly made an unqualified factual finding about which leaseholders held qualifying leases, instead of merely applying the presumption. On this point, the UT held that the FTT’s application of the presumption stands.

Almacanter did not take any action to challenge this presumption, such as requesting a “leaseholder deed of certificate” from the tenants in accordance with the Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc) (England) Regulations 2022.

Takeaways

• The UT has confirmed that leaseholder protections under the BSA 2022 stretch further than many expected, meaning cladding remediation costs may be more likely to sit with landlords.
• Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 BSA 2022 is a clear standalone shield, meaning that qualifying leaseholders cannot be charged for cladding remediation costs irrespective of the defect’s age.
• Early due diligence and legal input are critical. Landlords should review lease terms now, request the “leaseholder deed of certificate” early and challenge qualifying lease status where possible to limit future exposure.
• Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been granted, which will provide landlords with further certainty on the position.

AMES, Iowa – From the surface of the moon to the fields of Iowa, the Soil Machine Dynamics Laboratory at Iowa State University applies innovative science to solve problems. 

Laboratory Director Mehari Tekeste, associate professor of agricultural and biosystems engineering, works closely with students, industry and government agencies to better understand interactions between machinery and soil resources. Any given day, that can include wear-testing equipment design and research for space excavation missions or researching levels of soil compaction to expect from agricultural tires. 

Harvesting water from the moon

If the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration finalizes plans to harvest water from the moon, they will likely rely on approaches for calculations of ground engaging tools research from the SMDL. The recent NASA-funded study predicted wear rates for a chisel to harvest water trapped in icy regoliths (layers of unconsolidated rocky material covering bedrock). The project was led by Zamir Syed, with the California company Singularity Solutions, one of Tekeste’s first graduate students, in collaboration with Tekeste and Paul Schafbuch, professor of mechanical engineering at Iowa State.  

A bin of unique soil that Tekeste’s team developed helped simulate characteristics of the moon’s surface conditions. Their modeling challenges included that the chisel tool needed to work in a vacuum and under extreme temperature fluctuations. Data from the tests helped validate modeling to predict how the tool would wear, how long it could be expected to operate and how many of the tools would be needed. Their results were highlighted in a recent issue of Earth and Space on Engineering for Extreme Environments. 

“That was a fascinating project,” Tekeste said. “It was also exciting to work on solving a big challenge like this with a former student, whose company landed the grant.” 

Currently, Tekeste is part of a multi-institutional group reviewing specs of mobility studies on extreme deformable surfaces for a new autonomous vehicle that is part of NASA’s Artemis mission for Mars exploration. 

Studying soil compaction in Iowa

Closer to home, projects have focused on precision tillage and soil compaction, two faces of soil-machine systems for Iowa agriculture. These include gauging the benefits of inflation and deflation flexible agricultural tires on soil compaction and crop yield and studying the impacts of soil compaction caused by pipeline-related construction equipment in Iowa fields. A recent SMDL study showed that farm cultivator sweep wear was significantly better for a new edge-hardened sweep, compared to the standard sweeps farmers have been using. The lab’s modeling also predicted using the optimized sweeps would result in yield improvements from precision seed-bed establishment. Tekeste now has three grants from different companies to perform similar farm equipment testing on soft soil conditions. 

“Primarily, we serve as an independent testing center that provides scientific data to develop and validate predictive models for decision-making within the grower-machinery equipment manufacture chain,” Tekeste said. 

“It was a bright new day when Dr. Tekeste arrived on campus in 2015 to revitalize the area of soil dynamics that was once a prominent area of research at Iowa State,” according to alumnus Robert Schafer, now retired from USDA ARS. His remarks came during a symposium Tekeste coordinated in May on terramechanics in agricultural soil-vehicle systems. Schafer credited Tekeste with carrying on a legacy of innovative agricultural engineering faculty who led work in the 1950s to improve machine design by better understanding soil-machine behavior. 

“We now have three soil testing bins designed for different purposes. They are a reason people want our help at Iowa State,” Tekeste said. He has created his own artificial soil that provides a controlled environment to test machinery-soil interactions of tires and tracks. He has also developed other tools, like a special penetrometer for on-the-go measurement of soil compaction.

A 2025 project, conducted with doctoral student John Sheriff, agricultural and biosystems engineering, used the soil bins to investigate soil and crop yield impacts from self-propelled sprayer tires equipped with Very High Flexion (VF) agricultural radial tires, that carry 40% more load at the same inflation pressure than standard radial tires. Their key findings were reported in Applied Engineering in Agriculture: 

• Reduced tire inflation pressures for the VF tires created shallower rut depths and bigger contact area, signaling reduced potential for long-term soil compaction.
• Reduced tire inflation also maximized yield potential, as compared to the conventional higher operating tire inflation pressures on self-propelled standard radial tire inflation pressure settings. 

In addition to NASA, support for the lab’s diverse projects has come from private companies, including John Deere, Caterpillar, Vermeer, agricultural tire manufacturers (Micheline, Titan, Firestone, Alliance, CFI), tillage equipment manufacturers (USM Wear Technologies, Yetter, Orthmann, Unverferth, Bourgault Tillage Tools) and from the Iowa State Association of Counties, the USDA Agricultural Research Service and USDA Hatch research funds.

“Farmers in Iowa and beyond can greatly benefit from the SMDL’s research,” said Kapil Arora, field agricultural engineer with Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. “That is especially true related to the work studying soil compaction from heavy equipment and ways to avoid it. Soil compaction can significantly impact crop yields, as it can push soil particles together, reducing soil infiltration capacities and increasing resistance to crop root penetration and development.” 

Attend soil compaction school Nov. 14

For farmers or ag retailers interested in learning more, Arora and Tekeste will lead a soil compaction school Nov. 14, near Boone. Find more details and registration information on the Soil Compaction School website. Sponsors of the event include the Iowa Pork Producers Association, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, CNH Industrial and the Elder Corporation. 

Contacts: 

Mehari Tekeste, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 515-294-2464, mtekeste@iastate.edu
Kapil Arora, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, 515-291-0174, pbtiger@iastate.edu
Ann Y. Robinson, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Communications, 515-294-3066, ayr@iastate.edu