Get Living submits appeal against tribunal ruling that left it with £18m bill for fire safety work

Get Living said it “recognises the importance of the Building Safety Act in protecting leaseholders”. However, it believes “the law is fundamentally flawed” if it “holds an organisation responsible for faulty construction in a building it acquired in good faith, when that organisation had nothing to do with the original development and both the original contractor and developer are currently fully able to fund the remediation”.

In this case, Get Living argues that the original developer is the UK government, which it said “makes this point even more perverse”.

Its appeal came after the tribunal ruled last month that SVDP and Get Living must pay £18m towards making five of the 66 blocks safe on the east London site.

The pair were ordered to reimburse the government’s Building Safety Fund, which is using £24.5m of taxpayers’ money to cover the works.

As it filed its appeal, Get Living said its “longer-standing intention” was to “vigorously pursue” the original contractor, Galliford Try, which it said was responsible for the defects.

January’s decision was the first use of new remediation contribution order (RCO) powers under the Building Safety Act 2022.

It was hailed as a victory by the leaseholders, who have been unable to sell their flats since defects were uncovered in 2020, and Triathlon Homes, the housing association that brought the action.

Under the ruling, Get Living was ordered to pay ‘waking watch’ costs and to retrospectively pay for work done before the Building Safety Act took effect.

Acknowledging the cost order last month, Get Living said the decision was likely to have a “profound” impact on the sector.

Rick de Blaby, chief executive of get Living, also suggested the ruling could deter investment in build-to-rent homes.

Repairs on East Village began last year, while a further 33 buildings need work, with costs still being assessed. Get Living said the required work on the buildings covered by the RCO are on schedule to finish in August 2025.

Get Living investors Aware Super and Oxford Properties said they supported the appeal.

Damien Webb, deputy chief investment officer and head of international at Aware Super, said: “We believe this ruling has the potential to make a significant impact on attracting investment into the UK’s build-to-rent housing market at a time of great need.”

Abby Shapiro, senior vice-president for Europe at Oxford Properties, said: “Given this decision unfairly financially punishes our pension members who are municipal workers, including firefighters and police officers that serve our communities, we have no choice other than to appeal.”

Mr de Blaby said Get Living made the appeal as it had a responsibility to its pension fund shareholders, and to also test what he described as “this unfair principle for other investors at a time when the UK has never been more in need of property investment and housing”.

He added: “The tribunal ruling itself said that Get Living is not at fault. And there is no way that Get Living’s investors could have foreseen the impact of the Building Safety Act when they first made an investment into UK housing.

“All we are seeking through an appeal is a fair resolution to a dispute between two commercial entities. In the meantime we continue to work hard to progress the required remediation works at East Village for all residents.

“We want to be clear that we have never expected or requested the Triathlon Homes leaseholders to pay a penny towards any of the works. We are also determined to pursue the contractors for damages for work on this development.”

Triathlon Homes said Get Living’s actions “will turn the clock back”.

Kath King, managing director of Triathlon Homes, said: “I simply don’t understand why Get Living would want to tarnish its good reputation by ignoring its responsibilities as the freeholder for hundreds of residents.

“Overturning this decision would be devastating for our residents and thousands of leaseholders up and down the country, trapped, waiting for their building owners to do the right thing.

“It also sends the wrong message to investors about whether the UK’s build-to-rent sector is a safe pair of hands.”

Galliford Try and the government have been contacted for a response.