VadeLab
Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Consent Order Withdraws Application to Vary Remediation Order

Case No.

📌 In brief

Tenants asked to change a remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022 but withdrew their application via a consent order on 26 April 2025.

⚖️ Legal holding

Parties may seek to vary a remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022 through a consent order.

Topics

tenancy_ukbuilding safety

📖 Technical summary

The claimants sought to vary a remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022. The application was withdrawn via consent order.

📜 Headnote Official document

The tenants requested to vary a remediation order under the Building Safety Act 2022. The application was withdrawn via a consent order on 26 April 2025.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Struck Out

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AG/BSA/2024/0009 Property : [ADDRESS], 52, Prince of [ADDRESS], London, Nw5 3LN Applicant : [redacted] [COUNSEL] [NAME] : [COUNSEL] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] : [NAME] of application : Application for a Remediation Order under section 123 of the Building Safety Act 2022 Tribunal : Judge N Carr Date of Order : 26 April 2025

CONSENT ORDER

1. On the request of the parties, I make an order on the terms of the attached Consent Order dated 25 April 2025, under rule 35 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

2. The Consent Order disposes of the application dated 26 February 2025 to vary the terms of the Remediation Order made on 5 December 2024. The hearing on 30 April 2025 is therefore vacated. Name: Judge N Carr Date: 26 April 2025

2 20250426 APPROVED Consent

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

Struck Out7 cases
Dismissed4 cases
Allowed1 case

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The landlord must remedy relevant building safety defects as ordered by the First-tier Tribunal.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant cannot seek determination of liability and reasonableness of service charges without a demand for payment.
  • The tenant must prove that service charges or administration fees are either not payable or unreasonable.
  • The tenant is not entitled to challenge a service charge if it has been agreed or admitted.
  • The tenant cannot re-litigate matters that have already been decided against them in a previous court proceeding.
  • The tenant cannot challenge the reasonableness and payability of service charges through an application under s27A if the issues raised fall outside the Tribunal'

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The tenants withdrew their application to vary a remediation order via a consent order.

Who was involved?

Tenants and a property company were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court accepted the consent order because both parties agreed to withdraw the application.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Building Safety Act 2022 was relevant.

What was the argument that mattered most?

Both parties agreed to withdraw the application via a consent order.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was neither for nor against the tenants as they withdrew the application.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can also withdraw their application via a consent order if both parties agree.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The consent order document was the key document.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Generally, consent orders cannot be appealed as they are agreements between the parties.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.