Existing buildings and Part 5: remediation, leaseholders and the levy
Part 5 of the Building Safety Act protects leaseholders in existing buildings from most historical fire safety remediation costs, creates remediation orders to force landlords to fix defects, and sits alongside the Building Safety Levy, which from 1 October 2026 charges new residential development to help fund remediation.
What does the Act do for existing buildings?
Most of this site follows new higher-risk buildings through the gateways, but the Building Safety Act's political engine was always the existing stock: the buildings with dangerous cladding, the leaseholders trapped behind remediation bills, and the question of who pays. Part 5 of the Act is the answer Parliament legislated, and it reallocates the cost of historical safety defects away from qualifying leaseholders and toward developers, landlords and industry schemes.
The machinery is layered. Leaseholder protections cap or remove contributions for qualifying leases in relevant buildings. Landlord and leaseholder certificates determine how those protections bite in each case. And where buildings are not being fixed, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders at the First-tier Tribunal force the issue. A Remediation Improvement Plan, launched in April 2026, aims to accelerate the pace at which unsafe buildings actually get fixed.
How does this connect to new development?
Through the Building Safety Levy: a charge on new residential development in England that comes into force on 1 October 2026, collected through the building control process, to help fund remediation. For higher-risk buildings it carries a hard consequence at completion, because the BSR will not issue a Gateway 3 completion certificate where levy payment is overdue. The industry consequence is already visible: a rush of Gateway 2 applications expected before the switch-on date.
The levy guide covers who pays, how it is charged and what it means for programmes and appraisals.
Who should read this section?
Leaseholders and residents trying to understand their protections; building owners and managing agents working out their obligations; and developers pricing the levy into schemes. The language of Part 5 is technical, qualifying lease, relevant building, relevant defect, and the glossary defines each term precisely. As everywhere on this site, this is practitioner information, not legal advice: Part 5 disputes are fact-specific and the sums are large, so decisions about a specific building need advice on that building.
In this section
The Building Safety Levy
Live from 1 October 2026, with an estimator to follow.
Read the guide +
Leaseholder protections
Qualifying leases, caps and certificates in plain English.
Read the guide +
Landlord certificates
Who must produce what, and when.
In production
Remediation orders
ROs and RCOs at the First-tier Tribunal.
In production
Frequently asked questions
- What is Part 5 of the Building Safety Act?
- Part 5 contains the leaseholder protections: the rules that shield qualifying leaseholders in relevant buildings from most costs of fixing historical safety defects, allocate those costs to landlords and developers instead, and create tribunal orders to force remediation to happen.
- Who pays for cladding remediation?
- In broad terms the Act pushes historical remediation costs away from qualifying leaseholders and toward developers, landlords and industry funding, with caps and conditions that depend on the building, the lease and the defect. The certificates exchanged between landlords and leaseholders determine how the protections apply in each case.
- What is the Building Safety Levy?
- A charge on new residential development in England, in force from 1 October 2026, collected through the building control process to help fund the remediation of unsafe buildings. For higher-risk buildings it has teeth at completion: the BSR will not issue a Gateway 3 certificate where levy payment is overdue.
Related
This page is information, not legal advice. It is written and maintained by a practitioner, verified against primary sources on the date shown above, and corrected fast when the regime moves. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.