In the UK, a developer and four linked firms have been ordered to pay £46.5 million towards fire-safety work on seven Manchester buildings, following a landmark tribunal ruling that cut the government’s claim

Manchester property developer Urban Splash and four companies linked to it have been ordered to pay £46.5 million towards essential fire safety repairs at seven residential developments across the city. The ruling was made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) after a legal case brought by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The government had originally sought to recover more than £60 million spent or set aside to replace dangerous cladding and fix internal building defects across the sites. The tribunal agreed that more than £60.6 million worth of work was reasonably needed. However, the panel reduced the final amount to reflect wider failures by the government and regulators, which were highlighted by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The decision is one of the largest amounts the government has recovered under powers introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022.The order means Urban Splash Limited, Urban Splash Developments Limited, Urban Splash Group Holdings Limited, Urban Splash Work Limited and Stubbs Mill LLP must share responsibility for the payment. Most of the money will go towards repaying the government’s Building Safety Fund. A further £741,594 will be paid to the management company of one of the residential developments. Four other companies named in the original case, including external investment funds, were not ordered to pay. The panel decided that making them responsible would not be fair or reasonable.

Breakdown of the Manchester developments

The case involved seven residential developments built by Urban Splash in Manchester during the 2000s. Inspections carried out after the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire found serious construction and fire safety problems across the buildings. Inspectors found several types of defects. These included external cladding panels made from materials that could catch fire, missing or badly fitted cavity barriers, and damage to fire safety walls and floors designed to stop fires spreading between flats.The affected developments are located across several parts of the city. They include:

The tribunal held hearings over six weeks between April and July 2026. During the case, Urban Splash challenged the number and seriousness of the defects. The company also argued that the repair work paid for with public money had cost more than necessary. However, the tribunal rejected these arguments. It confirmed that £60,638,548, including VAT, had been reasonably spent or planned for essential repairs to make the buildings safe.

Why the government claim was trimmed

Although the government showed that the repair work was necessary, the tribunal decided not to award the full amount requested by ministers. The panel reduced the government’s main claim by 10 per cent. It took into account past failures by public bodies responsible for overseeing building safety. The tribunal referred to findings from the Dame Judith Hackitt Review and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Both highlighted serious weaknesses in building rules, government guidance and systems for testing construction products in the UK. The panel made clear that the reduction did not mean ministers were being blamed for the physical defects in the buildings. Instead, it reflected the need to consider fairness when deciding how much developers should pay under section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner welcomed the main findings of the ruling and said the government would continue trying to recover public money spent on building safety work. “I welcome this important decision, which is clear that those responsible for unsafe buildings need to pay their fair share to fix them,” Rayner said. “We will continue in our efforts to recover taxpayer funds spent on remediation and our work to make people’s homes safe.”

Response from the developer

Following the ruling, Urban Splash released a public statement describing the financial impact as significant. However, the company also said it wanted to work with government officials to find a way forward. “Our focus is firmly on the future rather than the past,” the company said. “The challenges created by the Building Safety Act are not unique to Urban Splash. This is not simply about one company. It is about finding a way in which the objectives of building safety, housing delivery and regeneration can all be achieved together.” The case could have an important effect on future building safety disputes across England. It provides a major example of how tribunals may decide how much developers must pay, whether parent companies can be held responsible and how the government can recover money spent on repairing unsafe buildings.