000			02062nas a22002057a 4500
007			c| a| aa|aa
008			230831e20240313xxk||||os||||o00| 0 eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aBrompton Estates Nominees No.1 Limited & Brompton Estates Nominees No.2 Limited v Wall Properties Limited
260			_aLON/00AW/BSG/2024/0001 _bFirst Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) _c13 March 2024
520			_aOvington Court is an occupied higher-risk building within the meaning of section 71 of the 2022 Act. The difficulty in the present case is that both the Applicants and the Respondent appear to fall within the definition of accountable person, albeit for different parts of the Building. The Applicants and Respondent are each accountable persons within the meaning of section 73(1)(b) of the 2022 Act as each holds a legal estate in possession of relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the Building. Accordingly, the provisions of section 75(2) are engaged: the tribunal must consider which accountable person is appropriate to be the principal accountable person for the Building. There is no further guidance within the 2022 Act as to how the tribunal determines which accountable person it considers is appropriate to be the principal accountable person. However, on the facts of the present case, the parties agree that the Respondent would be the most appropriate on the grounds that it is under a repairing obligation in relation to: (1) the structure and exterior surfaces of the majority of the Building, including those floors solely occupied for residential purposes and (2) the common parts generally within those floors
650			_aBUILDING SAFETY ACT 2022
650			_aHIGHER-RISK BUILDING
650			_aFIRE SAFETY
650			_aLEASEHOLD PROPERTY
650			_aPRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABLE PERSON
650			_aRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
651			_aUnited Kingdom
856			_uhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f2e6089d99de001103deb8/Ovington_Court_decision.pdf _zAvailable online via the Tribunal
999			_c121863 _d121863