30 Burstock Road: Building Safety Regulator found to have acted ultra vires
5th Feb 2026
In December 2025, the First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber handed down an important decision in the matter of 30 Burstock Road, London SW15 2PW, which is now available on the government’s website here.
This is thought to be the first judgment or decision dealing with the scope of the new Building Safety Regulator’s powers when considering building safety appeals, and the scope of the First Tier Tribunal’s own powers when determining an appeal from a decision made by the regulator.
The Building Safety Regulator came in for some robust criticism from Deputy Regional Judge N Carr. The decision states that the overall impression given by the regulator’s appeal decision letter is that “it is written with a lack of understanding of the task on the appeal, the application that has been made, the powers available to [the regulator] and principles of basic fairness, openness or natural justice, and the law.”
At the end of her decision, the judge commented that the Building Safety Regulator has been given many significant and difficult responsibilities, yet is not as well-resourced as those responsibilities would appear to require.
The judge also observed that any public body making decisions affecting a person’s civil rights must be very aware of its public law obligations. The regulator’s decision in this case was ultra vires. The judge expressed a hope that the regulator would take the lessons of the case “as an opportunity to consider its processes”.
On 27th January 2026, the government announced that the Building Safety Regulator has left the ambit of the Health and Safety Executive, and is now a standalone body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It also pledged that the regulator is undergoing a significant “operational reset” – a phrase which will be of interest to construction professionals whose projects have stalled due to delays in obtaining the certificates and approvals that they need from the regulator.
William Lacey appeared for the successful Applicant, instructed by Louise Elmes of Keystone Law.
A detailed article about the decision can be found here.
