A Bill before the House of Lords would remove the height threshold from the leaseholder protections entirely. No 11 metres, no five storeys. Any residential building containing a leasehold property would be in scope, and protected leaseholders could not be charged for remediating systemic defects.
It is also a Private Member’s Bill introduced by an opposition backbench peer, and the government has not commented on it. Both facts matter more than the contents, and most coverage of this Bill does not mention either.
- Bill
- Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL], HL Bill 18 of 2026–27 Not law
- Type
- Private Members’ Bill, starting in the House of Lords
- Sponsor
- Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
- Introduced
- 10 June 2026
- Current stage
- Committee stage, House of Lords. Record last updated 14 September 2026
- Government position
- Has not commented on the Bill
- Source
- UK Parliament Bills and the House of Lords Library briefing, 20 August 2026
What the Bill would do
The long title sets out the intent in full:
A Bill to make provision for the remediation of building safety defects in residential leasehold properties; to extend protections for qualifying leaseholders from the costs of historical building safety failures; to place enforceable duties on freeholders and building owners to initiate and complete remediation works within prescribed timeframes; to provide leaseholders with rights to seek mandatory remediation orders where responsible parties fail to act; and for connected purposes.
Four changes follow from that, as described in the Lords Library briefing.
The height threshold goes. The Bill would apply to any residential building containing one or more leasehold properties, with no minimum height and no storey threshold. That is a substantial widening: the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act reach buildings of at least 11 metres or 5 storeys, and the higher-risk regime starts higher still.
Systemic defect replaces relevant defect as the operative idea. The briefing states that systemic defects would include unsafe cladding as well as unsafe balconies, structural deficiencies and other defects.
Protected leaseholders could not be charged. The Bill would prevent developers and building owners recovering remediation costs for systemic defects from protected leaseholders. Not a cap. Nothing.
Remediation would carry deadlines. Developers and building owners would have to initiate and complete works within prescribed timescales of either six months or two years, with leaseholders given rights to seek mandatory remediation orders where responsible parties fail to act.
The argument for removing height
The case is not complicated. Height has always been an administrative threshold rather than a risk-based one. Fire does not behave differently at 10 metres than at 11. Structural failure does not respect storey counts.
The consequence of drawing the line by height is that two buildings with identical cladding, identical compartmentation failures and identical leaseholders can sit on opposite sides of it. One set of leaseholders is protected. The other is not. Nothing about the risk explains the difference.
Shifting the test from height to evidence of defect is coherent. Whether it is deliverable at the scale it would create is a different question, and it is the question the Bill’s critics press.
What it would change, if it passed
| Now, under the Act | Under the Bill | |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold | Relevant building: at least 11 metres or 5 storeys | Any residential building with a leasehold property |
| What is caught | Relevant defect, from work in the 30 years to 28 June 2022 | Systemic defect, including cladding, balconies and structural deficiencies |
| Leaseholder exposure | Capped by Schedule 8 at £10,000 to £100,000 | Nothing payable by protected leaseholders |
| Timescales | No statutory deadline to complete remediation | Six months or two years, depending on the works |
| Leaseholder remedy | Remediation orders and remediation contribution orders, ss.123 and 124 | Rights to seek mandatory remediation orders on failure to act |
Whether it will happen, which is the part that matters
Probably not in this form, and the reasons are structural rather than about the merits.
It is a Lords Private Member’s Bill. That is the least likely of all the routes onto the statute book. Such Bills have no guaranteed time in the Commons, and without government adoption they usually fall at the end of the session. Reaching Committee stage is further than most get, and is not the same as a likely passage.
The government has not commented on it. Silence is not opposition, but for a Private Member’s Bill it is close to decisive, because the only realistic path is for government to pick it up.
The government has promised its own bill instead. This is the point most coverage misses. Government has separately pledged a remediation of unsafe cladding bill, including criminal prosecution for non-compliance. If you are tracking one piece of legislation in this area, that is the one, and it is not this one.
The positions on either side are already staked out. The Lords Library briefing records industry concern that the obligations on developers would be onerous, and campaign groups arguing the protections do not go far enough. That is the shape of the argument the government bill will have to resolve.
What to do about it now
Nothing structural. No duty arises from a Bill at Committee stage, and rebuilding a remediation programme around a Private Member’s Bill would be premature.
What it is worth reading as is a direction of travel. Two of its ideas, removing the height threshold and putting statutory deadlines on remediation, have support well beyond its sponsor. If the government bill arrives carrying either of them, buildings currently below 11 metres come into scope, and landlords and resident management companies who assumed they were outside the regime will not be.
The practical preparation for that is the same preparation that is already sensible: know what defects your buildings have, know which leases qualify, and have the certification in order. See leaseholder protections and the deed of certificate.