Consultation outcome

14 March 2023: Government response to the registration and review of decisions consultation sections

Updated 18 October 2023

1. Introduction

1.1 On 20 July 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published a consultation to seek views on proposals for improving the building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings. The consultation sought views on a number of new regulatory requirements for higher-risk buildings when they are occupied.

1.2 The new regime for occupied higher-risk buildings was a fundamental part of Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations on managing fire and structural safety risks in high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings in her Building a Safer Future Report, commissioned by government after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

1.3 The new regime puts in place more stringent oversight, with clearer accountability for the safety of high-rise residential buildings throughout design, construction, and occupation, backed by stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance. The new regime places legal responsibilities on those who participate in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings, commission higher-risk building work, and those who are responsible for managing structural and fire safety in higher-risk buildings when they are occupied.

1.4 Included in the consultation were questions relating to the new regulatory requirements that will require all occupied buildings in scope of the new more stringent regulatory regime (higher-risk buildings) to be registered with the Building Safety Regulator (the Regulator).

1.5 It also included questions about information to be provided when registering buildings built under the new design and construction regime^{[footnote 1]}, along with transitional arrangements, and registering existing buildings.

1.6 The consultation gave an overview of the review and appeals process where disputes arise over higher-risk building decisions.

1.7 The first stage of the review and appeals process is an informal discussion and mediation between the parties. Following that, in most cases, there will be an internal review process provided by the Regulator.

1.8 Each question had a sub question to allow respondents to provide any comments or explanations to support their answers.

2. Policy objectives

2.1 Section 77 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) sets out that the principal accountable person is responsible for applying for registration of their higher-risk building.

2.2 To register the building, the principal accountable person must provide some basic details about the building and its accountable person(s) to the Regulator. This information is intended to enable the Regulator to confirm the location of the building, that it is within scope of the requirements under the Act, and to identify the persons responsible for the safety of the building and the duties under Part 4 of the Act. A fee will also be payable to complete the application.

2.3 Under section 78 of the Act, the Regulator is required to publish a register of the higher-risk buildings that have been registered, which may include the information which was submitted with the application. Including this information in the published register will enable residents and other interested parties to ascertain that the building is registered and who is responsible for its fire and structural safety.

2.4 In respect of any new building which is partly or fully completed after the commencement of section 77 of the Act, the building (or the completed part(s) of it) must not be residentially occupied before the building has been registered. This includes buildings that are designed and constructed under the new building control regime for higher-risk buildings (the gateways process) and buildings that are part way through design and construction when the regulations relating to the new building control regime come into force.

2.5 For existing residentially occupied buildings, the principal accountable person will have a reasonable period after the regulations are signed and published to register their building(s) before they become liable for the offence. More detail about these provisions is set out below.

2.6 Secondary legislation will set out, amongst other matters, rules about the information to accompany applications for registration, and the content of the register.

3. Consultation process and overview of responses

3.1 The public consultation on the new building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings was open for twelve weeks from 20 July to 12 October 2022. It was published on the department’s online consultation platform Citizen Space, as well as on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey and via email.

3.2 The registration section of the consultation received 88 responses in total. Sixty-six responses were submitted through Citizen Space and 22 via email. The review question received 42 responses: 27 responses were submitted through Citizen Space and 15 via email. The number of responses fluctuated for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

3.3 We received responses from a range of stakeholders including local authorities and registered providers, developers and house builders, fire and rescue authorities, engineering consultants, institutional investors, representative bodies, and a small number of leaseholders^{[footnote 2]}.

3.4 The questions covered various aspects of registration including the timescales, the process for registration, and submitting changes to registration.

3.5 This consultation response contains tables which provide both the figures and percentages of respondents for each question. For the percentage assessments we have rounded to the nearest whole number, when the figure was not a whole number.  

4. Timescale and process for registration

Overview of proposal

4.1 We proposed that principal accountable persons must register their buildings with the Regulator by 1 October 2023. After this date, a principal accountable person would commit an offence if a higher-risk building was residentially occupied but not registered. This means that principal accountable persons have 6 months from when the regulations come into force in April 2023 to submit their applications to register their buildings.

4.2 We also proposed that a principal accountable person may designate an agent to apply on their behalf, providing that the agent confirms they have the authority to do so on submission of the application. If appointed, the agent will act as the point of contact for the Regulator in connection with the application.

4.3 The agent will also have to confirm the accuracy of the contents of the application on behalf of the principal accountable person. The principal accountable person and the agent must understand that knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to the Regulator is an offence.

4.4 In order to apply to register a building, we proposed that the applicant will need to provide certain information about the building and its management. This included:

• details of the principal accountable person for the building and any other accountable person(s) (including name, contact details and address) and, if there are multiple accountable persons, confirmation of who is responsible for which part of the building
• the name and title of a nominated individual who will act as a single point of contact for the principal accountable person within the organisation
• whether the principal accountable person is a local authority, a registered private provider of social housing, a registered provider of social housing, or another type of organisation
• building address
• the year the building was completed, or the age band of the building where its precise age is not known, and whether on construction it had relevant building control consent
• the number of storeys and height (in metres) of the building
• the number of dwellings in the building
• a statement confirming that the information submitted is, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, truthful and accurate

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree that 6 months is sufficient time for the principal accountable person to provide the information to register their building?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	66	75%
Disagree	9	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	8%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not Answered	5	6%
Total	88	100%

4.5 75% of respondents agreed that 6 months is sufficient time for a principal accountable person to provide the information to register a building. Those who agreed stated that it was a reasonable timeframe and any longer would not be justifiable.

4.6 10% disagreed with our proposals. The key reasons given were:

• as the registration process is new, more time will be required to gather the required documentation and upskill accountable persons
• the Regulator will struggle to cope with the volume of applications and number of queries which will come through causing delays
• resident management companies^{[footnote 3]} will require more time, as the directors are likely to be lay people with little understanding of the new requirements

4.7 8% of respondents neither agreed or disagreed and 1% stated that they did not know. Those who neither agreed nor disagreed felt that, in most circumstances, 6 months is appropriate, but significant publicity and communication will be needed to promote awareness of the new registration regime.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that an agent may act for the principal accountable person in connection with the application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	66	75%
Disagree	10	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	7%
Don’t know	0	-
Not Answered	6	7%
Total	88	100%

4.8 75% of respondents agreed with the proposals, provided the agent appointed was competent and understood the responsibility of their role. Six respondents suggested that the agent should have a relevant accreditation as a pre-requisite to enable them to register on behalf of the principal accountable person. The comment was also made that allowing an agent to apply will be beneficial in cases where the principal accountable person owns multiple buildings and does not have the skills and expertise required to gather the information to apply for registration.

4.9 11% disagreed with the proposal and expressed concern that delegating this responsibility would risk undermining the accuracy of the register and reduce accountability on the part of the principal accountable person. Of these, 2 respondents were unclear on why the statutory provisions allow for an intermediary to be a part of the process.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the required information is sufficient to identify the building and whether it is within scope of Part 4 of the Act, and to identify the principal accountable person and accountable persons(s) (if there are multiple accountable persons) for the building?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	59	67%
Disagree	16	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	11%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not Answered	2	3%
Total	88	100%

4.10 67% agreed with the proposals and felt that the information to be included alongside an application (see paragraph 4.4) was appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of registration. 18% disagreed with the proposals, however, from analysis of their written responses to the question, it was found that, as opposed to disagreeing with the proposed information, they felt additional information was required to identify a building. Concerns were raised around the difficulties encountered when identifying a building - to mitigate this issue, it was suggested that building plans and the Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN) should also be submitted to the Regulator.

4.11 Some respondents provided suggestions for additional information that they felt should be included to support an application. This included the following:

• a copy of the title deed from land registry
• disclosure of building height above fire service access level
• method of construction used
• a statement on whether cladding remediation is required
• details of the use of building

4.12 11% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, and 1% answered ‘do not know’. Of these respondents, one raised concern around the difficulty in identifying accountable persons and determining the part of the building for which they are responsible. Respondents also requested further guidance on registering more complex buildings where multiple blocks of varying heights are attached to each other.

Government response

4.13 We note the concerns raised by respondents about being unfamiliar with the new regime and agree that accountable persons need upskilling and time to prepare to meet the requirements for registration.

4.14 The Regulator has already been engaging with stakeholders about the changes and will be increasing their communication with targeted messaging through marketing campaigns, e-bulletins, and events, including their Regulator Conference on Wednesday 22 March 2023. This will help to ensure that principal accountable persons and accountable persons are aware of the new regulations and have sufficient time to gather the required documentation. Where there are issues, the Regulator will support principal accountable persons and accountable persons to resolve them. We will also publish clear guidance online to support principal accountable persons and accountable persons through the process.

4.15 The majority of respondents (75%) were in favour of agents being able to register a building on behalf of a principal accountable person. We are aware that managing agents manage buildings on behalf of freeholders, head lessees, and resident management companies across the sector. For this reason, we want to ensure that agents can continue to support principal accountable persons to meet their duties under the proposed registration regime. There may also be scenarios where the required skills and knowledge are not held by the principal accountable person, and they would benefit from support of an agent or third party to enable that principal accountable person to meet their statutory duties.

4.16 Although applying to register a building can be supported, responsibility for the application of the building, and the accuracy of the information provided, will remain with the principal accountable person. We recommend that the principal accountable person carries out its own due diligence to ensure the agent is completing the application accurately and promptly. This will not, however, be a requirement within the regulations. This is a change from our original proposal set out in the consultation (paragraph 4.3 above), where we proposed that the agent acting on behalf of the principal accountable person would be required to confirm the accuracy of the contents of the application. We considered this proposal again with the Regulator and concluded that there is an implicit assumption that the information provided is true and accurate. Because the principal accountable person is ultimately responsible for meeting requirements under part 4 of the Act, we want to ensure there are clear lines of accountability, and responsibility for meeting the duty to apply for registration is not passed to the agent.

4.17 The regulations will require that the agent’s details are submitted at the time of registration and, as with an application submitted by the principal accountable person (see paragraph 4.21 below), it is implicit that the information provided is true and accurate.

4.18 In order to register the building, we proposed that the applicant will need to provide certain information about the building (paragraph 4.4). Where the principal accountable person is not an individual, we have amended the required information slightly so that the nominated individual provides its name and ‘address’ rather than its name and ‘title’, as originally proposed. Where the year of completion is not known by the principal accountable person, they will be able to submit the age band on the Regulator’s online system, however, this is not specifically detailed in the regulations.

4.19 We have noted the suggestions made about required information to support an application to register a building (detailed at paragraph 4.11). Much of this information will be collected as part of the key building information (see the relevant provisions in the Act^{[footnote 4]} and regulations made under this section^{[footnote 5]}). As per section 79 of the Act, it is a requirement on the principal accountable person to submit key building information within 28 days of applying to register a building. As with the data collected via registration, the key building information will be stored on the register that will be published (as appropriate) by the Regulator, which will include the number of flats, the building materials used, and the type of insulation within an external wall.

4.20 Some respondents suggested that the title deed for the building should be included within registration information, however, this information is publicly available via the Land Registry, and it would be a duplication of resources for the Regulator to collect this information again. We have noted that some respondents suggested the inclusion of UPRNs. While it is a useful identifier, not all buildings will have a UPRN due to local authority variations in the way that UPRNs have been assigned. The address and postcode of the building will be sufficient for the Regulator to identify occupied higher-risk buildings and issue it with a unique registration number generated by the Regulator’s online registration system.

4.21 As part of the application to register the building, we proposed that “a statement confirming that the information submitted is, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, truthful and accurate” would be needed. However, we have agreed with the Regulator that it is implicit that the information the principal accountable person is submitting is true and accurate. If it transpires that the information provided is fraudulent or misleading the Regulator can pursue that individual, regardless of whether an accompanying statement regarding the truthfulness and accuracy of the information is provided.

5. Changes to registration information

Overview of proposal

5.1. After the building has been registered with the Regulator, it will be the responsibility of the principal accountable person to inform the Regulator of any changes to the information supplied as part of the application for registration (except any change of accountable person(s) where notification rules are governed by section 90 of the Act.)

5.2. All changes must be notified to the Regulator within 14 calendar days of the principal accountable person becoming aware of the change, excluding Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales.

5.3. In applying for registration, or in providing subsequent changes, the principal accountable person must provide a physical address (not a PO box address) in England and Wales, and an address or addresses for all other accountable person(s) for the building. This is needed for general communication and for the serving of notices if required.

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the principal accountable person should notify the Regulator of any changes to registration information?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	81	92%
Disagree	1	1%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	5%
Don’t know	0	-
Not Answered	2	2%
Total	88	100%

5.4. A significant majority (92%) agreed that the principal accountable person should notify the Regulator of any changes to registration information. The proposal was welcomed and understood by respondents. In particular, respondents felt that changes could impact the management of safety risks in a building and the principal accountable person should, therefore, take responsibility for ensuring the Regulator has the most up-to-date information.

5.5. 1% of respondents disagreed with the proposals. Those who answered, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (5%) detailed in their written responses that they were content with the general principle of updating the Regulator. Of those respondents who provided an explanation to their answer, some felt that agents should also be able to update the Regulator, in the same way that they could register the building. Some suggested that all types of changes should be communicated to the Regulator and not only those relating to the registration of the building.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should be notified within 14 calendar days, excluding Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales, of the change occurring?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	55	62%
Disagree	20	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	8%
Don’t know	0	-
Not Answered	6	7%
Total	88	100%

5.6. There were mixed views on this proposal with 62% agreeing and 23% disagreeing. Those who agreed with the proposal stated that they thought the time frame was reasonable as the principal accountable person should be aware of any change before it takes place. Respondents felt a time limit was essential to ensure the Regulator has up-to-date information about higher-risk buildings.

5.7. Those who disagreed thought the time frame was too short and possibly too rigid. Some respondents stated that consideration should be given to different circumstances, such as the size of the property portfolio of the principal accountable person, the nature and scale of any building works, and changes in directors. Ten respondents suggested one calendar month as a more reasonable time frame to submit changes in circumstances to the Regulator.

5.8. A few respondents (5%) neither agreed nor disagreed due to the strict 14-day time frame and the perceived challenges in meeting the deadline. These respondents requested that further guidance to make clear the level of detail required in the notifications to the Regulator, as this would impact the time required to provide an update.

Question: Do you envisage any difficulties with the requirement to provide a physical address in England and Wales for general communication and the service of notices?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	16	18%
No	62	70%
Don’t know	4	5%
Not Answered	6	7%
Total	88	100%

5.9. The majority of respondents (70%) did not envisage any difficulties with the requirement to provide a physical address in England and Wales for general communication and the serving of notices and felt this was needed to enable efficient communication.

5.10. There were mixed views, however, on the practicality of providing an address in England and Wales for an accountable person based abroad. Respondents requested that guidance should be made available to address such situations. Two respondents also felt that if there was a managing agent, their address should be used. A further 2 respondents noted that any information about individuals who are accountable persons should not be made public to protect their data and identity.

Government response

5.11. We are clear that the Regulator must be notified of changes to the registration information about a building by the principal accountable person. This will not only ensure the register is kept up to date to enable effective regulation of higher-risk buildings, but it will also mean that users of the register can have confidence in the data available. We are aware that some respondents were unclear on whether an agent can provide registration information. We would like to make it clear that, although the regulations set out that the principal accountable person has to notify the Regulator of any change in circumstance, in practice the agent may also do so. However, responsibility for the accuracy for any information provided will remain with the principal accountable person.

5.12. Two respondents felt that the Regulator should be notified of all changes, rather than information related solely to registration. We agree that changes should be notified to the Regulator, however, notification of such changes should be carried out under regulations to be made under section 89 of the Act (Provision of information etc to the regulator, residents and other persons). Respondents broadly agreed that there should be different time frames for notification of changes in circumstances, depending on the type of information to be submitted.

5.13. We acknowledge the concerns about the lack of flexibility regarding the length of time (14 days) in which a principal accountable person needs to notify the Regulator of any changes, however, it is important for the register to be as up-to-date as possible. We anticipate that in most (if not all) situations, the principal accountable person or agent will be aware of changes taking place before they occur. It should, therefore, be possible to adhere to the 14-day time frame. We continue to work closely with the Regulator to determine the process for notifying the Regulator and guidance will be available in due course.

5.14. We note the differing views on whether the principal accountable person and accountable persons should provide a physical address in England and Wales to the Regulator and the potential difficulties associated in providing this address, particularly for accountable persons based abroad. Although we appreciate that it may not be straightforward for the principal accountable person and accountable persons, it is important that the Regulator has a physical address in England and Wales for accountable persons upon which they can serve legal notices. Without a physical address in England and Wales it would be difficult to proceed with subsequent compliance or enforcement measures.

5.15. By requiring a physical address in England and Wales to be provided, we are implementing the recommendation made by Dame Judith Hackett in her Building a safer future: final report to have a ‘robust ownership of accountability’. The principal accountable persons and accountable persons need to be aware of their responsibilities and that they will be held to account for not meeting the new regulatory requirements. This includes providing a physical address in England and Wales.

6. Buildings built under the new regime

Overview of proposal

6.1. We proposed that the principal accountable person must provide the unique reference number when submitting an application for the registration of a building that has been built under the new building control regime (the gateways process). The unique reference number will be assigned by the Regulator to each higher-risk building whose construction it is overseeing and which is awarded a building regulations completion certificate. This will enable the Regulator to verify that it has granted a relevant completion certificate (or partial completion certificate) prior to occupation.

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree that for buildings built under the new regime, the principal accountable person must provide the unique reference number for the completion certificate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	75	85%
Disagree	3	4%*
Neither agree nor disagree	2	2%
Don’t know	2	2%
Not Answered	6	7%
Total	88	100%

* Percentage has been rounded to the higher number to equate to 100%

6.2. The majority of respondents (85%) agreed with the proposal that the principal accountable person must provide the unique reference number related to the building regulations completion certificate. Those in agreement viewed the unique reference number as a way to streamline tracking of applications and identification of buildings. There were, however, mixed views on which reference number should be used – some respondents felt that UPRNs would be more appropriate as these already provide for administrative identification.

6.3. Whilst most agreed with the proposals, a small minority disagreed (3%) and felt it was unnecessary as buildings are already identifiable through other data sources. A minority also answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’ as this question was not relevant to their area of work.

Government response

6.4. The reference number for building regulations completion certificates will be provided by the Regulator for each higher-risk building for which it is overseeing construction. This reference number, along with the date of the issuance of the certificate, must be submitted to the Regulator at the time of registration to help the Regulator validate that it has gone through the higher-risk building control process and a completion certificate has been issued for the work. We note that some respondents felt a UPRN would be more appropriate, however, a UPRN would not provide assurance to the Regulator that at the time the building was completed it met the relevant building regulations prior to occupation.

7. Buildings that will be subject to transitional arrangements

Overview of proposal

7.1. Higher-risk buildings, for which construction has satisfied the definition of commenced building work but not completed before the new regime comes into effect, will be built to the building regulations standards in place at the time of the submission of their initial notice or full plans application to the local authority, rather than the requirements of the new, more stringent regime in design and construction. These buildings will benefit from the transitional arrangements. We have set out the transitional provisions we propose to apply when the new regulatory framework for higher-risk buildings comes into effect in the consultation on our proposed changes to the building regulations.

7.2. Before these buildings can be occupied, the Regulator will need to verify that these buildings have been provided with the appropriate certificate. Depending on whether building control oversight was provided by a local authority or a Registered Building Control Approver (currently known as an Approved Inspector), buildings will either be provided with a completion certificate, or a final certificate respectively. We therefore proposed that the principal accountable person must provide a copy of their completion certificate or final certificate when applying for registration for such buildings. This will enable the Regulator to verify that i) they have received the requisite certificate prior to occupation and ii) the building control body overseeing the building is satisfied that it complies with the requirements of building regulations. A building will not be registered unless a copy of the appropriate certificate has been provided by the principal accountable person.

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree that, for buildings for which construction has started before the new regime comes into effect and which are subject to transitional arrangements, the principal accountable person must provide the appropriate certificate to the Regulator?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	72	82%
Disagree	3	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	7%
Don’t know	2	2%
Not Answered	5	6%
Total	88	100%

7.3. The majority of respondents (82%) agreed with our proposal that, for buildings for which construction has started but has not been completed before the new regime comes into effect and which are subject to transitional arrangements, the principal accountable person must provide the completion or final certificate to the Regulator as evidence that the building work was judged to comply with building regulations’ requirements^{[footnote 6]}.

7.4. Those who disagreed with the proposal (3%) were critical of the relevance of these documents as they felt that the documentation was not conclusive of compliance. Those who answered, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘don’t know’ expressed similar doubts to the aforementioned around the perceived assurance that a completion certificate would provide.

Government response

7.5. We agree with the majority of respondents (82%) that transitional arrangements are needed for buildings for which construction has started but not yet been completed before the new regime comes into effect. The principal accountable person will be required to provide a copy of the completion or final certificate alongside the date it was issued, the reference number, and the name of the building control body who issued the certificate.

7.6. The provision of this information will enable the Regulator to understand the building regulations that applied at the time of design and construction. This information, alongside additional data submitted as a part of the key building information requirement, will enable the Regulator to assess the risk profile of transitional buildings and prioritise directing principal accountable persons to apply for building assessment certificates for their buildings.

7.7. We recognise that completion and final certificates are not conclusive evidence of compliance with building regulations as the building control officer or Registered Building Control Approver will not have individually checked the building material and how it has been fitted or every aspect of submitted documents. To ensure that building safety risks are managed post completion, the principal accountable person must therefore apply for a building assessment certificate.

8. Existing buildings

Overview of proposal

8.1. For all other buildings (including existing residential blocks being brought into the new system and those built as offices and subsequently converted to residential accommodation), we propose that, in submitting an application for registration, the principal accountable person must confirm whether to their knowledge the building met the appropriate building standards applying at the time of completion.

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	48	55%
Disagree	24	27%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	10%
Don’t know	2	2%
Not Answered	5	6%
Total	88	100%

8.2. The responses to this question were mixed with just over half (55%) who agreed with the proposal, 27% who disagreed, 10% who neither agreed nor disagreed and 2% who were not sure. Those who agreed and supported the proposal felt that providing this documentation would prevent the principal accountable person from hiding behind a “supposed ignorance” and would encourage principal accountable persons to review the information available for their building.

8.3. Those who disagreed, or answered neither ‘agree nor disagree’, were concerned that the documentation would be difficult and costly to obtain where it was not readily available. There was also some concern that for a principal accountable person with multiple buildings, finding the documentation would create additional burden, especially for older buildings. Eight respondents felt that the documentation would no longer be relevant as it would not mean the building met current building regulations and therefore locating the documentation would not be an effective use of time.

8.4. Further guidance was requested by some respondents on what should happen if the building did not meet building regulations at the time of completion or if the documentation could not be located. Some respondents commented that, in these cases, the principal accountable person should have to provide a statement to confirm that all reasonable steps had been taken to find the required building control information.

Government response

8.5. We have considered the responses carefully and taken note of the varied responses provided in relation to the principal accountable person confirming whether a building met the building regulations at the time of completion. We understand that there are concerns about the feasibility of being able to provide the documentation, and the time and resources required to do so, especially for older buildings where locating the information may be considerably harder. We are clear that, while having this confirmation would be helpful to the Regulator, not being able to provide the information should not hinder the principal accountable person’s ability to register the building.

8.6. Whilst we note the concerns raised by some respondents in relation to the relevance of this documentation, the intention of having the confirmation is to understand which building regulations applied and were met at the time of completion, rather than confirming that the building meets new building standards.

8.7. In addition, the principal accountable person will have a duty under part 4 of the Act to establish a golden thread of information about their building and to produce a safety case report demonstrating that suitable and proportionate arrangements are in place to assess and manage building safety risks on an ongoing basis. The confirmation whether the building met the appropriate building standards applying at the time of completion would therefore also be useful to principle accountable persons for this purpose.

8.8. The Regulator will provide guidance to support principal accountable persons in accessing the required building control information. This will include guidance about what information regarding building regulations completion certificates is required where existing buildings have become higher-risk buildings due to change of use, and where additional floors have been added. It will also cover what to do in situations when the required building control information is unavailable.

9. Review of decisions

Overview of proposal

9.1. The government proposes to introduce regulations which set out which part 4 decisions are eligible for internal review by the Regulator.

9.2. The regulations will use the powers in section 25 of the Act to prescribe what part 4 decisions are eligible for internal review by the Regulator.

9.3. We are proposing that the following decisions are in scope for an internal review by the Regulator:

a) not to register a building on an application under section 78(1)

b) to remove a building from the register under section 78(3)

c) to refuse an application for a building assessment certificate under section 81(3)

d) to give a direction under section 83(2) in regard of a safety case requirement

Consultation analysis

Question: Do you agree or disagree that these decisions described above should be eligible for an internal review by the Regulator prior to being appealed to the tribunal?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	32	76%
Disagree	3	7%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	10%
Don’t know	2	5%
Not Answered	1	2%
Total	42	100%

9.4. The majority (76%) of respondents agreed that the principal accountable person should be able to request a review of the of the decisions that will be made by the Regulator, as set out in the consultation proposal. Of those who agreed, 2 respondents stated that there should be prescribed timescales for reviews.

9.5. 7% of respondents disagreed with the proposals. Reasons for this included the concern that the process would take too long, and that reviews of decisions should proceed straight to appeal with the First-Tier Tribunal. One respondent thought that more decisions should be subject to a review including disagreements regarding the management of building safety risks and the contents of the safety case.

9.6. Of those who answered, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ (4%), one respondent stated that they agreed with the principal of the proposal and noted that a review was likely to bring a quick resolution and be cost-effective. However, they raised similar concerns about timeliness of reviews.

Government response

9.7. We are clear that there must be an avenue for the principal accountable person to request a review of decisions made by the Regulator. This will ensure that the principal accountable person has an avenue to challenge those decisions made by the Regulator as set out in paragraph 9.3.

9.8. This will provide the Regulator with the opportunity to review the original decision, take into account any new information that may be available, and decide whether to amend or reverse their decision. The review may provide the affected person (see paragraph 9.10 below) with an appropriate solution and if not, they will have the right to appeal the decision via the First-Tier Tribunal as provided for under Section 104 of the Act (once that provision comes into force).

9.9. We acknowledge the concerns about the length of time that a review may take and will therefore include provisions about the timings for such reviews using powers under section 25(1)(c) of the Act. The regulations will set out that a notice requesting a review of a decision must be given to the Regulator within 21 days of the original decision. The Regulator must carry out the review within 28 days of reviewing the notice.

9.10. Furthermore, we will prescribe the persons who are able to request a review with reference to ‘affected persons’ within the meaning of section 104 of the Act.^{[footnote 7]} For a review of registration decisions, that means an accountable person of a higher-risk building (or a person who would be an accountable person if it transpires that the building does not meet the higher-risk building definition) is able to request a review.

9.11. Overall, respondents (76%) were in favour of the proposed approach to reviews of the Regulator’s decisions. This will ensure that there is a collaborative, fair, and transparent approach to resolving disputes that arise about the registration of buildings. We will set out our approach to appeals under Section 104 of the Act in a further response to the consultation, which we will publish in due course.

10. Summary

10.1. We are grateful to all respondents for taking the time to submit their responses to this consultation. All the responses have been carefully considered and taken into account in the development of the Government’s response and the regulations themselves.

10.2. In light of the comments received, and in consultation with the Regulator, we have made the amendments to the policies as outlined in this document to ensure that the new regime delivers its safety aims in a proportionate manner.

10.3. The regulations are currently subject to the negative parliamentary procedure and have been laid before Parliament on 14 March 2023. If approved by Parliament, the regulations will be made and come into force on 6 April 2023.

1. See consultation on the new building control regime for higher-risk buildings and wider changes to the building regulations for all buildings. ↩

2. Two leaseholders responded. ↩

3. A resident management company is an organisation which is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the common parts for the building as party to a lease or through leasehold enfranchisement. Under section 72 of the Act, the resident management company will become the accountable person. ↩

4. Section 89 of the Building Safety Act 2022. ↩

5. Government response to key building information and parts of a building consultation sections and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023. ↩

6. The legal meaning of the certificate is that it is ‘evidence but not conclusive evidence’ of compliance. ↩

7. Extract from section 104 of the Act “an affected person” means— in relation to a decision of the regulator not to register a building or to remove a building from the register, an accountable person for the higher-risk building (or a person who would be an accountable person for the building if the building were a higher-risk building). ↩