17 August 2023: Government response to building certification, safety case approach, mandatory occurrence reporting, residents’ voice, the golden thread, appeals and enforcement
Updated 18 October 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-new-safety-regime-for-occupied-higher-risk-buildings/outcome/4d2b09a0-99ec-43d9-91ce-6bdab090b805
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 consultation was open for 12 weeks from 20 July to 12 October 2022 and was published on the Department’s online consultation platform in Citizen Space, as well as on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey and via email.
1.3 The new regime for occupied higher-risk buildings is 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.
1.4 The new regime puts in place more stringent oversight for the safety of high-rise residential buildings throughout design, construction, and occupation, with clearer accountability backed by stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance. The regime places new legal responsibilities on those who participate in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings and/or commission higher-risk building work, and those who are responsible for managing structural and fire safety in higher-risk buildings when they are occupied.
1.5 Included in the consultation on proposals for improving the building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings were questions on a range of areas, including:
- new regulatory requirements for principal accountable persons[footnote 1] in occupied buildings to apply for a building assessment certificate once directed to do so by the Building Safety Regulator (“the Regulator”)
- principles that accountable persons, including principal accountable persons, must follow in setting their arrangements for managing building safety risks. This also included questions relating to the required content of safety case reports, as well as the process for notifying the Regulator about the creation of, or changes to, a safety case report, and the submission of reports to the Regulator
- new regulatory requirements that will require all people responsible for higher-risk buildings to capture and report certain fire and structural safety issues (safety occurrences) to the Regulator. This also included questions about the circumstances in which a safety occurrence is reportable, the information to be reported to the Regulator, and the timescale within which it should be reported
- how principal accountable persons will promote the participation of all residents in decisions about their building’s safety through the residents’ engagement strategy, how the principal accountable person’s complaints system will operate, and how an accountable person can issue a contravention notice to residents if they are not meeting their obligations to ensure their own safety and that of others
- how golden thread information is stored and managed (the golden thread principles) to enable people to access, share and manage the information for occupied buildings
- the more stringent enforcement regime that targets issues affecting the safety of occupied higher-risk buildings through the use of compliance notices and prosecution. These included how the new regulatory requirements will be enforced by the Regulator including procedural requirements for compliance notices
- the decisions that are eligible for internal review by the Regulator, and procedural and administrative matters relating to further appeals to the First Tier Tribunal
1.6 Each question had a sub question which allowed respondents to provide any comments or explanations to support their answers.
1.7 Responses were received from a diverse range of stakeholders including local authorities and registered providers, developers and house builders, fire and rescue authorities, engineering consultants, institutional investors, representative bodies, product manufactures, and a small number of leaseholders.
1.8 Also included in the consultation were questions related to the key building information that needs to be submitted to the Regulator and the parts of an occupied higher-risk building for which an accountable person is responsible for, in an occupied higher-risk building. The government’s response to these questions was published on 24 January 2023.
1.9 The consultation included 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 Regulator, the information to be provided when registering buildings built under the new design and construction regime, along with transitional arrangements, and registering existing buildings, and one related to the decisions eligible for internal review by the Regulator. The government’s response to these questions was published on 14 March 2023.
1.10 There were also questions relating to the information that a principal accountable person or relevant accountable person must provide to residents, requests for further information, exemptions to providing information to residents and storing information on complaints and contravention notices, the contents of the golden thread information and duties on the principal accountable person and accountable person(s) to provide this information and exemptions to providing this information to persons other than residents. The response to these questions has been included in a separate consultation response.
1.11 Each chapter contains tables which provide the number and percentages of respondents for each question. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. This may result in totals under or over 100%.
1.12 Throughout this document the principal accountable person and accountable persons are referred to as accountable persons. However, there are specific duties which the principal accountable person must carry out. In these cases, the document will refer to the ‘principal accountable person’ as necessary.
2. Building Assessment Certificate
2.1 Section 79 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) sets out the duty for the principal accountable person to apply for a building assessment certificate once directed to do so by the Regulator.
2.2 Once a building has been registered, the principal accountable person will subsequently be directed by the Regulator to apply for a building assessment certificate. A building assessment certificate will only be issued by the Regulator if it is satisfied that, at the time it carries out its assessment, the accountable person(s), including the principal accountable person, for the building are complying with the relevant duties under part 4 of the Act.
2.3 The Regulator will publish its timeframe for issuing directions to apply for a building assessment certificate, taking a risk-based approach formulated on the physical characteristics of the occupied buildings, and published in its strategic plan under section 17 of the Act.
Overview of responses
2.4 The building assessment certificate section of the consultation received 64 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.
2.5 The questions covered various aspects of certification including the timescales in which a direction should be issued from the Regulator, the process to apply, refusal of certificates and re-assessment.
Application for Building Assessment Certificate
Overview of proposal
2.6 Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 of the consultation set out that the principal accountable person for a registered higher-risk building must apply for a building assessment certificate upon receiving a direction from the Regulator (in accordance with section 79 of the Act). A principal accountable person commits an offence if they fail to apply within 28 calendar days of the direction being issued, unless they have a reasonable excuse.
2.7 The government proposed that for new builds, the principal accountable person will be directed to apply for a building assessment certificate within 6 months of occupation.
2.8 The government understands that communication between the principal accountable person and accountable persons for the building will be dependent on up-to-date contact information. The principal accountable person will, therefore, be required to update the Regulator if there are any material changes to the registration information for the building at the time of application for a building safety certificate.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that 6 months is the appropriate time scale for calling in (i.e. issuing a direction) applications for a building assessment certificate following occupation of a registered new build building?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 44 | 69% |
| Disagree | 8 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 3% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.9 A majority of respondents (69%) agreed with the proposed timeframe of 6 months to call in applications for newly occupied buildings. Of these, 8 respondents suggested alternative time frames. Of these, 6 suggested timeframes under 6 months, while 2 suggested 12 months.
2.10 Eight respondents (13%) disagreed with the proposals, with the main concern being that 6 months would be too long for a building to be occupied without a certificate to assure residents and building owners that safety risks were being managed to the required standards. A small number of respondents (two) suggested that the direction to apply for the certificate should be issued immediately after occupation.
2.11 Although the question only related to new builds, 2 respondents raised concerns that the 28-day time frame to return information to the Regulator for existing buildings was too short.
2.12 Nine respondents (14%) neither agreed or disagreed and one stated that they did not know. Those who neither agreed nor disagreed provided further comments which indicated that they were generally in agreement that 6 months would be sufficient, provided the accountable person(s) have already begun collating the required documentation and that the Regulator had capacity to manage the likely influx of applications.
Government response
2.13 The government notes the concerns raised around waiting 6 months before issuing a direction to apply for a certificate and the possible risks attached in doing so.
2.14 The Department has worked extensively with the Regulator to determine the documentation and evidence required to meet the requirements for a certificate. Some of this documentation including the safety case report can only be produced once the building is occupied. For example, the safety management system will need to be designed with an understanding of the residents living in the building, and this can only be done post-occupation. For the Regulator to be able to effectively assess compliance with the new duties by the principal accountable person and accountable persons, the direction to apply for a building assessment certificate must, therefore, be issued after occupation.
Prescribed information to accompany an application for a building assessment certificate
Overview of proposal
2.15 Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6 to 3.7 of the consultation set out the proposed approach in relation to the information to be provided with an application for a building assessment certificate.
2.16 Section 80(1)(b) of the Act provides that, in submitting an application for a building assessment certificate, the principal accountable person must include details about its mandatory occurrence reporting (MOR) system which must meet the prescribed requirements. The government proposed that the application must be accompanied by a document that demonstrates compliance with section 87(5) and (6) of the Act. In doing so, the document would show how the principal accountable person will establish and operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system for the receiving of information relating to a building safety risk. The system would help to enable them to comply with section 93 (1) of the Act about investigating complaints relating to building safety risks.
2.17 We will set out the final requirements for prescribed information to be provided to the Regulator when applying for a building assessment certificate in regulations.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree how the detail about the mandatory occurrence reporting (MOR) system should be given in connection with the application?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 51 | 80% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 9% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 6% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.18 Fifty-one respondents (80%) agreed with the proposals, commenting that the information should be readily available, as part 4 of the Act places various duties on the accountable person(s) relating to the management of building safety risks. Respondents also felt that providing the MOR system would demonstrate to the Regulator that an effective system was in place and that each accountable person was aware of their duties.
2.19 Of the respondents who agreed, 6 were concerned about the lack of information and guidance available to support principal accountable persons to produce a MOR system. Requests were made for there to be a standard set of requirements, through which principal accountable persons can check whether they have included sufficient information to be compliant. More clarity was also requested on how the MOR system will fit into safety management systems.
2.20 Six respondents (9%) neither agreed nor disagreed due to the question not being relevant for them. One respondent requested that the MOR reporting procedure worked in conjunction with the complaints procedures already in place for housing associations. This procedure involves referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if needed.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed requirements for the provision of prescribed information for application for a building assessment certificate?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 50 | 78% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 5% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 6% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.21 Fifty respondents (78%) agreed with the proposed requirements for the provision of prescribed information when applying for a building assessment certificate. Of these respondents, 2 felt that more clarity was needed on the level of detail and the format of the information, and that some form of digital platform or database should be provided to store the information. One respondent raised concerns around the requirement for the principal accountable person to provide a statement to confirm that all of the accountable person(s) had provided information. Their concern related to the practicalities of the principal accountable person being able to gather the information from other accountable person(s) and whether the principal accountable person would be able to enforce other accountable person(s) to comply.
2.22 Two respondents (3%) disagreed with the proposal on the basis that they felt there was an ‘overload of interested parties’ and that the requirements were not clear to follow. One respondent suggested the information should be made open to the public via an accessible webpage, following the application for an assessment certificate for the building.
2.23 Five respondents (8%) neither agreed nor disagreed as they felt it was unclear what documentation or evidence the principal accountable person required from accountable person(s) to meet the requirements. Similarly, concerns were raised around the possible lack of relationship between the principal accountable person and the accountable person(s) and the implications this could have on being able to gather the required information. One respondent also had questions about how this information could be provided in circumstances where an accountable person disputes that they meet the definition for an accountable person and fails to cooperate with the principal accountable person.
Government response
2.24 The government notes the concerns around the lack of guidance currently available to support principal accountable persons to produce a MOR system which complies with the proposed requirements. The Regulator is in the process of producing detailed guidance to support principal accountable persons. The Regulator will also work with the sector to educate and share best practice on how an effective MOR system should operate.
2.25 The majority of respondents (78%) were in favour of the proposed requirements for the provision of information for an application for a building assessment certificate. The government has also noted the need for further guidance on the format of the information and work is ongoing to ensure this is available as soon as possible.
2.26 Whilst the principal accountable person may in some cases face difficulties in ascertaining the required information from other accountable person(s), the government anticipates that in most cases this should be straightforward. When registering a building, the principal accountable person will need to work with other accountable person(s) in accordance with section 109 of the Act (Cooperation and coordination), to gather their contact details and determine for which parts of the building they are responsible for managing. This will mean that at the time of applying for a building assessment certificate, accountable persons will have accepted and should understand their role and responsibilities and making it straightforward for the principal accountable person to provide the information required for an application.
2.27 The Regulator will issue a direction setting out how information accompanying the application should be submitted to it. The intention is that the required information to apply for a building assessment certificate will need to be uploaded digitally via an online/web application, in line with governments ‘digital by default’ strategy.
Issue or refusal to issue a building assessment certificate
Overview of proposal
2.28 In accordance with Section 81 of the Building Safety Act, the Regulator must issue a building assessment certificate if it is satisfied that all relevant part 4 duties in the Act are being complied with at the time the assessment is carried out. Paragraphs 3.13 to 3.17 of the consultation set out proposals for when this is not the case.
2.29 Regulations may be made which specify information that must be included in a notice given to the principal accountable person refusing to issue a building assessment certificate under section 81(3)(b) of the Act. We propose that the regulations will provide that the contents of a refusal notice must include the following:
- a brief description of the contravention of the duty or duties that give rise to the decision
- the reason why the contravention has caused the Regulator to refuse the application for a building assessment certificate
- information about the right to appeal against the decision following a review under section 25 of the Act
- the date of the decision
2.30 Section 81(3)(b) of the Act requires the Regulator to notify the principal accountable person of its decision to refuse to issue a building assessment certificate. There is no requirement in the Act to notify any other accountable person for that building of that decision.
2.31 We propose, therefore, that regulations should provide that a copy of the notification sent to the principal accountable person under section 81(3)(b) must be copied to any other accountable person for the building. This is important because any accountable person for the building may seek a review of the decision or appeal under to the First-tier Tribunal under section 104 of the Act. In order to decide whether to exercise that right to seek a review all accountable persons need to be informed of the decision to refuse to issue the building assessment certificate. If the Regulator is satisfied that the contravention of a duty could be remedied “promptly” the notice under section 81(4)(a) of the Act explaining the contravention of duties and by when they must be remedied is only required to be served on the principal accountable person.
2.32 In buildings with multiple accountable persons, it may be another accountable person who is responsible for the duty and, therefore, responsible for remedying the contravention. It would be unreasonable to expect an accountable person to remedy a breach of duty for which they are responsible (not the principal accountable person) without the regulator informing that person of the contravention and giving them the opportunity to remedy it, particularly as non-compliance with the notice can lead to refusal to issue the building assessment certificate. We, therefore, propose that regulations should provide that a copy of the notice sent to the principal accountable person under section 81(4)(a) of the Act must be copied to any other accountable person for the building.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that this information must be included in a notice refusing to issue a building assessment certificate?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 55 | 86% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 5% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 3% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.33 Fifty-five respondents (86%) agreed that the proposed information must be included in a notice refusing to issue a building assessment certificate. The proposal was largely welcomed; respondents felt that this was needed to allow the principal accountable person to understand the reasons behind the refusal.
2.34 Although a significant majority expressed agreement with the information required, suggestions including the following were made:
- more detailed information should be available from the Regulator about the reasons for refusal and the level of detail should be sufficient for accountable person to be able to challenge the decision
- the notice should indicate who is responsible for correcting the issues and should direct the principal accountable person to relevant guidance
2.35 Further information was also requested on the consequences for the building and interested parties if the Regulator refuses a certificate and whether there is a limit on the number of times a principal accountable person can reapply for a certificate.
2.36 Two respondents (3%) disagreed with the proposals and a total of 5 (8%) answered either ‘neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘don’t know’. Views expressed by these groups of respondents reflected the points listed above.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that copy notices issued by the Regulator under sections 81(3) or (4) should be provided to all accountable persons for the building?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 55 | 86% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 3 |
| Not Answered | 4 | 6% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.37 Fifty-five respondents (86%) were in favour of the proposals for the principal accountable person to have a duty to provide all accountable persons with a copy of the notice issued by the Regulator. Those who agreed believed sharing this notice was essential to ensure the issues would be remedied before applying for another certificate. There were also comments from those who agreed with the proposal about the importance of accountable persons providing up to date contact information to allow principal accountable persons to share the notice.
2.38 Comments were made suggesting there should be a duty on the principal accountable person to explain what the issues were, and which accountable person needed to make changes to comply with the notice. Two respondents agreed that copy notices should be shared with accountable persons but felt that the Regulator should have the responsibility of issuing the notice instead of the principal accountable person.
2.39 Two respondents disagreed with the proposals, and 3 answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’.
Government response
2.40 In circumstances where the information provided to the Regulator in an application for a Building Assessment Certificate is unsatisfactory, a contravention or refusal notice is to be sent to the principal accountable person as set out in paragraphs 3.9 – 3.12 of the consultation. The purpose of the notice is to set out clearly for the principal accountable person the contravention or reason for the refusal of the application. This is to enable the principal accountable person to work with the accountable person(s) to remedy the issues and make improvements to their building safety management systems before re-applying. Respondents agreed that it was important for this information to be included in the notice.
2.41 The government notes the concerns from a minority of respondents about the level of detail to be prescribed in the notice and whether this would be sufficient for the principal accountable person to challenge the decision. The policy intent is for the principal accountable person to remedy any issues as soon as possible so that the building is managed safely and as required by the Act, and assurance is provided to the Regulator of this. The government does not want to be overly prescriptive about the detail to be included and is clear that the Regulator will be best placed to determine the level of detail to be included in the notice. We will, therefore, set out in regulations the minimum level of information required in the notice. Where it decides necessary the Regulator will be able to add further information. The government expects that the Regulator will support individual principal accountable persons so that issues can be addressed.
2.42 In relation to the suggestion that the notice should indicate who is responsible for correcting the issues, the government appreciates that different accountable persons will be responsible for remedying issues in their part of the building. Both the principal accountable person and the relevant accountable person (s) will receive a copy of the notice. This will encourage them to work together to determine the best course of action to resolve the issue. The duty under section 109 (Cooperation and coordination) on accountable persons to cooperate and coordinate will help to ensure that they work together to achieve compliance with the notice.
2.43 If a certificate is refused by the Regulator, the principal accountable person should work at pace to remedy the issues and satisfy the requirements of the Act. While refusal of a certificate may not have any immediate effect on the safety of residents it does indicate that at that point in time the building is not being managed safely with respect to the duties under Part 4 of the Act.
2.44 In addition, there will not be a limit on the number of times a principal accountable person can re-apply for a certificate, although each application will come at a charge. It is, therefore, in their interest to get everything right first time. More details about the proposed fees and charges will be included in the charging schedule which will be published in the autumn. The Regulator will, however, make appropriate decisions about any course of enforcement action. This may include putting the building into special measures to ensure compliance with the building safety regime.
2.45 In relation to sharing the notices issued by the Regulator with accountable persons, most respondents agreed that this was necessary to ensure that issues can be remedied. We have gone further, however, and will require the Regulator to issue notices to all the accountable persons, as well as the principal accountable person as set out in the Act. This is because it is essential that all accountable persons take responsibility for safely managing their part of the building. Accountable persons will require all relevant information to work together and manage the safety for the whole building as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt.
Display and content of certain information about accountable persons and the building assessment certificate
Overview of proposal
2.46 Section 82 of the Act requires the principal accountable person to display, in a conspicuous position in the building, a notice providing prescribed details of the principal accountable person and accountable person(s) for the building, the most recent building assessment certificate and copies of any compliance notices relating to the building which are still in force. If a special measures order is in force, the building assessment certificate must cease to be displayed. Paragraphs 3.18 to 3.28 of the consultation set out proposals related to these requirements.
2.47 The Act set out that an offence is committed if, without reasonable excuse, the relevant notices or building assessment certificate are not displayed, or if a copy of the building assessment certificate continues to be displayed where a special measures order[footnote 2] is in place.
2.48 Under section 81 of the Act, the Secretary of State has powers to prescribe rules and make regulations concerning building assessment certificates and related notices.
2.49 A building assessment certificate is a document which confirms that, on the date the assessment was carried out, the relevant duties under part 4 of the Act were being complied with by the accountable person(s), as assessed by the Regulator.
2.50 The proposals set out that the Regulator must plan to carry out such an assessment at least every 5 years, although they may conduct an assessment at any time.
2.51 They also set out that the following information should be recorded on the building assessment certificate:
- the issuing office address of the Regulator
- e-mail address and telephone number of the Regulator
- the date the assessment was completed
- a statement that the Regulator is satisfied that all relevant duties under part 4 of the Act are being complied with on the date the assessment was completed
- the date of issue and signature of an officer of the Regulator, authorised for that purpose
2.52 Separately, and in addition to the building assessment certificate, the Act states that the principal accountable person must display, in a conspicuous position in the building, a notice giving prescribed information about all the accountable person(s) for the building. This notice is required to be displayed at the same location as the building assessment certificate.
2.53 We proposed that the information to be displayed in the notice must include:
- the current details of the name and address of every accountable person for the building
- if any address is not in the United Kingdom, an address – not including a PO Box – in England or Wales for correspondence and receipt of notices
- contact telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of the accountable persons
2.54 Where the building has more than one accountable person the notice must specify which of them is the principal accountable person and for which parts of the building each of the accountable person is responsible.
2.55 We also proposed that the notice must include the date the notice was published.
2.56 The government does not wish to be overly prescriptive on how the Regulator issues the building assessment certificate or notice, but it must be given in writing and can be provided through electronic means.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator must plan to conduct an assessment at least once in every 5 years?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 49 | 77% |
| Disagree | 8 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 3% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
2.57 Forty-nine respondents (77%) agreed with the proposal and provided no further comments. Eight respondents disagreed and, of this group, the majority indicated that a fixed 5-year period was not suitable. They suggested that there should be flexibility to the approach, and the length of time between assessments should be dependent on factors such as the height, complexity and management performance of the building. Another respondent noted that the assessment should also take place following a change in the principal accountable person.
2.58 Two respondents felt that 5 years would be too short a timeframe, especially where one principal accountable person has responsibility over many buildings. They argued that in situations where multiple buildings were assessed in one year, the principal accountable person would struggle to provide the required information, and that the Regulator should take account of these circumstances and ensure that adjustments were made for principal accountable persons who manage multiple buildings.
2.59 Four respondents answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ on a similar basis. There was also a suggestion that circumstances such as where cladding remediation was under way at the time of the first assessment, or the number of reported incidents in the building, should determine the interval between assessments.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that this is the right information to be included in a building assessment certificate?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52 | 81% |
| Disagree | 7 | 11% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 4% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.60 Fifty-two respondents (81%) agreed that the information listed should be included in a building assessment certificate. A few respondents noted that although they agreed with the information listed, additional information was also required. This included the UPRN[footnote 3] alongside a reference number from the Regulator. One respondent suggested including the building name, principal accountable person’s name and main address of the building.
2.61 Although 7 respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposal, the comments provided suggested that they agreed in principle with the information listed but felt that more information was required. In particular, respondents commented that the validity date or expiry date of the certificate should be included, to aid transparency and ensure residents could have confidence that the certificate was up to date.
2.62 One respondent answered, ‘don’t know’ and one respondent answered, ‘neither agree nor disagree’. Only one of these respondents provided additional comments, again suggesting the inclusion of a date indicating when an updated assessment would be required.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that this is the right level of information which needs to be included in a displayed notice?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 50 | 78% |
| Disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 9% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 5% |
| Total | 64 | 100% |
2.63 Fifty respondents (78%) agreed with the level of information proposed to be included on a displayed notice, with respondents commenting that this was a logical and reasonable proposal. The information outlined was deemed sufficient by most of these respondents, however, a small number raised additional considerations, including accessibility for disabled individuals and that notices should be drafted in additional languages for blocks where English was not the first language for most residents. Respondents also suggested that a digital format should also be used as displayed notices could be vandalised.
2.64 Four respondents (6%) disagreed with the proposal, on the basis that additional information should be required. Their concerns centred around the contact details for the principal accountable person and the implications that a change in accountable persons would have on the accuracy of the certificate. One suggestion was instead to have a generic email address which could be passed on to the next principal accountable person. One respondent suggested that such an inbox should be manned by multiple people, as one person may not be able to effectively manage all engagement and correspondence with residents.
2.65 Six respondents (9%) answered ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and concurred with other respondents that the contact details of accountable person(s) should be included. Further information was requested for resident management companies, where there may be multiple directors, although it was noted that such directors may not want their personal details shared on the displayed notice.
Government response
2.66 The majority of respondents agreed with 5 years being a suitable period of time in which re-assessment should take place, however, there were mixed views from others on the suitability of this timeframe, with suggestions for a more flexible approach based on the circumstances of the building at the point of the initial assessment. The government notes these concerns but is satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility within the proposals and buildings will be categorised based on a set risk profile which will take account of the information provided through registration and within the key building information provided post-registration. Buildings considered higher risk will be directed to apply for a certificate sooner than those in lower risk categories and it will then be up to the Regulator to determine when the next re-assessment should take place, but the reassessment period will be no more than 5 years.
2.67 The government notes that a small number of respondents (3) felt a UPRN should be included on a building assessment certificate. Although a UPRN is a useful identifier for buildings, not all buildings will have a UPRN due to local authority variations in the way that UPRNs have been assigned. As such, the government considers including the address and post code of the building more appropriate.
2.68 The government has, however, noted the need to ensure the information is clear and accessible and has, therefore, reduced the level of detail to be included in the certificate. On that basis, the certificate will not need to include the issuing office and the email address and telephone number of the Regulator as this information will be readily available via the Regulator’s website and communicated to residents via the principal accountable person’s complaints procedure.
2.69 The Regulator will provide further guidance to set out the requirements for an application for a building assessment certificate. Most, if not all, of the information should be readily available to the principal accountable person as it there will be a duty on all accountable persons to manage building safety risks for their building and to ensure the relevant documentation is up to date. The principal accountable person should, therefore, be able provide the required information even where multiple buildings are managed by the same principal accountable person.
2.70 Most respondents agreed that the contact details of the principal accountable person and accountable persons should be included in a notice to be displayed in the building.
2.71 The government recognises that a validity date or expiry date could reassure residents that the displayed building assessment certificate was up to date, however, we do not agree that it would be appropriate to provide a validity date or an expiry date within the certificate. This is because the certificate is an assessment that confirms that accountable person(s) are effectively managing building safety at specific point in time in accordance with the duties in the Act.
3. Principles for managing building safety risks and the safety case report
3.1 Part 4 of the Act establishes that accountable persons of higher-risk buildings are responsible for defined building safety risks: the risk to the safety of people in or about a building arising from the spread of fire or structural failure in relation to the building.
3.2 Section 83 of the Act places a duty on accountable persons to carry out assessments of building safety risks. These assessments must be sufficient so that accountable persons are able to discharge the duty placed on them to manage building safety risks, as set out in section 84.
3.3 Under section 85 the principal accountable person is required to produce a safety case report. The report should demonstrate that building safety risks have been fully assessed and that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure they are managed on an ongoing basis.
3.4 Regulations will set out the principles that accountable persons must follow when taking steps to manage building safety risks and detail on the requirements for the safety case report.
Overview of responses
3.5 There was a total of 71 responses to the questions on prescribed principles for managing building safety risks and the safety case report.
Prescribed principles Accountable Persons must follow for the management of building safety risks
Overview of proposals
3.6 Section 84 of the Building Safety Act places a duty on accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to ensure they have effective and proportionate measures in place to manage building safety risks. The policy objective is to ensure that incidents involving building safety risks do not occur and, if one does, that the impact is minimised.
3.7 To achieve this, accountable persons will be required to ensure appropriate layers of protection are in place across the building – establishing a holistic system, with numerous preventative and protective barriers, which deliver against the “all reasonable steps” duty.
3.8 The Act requires accountable persons to follow prescribed principles when meeting their duty to manage building safety risks, as set out in section 84(3). Paragraphs 5.12 to 5.28 of the consultation set out proposals in relation to these principles, which are intended to reflect the realities of managing major fire and structural safety risks in high-rise residential buildings. These support Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendation for management principles to be established and her clear steer that a higher risk building must be considered as a system with residents being afforded a greater voice in how their buildings are managed.
3.9 The proposed principles set out in the consultation were:
- avoid incidents involving building safety risks
- assess and evaluate building safety risks
- prioritise safety features which combat risks at source
- inspect, test and maintain safety features
- ensure risks are assessed and managed by people with the right skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours
- prioritise collective safety features
- adopt new technologies
- replace dangerous features for those that are less dangerous
- ensure residents’ voices are heard
- provide clear instructions and information to employees and contractors
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed principles that the principal accountable person and accountable person(s) must follow when managing building safety risks?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52 | 73% |
| Disagree | 6 | 8% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 13% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 4 | 6% |
| Total | 71 | 100% |
3.10 Fifty-two respondents (73%) agreed with the proposed principles that must be followed when managing building safety risks. It was noted that similar principles are being successfully followed through requirements set out elsewhere, such as in the prevention principles in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and these are widely recognised and understood by those with safety management responsibilities.
3.11 Only 6 respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposals. Reasons for disagreeing included placing greater emphasis on the importance of competence in managing building safety risks, suggestions that not all of the principles would be relevant to all safety features within a building, and suggestions of drafting edits such as using the term “safer” in place of “less dangerous”.
3.12 Respondents were provided with an opportunity to offer an explanation for their answer, and if they disagreed, to explain what changes they think should be made. Forty-three respondents (61%) provided comments.
3.13 In line with the general support afforded to the proposals, 10 respondents noted that the principles were broadly in line with existing prevention principles frameworks and provided a strong basis for best practice.
3.14 A further 6 respondents, regardless of whether they had agreed or disagreed with the proposals, emphasised the importance of competence requirements for managing risks, which represents a departure from traditional prevention principles. It was suggested that competence should apply equally to individuals and organisations, including those that may be involved in supporting accountable persons meet their duties.
3.15 It was also highlighted by 8 respondents that further guidance would be needed to ensure accountable persons could implement the principles effectively and support culture change.
Government response
3.16 The government considers that setting out principles that accountable persons must follow when managing building safety risks will play an important role in improving risk management and delivering safer buildings. The responses to the consultation support this view, with 73% agreeing with the principles.
3.17 Resident safety is at the heart of the new regime, and it is essential that the principles, while consistent with established risk management practices, specifically focus on higher-risk buildings. The government is committed to delivering this and the views of respondents support this approach. The intention to include a requirement focussed on listening to residents within the principles supports wider duties to engage with residents (see chapter 5 of this consultation for further details).
3.18 Although generally ordered from the most to least effective, as is the case with existing prevention principles, the principles are not absolute and should not be considered singularly or in isolation. Accountable persons and those that support them should take a pragmatic approach to understanding and following the principles, and guidance published by the Regulator will help with this.
3.19 Many of the principles interact and are mutually supportive, for example, a safety feature which combats risks at source may provide collective safety and may need to be tested and maintained over time to remain effective. Some, for example maintenance and testing, will not be relevant to certain safety features in a building. Relying on a single prevention or mitigation measure will not provide the multiple layers of protection necessary.
3.20 While there was strong backing from respondents for the principles, it was clear from the consultation that further guidance will be needed to support accountable persons to better understand the principles and put them into practice. To deliver this, the government is working closely with the Regulator on developing guidance on the principles, including how they relate to other aspects of the new regime.
3.21 The government agrees with respondents who emphasised the importance of including a competence requirement in the principles – this will apply to both individuals and organisations. Individuals and organisations involved in the management of building safety risks must have the necessary skills, knowledge experience and behaviours and capabilities to carry out the tasks required of them. The government is committed to supporting the raising of professionalism and standards amongst those who own and manage buildings and providing the right framework to ensure this happens. Industry must take the lead on this, and we welcome the work being undertaken by sections of the industry, including work on codes of practice for property agents.
3.22 Accountable persons will come from a diverse range of organisations and individuals, including residents who have taken on responsibility for managing their own buildings. The government recognises that accountable persons may need differing levels of support. Accountable persons are best placed to determine their own levels of competence and capability and make informed decisions on where they may require external support. However, clear guidance around these principles will support decision making and will be tailored to varying needs.
Safety case reports
Overview of proposals
3.23 The safety case regime for occupied high-rise residential buildings introduced by the Act requires a safety case report to be produced by the principal accountable person. The report should demonstrate that the principal accountable person, and any other relevant accountable person(s), have in place suitable and proportionate arrangements for the ongoing assessment and management of building safety risks.
3.24 The safety case report will be supported by the wider safety case, which includes detailed information about the building and assessments of building safety risks and measures in place to manage those risks. This information will be kept as golden thread information. See chapter 6 for further details on the golden thread information below.
3.25 Paragraphs 5.29 to 5.47 of the consultation set out proposals related to the form and content of safety case reports, and notifications and submissions of safety case reports to the Regulator.
3.26 The primary purpose of the safety case and safety case report is to provide documented assurance that the building and building safety risks within have been understood and assessed, and proportionate measures have been taken to manage the risks on an ongoing basis.
3.27 The submission of a safety case report to the Regulator is typical of similar regulatory regimes. Under the new building safety regime, a safety case report will be required as part of the principal accountable person’s application for a building assessment certificate.
3.28 The Regulator will also be able to request the submission of a safety case report separate to building assessment certificate applications, and they must be notified of changes made to a safety case report.
3.29 The exact content and level of detail included in the safety case report is a matter for the principal accountable person and accountable person(s) to determine, taking into account the hazards, risk assessments, safety arrangements and further specifics of each individual high-rise residential building.
3.30 While there will be no set template for a safety case report, it is common practice that the report must meet minimum requirements for the content contained within. The proposed headings set out in the consultation for the topics to be covered in the report were:
- a description of the building
- a summary of building safety risk assessment(s)
- an overview of the measures in place to remove, mitigate and control building safety risks
- a summary of the safety management system and how it supports the delivery of ongoing risk management
- an explanation of the emergency arrangements
- a final overview demonstrating that all reasonable steps have been taken
3.31 The regulations that will set the form and content for the safety case report will take into account the responses to the proposals set out in the consultation.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed content of the safety case report?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52 | 73% |
| Disagree | 7 | 10% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 8 | 11% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
| Not answered | 3 | 4% |
| Total | 71 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%
3.32 Fifty-two respondents (73%), representing a clear majority, agreed with the proposals for the content that must be included within a safety case report. Many respondents noted that covering the topics set out in the consultation would help accountable persons understand their buildings and the measures and arrangements that must be maintained in order to manage building safety risks successfully.
3.33 Only 7 respondents (10%) disagreed with the proposals, and a further 8 (11%) neither agreed nor disagreed, while 4 respondents either did not know or did not answer.
3.34 Respondents were provided with an opportunity to offer an explanation for their answer, and if they disagreed, to explain what changes they thought should be made. Forty-four respondents (62%) provided comments.
3.35 Although there was good support for the proposed content of safety case reports, 19 respondents noted the need for additional support and guidance, including the Regulator’s assessment criteria, to support the safety case approach being successfully adopted. Requests were also made for a template or for an example safety case report to be published. Concerns were raised that the absence of clear guidance would leave accountable persons unaware of the detail required and hinder the roll out of the new regime. It was also noted that as accountable persons will come from a range of different organisations with varying degrees of resource and competence, government will need to clearly set out the content requirements or risk creating a requirement that some will be unable to meet.
3.36 Of the respondents that disagreed with the proposals, 2 did so on the basis that safety case reports would be required for existing buildings that may not have been assessed for some time or may fall short of the standards in place at the time of construction let alone current ones. Two further respondents said that the report should include evidence of the risk assessment process undertaken.
3.37 The task of gathering the information required to substantiate the safety case report was also mentioned, with 4 responses making the link to the golden thread of information content requirements. It was noted that material for older buildings may be less readily available and accountable persons may need time and the support of external experts to gather the right information before they would be in a position to produce a robust safety case report, backed up with the necessary data.
Question: Do you have you any views on the format in which a safety case report must be produced, stored and submitted?
3.38 Fifty-six respondents (79%) provided comments on this question with 15 (21%) not offering a view.
3.39 Twenty-three respondents suggested that a safety case report should be produced in a digital format, ensuring flexibility and allowing for a simple submission to the Regulator. As with the content of the report itself, respondents commented that guidance would be required to provide further details on these matters.
3.40 It was noted that a flexible approach would ensure the principal accountable person could determine the most appropriate method and guard against the imposition of higher costs if a specific software, for example, was mandated.
3.41 Three respondents mentioned that organisations may produce more than one version of a safety case report and, while technical language may suit the Regulator, it may not be appropriate for others, such as residents, who may also request copies.
3.42 One respondent raised transitional arrangements, seeking further clarity on when existing buildings will be required to submit a safety case report. They noted that accountable persons may be responsible for a large portfolio of buildings and the Regulator would need to be take this into account and be pragmatic in their approach.
Question: Do you have any views on the way in which the Regulator must be notified by the principal accountable person following the completion or update of a safety case report?
3.43 Forty-eight respondents (68%) provided comments on this question with 23 (32%) not offering a view.
3.44 Fifteen respondents suggested that the Regulator should host an online portal through which notification could be made and safety case reports be submitted. It was also noted that, to ensure an appropriate audit trail, once a safety case report had been submitted, a confirmation of receipt should be provided by the Regulator.
3.45 Nine respondents raised concerns on determining when a safety case report needed to be updated and, therefore, the Regulator notified of a change. Comments included that further clarity and guidance was needed to ensure accountable persons know the expectations around updating safety case reports. It was suggested that without this the Regulator may become overwhelmed with updates covering minor issues, and the process could become overly bureaucratic.
3.46 Conflicting views were given by a minority of respondents regarding publication of safety case reports – with some calling for them to be made publicly available and others noting the importance of keeping potentially safety-critical information secure and away from those who may use it for harmful purposes.
Question: Do you have any further observations you would like to share?
3.47 Forty-six respondents (65%) provided comments on this question with 25 (35%) not offering a view.
3.48 Responses to this question tended to reiterate comments made in response to earlier questions set out in this chapter. In particular, comments focussed on calls for clear guidance (14 respondents) to ensure widespread understanding of the requirements of the new safety case regime.
3.49 A small number of respondents (4) raised questions about how the Regulator will operationalise their role, including whether physical building inspections would be included as part of a safety case report assessment and how multi-disciplinary teams would be staffed and organised – including the role played by other regulators within multi-disciplinary teams.
Government response
3.50 Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety identified a need to drive a major culture change throughout the whole system, building on the principle that risks should be owned and managed by those that create them. She recommended the introduction of a safety case regime for the management of major fire and structural safety risks in high-rise residential buildings.
3.51 The government is committed to delivering this. Responses to the consultation support the view that introducing the safety case requirements will drive improved safety performance, helping ensure resident are, and can feel, safe in their homes.
3.52 The government considers that the introduction of a safety case approach will improve safety standards in high rise residential buildings and drive positive culture change amongst accountable persons. The safety case approach requires accountable persons to understand their buildings as a system and ensure that building safety risks are actively managed. It is right that accountable persons must be able to demonstrate how they are delivering safely managed buildings. The safety case report will play an important role in making that demonstration.
3.53 While over 73% of respondents agreed with the proposed content for safety case reports, comments made by respondents were clear that further support and guidance should be provided to support the successful implementation of the new regime. The government agrees with this view and considers it vital to ensuring the new approach delivers improved safety outcomes.
3.54 In collaboration with the Regulator, information has been published setting out an introduction to the expectations for the new regime and to pave the way for further formal guidance, which will be published before the regulations come into force. This information was developed in consultation with industry and regulatory partners, as is the further guidance, ensuring those who will use it most are part of the development process. The government notes that accountable persons are not a homogenous grouping and guidance from the Regulator will be tailored appropriately to ensure it is appropriate for the different organisations and individuals that will make up accountable persons.
3.55 Aligned with Dame Judith Hackitt’s clear assessment that buildings must be viewed as a system and not broken into individual siloes, the regulations covered in the consultation are interlinked and must be considered as such. Accountable persons will not be able to demonstrate through the safety case report that they understand the building or that they have effective risk management arrangements in place without having the necessary golden thread information in place, a mandatory occurrence reporting system in operation or an appropriate resident engagement strategy. Further details of these requirements are covered elsewhere in this response to the consultation, and in the other responses referenced in paragraphs 1.7 to 1.9.
3.56 While existing duties, such as those required through the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will provide some of the detail required for the golden thread information and safety case report, we recognise that the new requirements for information about buildings may result in further information needing to be gathered. Guidance will support accountable persons to determine the level of information needed and the transition into the new regime will take into account the potential challenges of assembling data and consider how the sector may prioritise buildings to align with the Regulator’s transition plans, in particular around applications for initial building assessment certificates for existing buildings.
3.57 Collating information, particularly where records are not in place, may involve costs (for example to carry out surveys or testing). Expenditure by accountable persons associated with the ongoing costs of the new regime may be recovered from leaseholders through service charges. See paragraph 9.1 for further detail on the impact of the new regime.
3.58 The government notes the concerns raised through responses regarding clarity on when a safety case report should be updated. Safety case reports must be updated following a material change to either the assessment of building safety risks or the measures in place to manage them. Routine maintenance activities and equipment testing, which result in new data being stored in the golden thread information but do not fundamentally change the assessment or management of risks should not mean an update to the safety case report. The Regulator’s guidance will provide further details on typical scenarios where the safety case report itself should be reviewed and updated.
4. Mandatory occurrence reporting
4.1 Section 87 of the Act sets out that the principal accountable person for an occupied higher-risk building must establish and operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system.
4.2 A “mandatory occurrence reporting system” is a system for the giving of information to accountable persons for the building for the purpose of enabling them to comply with their duties to provide information to the Regulator about ‘safety occurrences’.
4.3 Secondary legislation will set out, amongst other matters, requirements about the information to be provided, the circumstances requiring the reporting of this information to the Regulator, and the timescales within which it should be reported.
Overview of responses
4.4 The mandatory occurrence reporting section of the consultation received 57 responses in total. These were a mix of responses via the online survey and those submitted via email. The number of responses fluctuated for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.
4.5 The questions covered various aspects of mandatory occurrence reporting including the definition of a safety occurrence, the information to be provided to the regulator and the timescales for reporting.
Overview of proposals
4.6 Chapter 6 of the consultation set out the proposals related to the requirements for mandatory occurrence reporting, where we proposed that an effective reporting system should:
- be known to, understood by, and accessible to accountable persons
- form an ongoing, integral, and regular part of the building safety risks management process
- maintain a whole-of-building approach and be built to facilitate urgent reporting of safety occurrences
- identify, capture, record and store safety occurrences inputted by the principal accountable person or the accountable person for the part of the building for which they are responsible
- allow safety occurrences to be formally reported to the Regulator through its reporting system as soon as is practicably possible and within the mandated time
4.7 The building should have an effective single mandatory occurrence reporting system to facilitate the identification of a safety occurrence, and to record and store information inputted by, or on behalf of, the principal accountable person or the accountable person responsible for that part of the building about incidents or situations to be reported to the Regulator.
4.8 In addition, residents and other persons may report incidents to the principal accountable person or accountable person(s) which may transpire to be a reportable mandatory safety occurrence. These will need to be reported by the principal accountable person or the accountable person through the mandatory occurrence reporting system.
4.9 The information reported must be stored as golden thread information for that particular building. The information must be kept for a period of 7 years; however, this is only if the information is related to a reportable mandatory occurrence. If it is not related to a reportable mandatory occurrence, then the information does not be kept as part of the golden thread information. Where the occurrence is no longer relevant after the subsequent assessment, the principal accountable person is under no obligation to retain a record as part of the golden thread information.
4.10 We proposed that the circumstance in which a safety occurrence is reportable is when that circumstance meets the following criteria:
- an incident or situation relating to the structural integrity or spread of fire of a higher-risk building that meets the risk condition
- the “risk condition” is use of the building without the incident or situation being remedied, that would be likely to present a risk of a significant number of deaths, or serious injury, to a significant number of people
4.11 We proposed that the required information for mandatory occurrence reporting that must be submitted to the Regulator is:
- the date and time of the safety occurrence
- the address of the building at which the safety occurrence happened
- name and contact details of the principal accountable person or the accountable person making the report
- the details of the safety occurrence (including the nature of the risk)
4.12 Where the principal accountable person or an accountable person becomes aware of a safety occurrence, our proposal was to require that they notify the Regulator of the safety occurrence as soon as reasonably practicable and provide the Regulator with a written report containing the required information within 10 days of becoming aware of the occurrence.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals for establishing and operating a mandatory occurrence system by the principal accountable person?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 43 | 75% |
| Disagree | 6 | 11% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 12% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 57 | 100% |
4.13 Forty-three respondents (75%) agreed with the proposals for establishing and operating a mandatory occurrence reporting system by the principal accountable person.
4.14 Six respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposals. The key reasons given were that the Regulator should lead the process of setting up, maintaining and owning the process and reporting tools to ensure all accountable persons are aware of their requirements, or that previous occurrences could be relevant and should be recorded as part of the golden thread information.
4.15 Seven respondents (12%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposals.
4.16 Across the respondents, it was clear that many felt that significant guidance would be required to assist dutyholders in complying with the requirements.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed circumstance in which a safety occurrence is reportable?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 40 | 70% |
| Disagree | 7 | 12% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 12% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 57 | 100% |
4.17 Forty respondents (70%) agreed with the proposed circumstance in which a safety occurrence was reportable, as it was based on the risks of fire spread and structural collapse which should be brought to the attention of the Regulator.
4.18 Seven respondents (12%) disagreed with the proposal. The key reasons provided were that the threshold of ‘significant number of deaths, or serious injury, to a significant number of people’ was too high, or that definition of the risk condition was not clear enough.
4.19 Seven respondents (12%) neither agreed nor disagreed, and one (2%) answered ‘do not know’. Of these who provided an explanation, the main reason given was that the definition was not clear, and that significant guidance would be required to assist dutyholders comply with their duties.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the definition of a safety occurrence?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 31 | 54% |
| Disagree | 12 | 21% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 8 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 11% |
| Total | 57 | 100% |
4.20 Thirty-one respondents (54%) agreed with the proposed definition of a safety occurrence.
4.21 Twelve (21%) disagreed, and in line with the previous question, the main reasons provided were that the threshold of ‘significant number of deaths, or serious injury, to a significant number of people’ was too high, or that the definition of the risk condition was not clear enough.
4.22 Eight respondents (14%) neither agreed nor disagreed, and almost all of those who provided an explanation felt that guidance would be needed.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed information that should be reported to the Regulator?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 39 | 68% |
| Disagree | 8 | 14% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 11% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 7% |
| Total | 57 | 100% |
4.23 Thirty-nine respondents (68%) agreed with the proposed information that should be reported to the Regulator as being a reasonable amount of information without being too onerous for the dutyholder.
4.24 Eight respondents (14%) disagreed with the proposals, however, from analysis of their written responses, it was clear that rather than disagreeing with the proposed information, they felt additional information was required to form part of the report to the Regulator. Suggestions for this additional information included:
- the actions taken to mitigate, rectify or remedy the situation
- the number of dwellings or common parts affected
- whether anybody had been injured; and/or
- the Building Registration Certificate number and date of last assessment
Question: Do you agree or disagree that safety occurrences should be reported to the Regulator within 10 calendar days?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 32 | 56% |
| Disagree | 12 | 21% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 5% |
| Total | 57 | 100% |
4.25 Thirty-two respondents (56%) agreed with the proposals and felt that 10 days was a reasonable timescale for the reporting of safety occurrences to the Regulator.
4.26 Twelve (21%) disagreed with the timescale, and 10 (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed. However, among those who provided an explanation, there was no clear consensus as to whether the timescale was too short or too long.
Government response
4.27 The government notes the concerns raised by respondents about being unfamiliar with the new requirements to notify safety occurrences to the Regulator and agrees that principal accountable persons and accountable persons will need clear guidance to support them, which should include examples of situations which will meet the criteria for a safety occurrence.
4.28 The majority of respondents (75%) were in favour of the proposals for establishing and operating a mandatory occurrence system by the principal accountable person. The system will need to be effective, but should not be overly complex, and should align with the other duties under the occupation regime, forming the building’s safety management process.
4.29 The government notes that managing agents will often manage buildings on behalf of freeholders, head lessees, and resident management companies across the sector. There may therefore be situations where the input of information and the submission of information to the Regulator is undertaken by the building manager or agent. In these circumstances, the responsibility for the prompt and accurate reporting of safety occurrences and the investigation and remedying of safety occurrences will remain with the accountable person. Accountable persons should therefore carry out their own due diligence to monitor and review the work of the agent in relation to mandatory occurrence reporting. This will not, however, be a requirement within the regulations, as the accountable person is ultimately responsible for meeting requirements under part 4 of the Act, and responsibility for meeting mandatory occurrence reporting duties cannot therefore be passed to any agent or manager.
4.30 The majority of respondents (70%) agreed with the proposed circumstance in which a safety occurrence is reportable, and the majority (54%) also agreed with the definition of a safety occurrence, although many commented that more detail about the specific criteria would be required. The definition of safety occurrence should be considered alongside the types of occurrences, which will be set out in guidance to be produced by the Regulator with examples of incidents and situations which should be reported. These will include unauthorised work or activity; discovery of structural defects or fire safety defects; and a fire which breaches compartmentation. An incident may fall into these categories, however, if they do not meet the risk condition then they will not be reportable under mandatory occurrence reporting.
4.31 Some respondents suggested that the threshold of ‘significant number of deaths, or serious injury, to a significant number of people’ was too high. The intent of the mandatory occurrence reporting system is to supplement the safety management system of the whole building, and to work alongside the safety case to provide oversight to the Regulator. Although it draws on other regulatory regimes such as RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) and the reporting system employed by the Civil Aviation Authority, the intent is to identify and remedy fire spread and structural safety issues before they pose a danger to life. The Regulator will produce more guidance of the practical application of the risk condition (as set out in para 4.10).
4.32 The majority of respondents (68%) agreed with the proposed information that should be reported to the Regulator. The government notes the comments and suggestions for additional information to be provided. Some of that information will already be known to the Regulator, as the buildings will have already been registered. In relation to whether the accountable person should provide detail about any action taken or proposed to remedy or mitigate the safety occurrence, this would be useful information to assist in assessing the mandatory occurrence report when it is received and will be added to the list of information required.
4.33 The government has also noted the comments about the timescales for the reporting of a safety occurrence to the Regulator. Incidences which fall into the criteria for mandatory occurrence reporting are likely to be of a serious nature, and it is imperative that the Regulator is made aware of them without delay. This will enable them to take any necessary action promptly, be that the sharing of useful safety information with the industry and/or further investigation or enforcement. The accountable person will need to notify the Regulator as soon as reasonably practicable of a safety occurrence and follow this up with a written report containing the required information within 10 days of becoming aware of the occurrence.
5. The residents’ engagement strategy, complaints, contravention notices, and providing residents with building safety information
5.1 Residents and leaseholders should be safe and feel safe in their homes. Sections 89 and 91 to 96 of the Act establish a set of specific requirements that will ensure all residents are informed about building safety, are engaged in discussions about how to keep their building safe (including their own responsibilities) and are empowered to challenge unsafe or unreasonable decisions. The residents’ voice section of the consultation, paragraphs 7.1 to 7.69, set out proposals on the detail of how these will operate.
Overview of responses
5.2 The residents’ voice section of the consultation received 81 responses, all via online survey. One of the responses was an exact duplicate of another submitted response and was disregarded. Eighty substantive responses were, therefore, analysed. Seventy-nine respondents to this section provided background information, with 61 respondents identifying themselves as replying to the consultation on behalf of an organisation, and 18 identifying themselves as private individuals. One other respondent did not provide background information but appeared to be responding as an individual.
5.3 The number of responses fluctuated for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.
Information the principal accountable person or relevant accountable person will provide to residents
Overview of proposals
5.4 Under Section 89 of the Act, relevant accountable persons will be responsible for ensuring that residents and owners of residential units are proactively provided with the information they need to participate in decision making related to their building’s safety, and to comply with their obligations. Under section 92 of the Act, relevant accountable persons are also required to provide additional information when they receive a request from a resident or owner. The draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023 will set out, among other things, the types of information included in each category. Further information can also be found in the government’s response to the consultation on the contents of the golden thread of information for occupied higher-risk buildings.
5.5 Paragraph 7.8 of the consultation set out the proposed instances when information must be proactively provided: when the building is first occupied, when a new resident moves in, or when the information becomes out of date. The accountable person must provide this information as soon as reasonably practicable. Some information, such as contact details for the accountable person, will also need to be displayed prominently in the building.
5.6 Paragraphs 7.14 to 7.15 of the consultation set out that the information should be provided in a format that allows residents to clearly understand the information without specialist knowledge. Where residents have expressed their preference for information in a particular format, including where the accountable person is required to provide the information in an accessible format, the accountable person should take these preferences into account, as far as it is reasonable to do so.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the instances in which the accountable person will be required to provide residents with information?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 55 | 69% |
| Disagree | 6 | 8% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 4% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
5.7 Fifty-five respondents (69%) agreed with the instances in which the accountable person will be required to provide residents with information under section 89 of the Act. Supportive comments included that the instances proposed are “natural points at which to provide the information”.
5.8 Of the 6 respondents who disagreed with the proposed instances, 3 were concerned that the accountable person may not know when a resident has moved into the building if the dwelling is let out. One respondent recommended that the information should also be provided if a resident had not received the relevant information or has lost it.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with how information will need to be provided to residents?
| Category | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 49 | 61% |
| Disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 6% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.9 Forty-nine respondents (61%) agreed with the government’s proposal for how information will be to be provided to residents.
5.10 Seventeen respondents were concerned that documents shared with residents could contain technical information would need to be provided in either plain language or translated into other languages. They cited the size and detail of these documents, including the use of specific technical language, which could create a disproportionate administrative burden and result in large costs being passed on to leaseholders. Some suggested that offering an in-person explanation of requested technical documents might prove a useful solution in so far as the resident receives the information required to understand the document while avoiding the risks of translating technical information into plain language.
5.11 Amongst those who agreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed, 14 respondents requested clear guidance on how the information should be provided or offered suggestions as to the form the accessibility provisions ought to take. Some indicated that information should be provided in a digital format by default, generally communicated via email. Others suggested that hard copies, including large font versions for those who are vision impaired, should be offered upon request by the resident.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that residents should be able to request information in an accessible form?
| Category | Number of Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 62 | 78% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 13 | 16% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 6% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.12 Sixty-two respondents (78%) agreed with the proposal that residents should be able to request information in an accessible form. No respondents disagreed with this proposal.
5.13 Ten respondents raised similar concerns to those expressed in answer to the preceding question around the translation of technical information into accessible language. Of those who agreed, 20 provided written responses emphasizing the need for provision in accessible formats.
Government response
5.14 The government considers that it is essential that all residents of higher-risk buildings receive mandatory information about their building’s safety. Responses to the consultation indicate support for the proposed instances in which residents would be provided with this information. The government acknowledges the concerns that an accountable person may not know when a resident moves in. The draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023 will stipulate that the duty on the accountable person to provide the prescribed information does not apply if the accountable person is not aware of the resident and has taken all reasonable steps to make themselves aware of persons who reside in the part of the building for which the accountable person is responsible. Where a resident has lost the information, the government would expect accountable person to provide the information to the resident again, where reasonable, but this will not be mandatory.
5.15 Building safety information is shared with residents so that they can keep themselves and their neighbours safe and so that they can take an active role in ensuring the safety of their building. These aims will not be achieved if the information provided is incomprehensible or in a format that does not work for the residents in question. Accountable persons must consider how they might provide information to residents in a way they can understand.
5.16 This applies particularly in relation to the information provided proactively to residents. The government will set out in regulations that the information that is to be provided proactively to residents under Section 89 of the Act must be presented in a format allows the recipients to understand the content and aims of the information or document given, including explanations of technical language used, or with plain English summaries of complex or technical provisions.
5.17 In respect of the further information that the accountable person must provide on request, we acknowledge that it may not be straightforward to modify some more technical documents that residents may request. Regulations will require that this information must be presented in a format allows the recipients to understand the content and aims of the information or document given, but explanations of technical language used will only be required where it is reasonable to do so. The proportionality of the costs of doing this where, for example, a detailed specific request comes from just one resident, should be considered.
Residents’ engagement strategy
Overview of proposal
5.18 Paragraphs 7.26 to 7.39 of the consultation set out the proposed role of the principal accountable person in establishing the residents’ engagement strategy, in line with recommendations made by Dame Judith Hackitt. This included information on the format, distribution, and storage of the strategy.
5.19 The proposals also covered the content of the residents’ engagement strategy, including the promotion of participation by residents in the making of building safety decisions. The government proposed that the strategy should set out when the principal accountable person should inform and consult with residents about building safety decisions. We also proposed minimum standards for informing and consulting with residents.
5.20 The government proposed that it should be for the principal accountable person, working with the accountable persons, to establish how best to seek the views of residents where consultation was proposed. The principal accountable person must consult with residents on the contents of the residents’ engagement strategy, including considering when consultation is appropriate if the building is a new build and the length of time for which it must run. The principal accountable person would establish how to run these consultations and review the strategy at least every 2 years.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that it should be up to the principal accountable person to decide how to provide residents with a copy of the residents’ engagement strategy?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 44 | 55% |
| Disagree | 16 | 20% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.21 Forty-four respondents (55%) agreed with the proposal. Respondents agreed that allowing the principal accountable person to decide how to provide residents with the residents’ engagement strategy was aligned with the core principle of tailoring the strategy to the needs of the residents and their building.
5.22 Sixteen respondents (20%) disagreed with the proposal. Most of these respondents suggested that clear guidance and a more prescriptive approach to both producing and distributing the residents’ engagement strategy was required to create consistency.
Question: If you think there should be specific requirements about how the residents’ engagement strategy is provided to residents, set these out below.
5.23 Respondents were invited to provide written suggestions for specific requirements about how the residents’ engagement should be shared.
5.24 14 respondents proposed that electronic provision of documents should be the primary method of communication, whilst 10 respondents felt that hard copies should be made available to residents, either as standard or at the request of the resident. Five respondents requested further guidance from government on the most appropriate means of distributing the residents’ engagement strategy, with the aim of creating consistency across the sector.
5.25 Additionally, 4 respondents suggested that an audio file should be made available upon request to accommodate those who might not find written formats accessible. A further 3 respondents suggested that, in addition to providing documents directly to residents, some of the information could be made available on a noticeboard in the common areas.
Government response
5.26 Responses to the questions in this section included a significant number requesting that clear guidance be provided to principal accountable persons, accountable persons and residents, outlining their duties, roles, and responsibilities in relation to the residents’ engagement strategy. The Regulator will produce guidance with further detail about delivering the requirements for establishing and operating a residents’ engagement strategy.
5.27 The government will not be overly prescriptive in regulations on how the residents’ engagement strategy should be provided to residents, subject to the requirements discussed above on the form of information. The government has chosen to introduce a framework that offers flexibility for accountable persons while ensuring that residents will be able to receive the information in an accessible format. Regulations, made under section 89 of the Act, will stipulate that accountable persons must provide the residents’ engagement strategy to all residents over the age of 16 in writing (this can be electronically if the resident agrees), in a form which allows the recipients to understand the content and aims of the information or document given. This does not preclude the provision of the strategy in other formats, such as the audio files suggested by some consultees. Accountable persons will need to give due consideration to making sure the format in which the strategy is provided is accessible to all residents, including taking into account the needs of those with disabilities.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed minimum requirements for when residents should be provided with building safety information?
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 48 | 60% |
| Disagree | 13 | 16% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 6 % |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.28 Forty-eight respondents (60%) agreed with the government’s proposals. Some felt that the proposed minimum requirements could help to create consistency across the sector in relation to consulting with residents, and that the proposals will help to bring the view of residents into building safety decisions.
5.29 Thirteen respondents (16%) disagreed with the proposals. Four respondents felt that there should be no minimum requirement for when residents should be notified of building safety works, and that they should instead be notified of all works. Four respondents also referred to the consultation process established by section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 20) as an ineffective process that should not be emulated as it did not provide a genuine opportunity for the voice of residents to be heard.
5.30 Eleven respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. Some of these respondents believed that the proposals were an unnecessary duplication of the section 20 process, and that changes could instead be made to regulations made under section 20 to give effect to these proposals.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed minimum requirements for the aspects of a decision residents should be consulted on?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 45 | 56% |
| Disagree | 12 | 15% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.31 Forty-five respondents (56%) agreed with the proposal, with 41 providing written explanations for their answers. Respondents mentioned the need to not allow the consultation process to slow down the undertaking of works, especially in emergencies.
5.32 Twelve respondents (15%) disagreed with the proposal. As with the previous question, respondents mentioned section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There was, however, not a consistent position. Some believed the section 20 process to be an ineffective process and their disagreement was based in the comparison to this. Others suggested that section 20 itself could be amended so that it applied to all residents (at present it only applies to leaseholders) to avoid conflict between the 2 consultation requirements.
5.33 Fourteen respondents (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal. Of these, 5 respondents mentioned the use of section 20 frameworks, including suggesting the extension of section 20 to include residents and the need for any residents’ engagement strategy consultation to require principal accountable persons to have regard for the consultation outcomes as in section 20.
Government response
5.34 For the provision of building safety information and consultation on building safety decisions (policy outlined above at paragraph 5.5), the government has altered its policy as set out below in response to the issues raised in this consultation.
5.35 The government has noted the concerns of respondents about the duplication of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 20 consultation process, as well as concerns that the section 20 process fails to ensure full consideration of residents’ views. We have chosen to bring forward regulations that provide a different form of consultation for residents, involving them on the issues that matter the most to them. This will operate alongside the section 20 process. Lord Best’s report into the Regulation of Property Agents set out proposals for improving the existing section 20 process and the government is considering that report’s recommendations.
5.36 Residents must be provided with information when works that result from a building safety decision are carried out. This information must include a description of the purpose of the works. Additionally, where the works last more than one day and will limit access to a dwelling, any part of a building including its common areas, or otherwise prove an inconvenience to residents in their dwelling, the principal accountable person must consult residents. Residents must be consulted on the days and times when works are to take place, and how to mitigate disruption from the works. To strengthen the effectiveness of the consultation process, principal accountable persons must now give due consideration to the consultation responses.
5.37 The government will also introduce a clear exemption to allow works that must be carried out on an emergency basis to begin without consultation.
5.38 The government wishes to reassure respondents that residents will be able to escalate complaints to the Regulator if they believe that consultations carried out under this these regulations have not met all requirements.
5.39 When carrying out consultations on building safety decisions, principal accountable persons must include appropriate and reasonable methodologies (which may include digital, postal or in-person event), take reasonable steps to ensure that any relevant person likely to be affected by the matter to which the consultation relates is aware of the consultation, and the consultation must last for a reasonable amount of time.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with allowing accountable persons to decide how best to seek residents’ views? If you disagree - explain your reasoning. Include any particular methods of engagement that should be used.
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 46 | 58% |
| Disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 15 | 19% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 6% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.40 Forty-six respondents (58%) agreed that accountable persons should decide how best to seek residents’ views, and 11 respondents (14%) disagreed. Forty-three respondents provided further written explanations for their answers to this question. Of these, 20 chose to do so despite agreeing with the first part of the question.
5.41 Thirteen respondents mentioned the need for guidance or a code of practice for engaging with residents during a consultation. Those who disagreed erred more towards prescriptive guidance, suggesting that although electronic provisions should be mandated there should also be processes in place for providing hard copies. Respondents who agreed with the proposal also requested guidance on best practice but did not believe that a particular method should be enforced.
5.42 Eleven respondents reiterated the importance of ensuring that any consultation with residents gave proper consideration to their responses and is not seen as a mere check box exercise for the principal accountable person.
Government response
5.43 The government will bring forward regulations that provide the principal accountable person with a broad framework within which to decide how best to seek residents’ views on the content of the residents’ engagement strategy.
5.44 When carrying out consultations pertaining to the residents’ engagement strategy, principal accountable persons must include appropriate and reasonable methodologies (which may include digital, postal or in-person event), must take reasonable steps to ensure that any relevant person likely to be affected by the matter to which the consultation relates is aware of the consultation, and a consultation must last for a reasonable amount of time (when the consultation is on the residents’ engagement strategy itself, it must be for a period of no less than 3 weeks).
5.45 The government has noted the concerns of respondents about the length of time allowed for these consultations. While 3 weeks is the minimum period of time for the consultation on the residents’ engagement strategy itself, guidance will set out the expectation that principal accountable persons tailor the consultation period to the needs of their residents.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to when the residents’ engagement strategy should be consulted on and with who? If you disagree, please provide an explanation for your answer to the question above.
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 45 | 56% |
| Disagree | 16 | 20% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 12 | 15% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 6% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.46 Forty-five respondents (56%) agreed with these proposals, with 16 respondents (20%) disagreeing. Thirty-four responses provided further information, with 11 doing so despite agreeing with the proposal. These responses broadly reiterated their support for the proposal.
5.47 Amongst those who disagreed, 3 mentioned a concern that the review of the residents’ engagement strategy would be used as a tick box exercise by the principal accountable person, potentially forming a loophole. They believed that that there was a need for clear guidance to prevent this from occurring.
5.48 Those who neither agreed nor disagreed expressed concern that the review process could be abused, that too much consultation could disengage residents, and that there should be a requirement to consult on the strategy periodically.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the minimum period for consultation? If you disagree, what period would you propose instead and why?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 47 | 59% |
| Disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
5.49 Forty-seven respondents (59%) agreed with the proposed minimum period for consultation, and 11 respondents (14%) disagreed. 29 respondents provided further information. Nine respondents who agreed with the proposal reaffirmed their response in writing.
5.50 Amongst those who disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed, 13 respondents argued that 3 weeks might be too short a time span, particularly for those organisations that manage a large portfolio of buildings. Of this group, 4 suggested a 4-week minimum.
5.51 Four respondents raised concerns about residents away or on holiday during the consultation period, suggesting that that this might limit the time in which residents had to consider the consultation, and that 3 weeks might therefore prove too short a period.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the minimum timeframe for reviewing the residents’ engagement strategy and the further instances where a review will be required? If you disagree, what period would you propose instead and why?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 51 | 64% |
| Disagree | 10 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 12 | 15% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 5% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.52 Fifty-one respondents (64%) agreed with these proposals, with 10 respondents (13%) disagreeing. Forty-three respondents provided further information. Of these, 17 respondents reaffirmed their agreement with 2 years as an appropriate timespan for reviewing the residents’ engagement strategy.
5.53 Four respondents suggested that 5 years would be more appropriate minimum timeframe after which to carry out a review of the residents’ engagement strategy.
5.54 Five respondents suggested that principal accountable persons should come to an agreement with residents as part of initial residents’ engagement strategy consultation period, although it was not clear from these responses if this agreement should supersede the proposed 2 year minimum.
Question: Are there other specific circumstances that should require a review of the residents’ engagement strategy? If yes, what circumstances should require the residents’ engagement strategy to be reviewed? Explain your reasoning.
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 41 | 51% |
| No | 16 | 20% |
| Don’t know | 15 | 19% |
| Not Answered | 8 | 10% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.55 Forty-one respondents (51%) stated that there were circumstances that should require a review of the residents’ engagement strategy, though 44 respondents provided further information to this question:
- 11 respondents suggested that the residents’ engagement strategy should be reviewed if a complaint is upheld
- 7 respondents said that the residents’ engagement strategy should be reviewable at the request of the Regulator
- 9 respondents suggested that a change of accountable person or principal accountable person should trigger a review
- 9 respondents suggested that a major incident involving the safety of the building should trigger a review
- 10 respondents believed that material changes to the building or its environment should trigger a review
- 5 indicated that changes in legislation or regulations relating to building safety should trigger a review
Government response
5.56 The government has noted the concerns of respondents about the length of time allowed for these consultations. Three weeks is the minimum period of time for the consultation, and we will set out in guidance the expectation that principal accountable persons tailor the consultation period to the needs of their residents.
5.57 The government will bring forward regulations requiring the residents’ engagement strategy to be reviewed at least once every 2 years. As supported by majority of respondents, the government believes this provides a good balance between the administrative burden of undertaking the consultation, updating the residents’ engagement strategy and allowing time for the new strategy to bed in, and the ongoing need to involve residents in the management of the building.
5.58 The government has considered the suggestions for specific circumstances that might necessitate a review of the residents’ engagement strategy. In response to the consultation, the government has decided to amend the proposals to include a measure that requires the principal accountable person to review the residents’ engagement strategy in 2 circumstances.
- Principal accountable persons must review the residents’ engagement strategy after a mandatory occurrence report has been submitted to the Regulator. Mandatory occurrence reports are submitted following significant safety incidents or near misses, so this serves to reassure residents that their needs are being re-assessed in light of the report.
- Principal accountable persons must also review the residents’ engagement strategy after significant material alterations have been made to the building. Significant material alternations will be defined in the regulation.
5.59 For other circumstances mentioned by respondents there already exist mechanisms by which the residents’ engagement strategy can be reviewed:
- Where the Regulator upholds a complaint concerning the content of the residents’ engagement strategy or the actions of the principal accountable person, it will be able to issue a compliance notice. Removal of the notice could be made contingent on improvement of the strategy in line with the substance of the complaint.
- The residents’ engagement strategy (or proposed strategy if the building has not yet been occupied) will be considered by the Regulator prior to issuing a building assessment certificate. If it finds that the strategy does not meet requirements it can make issuing the building assessment certificate contingent on improvement as set out in a contravention notice.
- Where a new principal accountable person is appointed, section 91 of the Building Safety Act 2022 requires that a new residents’ engagement strategy is prepared.
- If changes to legislation or regulation occur that necessitate changes to the residents’ engagement strategy the government and the Regulator will seek to inform principal accountable through updated guidance.
Complaints
5.60 Dame Judith Hackitt found that residents did not always know how to raise building safety issues. In her report, Building a Safer Future, she stated that those responsible for a building’s safety should be the first port of call for building safety issues but that there must be a clear route of escalation to an independent body, which can make sure residents’ issues are being heard and addressed.
5.61 Section 93 of the Act requires that principal accountable person(s) for an occupied higher-risk building must establish and operate a system for the investigation of relevant complaints. A relevant complaint is defined as a complaint relating to:
- a ‘building safety risk’ - a risk to the safety of people in or about the building arising from either the spread of fire or structural failure; and
- the performance by an accountable person with regard to their duties
5.62 The Act also requires the Regulator to have a complaints system. The Regulator’s complaints system will act as a route of escalation for the complaints which have not been addressed through an accountable person’s complaints system.
5.63 Many buildings already have effective policies for raising complaints. Where they meet requirements under the building safety regime, existing systems can be used for dealing with relevant building safety complaints. The government will set out in regulations the requirements for the establishment and operation of complaints systems, and relevant proposals which were included in this consultation.
Overview of proposal
5.64 In paragraphs 7.45 to 7.48 of the consultation, the government set out the proposed minimum requirements that a principal accountable person’s complaints policy must include, including that it must explain the complaints process, expected timeframes, the right to challenge a response to a complaint, and the right to escalate to the Regulator.
5.65 Paragraphs 7.49 to 7.51 of the consultation proposed that the principal accountable person must establish suitable mechanisms through which building safety complaints can be made. Where a complainant specifies a preferred method of communication, the principal accountable person must consider whether it is reasonable to communicate using the complainant’s preferred method. There will also be a requirement to display instructions on how to make a building safety complaint in the common parts of the building.
5.66 Finally, the government proposed that there would be no restriction on who can make a relevant complaint.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the minimum requirements for a complaints policy as set out above?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 59 | 74% |
| Disagree | 3 | 4% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 11% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.67 Fifty-nine respondents (74%) agreed with the proposed minimum requirements for a complaints policy. Three respondents (4%) disagreed.
5.68 Of the 3 respondents who disagreed, one expressed a concern that where a complaint falls within the remit of a number of different organisations (such as the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator) that this should be appropriately handled. One respondent suggested that all complaints should be escalated to the Regulator. One respondent was concerned that there should be sufficient avenues for escalation for residents who are not satisfied with how their complaint is handled.
5.69 Four respondents, including one who disagreed with the proposal, raised ensuring there was clarity for how complaints would be handled where they cut across the remit of more than one regulator (for example the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator), and processes for determining which regulator is appropriate and how these regulators will interact to ensure complaints are responded to appropriately.
5.70 Some respondents commented on the need to ensure the building safety complaints process operates effectively with any existing complaints system. Respondents also mentioned the need for the principal accountable person and the accountable person to work together to ensure complaints are received and actioned.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the requirement to have suitable mechanisms for receiving potential complaints and to consider a complainant’s communication preference?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 57 | 71% |
| Disagree | 7 | 9% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 8% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 8 | 10% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.71 Fifty-seven respondents (71%) agreed with the proposed requirement to have suitable mechanisms for receiving potential complaints and to consider a complainant’s communication preference.
5.72 Seven respondents (9%) disagreed with the proposal. Most of those who disagreed wanted greater weight placed on residents’ communication preferences, or assurance that residents’ preferences on communication would not be inappropriately refused.
5.73 Five respondents recommended that suitable mechanisms for making complaints should be available for individuals with accessibility needs, or who might struggle with digital or app-based communication. Two respondents commented that records of complaints should be in a consistent format, even where a variety of communication methods are used during the complaints process.
Question: Do you agree with the requirement to display how to make a complaint in the common parts of the building?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 59 | 74% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 8 | 10% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 9 | 11% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.74 Fifty-nine respondents (74%) agreed with the proposed requirement to display how to make a complaint in the common parts of the building.
5.75 The 2 respondents (3%) who disagreed with the proposal were concerned that there would be an overwhelming amount of information required to be displayed in the common area, or that such information was not suited to a home environment.
5.76 Some respondents also commented on the potential for vandalism of information in the common areas, or queried how this requirement would be managed in buildings that didn’t have suitable common areas and/or noticeboards.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach that anyone can make a relevant complaint?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 60 | 75% |
| Disagree | 3 | 4% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 11% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.77 Sixty respondents (75%) agreed with the approach that anyone can make a relevant complaint. Three respondents (4%) disagreed with the approach.
5.78 Four respondents, including all those who disagreed, suggested that the ability for people to make complaints should be restricted to residents or others with a connection to the building. Four respondents also expressed concern about the potential for vexatious complaints.
Government response
5.79 To deliver on the recommendations set out by Dame Judith Hackitt, the Act establishes the framework for the principal accountable person to be the first point of call for building safety complaints. Complaints can be escalated to the Regulator where the complainant is not satisfied with how their complaint is handled by the principal accountable person.
5.80 There was strong support in the responses to the consultation for the proposed minimum requirements for the principal accountable person’s complaints policy, and that these will be set out regulations. We note the suggestions that the building safety complaints process should operate within any existing complaints system that might already be in place in a building. We are clear that, where an existing complaints system can comply with the requirements set out for the building safety regime, there is no requirement for a new system to be set up.
5.81 We note the comments from respondents about the need for the principal accountable person and the accountable person to work together in ensuring complaints are received and actioned. Although the Act places the requirement on the principal accountable person to establish and operate a complaints system, it also includes a requirement that any accountable person must cooperate and coordinate with every other accountable person or responsible person for the building, ensuring the onus is on all accountable, or responsible, persons to provide a joined-up approach to handling and investigating a relevant complaint.
5.82 We note the requests for clarity about the interaction of different regulators. Principal accountable persons will be required to make clear to complainants the right to escalate the complaint to the Regulator, where this is applicable. The Regulator will set out guidance on how it will handle complaints that are escalated to it. This will include considering whether the complaint, or part of it, is within another government body’s remit. Where a complaint is not within the Regulator’s remit but there is another agency which is relevant to the complaint, it will signpost the complainant to this agency. We expect the Regulator to include best practice in signposting to other complaints procedures, where relevant in their guidance.
5.83 There was strong agreement for the proposed requirement to have suitable mechanisms for receiving potential complaints and to consider a complainant’s communication preference. We have also considered the requests from respondents to provide assurance that residents’ preferences on communication would not be inappropriately refused and will include in regulation that complaints must be accepted via any reasonable method. This will also ensure that options are available for people who require accessible communication mechanisms. The requirements for storing information on complaints are set out in our separate consultation response on the golden thread information for occupied higher-risk buildings.
5.84 We note the concerns raised by a small number of respondents regarding displaying information about the complaints procedure in the common areas of a building. It is already a requirement of the Act that building assessment certificates are displayed in a conspicuous part of the building and, as such, accountable persons will need to identify a suitable place to display the certificate. We consider it reasonable that critical information for residents is also displayed. We will require that accountable persons display information about complaints, the process for reporting building safety risks, key contact details, and information that residents can request.
5.85 The government considers the ability for anyone to make a complaint to be an important part of the building safety regime. This will enable third parties, such as a contractor working in the building or a visitor, to raise building safety concerns. While we note the comments from respondents who suggested that the ability to raise complaints should be restricted to people with a connection to the building, we believe that a complaint should be judged on its merits and relevant complaints should be responded to accordingly, regardless of who submits the complaint. This will help to ensure building safety issues are identified and addressed. We note the concerns about vexatious complaints. Some buildings will already have policies in place for managing such complaints. Where this is not the case, we would encourage principal accountable persons to develop appropriate policies.
Handling a complaint and remedies
Overview of proposal
5.86 Paragraph 7.52 of the consultation set out proposals that where a complaint is relevant and there is an issue, the principal accountable person, working with the relevant accountable person must:
- set out the steps that will be taken to rectify the issue
- set out when they expect it will be rectified
- communicate this to the complainant as soon as reasonably practicable
5.87 When an issue has been rectified this must be communicated to the complainant as soon as reasonably practicable.
5.88 Paragraphs 7.56 to 7.60 of the consultation set out proposals for handling complaints. To allow for different complaints and processes, the government did not propose that complaints must be handled in a specific timeframe. The proposal was instead that building safety complaints must be handled in a timely manner, taking into account the particulars of that complaint. The government also proposed that the principal accountable person will need to have a prioritisation process that takes account the level of risk posed by the issue raised.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the requirements to communicate clearly with complainants when rectifying a relevant complaint?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 64 | 80% |
| Disagree | 3 | 4% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 6% |
| Don’t Know | 1 | 1% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.89 Sixty-four respondents (80%) agreed with the proposed requirements to communicate clearly with complainants when rectifying a relevant complaint.
5.90 Four respondents queried what ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ meant, or suggested a firm timeframe should apply to when the accountable person must communicate. Four respondents suggested the accountable person (rather than the principal accountable person) should be responsible for communicating with residents.
5.91 Some respondents suggested the principal accountable person should keep the complainant informed about progress on rectifying the complaint, and/or inform other residents about any works associated with the complaint.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach of requiring the principal accountable person to respond to building safety complaints in a timely manner and appropriately prioritise them, rather than within a fixed timeframe?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 43 | 54% |
| Disagree | 17 | 21% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.92 There were mixed views on this proposal. Forty-three respondents (54%) agreed and 17 respondents (21%) disagreed. Respondents who were supportive of the proposals noted that some complaints may be complex to resolve, making it difficult to attach a statutory timeframe.
5.93 Of those not in agreement with the proposal, 9 respondents wanted to see complaints resolved within mandated timeframes. Five respondents recommended alignment with the Housing Ombudsman’s approach to complaints. Two respondents wanted a mandated timeframe for the complaint to be acknowledged.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the principal accountable person should have to keep complainants regularly informed of the steps they are taking to resolve a complaint and whether any progress has been made, including reasoning for any delays?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 66 | 83% |
| Disagree | 3 | 4% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
5.94 There was strong support for this proposal, with 66 respondents (83%) agreeing. Only 3 respondents (4%) disagreed.
5.95 Two of the respondents who disagreed provided further detail on their response. One questioned whether principal accountable persons would have the resources to deliver the proposal. The other suggested this function would be fulfilled by a complaints department rather than the principal accountable person.
5.96 More widely, 3 respondents suggested there should be guidance on what is meant by ‘regularly informed’.
Government response
5.97 We expect that, in many cases, the principal accountable person’s complaints system will be integrated into an existing complaints system, and this was reflected in the proposals in the consultation. This approach will result in more efficient management for the various types of complaints a principal accountable person might receive and will allow building safety complaints to be prioritised within an existing administrative framework. The government notes the suggestions from respondents to align the approach to complaints handling with that taken by the Housing Ombudsman. The proposals as set out will not prevent individual principal accountable persons from aligning their approach to that of the Housing Ombudsman, or another complaints process, as is appropriate for their individual circumstances.
5.98 While the mixed response to the proposal not to set statutory timeframes for action on complaints is noted, the government believes that requiring action ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ is the best starting point for the new regime. As noted by respondents, some complaints may be complex to resolve, and it is not, therefore, appropriate at this stage to set a statutory timeframe that would capture all levels of complexity. We are also keen to avoid perversely affecting the handling and investigation of complaints, such that some principal accountable persons may treat timeframes as a target rather than a minimum requirement.
5.99 It is also important not to impose timeframes that may not be compatible with other requirements on principal accountable persons (for example a Private Registered Providers adherence to The Housing Ombudsman complaints code).
5.100 When any complaint is received, we will require that it is acknowledged as soon as possible, but will not set a timeframe for this, or a specific timeframe for the handling of a complaints. It will be a requirement that building safety complaints must be handled in a timely manner, taking into account the particulars of that complaint. It will be for the principal accountable person to properly assess an appropriate timeframe to investigate and put issues right. Ultimately the arbiter of whether a relevant complaint has been handled in a timely manner will be the Regulator. The Regulator will also keep the operating regime under review and changes, such as setting timeframes, can be made if needed following evidence-based advice or recommendations by the Regulator.
5.101 Government notes the responses suggesting that a complaints department should handle complaints instead of the principal accountable person, or questioning whether principal accountable persons would have the capacity to deliver on these requirements. Principal accountable persons may choose to delegate building safety tasks, such as handling complaints, however they will retain ultimate responsibility for their duties.
5.102 We also noted the suggestions that the accountable person should be responsible for communication on complaints, instead of the principal accountable person. As discussed above, the Act requires accountable persons to cooperate. It is up to individual principal accountable persons and accountable persons to coordinate and decide how communication on complaints will be best managed to deliver their duties.
5.103 There was strong support for the proposals that the principal accountable person should have to keep complainants regularly informed and communicate clearly with complainants when rectifying a relevant complaint. The government notes the requests for clarity on what constitutes ‘regularly informed’ in these circumstances. The requirement in regulations will be that the principal accountable person must make clear when a response to a complaint can be expected and when the complainant can expect issues to be put right; and must communicate any changes to the timeframe.
5.104 Government also notes the comments suggesting that the principal accountable person should inform other residents about any building works that might be undertaken to resolve the complaint. Communication with residents about building safety works is required as part of the Residents’ Engagement Strategy as set out above.
The principle of escalation
Overview of proposal
5.105 At paragraph 7.54 of the consultation, we proposed that the complaints system should include the ability for the complainant to challenge the response to their complaint, and for the principal accountable person to respond to this challenge. Where the complainant is not content with the response to the challenge, then the complainant may escalate their complaint to the Regulator.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with this approach to escalating a complaint to the Regulator?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 63 | 79% |
| Disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Don’t Know | 2 | 3% |
| Not Answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100%* |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
5.106 Sixty-three respondents (79%) agreed with the proposed approach to escalating a complaint to the Regulator. Only 4 respondents (5%) disagreed.
5.107 One respondent who disagreed was concerned about the potential that every complaint would be escalated to the Regulator, whereas another respondent who disagreed wanted all complaints to be copied to the Regulator.
5.108 More widely, 6 respondents noted that there should be clarity on the role of different regulators (such as the Housing Ombudsman) in comparison to the Regulator or stated that where a complaint falls within the remit of a number of regulators it should receive an appropriate response that recognises this overlap.
Government response
5.109 There was strong support for the proposed approach for escalating complaints to the Regulator. The government is clear that the principal accountable person must be the first port of call for building safety issues. In most cases, the principal accountable person will be able to resolve complaints without involvement of the Regulator, particularly as the proposed process gives residents the opportunity to challenge the first response from the principal accountable person before the complaint is escalated to the Regulator. This process will be set out in regulations.
5.110 The requests for clarity on the role of different regulators is discussed at paragraph 5.82.
Contravention notices
Overview of proposal
5.111 Residents and owners of residential units have duties not to act in a way that creates building safety risks. Section 96 of the Act sets out that, where residents act contrary to their duties, the relevant accountable person can issue a contravention notice. The Act requires that, if the relevant accountable person decides to issue a contravention notice, then the notice must specify the alleged contravention, the actions the resident should take and a reasonable time to take those steps. It must also set out the steps the relevant accountable person may take if the notice is not complied with.
5.112 Paragraph 7.68 of the consultation sets out the proposed requirements which the accountable person should comply with when a contravention notice is issued, including that the notice must be in writing, understandable for the resident in question, refer to previous communication that the accountable person has had with the resident, and signpost to any guidance from the Regulator on contravention notices.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the requirements for issuing a contravention notice?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 60 | 75% |
| Disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Don’t Know | 3 | 4% |
| Not Answered | 9 | 11% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
5.113 Sixty respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed requirements for issuing a contravention notice. Only 4 respondents (5%) disagreed.
5.114 Five respondents requested further clarity on the circumstances in which contravention notices can be issued, including questions on what would constitute a ‘significant risk’ under section 95 of the Act. Three respondents suggested there should be appeal mechanisms for residents. It was also suggested that there should be clarity on what would constitute an ‘appropriate mechanism’ for service of the contravention notice.
Government response
5.115 There was strong support for this proposal from respondents and the government will set out the proposed requirements in regulations.
5.116 Government notes the requests for further detail on the circumstances in which contravention notices can be issued. Section 95 of the Act sets out the duties on residents, including a duty not to act in a way that creates a significant risk of a building safety risk materialising. Where a resident is contravening this duty, it is expected that the accountable person would first take informal steps to resolve the issue before issuing a contravention notice. Examples of what would be expected from the accountable person prior to issuing a notice, where appropriate, could include gathering evidence that a contravention has occurred, requesting information from a resident, and potentially requesting access to the residential unit (utilising provisions in the Act for this purpose). These steps will also help the accountable person to satisfy themselves, before issuing a contravention notice, that the ‘significant risk’ threshold has been reached.
5.117 We have noted the comments on an appeal mechanism for residents. There are a few ways in which residents can challenge a contravention notice. If the resident disagrees with the content of the notice they may refuse to comply with the notice, then the accountable person’s recourse is to escalate to the courts. At this point the resident may set out to the court the reasons why they dispute the content of the notice. Alternatively, the resident may believe that the giving of the notice breaches the accountable persons duties (for example, the notice was served missing some of the key requirements set out in the Act and regulations). In this case, a complaint can also be made to the principal accountable person regarding the accountable person’s breach of their obligations and potentially escalated to the Regulator. The Regulator may be able to issue a compliance notice to the accountable person if upheld. There are, therefore, mechanisms for residents to challenge the accountable person, if needed, at each stage of the process associated with contravention notices.
5.118 Regarding service of contravention notices, section 29 of the Act sets out the ways in which notices under the Act, including contravention notices, can be served.
6. How the golden thread is stored and managed - golden thread principles
6.1 The golden thread of information is a key part of the more stringent building safety regime. Having a golden thread of accessible and transferrable information will ensure that the right people have the right information and documents at the right time to manage the building safely.
6.2 The consultation set out that the golden thread of information should be stored and transferred electronically and should be accessible, accurate, up to date and secure. The golden thread of information should also form a single point of truth and be interoperable, transferrable and accessible. Finally, the consultation proposed that the language in the golden thread information should be understandable to the intended users, and that there should be a consistent use of language and terminology as far as is reasonably practicable.
6.3 The information and documents are the golden thread information. The system the golden thread information is kept in and how it is managed and stored by the accountable person, this is referred to as the ‘golden thread of information’.
Overview of responses
6.4 The golden thread principles section received 55 responses. Two of the responses were completely blank and were disregarded. Fifty-three substantive responses were, therefore, analysed. Fifty-two respondents to this section provided background information, with 50 identifying themselves as replying to the consultation on behalf of an organisation, and 2 identifying themselves as residents/leaseholders. One other respondent did not provide background information but appeared to be responding as an individual. The number of responses fluctuated for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.
Digital and electronic
Overview of proposals
6.5 The golden thread of information must be electronic to ensure that the information is accessible, can be quickly updated and handed over to an incoming accountable person. The government considers that it is important to allow for innovation and not to create burdensome requirements that would mean people have to invest in new digital systems.
6.6 Paragraphs 9.6 to 9.8 of the consultation proposed mandating that the golden thread information is stored and transferred electronically but did not provide any further definition of ‘digital’.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to not define digital in regulations?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 46 | 87% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
6.7 Forty-six respondents (87%) agreed with the proposal not to define digital in regulations and just to require that the golden thread information is stored and transferred electronically. Many respondents commented that this was a reasonable requirement.
6.8 One respondent suggested that the government should require that accountable persons only use ‘common’ formats that can be easily accessed using widely accepted software systems while another respondent said that accountable persons should only use “non-proprietary formats” so that information can be easily shared. Another respondent said that there should be a requirement that all documents in the golden thread information should be readable digitally.
6.9 Two respondents who agreed with the proposals had concerns that there would be costs for social landlords to update their IT systems. Another respondent noted that fire and rescue services use many different IT systems, and they will need to be able to plan how they receive, access and use this information.
6.10 Five respondents (10%) either disagreed or neither agreed not disagreed with this proposal. Their feedback was mixed. For example, one respondent said that paper copies of documents and information should still be allowed while another thought the government should go further in driving digitisation in the sector.
Government response
6.11 The majority (87%) of responses agreed with the proposal to require that golden thread information is stored and transferred electronically. It is important that government does not create a regulatory definition of digital that hinders innovation or prevents potentially useful systems being implemented.
6.12 The government notes the concerns that without greater specification there is a risk that information and documents will be held in inaccessible formats and cannot be later transferred and will address these through the proposals on accessibility and transferability of information. More detail on these proposals is set out in paragraphs 6.26 to 6.35.
6.13 The government will work with the Regulator on producing guidance for the sector.
Accuracy, security and data protection
Overview of proposals
6.14 It is essential that the golden thread information is accurate and up to date. This will ensure that people have an accurate understanding of the building and how to manage it safely. To maintain the security of the building, local area, and residents, the golden thread of information needs to be secure from unauthorised internal and external access. Personal information also needs to be protected and accountable persons should do as much as reasonably practicable to ensure this.
6.15 Paragraphs 9.9 to 9.13 of the consultation set out the government proposals relating to ensuring that the golden thread information is accurate and up to date. Paragraphs 9.23 to 9.26 set out the proposed approach to ensuring that the information is secure, and that personal data is protected.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposed approach to ensure the golden thread is accurate and valid?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 46 | 87% |
| Disagree | 2 | 4% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposed approach to ensure the golden thread is secure and to protect personal information?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 46 | 87% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 6% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
6.16 Forty-six respondents (87%) agreed with the proposals to ensure that the golden thread information is accurate and up to date. One respondent requested clarity about whether plans needed to reflect the inside of individual flats and whether leaseholders would be under a duty to inform the accountable person of changes to the inside of flats that may affect building safety.
6.17 Five respondents (10%) either disagreed or neither agreed not disagreed with this proposal. Two respondents suggested that information should be archived rather than deleted as this historical information could inform a future inquiry should an incident occur.
6.18 Forty-six respondents (87%) agreed with the proposals to ensure that the golden thread information is secure and to protect personal information. Most respondents either did not provide comments or stated that the proposed approach was reasonable.
6.19 One respondent said that security must be balanced against useability and that the best way to ensure this was to have clarity about responsibilities and who needed access to what information. Another respondent recommended that accountable persons should implement the National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) Cyber Essentials as a minimum standard for security.
6.20 Four respondents (8%) either disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal. One respondent said that a paper copy of the golden thread information would be more secure against hacking, while another respondent thought there was no need for additional requirements as accountable persons already store personal and sensitive information. Another respondent had concerns about the competence of resident management companies to comply with data protection legislation and security requirements. They considered that managing agents should be the data controller rather than the accountable persons.
Government response
6.21 The majority of responses (87%) agreed that golden thread information should be accurate, up to date, and secure. Certain information or documents will need to be retained as they remain up to date over a period of time without revision. For instance, the building assessment certificate application should be retained as the application itself would not be updated until a new application was made.
6.22 The government does not agree that all information about a building needs to be kept and archived. This could become burdensome for industry and make the golden thread of information unwieldy and costly to implement. The golden thread of information is primarily a tool for ensuring that the people responsible for building safety have access to the right information at the right time to keep the building safe. Although some historical information may be necessary for this purpose and to ensure a clear ‘audit trail’ of decision making, this should not overwhelm the primary purpose of the golden thread of information.
6.23 The government requires the golden thread information to be up to date and for there to be procedures in place to record changes to certain information. This means that the accountable person has a responsibility to record information that accurately reflect the building and their management of it.
6.24 The government agrees that it is important that accountable persons are aware of work occurring in their buildings and engage regularly with residents to ensure the information in the golden thread is up to date. More detail is provided in Chapter 5 on residents’ voice and the resident engagement strategy.
6.25 The Department will work with the Regulator to produce guidance for the sector, to include signposting relevant existing guidance such as the NCSC’s guidance on data security and existing guidance on compliance with data protection legislation.
Single point of truth, interoperability and accessibility
Overview of proposals
6.26 It is important that the golden thread of information is interoperable and accessible. This will enable it to act as a single point of truth and ensure the golden thread information can be shared with and transferred to other people. We have not proposed mandating any particular software or technical solutions to enable flexibility for accountable persons and to allow for future technological developments. Instead, we propose that accountable persons are required to ensure that the golden thread information can be accessed, and transferred, throughout the lifecycle of the building without it being altered or corrupted.
6.27 Paragraphs 9.14 to 9.22 of the consultation outlined the government’s approach to the principle that the golden thread of information should provide a single source of truth. Paragraphs 9.27 to 9.29 outlined the proposals that the golden thread of information must be accessible and navigable.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for the golden thread operating as a single point of truth and ensuring the information kept within it is one that allows for transfer of information and interoperability as described?
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 37 | 70% |
| Disagree | 5 | 9% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 17% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposed approach to ensure the golden thread is accessible?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 46 | 87% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 9% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
6.28 Thirty-seven respondents (70%) agreed that the golden thread of information should be interoperable and enable the transfer of golden thread information. One respondent commented that this “underpins the whole approach” to allowing relevant people to access and use the information they need to ensure building safety risks are managed effectively.
6.29 Fourteen respondents (26%) either disagreed or neither agreed not disagreed with the proposal. Their main concerns were about costs and whether organisations would be able to reach the required standard without a transition period. Three respondents considered that there needed to be agreed industry standards for structuring information, data coding and an index structure. The respondents commented that agreed standards for these were essential to allow information to be transferred easily and to allow accountable persons to change managing agents and software providers without additional cost.
6.30 Forty-six respondents (87%) agreed that the golden thread of information should be accessible. Three respondents said that to ensure accessibility there needed to be a standard on how the how information was structured. One respondent said that avoiding any kind of digital standards was “a missed opportunity” to ensure “consistency” across industry and to enable users to “access and utilise [golden thread] data in a common manner”.
6.31 No respondents disagreed with this proposal while 3 respondents neither agreed not disagreed (6%). One respondent said they would value guidance, and that this should be provided well in advance of regulations coming into effect, to give organisations as long as possible to adequately prepare.
Government response
6.32 The majority of responses (70% and 87%) agreed that the golden thread of information should be interoperable and accessible and should allow the transfer of information. The government is committed to ensuring the golden thread of information supports building safety through requiring better information management, so that people can access and use the information they need to identify, manage and mitigate building safety risks on an ongoing basis. To do this, it is essential that the golden thread information is accessible and can be easily transferred.
6.33 Upon further consideration the government has decided that to deliver a single source of truth it is not necessary for all the golden thread information to be stored in a single system. The government has noted feedback from stakeholders about their use of multiple systems and how this can deliver effective outcomes. The government is committed to ensuring the golden thread of information is kept up to date, can be effectively used to deliver safe outcomes and can be transferred. It is for industry to ensure the approaches taken, including where accountable persons use more than one system, deliver this, so that resident are, and feel, safe in their homes.
6.34 The government notes the concerns about not mandating standards for structuring information, data coding or an index structure. The government considers that imposing a solution for the whole of industry would not be proportionate or efficient. It is important that individual accountable persons are able to agree the digital solutions, the classification system or coding standards that work for their organisations and their buildings. When buildings are sold or otherwise change hands, (for instance at building completion), the individual dutyholders and accountable persons will need to agree the exchange mechanism or transfer solution that will ensure the golden thread information is transferred and is useable and accessible.
6.35 The government recognises the requests for additional guidance and that this guidance should clearly signpost to existing standards or best practice. The government strongly encourages the use of Building Information Management (BIM) standards through the Construction Playbook. The government has also worked closely with Nima (formerly the UK BIM Alliance) to ensure the proposed approach aligns with the wider BIM Framework. The government will work with the Regulator on producing further guidance for the sector.
Understandable and consistent language
Overview of proposals
6.36 The language and information in the golden thread of information should be consistent for the building and appropriate for the people who need to use it. If people cannot understand the information, then they cannot effectively manage their building safely. Paragraphs 9.31 and 9.32 of the consultation set out that the language and information in the golden thread needs to be understandable and consistent.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to ensuring the language/information in the golden thread is consistent for the building and that the language should be consistent and appropriate for the people who need to use it?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 41 | 77% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 13% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 9% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach not to mandate that the golden thread needs to comply with a particular British standard, international standard or data dictionary?
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 27 | 51% |
| Disagree | 15 | 28% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 13% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 8% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
6.37 Forty-one respondents (77%) agreed with the proposal that the language in the golden thread should be appropriate and consistent. Three respondents agreed with the proposal noted that some language will have to be very technical to ensure it is relevant and useful.
6.38 No respondents disagreed with the proposal and 7 respondents (13%) neither agreed not disagreed with the proposal.
6.39 Twenty-seven respondents (51%) agreed with the proposal to not mandate a British or international standard or a data dictionary. One respondent commented that they considered this a “balanced and sensible approach” and that individuals should be able to decide what process or standard was right for their building or organisation. Another respondent noted that mandating a standard could impose new burdens on business.
6.40 Two respondents said that in principle a common dictionary or standard would be useful, but the existing standards lack relevant terminology and need to be improved.
6.41 Twenty-two respondents (41%) disagreed or neither agreed not disagreed with the proposal. Two respondents said that mandating a particular standard would support interoperability. One respondent raised the concern that not requiring specific standards might lead to inconsistencies and difficulties when sharing information between systems. They also noted that there would be wide variation in what is produced and different interpretations of the meaning of the words ‘accessible’ and ‘understandable’. They suggested that if a particular standard was not mandated, then it would need to be guidance that clearly set out the required standards of how the proposed system would operate.
6.42 Two respondents said that mandating a standard would help compliance with the principal of understandability and consistency and would reduce use of different terms across the sector.
6.43 Another respondent commented that there should be a standard mandated for information provided to the fire and rescue service such as plans showing compartmentation and essential fire-fighting equipment.
Government response
6.44 The government agrees that it is important that the language in the golden thread information is appropriate and consistent. A key component of this is ensuring there is consistent and clear use of language, definitions and terminology as far as reasonably practicable. The majority of respondents agreed with the government’s approach to ensuring the language in the golden thread information is consistent and appropriate. The government has noted the concerns raised that not mandating a particular standard or data dictionary could create difficulties for industry.
6.45 The government, however, does not agree that a ‘one size fits all approach’ is appropriate for all higher-risk buildings. Through the consultation, and other engagement with stakeholders, the government has not identified a single standard or data dictionary that would work for all higher-risk buildings and is suitably comprehensive in all areas. There are many different existing standards and data dictionaries already in use across industry. Mandating a specific standard or data dictionary could impose unnecessary costs on accountable persons to update their information and records to meet with the new requirements, and these costs could be passed on to leaseholders. If accountable persons are already ensuring their information is consistent and up to date, the government does not consider it a proportionate approach to require them to implement a new system.
6.46 The government, however, does agree that it is important to produce guidance in this area and will work with the Regulator, and other stakeholders, to produce new guidance and to signpost to existing standards and data dictionaries where they may be appropriate and useful. Although at this stage we do not believe it is appropriate to mandate specific standards or data dictionaries, the Regulator will keep the operation of the regime under review and make recommendations to government as needed
Accountability
Overview of proposals
6.47 The golden thread of information is part of how the new, more stringent regime will drive greater accountability within the sector. The accountable person will have to ensure the golden thread of information includes records of who has approved the information within the golden thread, and who has changed or approved changes to it.
6.48 Paragraphs 9.33 and 9.34 of the consultation introduced the ‘principle of accountability’.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach for ensuring accountability?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 38 | 73% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 13% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 11% |
| Total | 53 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
6.49 Thirty-eight respondents (73%) agreed with the proposed approach for ensuring accountability, with many saying that this was a reasonable proposal. One respondent said that there should also be a record of why the information was being updated and who authorised the update. Another respondent said that it was important there was clarity about who would be liable for any inaccuracies in the golden thread information.
6.50 Eight respondents either disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal. One respondent had concerns about the cost of the proposal and that it would mean each accountable person would have to appoint a data controller. Another respondent had concerns that the proposal did not cover more technical documents, which may be produced by third party providers, which an accountable person cannot be responsible for ensuring are valid.
Government response
6.51 The responses suggest that the majority (73%) agreed with the proposals to increase accountability. The government is committed to increasing accountability in higher-risk buildings by ensuring that when information and documents are changed, the name of the person who made the change, and the date of the change, is recorded in the golden thread information.
6.52 Upon further consideration the government has decided not to specifically require a record of who approved the change to the information or document. This is because there is an overriding duty on accountable persons to ensure the golden thread of information is up to date, so and accountability therefore rests with them. Accountable persons will need to demonstrate to the Regulator that they have put in place procedures to ensure that the golden thread information is up to date. This will need to include procedures for approving information changes, any verification checks or other procedures. It will be up to the accountable person how they ensure that changes to golden thread information are approved and how that approval is recorded.
7. Enforcement
7.1 The Regulator will be able to issue compliance notices to accountable persons where duties under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022, and regulations under it, are not complied with. Compliance notices will require corrective action by a set date. Failure to comply with a compliance notice is a criminal offence which, on conviction, carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 2 years in prison.
7.2 Chapter 11 of the consultation dealt with the regulations related to compliance notices issued to accountable persons during the occupation of a higher-risk building. This included 2 topics:
- the information that should be included on compliance notices
- how notices can be withdrawn and amended by the Regulator
Overview of responses
7.3 There was a total of 47 responses to the chapter on enforcement. There were 46 responses to question 1 and 45 responses to question 2 - not all respondents answered both questions.
Overview of proposals
7.4 The consultation included proposals for the content of compliance notices. This included the date of issue, name and description of the accountable person, the building/part of the building where the breach has occurred, the consequences of failing to comply with a compliance notice, details of the breach, details of the route of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and whether the notice was an ‘urgent action notice’[footnote 4].
7.5 We also proposed that the Regulator should be able to withdraw notices at any time, if it considered it to be appropriate, even where an appeal is pending. This will give all parties the opportunity to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal. We proposed that the Regulator should be able to amend and extend notices at any time, except where an appeal is pending. This is to avoid amendments interfering with tribunal proceedings. We proposed that if the Regulator wished to amend notices during appeal proceedings, they had to do so with the agreement of the relevant accountable person.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed content of compliance notices detailed above?
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 44 | 94% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 47 | 100% |
7.6 Forty-four respondents (94%), a significant majority, agreed with the information that must be included in notices. Approximately half (49%) of respondents provided further suggestions to the content of compliance notices.
7.7 These suggestions included making sure notices clearly explain the nature of the contravention, set out the steps accountable persons need to take and that notices, where issued, must be made available to leaseholders.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the suggested approach for the amendment, extension and withdrawal of compliance notices?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 42 | 89% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 4% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 47 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%.
7.8 Forty-two respondents (89%), a significant majority, agreed with the suggested approach to amending, withdrawing and extending notices.
7.9 Less than half (36%) of respondents provided further comments, with some expressing agreement with the proposals and most providing further suggestions on how the approach should be managed. These included notifying leaseholders and fire and rescue services of notices, and making sure notices were subject to discussion between the accountable person and the Regulator before they were issued.
7.10 Three respondents commented on the need to make sure that costs could be awarded to the accountable person, where appeals are in progress and notices are then withdrawn or amended by the Regulator. Three respondents highlighted the need for legally binding timescales by which the Regulator should make amendments and extensions.
Government response
7.11 The government notes the responses to the proposals for compliance notices. The Department has worked extensively with the Regulator to ensure compliance notices contain adequate information to enable notices to be complied with. As such, regulations will require that notices contain detail on the nature of the contravention. Section 99(2)(a) of the Act also allows the Regulator to specify steps that the accountable person will be required to take on compliance notices.
7.12 Compliance notices will be an enforcement tool within the Regulator’s broader enforcement model to ensure action is proportionate, fair and delivers the government’s prime objective: that higher-risk buildings are safe to live in. Within this model, recipients of notices will have the opportunity to discuss the detail of notices with the Regulator.
7.13 We have considered further and will set out in regulations that where a notice is served on the principal accountable person or the accountable person for part of the building, the other accountable persons for the building should be notified. This is to ensure all accountable persons are aware of non-compliance relating to the higher-risk building.
7.14 It is important for residents to have knowledge of whether a compliance notice has been issued to the principal accountable person or accountable persons. That is why the Act requires that the notice must be displayed in a conspicuous place in the building as provided for by section 82(1)(c) of the Act. Section 100(4)(b) of the Act also requires the Regulator to notify the local fire and rescue authority, for the area in which the building is situated, when a notice has been issued. This is to make sure that fire and rescue authorities are aware of fire safety breaches in their capacity as the regulator for fire safety.
7.15 Government is not proposing to make provision in regulations with regard to the power of the Regulator to amend notices. This is because the power to withdraw notices will allow the Regulator to withdraw and reissue compliance notices. For instance, when a notice does not contain the right information, or a longer compliance period is required (as deemed necessary by the Regulator) the Regulator can withdraw and reissue the notice. This will also be beneficial in ensuring all parties do not incur further costs from unnecessary legal proceedings. The awarding of any costs where notices are withdrawn by the Regulator during tribunal proceedings, and the accountable persons has incurred legal costs, will be subject to the First-tier Tribunal’s Procedure Rules.
8. Reviews and appeals
8.1 Where disputes arise over higher-risk building decisions, the first stage will be informal discussion and mediation between the parties. Following that, in most cases, there will be an internal review and appeals process provided by the Regulator. If this cannot resolve matters, specified regulatory decisions are appealable to the First-tier Tribunal.
8.2 The Act enables persons directly impacted by the Regulator’s decisions to request a review of such prescribed decisions. These decisions have been prescribed in The Building Safety (Registration of Higher-Risk Buildings and Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2023 and include the decision by the Regulator:
- not to register a building on an application under section 78(1)
- to remove a building from the register under section 78(3)
- to refuse an application for a building assessment certificate under section 81(3); and
- to give a direction under section 83(2) in regard of a safety case requirement
8.3 The review can result in the Regulator upholding or varying, including quashing, the decision.
8.4 The government also made a number of proposals in relation to procedural arrangements for internal reviews, in particular:
- who can request reviews relating to registration, certification, safety case directions and decisions relating to moving a building from the register
- time limits relating to lodging and completing an internal review, and the procedure if the Regulator fails to meet that timeline
8.5 If a person is not content with the outcome of the review, they may then appeal the decision to the First-tier Tribunal, within a prescribed period after the conclusion of the review.
8.6 Under section 105 of the Act, the government can create routes of appeal against decisions of the Regulator through regulations made under part 4 of the Act. The government consulted on provisions to create a route of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal over a refusal to remove a building from the register on application from any accountable person for the building under section 78(3) and to give a direction under section 83(2) in regard of the assessment of building safety risks requirement. The grounds for appeal may be made where the decision was based on an error of fact, wrong in law, or unreasonable.
8.7 Under section 106 of the Act, the Secretary of State has an additional power to provide in regulations for a suspension of the effect of a notice given or other thing done by the Regulator during the appeal period at the tribunal. This does not apply to compliance notices for which the Act makes separate provision at section 103. Namely, unless the compliance notice is an urgent action notice it is automatically suspended on appeal.
8.8 Chapter 12 of the consultation sought views on this approach.
Overview of responses
8.9 The reviews and appeals section received a total of 42 responses to the questions. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.
Suspension of regulator directive where an appeal is lodged
Overview of proposal
8.10 This section introduced the concept of a suspensive effect to an appeal. That is, when a decision is appealed, the clock stops, and the person affected need not comply with the duty or statutory requirement until the courts have ruled.
8.11 The government proposed that the effect of decisions or directions is suspended where there is an appeal to the tribunal for decisions:
- to remove a building from the register under section 78(3)
- to give a direction under section 83(2) in regard of the assessment of building safety risks requirement
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a suspensive effect as described above?
| Category | Total | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 37 | 88% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 7% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 42 | 100% |
*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%.
8.12 There were 42 responses to this question, of which 37 (88%) were supportive. No one disagreed, 3 people were undecided, and one did not answer this question. Seven people provided an explanation, of which only 2 were more substantive than a single line.
8.13 One person commented that this was not a novel approach and was already part of The Housing Act 2004. One respondent commented that the process would avoid nugatory work. Finally, one person wrote that they did not consider the proposal problematic since suspension of notice already existed for certain notices in fire safety enforcement.
Government response
8.14 The government is committed to delivering swift access to justice. We have designed the reviews and appeals process to be collaborative, fair and transparent. Responses to the consultation support the view that there should be a suspensive effect where there is an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a decision to remove a building from the register under section 78(3) of the Act, and where there has been a decision to give a direction under section 83(2) regarding the assessment of building safety risks requirement.
8.15 Notwithstanding our original proposals and the feedback from the consultation, following further policy development the government does not consider that suspension of the effect of the decision is required. A building can be removed from the register because it is no longer occupied, or no longer a higher-risk building. In an instance where the Regulator refuses to remove a building from the register, it will stay on the register unless the Tribunal rules otherwise. On reflection, a suspensive effect is not appropriate here and the accountable person should remain responsible for the building safety duties under Part 4 of the Act during the duration of the appeal. These duties remain enforceable. This is important because residents must know who is accountable for the building while it is on the higher-risk building register, and that the duties as set out in Part 4 of the Act continue to apply to the accountable person and should not be suspended.
8.16 In a scenario where an accountable person has appealed to the First-tier Tribunal about a direction given under section 83(2) of the Act regarding the assessment of building safety risks, if the effect of direction remains in place during the appeal, there should not be adverse consequences to residents during this period if the accountable person fails to follow the direction. If the risk is serious, the Regulator can choose to take formal enforcement action in relation to non-compliance with the direction prior to the ruling of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the accountable person may have a reasonable excuse as to why it had not complied with the direction i.e., it was going through appeal procedures challenging the direction. That being said, on further consideration, we do not want to pause directions during an appeals process and would prefer that the accountable person complies with the direction within the given timeframe.
8.17 The government will, therefore, not include provisions in regulation to give effect the proposal as set out at paragraph 8.11, instead, the Regulator will set out its enforcement approach in guidance. The Regulator will also set out in guidance its approach to internal reviews and how they will approach the scenario where an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal has been made by the accountable person.
Internal review process
Overview of proposal
8.18 The government made a number of proposals about the time limits relating to lodging and completing an internal review, and the procedure if the Regulator fails to meet that timeline, namely:
- that any notice seeking an internal review must be lodged within 21 calendar days of the original decision by the Regulator
- that there is a proposed period of 28 calendar days in which the Regulator must respond to any request for a review of a decision
- that if the Regulator fails to respond to the applicant within 28 calendar days, the original decision is upheld (as in section 25(8)), but the applicant retains a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. The deadline can also be amended, by agreement in writing
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the internal review process outlined above?
| Category | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 34 | 81% |
| Disagree | 5 | 12% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 5% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 42 | 100% |
8.19 Thirty-four respondents (81%) supported the proposal, while 5 respondents (12%) disagreed. Two respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, and one did not answer this question. Fifteen respondents provided further explanation to support their responses.
8.20 For the 5 respondents who disagreed, their main concern was that there was no penalty if the Regulator failed to respond within 28 days. One felt the time periods for submission and response should be aligned at 28 days. Another felt that the deadline should be extended by 5 days if the Regulator failed to reply within the proposed timeline of 28 days. One respondent felt that compliance within the agreed response time should be set out in service level agreements.
8.21 Of those who supported the proposal, comments mainly confirmed that they were content with the arrangements, although one respondent was concerned that the internal review process would add additional cost that would be passed on to the leaseholders through the service charge.
Government response
8.22 The government welcomes the fact that a significant majority of responses agreed with the proposals related to review and appeals.
8.23 The government notes the concerns from a minority of respondents about the period of time for submission of an appeal and for a response from the Regulator. For submitting an appeal, the government believes a limit is necessary to ensure that accountable persons come forward and request a review while the decision is still relevant and evidence to prove the grounds for the review is still obtainable. We will, therefore, include time limits relating to lodging a review in regulations[footnote 5].
8.24 Any failure by the Regulator to respond to a request for an internal review within a time limit, or where an original decision is upheld, would result in the applicant being able to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under section 104 of the Act, to ensure that access to justice is provided. The majority (81%) of respondents agreed to the 28 days limit for a response from the Regulator, as a reasonable time period and as it can be extended by agreement. This will ensure that complex internal reviews which need more time for a response can be resolved without an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
9. Impact of the new regime
9.1 These new requirements will result in costs to the sector. The government has assessed the impact of these proposals and included this in the published impact assessment (PDF, 460 KB). Expenditure by accountable persons associated with the ongoing costs of the new regime may be recovered from leaseholders through service charges. These charges should be fair, proportionate, and transparent to leaseholders. If a leaseholder believes that the costs they are being asked to pay are unreasonable, they can challenge these costs at the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
10. Summary
10.1 The government is grateful to all respondents for taking the time to submit responses to this consultation. All responses have been carefully considered and taken into account in the development of the regulations and this document.
10.2 In light of the comments received, and in consultation with the Regulator, policies have been amended as described in this response to ensure that the new regime delivers its safety aims in a proportionate manner.
10.3 The regulations are subject to the negative parliamentary procedure and were laid before Parliament on 17 August 2023. If approved by Parliament, the regulations will be made and come into force at the same time as the commencement of section 83 of the Act which is currently planned for October 2023.
-
Where a building has more than one accountable person, the accountable person responsible for the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. When buildings have a single accountable person, that entity or person is the principal accountable person. ↩
-
Schedule 7 in the Act sets out the process for a building to be put into special measures where there has been a serious failure or failure on 2 or more occasions by the accountable person in complying with Part 4 duties. ↩
-
Unique Property Reference Number allocated by the local authority at the time of planning. ↩
-
Under section 99(4), the Building Safety Regulator can issue a compliance notice which is specified as an ‘urgent action notice’. This type of compliance notice can be issued where there is imminent danger to people in or around a building. An urgent action notice will not be suspended where it is appealed, unlike a regular compliance notice. ↩
-
These provisions were included in the Building Safety (Registration of Higher-Risk Buildings and Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2023. ↩