18 October 2023: Government response to residents voice, golden thread information and the duties on the accountable persons to provide information
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/18-october-2023-government-response-to-residents-voice-golden-thread-information-and-the-duties-on-the-accountable-persons-to-provide-information
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 occupied higher-risk buildings.
1.2 The new regime for occupied higher-risk buildings was a fundamental part of Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations on managing fire and structural safety risks in high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings in her Building a Safer Future Report, commissioned by government after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
1.3 The new regime puts in place stronger oversight of those responsible for the safety of high-rise residential buildings throughout design, construction, and occupation, with stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance. The new regime places legal responsibilities on those who participate in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings, commission higher-risk building work and those who are responsible for managing structural and fire safety in higher-risk buildings when they are occupied or are ready to be occupied. This will ensure there is clearer accountability and transparency about responsibilities for building safety.
1.4 The consultation set out proposals regarding Dame Judith’s recommendations that residents’ have a stronger voice regarding the management of the safety in their buildings. These included proposals on the information accountable persons will provide to residents, information that residents can request, exemptions to providing information to residents and duties around storing information on complaints and contravention notices. The consultation also included proposals on the “golden thread information” (information and documents necessary to keep the building safe) that accountable persons need to keep, together with proposals on the accountable persons’ duties to provide information and documents, and exemptions to providing this information and documents to persons other than residents.
1.5 This document sets out and analyses the information submitted in response to the questions on these consultation proposals. For ease, throughout this document, the phrase “occupied higher-risk buildings” is shortened to “higher-risk buildings”.
1.6 The duties on accountable persons to provide information and documents are being implemented through affirmative secondary legislation (The draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Info etc) (England) Regulations 2023) will be laid in Parliament in the Autumn.
1.7 Throughout this document the principal accountable person and accountable persons are referred to as accountable persons because a principal accountable person is a type of accountable person. However, there are specific duties which the principal accountable person must carry out in addition to their duties as an accountable person. In these cases, the document will refer to the ‘principal accountable person’ and ‘accountable persons’ as necessary.
2. Consultation process and response
2.1 The public consultation on the new building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings ran for twelve weeks from 20 July to 12 October 2022. It was published on the department’s online consultation platform Citizen Space, and on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey, via email and via post.
2.2 The residents’ voice section received 81 responses, all via the online survey. One of the responses was an exact duplicate of another submitted response and was disregarded. Therefore, 80 substantive responses were analysed. 79 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.
2.3 The residents’ voice section of this consultation response relates only to the matters covered in the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023. It covers questions on information the principal accountable person or relevant accountable person will provide to residents, requests for further information and storing information on complaints and contravention notices. This consultation response does not cover questions related to the form in which information must be provided, operation of the resident engagement strategy and the complaints procedures, or the details of how contravention notices will be issued. The Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of safety risks etc.) (England) Regulations 2023 and the consultation response regarding these regulations, were published on 17 August 2023.
2.4 The contents of the golden thread section received 63 responses (44 responses via an online survey and 19 responses via email). 62 respondents to this section provided background information, with 58 respondents identifying themselves as replying to the consultation on behalf of an organisation and five respondents identifying themselves as private individuals, not responding on behalf of an organisation. Of these private individuals, three were leaseholders.
2.5 The section covering the duties on the accountable persons to provide information received 52 responses (35 responses via an online survey, 16 responses via email and one response by post). One of the responses was an exact duplicate of another submitted response and was disregarded. Therefore, 51 substantive responses were analysed. 49 respondents to this section provided background information, with 47 respondents identifying themselves as replying to the consultation on behalf of an organisation. Two respondents said they were private individuals (leaseholders), and two respondents did not provide background information but appeared to be responding as individuals.
2.6 Responses for all three sections of the consultation were received from a diverse range of stakeholders, including local authorities and registered social housing providers, developers and house builders, fire and rescue authorities, fire engineers, engineering consultants, product manufacturers, representative bodies and leaseholders.
2.7 This response to the consultation contains tables which provide both figures and percentages for those responding to each question. For the percentage assessments we have rounded when the figure is not a whole number, and this can result in the sum of the percentages totalling 101 or more in some tables.
3. Residents voice: Information the principal accountable person or relevant accountable person will provide to residents, requests for further information, and storing information on complaints and contravention notices
Information the principal accountable person or relevant accountable person will provide to residents
Overview of proposal
3.1 Dame Judith Hackitt identified that residents were frustrated by the intermittent and partial nature of information available on building safety. The government proposed that the relevant accountable person must proactively provide information to residents and owners of residential units. Paragraph 7.9 of the consultation sets out that the information that must be provided includes: the measures to reduce the risk of fire and ensure the structural integrity of the building; contact information for people responsible for building safety of the building; and information about resident rights. The consultation also tested what exemptions would be appropriate.
3.2 This information which will proactively be provided to residents and owners of residential units, will be sufficient to provide most residents with the information they want. However, paragraphs 7.11 to 7.13 of the consultation set out additional information that should be available to those who want to access it.
3.3 Paragraphs 7.16 to 7.21 of the consultation set out the grounds to ‘exempt’ the sharing the information. The accountable person would:
- not have to provide this information where they reasonably believe the information may have an adverse impact on the security of the building, the residents, or other buildings in the vicinity or the local area
- not have to provide this information where they reasonably believe the information may have an adverse impact on individual residents through the release of personal information about them
- need to consider whether information may infringe intellectual property rights or a legally-binding obligation of commercial confidentiality
3.4 When requesting information, the government also proposed that residents who are vulnerable can appoint an advocate to make a request on their behalf.
Consultation analysis - Information
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed types of information residents should always receive?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 60 | 75% |
| Disagree | 5 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
| Not answered | 3 | 4% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
Question: Are there any specific documents or information you think should be included or excluded from the information residents receive automatically?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 38 | 48% |
| No | 22 | 28% |
| Don’t know | 14 | 18% |
| Not answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
3.5 Of the 80 responses received, 60 respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed types of information residents should always receive.
3.6 Twenty respondents raised concerns related to residents’ ability to understand and/or engage with the information provided, with many stating that information should be provided in a format that maximises understanding. Seven respondents raised concerns about the costs of providing this information, particularly if that cost is passed on to leaseholders. Three respondents raised the importance of providing information specific to the needs of vulnerable residents.
3.7 Thirty-eight respondents (48%) responded ‘yes’ to the question of whether there were any specific documents or information they thought should be included or excluded from the information residents receive automatically.
3.8 The key suggestions for additional information that residents should receive automatically were:
| Category | Number of respondents suggesting addition | Percentage of total respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Information on residents’ duties under the Building Safety Act | 7 | 9% |
| Information on evacuation procedures | 5 | 6% |
| The Fire Risk Assessment for the building | 5 | 6% |
| Contact details for the accountable person and information on roles | 4 | 5% |
| Information on how to report issues or make complaints | 3 | 4% |
| The Building Assessment Certificate for the building | 2 | 3% |
| Information on planned maintenance or building safety works | 2 | 3% |
| The Safety Case report for the building | 2 | 3% |
3.9 There were also recommendations for information that should be excluded. This included personal information (4 respondents), information where disclosure may present a security risk to the building (3 respondents) and commercially sensitive information (2 respondents). More detail on exemptions is set out in paragraph 3.14 below.
3.10 Three respondents also mentioned the need to align the requirement to provide information to similar requirements under the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (the Fire Safety Order).
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed lists of further information that residents can request?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 45 | 56% |
| Disagree | 12 | 15% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100%* |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
3.11 Of the 80 responses received, 45 respondents (56%) agreed with the proposed list of further information that residents can request.
3.12 Seventeen respondents mentioned concerns about residents’ comprehension of the information. Fifteen respondents raised concerns about the administrative burden and/or costs, and 6 mentioned vexatious requests. Six respondents raised the risk of disclosing such information, for example stating that “this level of detail may be dangerous in the public realm”. Two respondents said that the safety case report alone should be sufficient.
3.13 Some respondents suggested specific additions to the list of information residents could request. These included complaints the accountable person has received (one respondent), mandatory occurrence reports (1 respondent) and reports of any enforcement action that has been taken by a relevant authority or regulator (3 respondents).
Consultation analysis - Exemptions
Question: Do these exemptions strike the right balance between making sure residents can access information and the need to protect information that may be sensitive on the ground of security concerns or because it is personal information?
| Category | Number of Responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 40 | 50% |
| No | 10 | 13% |
| Partly | 8 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 16 | 20% |
| Not answered | 6 | 8% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to the intellectual property and commercial confidentiality exemptions to sharing information with residents?
| Category | Number of Responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 39 | 49% |
| Disagree | 8 | 10% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 14 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 12 | 15% |
| Not answered | 7 | 9% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
3.14 Of the 80 responses received, 40 respondents (50%) agreed that the proposed exemptions strike the right balance.
3.15 Twelve respondents highlighted concerns around transparency, and 10 mentioned potential loopholes arising from exemptions whereby accountable persons could seek to avoid sharing information with residents. Twelve raised concerns around data protection and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) adherence, with suggestions that personal information and information about residents should not be included.
3.16 Of the 10 respondents who felt that the proposal did not strike the right balance, 8 were concerned that information would be shared that was prejudicial to the security of the building, or other infrastructure near to the building.
3.17 Of the 80 responses received, 39 respondents (49%) agreed with the proposed approach to the intellectual property and commercial confidentiality exemptions. Nine respondents mentioned concerns that these exemptions could potentially allow accountable persons to use blanket statements of confidentiality to avoid having to release information. Two raised concerns that redactions could create unreadable documents.
Government response
3.18 The government considers that it is essential that all residents of higher-risk buildings receive certain information and documents about their building’s safety. The majority of responses (75%) agreed with this approach.
3.19 The government notes the concerns about resident comprehension of building safety information. We will set out in regulations a requirement that the information and documents on building safety is provided in such a way that is understandable to residents. The option to request further information will also give residents the ability to access more detail if they wish to. More detail on the format of information and documents, including how this should be provided in an accessible and comprehensible manner, is provided in the government’s separate response to sections of the consultation on the new building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings and is set out in The Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks) (England) Regulations 2023.
3.20 The government notes the concerns raised about costs being passed on to leaseholders. As part of the wider building safety regime, accountable persons will already be required to collect and manage much of the information and documents that must be provided to residents. The government considers that this information and documents are essential and proportionate in order to ensure the building is managed safely, and we estimate that any additional costs to provide such information and documents to residents will be minimal. The department has considered the expected costs and, an impact assessment, published alongside this response, estimates the costs passed to leaseholders to be £184 per annum, or approximately £15 per month, for the requirements under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Building Safety Act), of which providing information to residents is a small part.
3.21 Many of the suggestions made for information and documents to be provided proactively to residents are in alignment with government’s proposals. These include information and documents on residents’ duties, information on evacuation, contact details for the persons responsible for safety in the building, and information on how to report issues or make complaints.
3.22 For the fire risk assessment and the safety case report, the government considers it to be reasonable that a summary be provided as part of the proactive information and documents, to aid residents’ comprehension and avoid too much material being provided in the first instance. The full documents will be available as part of the information that residents can request from the accountable person. How residents can access information and documents on planned maintenance or building safety works will be addressed specifically through the forthcoming regulations on the resident’s engagement strategy. Additionally, the government believes that it is not necessary to include the building assessment certificate in the information to be provided directly to residents as section 82 of the Building Safety Act already requires that building assessment certificates be displayed in a conspicuous position in the building.
3.23 The government notes the need for clarity around the interaction between the building safety requirements and the Fire Safety Order. The government is working with the Building Safety Regulator to develop guidance providing the sector with clarity on requirements, to be published in due course.
3.24 The government considers it is essential that residents can request further information and documents about their building. Increased transparency of building safety information and documents is essential to delivering on Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations. It is expected that only a small number of residents will request detailed building safety information and documents beyond what is included in the information that all residents receive proactively, however, those who want to access detailed information and documents must be able to do so. The majority of responses (56%) agreed with this approach.
3.25 The government notes the concerns about administrative burden and cost, and the potential for vexatious requests. As stated at paragraph 3.24, the wider building safety regime will already require accountable persons to collect and manage much of the information and documents that must be provided to residents, and the additional costs for providing this information and documents are expected to be minimal.
3.26 The government proposed a list of information and documents which residents would be able to request in paragraph 7.13 of the consultation. Much of the information and documents will underpin, or be contained in, the safety case report. We have, therefore, simplified the list so that residents can request any information and/or documents that underpin the safety case report. Additionally, item (k), ‘all other building safety information that the accountable person reasonably considers should be provided to residents on request’ is no longer included in the prescribed information and documents that residents can request. During further work to refine the list the government determined that it was not appropriate to include this in regulations. This is because it would be up to accountable persons to choose what information and documents they ‘reasonably consider’ should be provided. The regulations would be difficult to enforce, as what can be considered ‘reasonable’ would be a subjective assessment. Accountable persons may still choose to provide additional information and documents even though this is not a requirement in the regulations.
3.27 Previous versions of documents will also not be included on the prescribed list, where the most recent versions of these documents contain any information from previous versions that continues to be relevant. The government notes the suggestions from a small number of respondents regarding adding complaints, mandatory occurrence reports, and reports of enforcement action to the list of information and documents residents can request. At this stage, we do not believe it is appropriate to expand the list of information and documents to include these, but the Building Safety Regulator will keep the operation of the regime under review and make recommendations to government as needed. However, enforcement action taken by the Building Safety Regulator in the form of compliance notices will be displayed in a conspicuous part of the building as provided for by section 82 of the Building Safety Act. Where a mandatory occurrence report, a complaint or enforcement action leads to a re-evaluation of either risk assessments or arrangements to manage building safety risks, residents will be able to access this in summary format through the information provided proactively (the summary of the safety case report) and in full through the requests for information process.
3.28 It is not currently appropriate to include in the regulations that residents who are vulnerable can appoint an advocate to make a request for further information on their behalf, as this would require primary legislation. The government will work with the Building Safety Regulator to publish guidance on how accountable persons can best work with vulnerable residents on providing building safety information and documents. If there are concerns about the performance of an accountable person’s duties, such as providing information and documents requested by residents, anyone (including people supporting vulnerable residents) will be able to submit a complaint through the complaints’ procedures established by the principal accountable person, and if necessary, escalate the complaint to the Regulator. We will also consider making this change in the future when parliamentary time allows.
3.29 The government notes the concerns about data protection between those, other than residents of the building, who have a statutory duty to ensure building safety or compliance with building regulations. The government has considered these comments and has revised the proposals to make clear that the need to share information and documents to support building safety should take primacy when sharing information and documents with persons who have this professional interest in the building (i.e. other accountable persons, the Responsible Person, non-resident clients, the Building Safety Regulator, certain landlords, and fire and rescue authorities).
3.30 The government notes the concerns about the exemptions becoming a loophole that limits residents access to information. The government has considered whether there should be exemptions on the golden thread information accountable persons have to provide to residents, owners of residential units, certain landlords of flats and resident clients. For information provided by an accountable person proactively to residents, we do not consider that there is a need to provide for exemptions for security or commercial confidentiality, as this would defeat the intent of providing this information to residents: the summaries of the safety case report and the fire risk assessment, for example, should contain essential building safety information that should be made available. However, we do consider the accountable person should remove personal data when providing information proactively to residents. Accountable persons can determine what format to provide this information in and/or prepare it specifically for the purpose of fulfilling the information sharing requirements, so this should mean there is less need for redactions. on the information that is provided proactively to someone other than the data subject.
3.31 For information and documents requested by residents, owners of residential units, certain landlords of flats and resident client, there are exemptions, however these are limited. There are certain documents and information in the golden thread that must be provided in full and must not be redacted on the basis of security or commercial confidentiality considerations. Other information and documents must be redacted if there are security sensitivities. This is because it is important that certain information that could put the security of the building, residents and the local area at risk should not be shared publicly. The physical security of a building must take precedence when considering when and how to share information and documents requested by residents. No information should be shared with residents that compromises the security of the building.
3.32 Other information and documents must also be redacted if the information is commercially confidential unless the information needs to be shared to enable the residents, owners of residential units, certain landlords of flats and resident clients, to understand building safety issues relating to their building. The need for residents to understand of building safety risks and how they are managed should take primacy over commercial confidentiality concerns. Accountable persons should still consider whether information can be redacted before sharing. However, if redacting information causes a document to lose essential meaning so it does not support the resident’s understanding of building safety risks then it should be shared in an unredacted form.
3.33 The government does not consider that it is reasonable to provide personal data to residents, owners of residential units, landlords of flats and resident client. Therefore, accountable persons cannot share personal data with residents, owners of residential units, landlords of flats and resident clients, except with the data subject. This is with the exception of contravention notices and information that has to be displayed in the building. Contravention notices will contain personal data and if a contravention notice is issued to a resident a copy of the contravention notice will be provided to resident’s landlord (if the landlord is the owner of the flat). The Building Safety Act requires some personal data to be displayed in the building (for example the contact information for accountable persons). This personal data would not have to be redacted by the accountable person as it is already available. Further information on exemptions is provided in paragraphs 5.24 to 5.28 of this document.
3.34 If a resident feels that an accountable person has failed to provide information and/or documents, excessively redacted a document, or that the reason provided for not sharing information and/or document is not satisfactory, they can make a complaint to the principal accountable person or the Building Safety Regulator. Further information on the complaints process will be published in due course.
Storing information on complaints and contravention notices
Overview of proposals
3.35 In paragraph 7.61 of the consultation the government proposed that records of resident complaints must be stored as golden thread information. The record should include details such as the contact details for the complainant; the date the complaint was raised; whether it is a first complaint on the issue or part of a series of complaints or related complaints; a summary of the complaint itself including reasoning for it being a ‘relevant complaint’ or not and any timeframes or prioritisation given. There should also be a record kept of the response to the complaint.
3.36 In paragraph 7.69 of the consultation, the government proposed that the accountable persons must all maintain a record of the contravention notices that they have served, and any relevant information connected with their use of contravention notices in the golden thread of information. Additionally, when contravention notices are issued, a copy should be sent to the to the landlord of the resident in question (where the accountable person is not their landlord).
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with these requirements on how a complaint should be stored?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 56 | 70% |
| Disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 9 | 11% |
| Don’t know | 2 | 3% |
| Not answered | 9 | 11% |
| Total | 80 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the accountable person must maintain a record of the contravention notices that they have served, and any relevant information in line with the principles of the golden thread?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 61 | 76% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 5% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 4% |
| Not answered | 10 | 13% |
| Total | 80 | 100%* |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
3.37 Of the 80 responses, 56 respondents (70%) agreed with the proposed requirements for how a complaint should be stored.
3.38 Six respondents questioned whether this proposal would cause excessive administrative burden or result in too much information on complaints being stored in the golden thread.
3.39 Of the 80 responses, 61 respondents (76%) agreed with the proposal that the accountable person must maintain a record of the contravention notices that they have served, and any relevant information in line with the principles of the golden thread.
3.40 Three respondents requested clarity on what constitutes relevant information to be stored with the contravention notice.
3.41 Regarding the proposed requirement to share contravention notices with landlords, some respondents commented on this point in response to other consultation questions. One respondent noted that it may sometimes be difficult for the accountable person to identify and contact a landlord, and one said that there should be clarity that the copies of contravention notices should go to the leaseholder, if that leaseholder is the landlord.
Government response
3.37 Of the 80 responses, 56 respondents (70%) agreed with the proposed requirements for how a complaint should be stored.
3.38 Six respondents questioned whether this proposal would cause excessive administrative burden or result in too much information on complaints being stored in the golden thread.
3.39 Of the 80 responses, 61 respondents (76%) agreed with the proposal that the accountable person must maintain a record of the contravention notices that they have served, and any relevant information in line with the principles of the golden thread.
3.40 Three respondents requested clarity on what constitutes relevant information to be stored with the contravention notice.
3.41 Regarding the proposed requirement to share contravention notices with landlords, some respondents commented on this point in response to other consultation questions. One respondent noted that it may sometimes be difficult for the accountable person to identify and contact a landlord, and one said that there should be clarity that the copies of contravention notices should go to the leaseholder, if that leaseholder is the landlord.
3.42 The government believes that retaining information and documents on complaints and contravention notices in the golden thread of information is necessary to ensure the Regulator can be readily provided with this information upon request where a complaint is raised in relation to it. This will facilitate the Regulator to undertake enforcement activities, ensuring that contravention notice powers are not misused and that complaints are appropriately handled. Responses to the consultation indicated support for this proposal.
3.43 The government has considered the concerns about too much information being stored in relation to complaints and will reduce the list of information and documents that are required to be stored and will only require that this information and documents are kept for 7 years. We have amended the requirements so that the following information should be stored in relation to complaints:
- the information contained in the complaint
- any steps taken by any accountable person in response to the complaint
- any involvement of the Building Safety Regulator in relation or response to the complaint
- the outcome of the complaint
3.44 Accountable persons will also be required to keep a log of recurring complaints received by the principal accountable person for the building, for the part of the building for which they are responsible.
3.45 The government noted the concerns about accountable persons being able to contact landlords where they are required to share a copy of a contravention notice and agree that this requirement does not apply where the accountable person cannot contact the landlord and has taken all reasonable steps to do so. We are clear that copies should go to the owner of the flat, including where the owner is a leaseholder, when the notice is addressed to their resident tenant. The government has noted the requests for clarity on what additional information should be stored with contravention notices. Only the contravention notice is required to be kept and no other information related to contravention notices is required to be kept as golden thread information.
4. The contents of the golden thread
4.1 It is essential that principal accountable persons and accountable persons have the information and documents they need to identify, manage and mitigate building safety risks in their building. Without accurate and up-to-date information and documents, it is not possible to manage a building safely. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that a golden thread of information is put in place so that the people responsible for a higher-risk building have the information and documents they need, and that this information and documents should be kept up-to-date.
4.2 The government’s proposals set out the information and documents that accountable persons will be required to store as golden thread information. The required content will be the information and documents that support the identification, mitigation and management of building safety risks (risk of fire spread and structural collapse).
Relevant and proportionate and responsibility
Overview of proposals
4.3 Paragraphs 8.5 to 8.10 of the consultation sought views on the information and documents to be stored in the golden thread during occupation: the government’s proposal is to require only relevant and proportionate information related to relevant building safety risks (risk of fire spread and structural collapse) be stored in the golden thread.
4.4 Paragraphs 8.11 to 8.12 of the consultation set out the Government’s proposal that the responsibility for the golden thread should be retained by the principal accountable person. Where there are multiple accountable persons, each will be responsible for information relating to their part of the building, with the principal accountable person being required to provide access to the golden thread.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that only information relevant to building safety risks should be stored in the golden thread?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 42 | 67% |
| Disagree | 12 | 19% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 3 | 5% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
4.5 Of the 63 responses, 42 responses (67%) agreed that only information relevant to building safety risks should be stored in the golden thread.
4.6 Of the respondents who agreed, one noted that expanding the golden thread beyond building safety risks would dilute its effectiveness and keeping the focus on building safety makes sure the golden thread remains manageable, allowing relevant information to be used easily and effectively.
4.7 Ten respondents who supported the proposals suggested that further guidance would be helpful on the types of information required, and information that is deemed ‘not relevant’ to building safety.
4.8 Four respondents raised concerns about the amount of data creating a golden thread may generate and that this could create a burden.
4.9 One respondent suggested that the golden thread should include up-to-date drawings and specifications of materials. These would be included in the current proposals as they are related to building safety.
4.10 One respondent had specific concerns about the resources and ability of right to manage companies, and that residents would not have the expertise to determine what is relevant. One respondent from the insurance industry suggested mandating the golden thread contents to ensure the principle accountable person has the information needed to provide insurers with an up-to-date and accurate representation of the risk of a building.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the information in the golden thread should be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains proportionate and relevant?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52 | 83% |
| Disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 5 | 8% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
4.11 Of the 63 responses, 52 respondents (83%) agreed with the proposal that information in the golden thread should be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains proportionate and relevant.
4.12 Six respondents suggested there should be a maximum timeframe before information has to be reviewed, or specific guidance on the timeframe. There were differing views on the maximum timeframe for review– with some respondents suggesting five years and others suggesting an annual review. Some respondents felt the frequency of the review would depend on the type of information, as some information will need to be reviewed daily, while other information could be reviewed periodically.
4.13 Seven respondents raised concerns about retention of data, arguing that information should be archived rather than deleted. Their main concern was that relevant information may be accidentally deleted or deleted on purpose to hide errors. A further point raised was that deletion of information could be burdensome as it would mean that resources would be needed to review the information and to make decisions on what needed to be deleted. Respondents, instead, suggested that if information is no longer considered relevant it should be archived rather than deleted. Some respondents with experience in building control, noted that they have found historical documentation to be useful to understand a building, and that it can be difficult to decide in advance what information might be important in the future.
4.14 As with the previous question, respondents suggested guidance on relevant information is needed, so that individual, decisions do not mean historical information is destroyed. A small number of respondents stated that the golden thread should be a way of finding information not storing it and should be treated as an index rather than a container. They felt it was more important to require version control so that the filing system was accurate and up-to-date, and the most up-to-date version of information was easy to find.
4.15 As noted in responses to the previous question, there was concern about the resources and ability of right to manage companies to create and manage the golden thread and the need for government to produce guidance to support this. One response from a representative organisation for property management companies noted that to support right to manage companies, there needs to be a clear list of things that are needed for the golden thread and the safety case, with simple templates and clear examples. They felt that without a prescriptive approach, resident principal accountable persons could find themselves subject to a tribunal ruling, putting them in a precarious financial position.
Question: [Responsibility for the golden thread] Do you agree or disagree with the approach outlined above?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 40 | 64% |
| Disagree | 10 | 16% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 8 | 13% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
4.16 Of the 63 responses, 40 respondents (64%) agreed with governments proposals for ensuring there is always clear responsibility for the golden thread.
4.17 Ten respondents (16%) disagreed with the proposed approach. Of those who disagreed, it appears that many have misunderstood the government’s proposal. The main misunderstanding was a belief that government is proposing to mandate separate golden threads for the principal accountable person and each accountable person (where there are multiple accountable persons for a building). The government is not mandating this approach. Each accountable person will be individually responsible for keeping certain information and documents about the part of the building which they are responsible and for sharing information and documents with other accountable persons as needed. However accountable persons can choose to put in place one golden thread which is accessible to all accountable persons, rather than each accountable person using their own information management system. It may be easier use one system as this will allow people to access information and documents more easily.
4.18 Another misunderstanding was that the government is mandating one single IT system for the golden thread. The government is not proposing the use of a single system, but that information and documents should be able to be transferred electronically to other persons without the data in it being lost or corrupted. Some of those raising this concern did take this into account but felt that this proposal would not work as some IT systems or formats make it difficult for information or documents to be easily exchanged or accessed without specific software licenses.
4.19 One respondent suggested that the Building Safety Regulator should be responsible for checking and ensuring information is accurate and up-to-date, rather than the accountable persons. One respondent raised concerns about the protection of personal information if multiple accountable and responsible persons have access to golden thread information.
4.20 Six respondents stated that more guidance was needed, including on who will be liable for inaccuracies in the golden thread. There were concerns that it would not be feasible for the principal accountable person to review all information provided by other accountable persons. Some respondents also felt that the route for the principal accountable person to rectify any inaccurate information in the golden thread needed to be clearer.
Government response
4.21 The government will set out in regulations that the accountable persons must ensure that the golden thread information is up-to-date and accessible to those who need it to comply with their duties under the Building Safety Act and related regulations on an on-going basis. This will ensure accountable persons have the information and documents they need to fulfil their responsibility to identify, mitigate and manage building safety risks in their buildings and ensure they are safe for residents.
4.22 While government understands the issues raised around setting a timeframe for reviewing and updating the golden thread information, we do not consider that it is necessary to mandate how often golden thread information is review and updated. Instead, we mandate that certain information and documents have to be kept up to date and reflect the building at the current point in time. We also mandate how long some information and documents should be kept as golden thread information and if previous versions of the information and documents should be kept. It is important that the golden thread information can be accessed by those who need it to support ongoing management of building safety risks. This must be considered when deciding on the digital system or systems to be used. To allow maximum flexibility, the government does not intend to mandate that the information and documents in the golden thread must be stored in a single system and will also not mandate any specific system for the golden thread. The government will mandate that the golden thread information must be kept electronically and can be transferred electronically to other persons without the data in it being lost or corrupted. This will ensure that the people who need it can access the information to support building safety. More detail is set out in the consultation response on separate Government response to sections of the consultation on the new building safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings and is set out in the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023.
4.23 The government considers that only information and documents which are relevant to the identification, management and mitigation of building safety risk should be stored as golden thread information. However, following feedback to the consultation on this, the government will follow a more prescriptive approach to setting out the golden thread information. This detail on this is set out in the golden thread contents section below in paragraphs 4.25 to 4.60) and in the annex.
4.24 The government notes the requests for further detail and guidance in this area and we are working closely with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that principal accountable persons and accountable persons have the guidance they need to successfully create and manage the golden thread information for their building.
Golden thread contents:
Overview of proposals
In paragraphs 8.13 to 8.18 of the consultation, the government set out its proposals for the information and documents which must be stored as golden thread information during the occupation phase. This includes: the information/documentation provided at registration and as part of the building assessment certificate application; the information and documents related to mandatory occurrence reporting; the information and documents deemed necessary for use by emergency services in an emergency; the plans of the building and the safety case report, the residents’ engagement strategy, record of complaints, record of contravention notices issues, the information and documents to be provided automatically to residents.
For new higher-risk buildings that go through the new building control process, the proposals include that certain information and documents from that process should also be required to be kept as golden thread information in-occupation.
Paragraph 8.19 of the consultation sets out that information and documents related to mandatory occurrence reports should be retained for as long as it remains relevant.
Paragraphs 8.29 to 8.32 of the consultation sets out the government proposals that the safety case report and specified supporting information and documents should be stored in the golden thread and retained for as long as it remains relevant. The information and documents to be included includes detailed technical information about the building, fire-related plans, surveys and risk assessments, details of the buildings construction and history of use, and details of the safety management system for the building.
Paragraphs 8.33 to 8.37 of the consultation sets out that information and documents required for any building work carried out, including information and documents required for building control applications, should be stored in the golden thread. This proposal includes that the accountable person should be able to request further information on work when required, and that they should be able to decide what information should be stored in relation to work carried out through a competent person scheme.
Paragraph 8.39 sets out that only the most up-to-date key building information needs to be stored in the golden thread.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed information from the design and construction stage should be handed over to the principal accountable person, and that this information should be stored in the golden thread as long as it remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 43 | 68% |
| Disagree | 7 | 11% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 11% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 6 | 10% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the information about building work in a higher-risk building to be stored in the golden thread?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 53 | 84% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 5% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not answered | 5 | 8% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
4.25 Of the 63 responses, 43 respondents (68%) agreed with the government’s proposals that specified information from the design and construction stage should be handed over to the accountable persons and stored in the golden thread.
4.26 Two respondents stated that the proposal mandates the handover of too many documents, which could undermine the principle of ensuring the golden thread remains relevant. They highlighted the construction control plan and the change control plan as being unnecessary for the occupation phase. Seven other respondents considered that insufficient information was included and that other documents, including for instance the change control plans, should be included.
4.27 Two respondents stated that the information should be provided to the principal accountable person as early possible to help ensure the timely creation of the safety case and safety case report for the building. One respondent raised concerns about who will validate that the information handed over is correct.
4.28 Of the 63 responses, 53 respondents (84%) agreed with the proposal that information about building work in an existing building should be stored in the golden thread.
4.29 One respondent suggested that if the principal accountable person has refused a refurbishment proposal, details of that refusal should also be stored in an archive as evidence in case the refurbishment is subsequently carried out without authorisation.
4.30 One respondent commented that if there is any expectation that leaseholders or tenants should provide information about building work in their own flat, clear guidance would be needed for leaseholders on why such information was needed by the accountable person and the format in which it could be provided. One respondent noted that resident accountable persons may need third party advice from someone with the appropriate competence, which is likely to come at a cost.
4.31 Among those who disagreed with the proposal, one felt that it should be solely for the relevant accountable person to decide whether the information on work carried out through a competent person scheme or under third-party certification should be stored in the golden thread.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the information/documentation provided at the registration and as part of the building assessment certificate application should be stored in the golden thread as long as it remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 49 | 78% |
| Disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 5 | 8% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 102%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the mandatory occurrence reports are stored in the golden thread as long as the reports remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 43 | 68% |
| Disagree | 6 | 10% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 11% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 7 | 11% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
4.32 Of the 63 responses, 49 respondents (78%) agreed with government’s proposal that the information provided at registration and as part of the building assessment certificate should be stored as part of the golden thread.
4.33 One respondent noted a concern that if there was any ambiguity in what is ‘relevant’ for the purposes of the golden thread, a risk averse accountable person may put all building information available into the golden thread, undermining the objective to keep the golden thread relevant. Another respondent shared that there needs to be more clarity for buildings that have gone through the transitional arrangements.
4.34 Of the 63 responses, 43 respondents (68%) agreed with governments proposal that mandatory occurrence reports should be stored in the golden thread.
4.35 Respondents who disagreed with the proposals had a variety of concerns. Most respondents did not disagree with the principle, but six raised concerns about the relevance of this information and the burden associated with archiving obsolete records. Three respondents queried how long the reports should be stored for, with one suggesting a mandatory retention period, while another felt that the reports should be kept in perpetuity.
4.36 One respondent who disagreed with the proposal considered that in addition to the reports the supporting evidence for the reports should be stored in the golden thread.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the safety case report and safety case information set out in the list above should be stored in the golden thread as long as it remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 44 | 70% |
| Disagree | 8 | 13% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 5 | 8% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the key building information should be stored in the golden thread?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 50 | 79% |
| Disagree | 3 | 5% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not answered | 8 | 13% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
4.37 Of the 63 responses, 44 respondents (70%) agreed that the safety case report and the safety case information should be stored in the golden thread.
4.38 Six respondents pointed out that guidance to support this area was needed, including on how the relevance of information is determined in relation to the longer-term management of a building. Three respondents raised concerns that the volume of documents may be large and potentially unwieldy, and four raised concerns about identifying and retaining relevant historical records, particularly for older existing buildings where there may be considerable cost implications in retrieving records.
4.39 10 respondents raised specific concerns about the contents of the safety case, including concerns around the exact historical information that accountable persons are expected to try to obtain, whether the governance structures and procedures of the owning and/or managing organisation should be kept as part of the golden thread and clarity over what is meant by a structural survey and how someone could provide justification that a full structural survey is not necessary.
4.40 Of the 63 responses, 50 respondents (79%) agreed that the key building information should be stored in the golden thread, however, two respondents were concerned that this could mean a duplication of information that would already be in the golden thread.
Question: Do you agree or disagree that information deemed necessary for use by emergency services in an emergency, as stored by the Responsible Person in the information box, is stored in the golden thread?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52 | 83% |
| Disagree | 2 | 3% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 8% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree that information the Responsible Person is required to collect on wall systems is stored in the golden thread as long as the information remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 50 | 79% |
| Disagree | 3 | 5% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 6 | 10% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
4.41 Of the 63 responses, 52 respondents (83%) agreed that the information stored in the secure information box (as required by the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022) should also be stored in the golden thread. Many supportive respondents noted that having the information stored in the golden thread would make it easier for it to be digitally submitted to Fire and Rescue Authorities, supporting Responsible Persons in meeting their duties.
4.42 Responses from fire services and their representative bodies were supportive. However, one fire service response pointed out that there was a risk of duplication with existing requirements, and that there should be no assumption that fire crews would have access to golden thread information in the event of an incident. Another noted that robust information management would be needed where the Responsible Person is not also an accountable person for the building.
4.43 Looking wider, four respondents raised that the content of the secure information box must be relevant to the emergency services, and three raised the importance of being able to provide the information digitally.
4.44 Overall, three respondents were concerned about duplication of information, particularly where information is already required under the Fire Safety Order. Three respondents raised concerns in relation to storing personal information, noting that while up-to-date information is needed on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans, this raised confidentiality and security risks.
4.45 Of the 63 responses, 50 respondents (79%) agreed that the information the Responsible Person is required to collect on wall systems (as required by the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022) should be stored in the golden thread. Many respondents who agreed noted the importance of recording and keeping this information.
4.46 However, 5 respondents raised the importance of accessing this information efficiently, especially for fire services, with some suggesting a standard template be provided. One respondent raised that this duplicated information that should already be part of the safety case and golden thread.
4.47 A representative organisation for building managers and managing agents also noted that the information on walls systems will require specialist input and argued that it should be made clear in the legislation that the costs involved in obtaining the report are recoverable from leaseholders, even where a ‘relevant defect’ has been identified in accordance with the Building Safety Act.
Question: The following information should be stored in the golden thread: residents’ engagement strategy; record of complaints; record of contravention notices issued and any relevant information connected with their use of contravention notices; and information provided automatically to residents. Do you agree or disagree that the information set out above should be stored in the golden thread as long as the reports remains relevant to building safety?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 42 | 67% |
| Disagree | 7 | 11% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 9 | 14% |
| Total | 63 | 100% |
4.48 Of the 63 responses, 42 respondents (67%) agreed with this proposal. Four respondents raised concerns related to GDPR and sharing potentially sensitive information. Concerns included the need for clear guidance on GDPR implications and commercial confidentiality, as well as clear protocols on access to this information in the golden thread.
4.49 Five respondents raised wider concerns about including the records of complaints. Concerns included that this could lead to a significant amount of information being stored and shared; that it raised concerns about privacy and could lead to people being persecuted where they are raising safety concerns; and that complaints systems already exist and complaints can be about unrelated issues, resulting in confusion and/or duplication. These respondents all agreed that complaints should be recorded but considered they should not be held in the golden thread but a separate system.
Government response
4.50 The government noted the support for more detailed guidance on the information and documents that should be stored as golden thread information. The government will set out the required golden thread information in regulations. These will require that principal accountable persons and accountable persons store certain prescribed information as golden thread information to support them in meeting their duties to identify, assess, manage, mitigate and prevent building safety risks under the Building Safety Act. Requiring this information and these documents will allow the accountable persons to demonstrate to the Building Safety Regulator they are meeting these duties. The regulations will also specify whether the information and documents need to be kept permanently or for a certain period of time.
4.51 The information and documents required to be stored in the golden thread will include:
- the completion or partial completion certificate application and certificate (for those building which have gone through the new building control process for higher-risk buildings)
- copy of any certificate issued for scheme work conducted under a Competent Person Scheme
- fire safety information and documents which the client for scheme work (conducted under a Competent Person Scheme) has to provide to the Responsible Person
- registration information
- key building information
- building assessment certificate application and certificate (and any notice given by the Regulator when refusing a building assessment certificate application)
- information and documents related to fire safety management
- information and documents relative to evacuation for the higher-risk building
- information and documents to be provided to the fire and rescue service under regulations 4,5,6 of the Fire Safety England Regulations 2022
- information and documents related to structural safety and structural risks
- building safety risk assessments and documents and information related to the management of building safety risks, including the safety case report.
- information relating to building design (namely the design codes, standards and design intent applied at construction)
- building plans
- information and documents related to mandatory occurrence reporting
- information and documents to be provided proactively to residents
- information and documents about relevant complaints
- copies of contravention notices issues
4.52 The government notes the concerns raised about Fire and Rescue Authorities needing to digitally access the golden thread. The government will be mandating that certain golden thread information will have to be provided electronically to the local Fire and Rescue Authority.
4.53 The government also understands respondents’ requests for guidance and further clarity on how the golden thread information should be manged, to ensure it remains relevant to building safety, and how decisions around relevancy of information and documents are made. Government will continue working closely with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that that principal accountable persons and accountable persons have the necessary guidance to effectively create and manage the golden thread information.
4.54 It was clear from the consultation responses that more clarity and guidance was needed to support right to manage organisations to create and manage the golden thread information. The government will work with stakeholders and the Building Safety Regulator to meet this need.
5. Duties on accountable persons to share information with each other, the Regulator, Responsible Persons and the client
5.1 In Chapter 10 of the consultation, the government sought views on proposals to require accountable persons to share information and documents with each other and with certain other persons - namely the Building Safety Regulator, Responsible Person(s) and the client for any building work done in an existing higher-risk building. The government has also proposed that when an accountable person leaves their role, they should be required to hand over the golden thread information to the new accountable person.
5.2 The proposals on the information and documents to be provided to residents, owners of residential units and landlords are covered in the residents’ voice section of this response to the consultation.
Consultation analysis
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for information sharing between the accountable persons?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 44 | 86% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 1 | 2% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach for information sharing with the Responsible Person(s)?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage* |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 38 | 75% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 3 | 6% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 9 | 18% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
* Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach for information sharing with the client?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 41 | 80% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 2% |
| Not Answered | 4 | 8% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the information to be provided to Building Safety Regulator in cases of insolvency?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 42 | 82% |
| Disagree | 0 | 0% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 5 | 10% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
5.3 Of the 51 responses, 44 respondents (86%) agreed with the proposed approach to information sharing between accountable persons.
5.4 Of respondents who supported the proposed approach, three respondents noted that such information sharing between accountable persons was essential to ensure the golden thread works effectively. Three respondents noted that sharing information in a timely manner was essential to keeping buildings safe and suggested the government should either stipulate in regulations or provide guidance on what constitutes a ‘timely manner’ for information sharing. One respondent suggested there needs to be a clear enforcement process and sanctions against principal accountable persons and accountable persons who refuse, or fail, to share information.
5.5 Of the 51 responses, 38 respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed approach for sharing information with the Responsible Person.
5.6 Three respondents had concerns about the proposed exemption for data protection and felt that sharing building safety information should always override data protection restrictions. One respondent suggested that guidance should be provided on the interaction between the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety Order so that there is clarity on the requirements for higher-risk buildings.
5.7 Of the 51 responses, 41 respondents (80%) agreed with the proposed approach for accountable persons sharing information with the client.
5.8 Two respondents raised the importance of clearly defining ‘client’ in this context. One raised the need to consider data protection, one the need to share information before work is carried out rather than afterwards, and one the need to consider the requirements around retention of data.
5.9 Of the 51 responses, 42 respondents (82%) agreed with that accountable persons should inform the Building Safety Regulator in cases of insolvency and agreed with the information that should be provided to Building Safety Regulator.
5.10 Three respondents raised the importance of the Building Safety Regulator working with the courts, appointed liquidators and with Companies House to ensure that they are aware of cases of insolvency when the accountable person has not notified them. One respondent suggested that accountable persons should also be required to notify Responsible Persons (under the Fire Safety Order) in cases of insolvency
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals on handover of information to the new accountable persons?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 40 | 78% |
| Disagree | 4 | 8% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 4 | 8% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 6% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree that the accountable persons must handover information over to the new accountable person as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant time?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 43 | 84% |
| Disagree | 3 | 6% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 2 | 4% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 6% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed content that that the accountable persons must provide to the Building Safety Regulator after they leave their role?
| Category | Number of responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 41 | 80% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 12% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Not Answered | 3 | 6% |
| Total | 51 | 100% |
5.11 Of the 51 responses, 40 respondents (78%) agreed with the proposals on the handover of information to the new accountable person.
5.12 One respondent who disagreed with the proposal suggested that in addition to handing the information over to the new accountable person, the information should also be handed over to the Building Safety Regulator.
5.13 Of the 51 responses, 43 respondents (84%) agreed that accountable person must hand over information over to the new accountable person as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant time.
5.14 Nine respondents suggested that the government set a maximum time limit by which the information should be handed over, or that guidance should be provided on what ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ means in practice. One respondent suggested the information should be handed over within a month, whilst two respondents suggested that the information should be handed over within three months. One respondent suggested that information about more significant risks or safety issues should be provided at handover with other information provided over a longer timeframe. All these respondents noted that having a maximum timeframe would make enforcement easier.
5.15 One respondent set out that it would be preferable for the information to be shared before the accountable person leaves their role. This would ensure the new accountable person is aware of any issues or risks before they take up their role.
5.16 Of the 51 responses, 41 respondents (80%) agreed with the information that the accountable person must provide to the Building Safety Regulator after they leave their role.
5.17 Four respondents suggested that the outgoing accountable person should not have to provide the Building Safety Regulator with contact details for the new accountable person. They were concerned that the outgoing accountable person may not have these details and it either should be a duty on the new accountable person or it should be a jointly signed declaration from both the outgoing and new accountable persons.
5.18 One respondent noted that the government should make it an offence to provide false or misleading information.
Government response
5.19 The government will set out in regulations that accountable persons must share information and documents as soon as reasonably practicable. We consider enabling the right people to have the right information at the right time is essential to support the management of building safety risks and the safety of residents. While we understand the requests for a precise time limit for information and documents to be shared, we think requiring time limits in legislation will be overly inflexible. For example, in some cases, information and documents need to be shared immediately, whereas in other circumstances information and documents can be provided over a longer time period. The most important aspect is that the golden thread information is shared in a manner that is appropriate to ensuring those who need it can make use of it and building safety management is supported in every scenario.
5.20 The government notes the requests for clarity around the interaction between the building safety requirements and the Fire Safety Order. We are working closely with the Building Safety Regulator and the Home Office to ensure there is clarity on the requirements and guidance will be provided.
5.21 The government will set out in regulations that the up-to-date golden thread information must be handed over from an outgoing accountable person to the new accountable person. This must be done in way so that the new accountable person can access and use the golden thread information. The information and documents also must be handed over in a way that ensures the data is not lost or corrupted and any key needed to understand the data is provided with the data. This will ensure the new accountable person has up-to-date information and documents allowing them to fulfil their responsibility to identify, mitigate and manage building safety risks and supporting them in making their building safe for residents. While the government understands concerns raised about the timing of information handover, it is already set out in the Building Safety Act that the golden thread information must be handed over as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant time. The Building Safety Act also specifies that the golden thread information must be shared after the accountable person leaves the role.
5.22 Although the government would encourage the sharing of golden thread information at an earlier point, it is crucial that there is clarity on responsibility for maintaining and updating the golden thread information. Until the accountable person leaves their role, they are responsible for maintaining and updating the golden thread information. The golden thread information, therefore, cannot be officially handed over until they leave their role. We expect that a person who will become an accountable person (for instance is considering purchasing an interest in a property) would request to see the golden thread information as part of the contract negotiation. So the earlier sharing of information and documents (although not the official handover of responsibility for maintaining and updating the golden thread information) will be driven by commercial and contractual interests.
5.23 The government notes the concerns about data protection and other exemptions (security and commercial confidentiality) overriding the need to share information and documents to support building safety. We have considered these comments and have revised our proposals on this. The government considers that there should be no exemptions on providing information and documents to the Building Safety Regulator; and exemptions on some, but not all, of the information and documents provided to a fire and rescue authorities. Exemptions that relate to information provided to the fire and rescue authority are related to data protection only. This exemption, however, does not apply to information that must be provided to the fire and rescue authority on fire safety management or evacuation. This is because the government considers it essential that the fire and rescue authority has the right information, and this is likely to include personal data, in order to properly prepare for an incident in a building and to aid persons if an incident occurs.
5.24 The government considers there should be no exemptions in the handover of golden thread information from an outgoing accountable person to the new accountable person except for exemptions related to commercial sensitivity. Commercially confidential information should not be shared if it is possible to omit or redact that element before sharing in a way that does not affect the material content of the information and/or document shared in supporting building safety. If it is necessary for the commercially confidential to be handed over to the new accountable person in order to ensure content that is material to supporting building safety is shared, then the information or document must be handed over without that omission or redaction. The government has considered whether there should be exemptions on the golden thread information accountable persons have to provide to others with a professional interest in the building (i.e. other accountable persons, Responsible Persons and the non-resident client). The government considers there should not be an exemption to information sharing on the basis of security sensitivities, and that even if there are security sensitivities, information should be shared between those with a professional interest in the building. Commercially confidential, and personal, data, however, should not be shared between those with a professional interest in the building, if it is possible to omit or redact that element before sharing in a way that does not affect the material content of the information and/or document shared in supporting building safety. If it is necessary for the commercially confidential and/or personal information to be shared in order to ensure content that is material to building safety is shared, then the information or document must be without that omission or redaction.
5.25 The government has considered whether there should be exemptions on the golden thread information accountable persons have to provide to residents, owners of residential units, certain landlords of flats and resident clients. There are different exemptions than those on sharing information with those with a professional interest in the building (see paragraph 5.25). The government considers that there should be exemptions on the basis of security, commercial confidentiality and personal data for sharing information and documents with residents, owners of residential units, and resident clients. These exemptions, however, are limited. There are certain documents and information in the golden thread that must be provided in full and must not be redacted on the basis of security or commercial confidentiality considerations. Other information and documents must be redacted if there are security sensitivities. This is because it is important that certain information that could put the security of the building, residents and the local area at risk should not be shared publicly. Other information and documents must also be redacted if the information is commercially confidential unless the information needs to be shared to enable the resident/owners of residential unit/ resident client to understand building safety issues relating to their building.
5.26 The government reviewed the information and documents that can be provided to residents and the government did not consider that it is reasonable to provide personal data to residents, owners of residential units, landlords of flats and resident client. Therefore, accountable persons cannot share personal data with residents, owners of residential units, landlords of flats and resident clients, except with the data subject. This is with the exception of contravention notices and information that has to be displayed in the building. Contravention notices will contain personal data and if a contravention notice is issued to a resident a copy of the contravention notice will be provided to resident’s landlord (if the landlord is the owner of the flat). The Building Safety Act requires some personal data to be displayed in the building (for example the contact information for accountable persons). This personal data would not have to be redacted by the accountable person as it is already available. This is different to the exemption on sharing information and documents with those with a professional interest in the building because, for example, an accountable person or a Responsible Person may need to be provided with personal data. For instance, an accountable person or Responsible Person may need to know if a resident in another area of the building is causing a building safety issue (for example) as this could affect their management strategy.
5.27 Further information on exemptions is provided in paragraphs 5.24 to 5.28 of this document.
6 Summary
6.1 We are 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 regulations and this document.
6.2 In light of the comments received, we have made some amendments to the policies to ensure that the new regime delivers its safety aims in a proportionate manner.
6.3 The regulations are currently subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and will be debated by both Houses of Parliament in due course. If approved by Parliament, the regulations will be made and come into force later in 2023.
Annex
Introduction
The package of reforms brought in through the Building Safety Act (the Act) and accompanying secondary legislation, introduces a new framework to deliver the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt. The consultation responses set out the government’s policy position for the golden thread requirements for occupied higher-risk buildings. The following provides further details on the information and documentation that will make up the content of a building’s golden thread of information for occupied higher-risk buildings.
The new regime requires buildings to be considered as a holistic system and golden thread content regulations should be considered in conjunction with the wider reforms which deliver on the government’s commitment to ensuring that residents are, and feel, safe in their homes.
Ensuring the golden thread content exists is an essential requirement of the new regime. The information must be stored in electronic format and be readily available to support the day-to-day management and operation of the building. The golden thread information will contain the evidence needed to demonstrate an understand of a building, and the associated building safety risks and the arrangements for the mitigation and management of those building safety risks. For occupation, the golden thread information is required to substantiate the content of a safety case report and will be used to demonstrate building safety risks are being assessed, mitigated and managed on an ongoing basis.
Meeting existing duties will contribute to the golden thread content, for example the handover of information requirements set out in Regulation 38 of the 2010 Building Regulations require sufficient information relating to fire safety to enable them to manage the building effectively to be shared. Also, the Fire Safety Order requires fire risk assessments to be undertaken and a record maintained of the fire safety arrangements in place.
Further, the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, which came into force in January this year, require dutyholders responsible for a high-rise residential building (therefore including all higher-risk buildings) to share specified information with their local fire and rescue service, provide a secure information box for fire fighters complete with floor and block plans as well as details of firefighting equipment, install wayfinding signage and undertake monthly checks of key firefighting equipment. All this information will be relevant golden thread content.
What are the new requirements
Golden thread contents
The government will soon lay the Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023. These regulations will specify the information and documents that must be kept as the golden thread information for an occupied higher-risk building. Accountable persons will be responsible for collating and keeping this information and ensuring it is up to date.
Maintaining and managing the information and documents that make up the content of the golden thread are a vital component of the responsibilities placed on accountable persons.
To deliver a whole building approach, it will be necessary for the golden thread to include plans and designs of the building which reflect its current state and, where possible, plans which show the building when it was first built. A single set of plans may be sufficient, however, in some cases multiple plans will be required in order for the whole building to be covered. If a building was developed according to a specified design code, this information would also prove valuable as part of the golden thread content.
In addition to plans and building design, details of the construction materials used, for example on walls, floors and doors, and their fire resistance and performance need to be known and understood. This fire management information is already needed to fulfil the risk assessment required for external walls of all higher-risk buildings.
Accountable persons must assess the building safety risks which relate to their buildings, they should understand the scenarios and pathways that might lead to a fire spreading or a structural failure. The details of these assessments must be recorded. As such, the golden thread information should contain all relevant documents which evaluate fire and structural risks as well as any that provide assurances that further assessments of either are not required. Documentation already created as a result of meeting duties set out in the Fire Safety Order will be included within this.
Identified building safety risks must be mitigated and managed and the details of the measures that are in place within a building to deliver this should form part of a building’s golden thread information. Fire safety management measures, namely equipment, devices, or materials that prevent or reduce the outbreak, severity and spread of fire and smoke in the building and facilitate evacuation of the building should be recorded along with where they are located. Structural safety measures, namely anything that has been put in place for the purpose of preventing or reducing the severity of any structural failure in the higher-risk building should be recorded.
As well as detailing all equipment to be used by the emergency services, and how the equipment is operated, the emergency arrangements for a building should include details of the evacuation strategy as well as any evacuation procedures. These details will also need to be shared, along with other information, to residents in the building.
Safety equipment and devices require testing and maintenance, often to manufacturers requirements, to ensure functionality is preserved. Therefore, records should be kept in the golden thread of any schedules of repair and maintenance as well as the outcomes of inspections and testing of equipment. Such information will evidence that accountable persons are taking all reasonable steps to manage building safety risks on an ongoing basis.
Accountable persons must demonstrate they are assessing and effectively managing building safety risks on an ongoing basis through a safety case report. The report’s accuracy and effectiveness in making this demonstration is reliant on the documentation and information held in the golden thread. The required content of the safety case report is set out in regulations.
New higher-risk buildings that have been developed under the Building Safety Regulator and passed through the new gateway requirements, will benefit from having detailed records of the building work that has taken place and features of the building. The information and documentation required in order for a completion certificate application to be successful for new higher-risk buildings will deliver much of the golden thread content outlined above. As such, this must be handed over to accountable persons for their records and in turn it will support accountable persons demonstrate compliance with their responsibilities.
Further information and documentation required for inclusion as part of the golden thread information is set out in full in the Regulations.