4. Principles for agreeing a lead regulator

This chapter sets out the good practice process for regulators to agree a lead regulator.

Local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator have distinct but overlapping regulatory duties in certain parts of buildings, and different powers.

It is good practice for regulators to agree which enforcing authority will take the lead on coordinating enforcement at buildings in their area with remediation issues. This is to make sure unsafe buildings are clearly accounted for, and regulators are effectively using their resources by avoiding duplication or placing conflicting demands on landlords.

Effective partnership working agreements (see 4.1) should guide these arrangements. There should be no doubt which regulator is leading and for what reason. Where there is a requirement to take coordinated enforcement action by two or more regulators, the lead regulator should coordinate this action. This should be commonly understood between all regulators and communicated to landlords and residents.

Where further support is needed, non-lead regulators will be expected to continue to engage in supporting interventions and activity that will make the building safe, as coordinated by the lead regulator.

At some buildings, it may be clear which regulator is best placed to lead on regulatory activity. For example, fire and rescue services will take the lead enforcing role for fire safety at buildings under 18 metres that are owned or managed by the local authority (see Appendix 2 to the LACORS guidance) (PDF, 1575 KB). At other buildings which regulator should lead may be dependent on a range of factors.

This chapter sets out the good practice process for regulators to agree a lead regulator. Namely:

  • 4.1 sets out that partnership working arrangements should be established between regulators to co-ordinate regulatory activity and share data.
  • 4.2 sets out that partnership working agreements should include locally agreed arrangements to triage unsafe buildings to the most relevant regulator(s), with the purpose of agreeing which regulator(s) should lead on remediation enforcement at that building.
  • 4.3 provides non-prescriptive criteria to support local decision-making on which regulator(s) may be best placed to lead on enforcement in different scenarios.

If regulators remain unsure about which regulator should lead or coordinated action by more than one regulator is deemed necessary, they may wish to undertake a preliminary joint inspection to determine which regulator should be leading.

A regulator can act under their regulatory regime, even if another regulator has already enforced under a different legal framework. This may be appropriate where the enforcement relates to different breaches under their respective legislation. However, enforcement under different legislation but evidenced on the same facts may not be an efficient use of regulators’ resources. The lead regulator may wish to discuss with other regulators any supportive actions that would be helpful – for example if there are breaches outside of their respective legislation’s scope – but duplicate enforcement action should be avoided

There is no ‘primacy’ between different pieces of legislation and the relevant legislative regimes continue to apply to a building, whether or not a lead regulator is in place.

4.1 Partnership working

Regulators are governed by different regimes, so to ensure they are taking an effective enforcement approach, they should agree mutual principles for working in partnership and sharing data.

4.1.1 Partnership working arrangements

Regulators may wish to adhere to the following principles for partnership working:

  • Agree between themselves a lead regulator for each building requiring enforcement action.
  • Establish effective arrangements that allow regulators to regularly discuss the buildings in their area, share information, and make key decisions at both a working level and at a senior, strategic level.
  • Ensure all regulators are aligned on their shared remediation enforcement goal – to ensure structural and fire safety defects are remediated sustainably and at pace and are being appropriately managed to remain safe.
  • Consider a multi-agency enforcement approach, coordinated by the lead regulator, where the different enforcement regimes would result in a holistic outcome for the building.

Regulators should formalise this approach in a new or complementary (to existing) written partnership working agreement which sets out how it will work with other regulators, share information, and coordinate remediation enforcement actions.

There are several pieces of guidance on partnership working that regulators are expected to refer to:

  • The 2007 ‘Protocol between local housing authorities and fire and rescue authorities to improve fire safety’ and the clarifications made in 2010, set out principles for partnership working and provides the basis for detailed local arrangements.
  • In January 2022, the LGA, NFCC and CIEH published a new guide on the principles for effective regulation of fire safety, designed to support local level liaison and engagement between authorities.
  • The housing protocol (PDF, 1575 KB) contained within the LACORS guidance provides a partnership working agreement for fire and rescue authorities and local authorities.

These pieces of guidance may be useful in creating a comprehensive partnership working agreement on remediation which sets out how regulators will agree actions between themselves, share information and have tactical discussions about the buildings in their area.

Regulators should also ensure their local partnership working arrangements with organisations such as the Joint Inspection Team are working effectively, considering local governance and operational priorities.

4.1.2 Sharing data between regulators

Regulators should establish channels through which they can easily share building data and information with other regulators. This will prevent unnecessary delays and ensure all regulators have a complete picture of the buildings they are engaging with, allowing them to make informed decisions.

The Regulators Code (2014), sections 4.1 and 4.2, states that ‘[r]egulators should collectively follow the principle of “collect once, use many times” when requesting information from those they regulate. When the law allows, regulators should agree secure mechanisms to share information with each other about businesses and other bodies they regulate, to help target resources and activities and minimise duplication.’

In some cases, there is substantial public interest in collecting and sharing this data, meaning that it is permissible under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), if the data processing is necessary for the purpose, and in compliance with the data minimisation principle.

As well as sharing information about individual buildings as required, regulators should regularly share data between themselves as part of a formal data sharing arrangement (e.g., a weekly or monthly report). Regulators should agree how often they will share data, and what they will share.

It is each regulator’s responsibility to ensure they have the capability and capacity to develop and use the necessary infrastructure to facilitate this information sharing.

4.2 Triage process

There may be cases where a regulator encounters a potential or known unsafe building, but it is not clear whether they should be the lead regulator. It is incumbent on that regulator to triage the case to other relevant regulators to discuss and agree which regulator should be the lead regulator – this will likely include conducting the initial inspection.

Effective partnership working agreements will set out a locally agreed triage process.

Triage processes should be efficient, lean and straightforward. The outcome must be:

  • timely agreement on a lead regulator, and
  • agreement on any actions required by other regulators to support the lead regulator in that case. There should be no doubt which regulator is leading on each case.

Locally agreed triage processes must not create unnecessary delays before a lead regulator is agreed upon. Triage processes that rely on getting all regulators in the same room or forum to discuss may not always be the most effective route  – regulators should decide what is most expedient for each operational partnership.

Where the building (and/or the systems in place to ensure safety) are in a condition that would normally lead to regulators considering immediate enforcement action (see 3.4.4) they should not defer, delay or pause taking that action whilst a lead regulator is being agreed.

4.3 Criteria for determining a lead regulator

Once a building has been triaged, regulators should agree which regulator should lead on enforcement action. Partnership working agreements should form the basis for such decisions. Negotiations to take account of local residential stock may be necessary.

Whilst criteria for leadership should be agreed at local level, regulators may wish to consider the following factors:

  • the height of the building,
  • the location of the defect,
  • the defect type,
  • the legislative regime that most directly addresses that type of defect.

The following sections provide information on how these factors relate to regulators’ duties and enforcement tools under their respective legislation. This information is not binding and is provided to support consistent decision making at local level on:

  • which legislative regime(s) may be best equipped to deal with different enforcement cases, and
  • which regulator may be best placed and has the most appropriate powers to lead on enforcement at a particular building.

Regulators may wish to use this section as the starting point for discussions on which regulator is best placed to lead on enforcement at a given building. Local authorities and fire and rescue authorities may also wish to have regard for the LACORS guidance (PDF, 1575 KB) when deciding on the ownership of enforcement cases between them.

Ultimately, regulators will need to account for the specific circumstances at each building, each regulators’ capacity and history with the building and its owner(s), when deciding which authority may be best placed to take action.

4.3.1 Summary tables

The tables below summarise which regulatory regimes apply in different scenarios:

  • Table 1 concerns scenarios at high-rise buildings. This means buildings over 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys. In broad terms, three regulatory regimes apply to high-rise buildings: the Fire Safety Order (enforced by fire and rescue authorities), the Housing Act 2004 (HA04) (enforced by local authorities) and the Building Safety Act 2022 Part 4 (BSA P4) (enforced by the Building Safety Regulator). The Building Safety Regulator is now the Building Control Authority for higher-risk buildings in England. See Annex A for more information on the regulatory regimes.
  • Table 2 concerns scenarios at medium-rise buildings. This means buildings that are between 11 and 18 metres in height. In broad terms, two regulatory regimes apply to medium-rise buildings: the Fire Safety Order (enforced by fire and rescue authorities), and the Housing Act 2004 (enforced by local authorities).

Regulators may wish to use the following tables as a starting point to identify which regulator has the most appropriate inspection and enforcement powers to take action at a building.

Table 1 - Regulatory regimes at high rise buildings

Fire safety in common parts including external walls Fire safety in domestic parts Structural safety in non-domestic parts, including external walls Structural safety in domestic parts
Regulators with applicable powers under their legislative regime Local authorities (HA04)

Fire and rescue authorities (FSO)

Building Safety Regulator (BSA P4)		 Local authorities (HA04)

Building Safety Regulator (BSA P4)		 Local authorities (HA04)

Building Safety Regulator (BSA P4)		 Local authorities (HA04)

Building Safety Regulator (BSA P4)

Table 2 - Regulatory regimes at medium rise buildings

Fire safety in common parts including external walls Fire safety in domestic parts Structural safety in non-domestic parts, including external walls Structural safety in domestic parts
Regulators with applicable powers under their legislative regime Local authorities (HA04)

Fire and rescue authorities (FSO)		 Local authorities (HA04) Local authorities (HA04) Local authorities (HA04)

See Annex A for more information on how the different regulatory regimes apply depending on building height, defect location and defect type. Annex A explains the position taken in tables 1 and 2 further and may support regulators to identify which authority is best placed to inspect and enforce at a building where more than one regulator has applicable powers.