Abstract

The Building Safety Act 2022 represents a profound paradigm shift in the regulatory framework governing building safety in the United Kingdom, moving from a reactive, prescriptive approach to a proactive, outcomes-based system. Central to this monumental legislative reform is the introduction of the Accountable Person (AP) and, where applicable, the Principal Accountable Person (PAP), who are assigned unparalleled responsibilities for managing building safety risks throughout the entire lifecycle of higher-risk buildings (HRBs). This comprehensive research report undertakes an exhaustive analysis of the AP’s multifaceted duties, encompassing detailed legal obligations, stringent compliance requirements, and the significant practical implications inherent in this pivotal role within the newly established building safety regime. By meticulously examining the statutory duties, the intricate framework for risk assessment and management, the imperative of robust resident engagement, the revolutionary concept of the ‘golden thread’ of information, and the severe legal liabilities, this report endeavours to furnish a holistic and in-depth understanding of the AP’s critical position. The ultimate objective is to elucidate how the AP ensures the paramount safety of occupants and maintains rigorous adherence to the new regulatory landscape, thereby contributing to the prevention of future tragedies and fostering a culture of safety excellence.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The catastrophic Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 served as a stark and tragic watershed moment, unequivocally exposing profound systemic failures within the United Kingdom’s building safety regulations. The independent inquiry following the disaster, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, highlighted a fragmented regulatory landscape, a pervasive lack of clear accountability, an opaque and often inefficient system for managing safety risks, and an unfortunate prioritisation of cost-cutting over fundamental safety principles. This devastating event galvanised a resolute commitment from the UK government to enact transformative legislative change, culminating in the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022). The BSA 2022, alongside its extensive suite of secondary legislation, represents the most significant overhaul of building safety laws in decades, aiming to enhance safety standards, instil a culture of accountability, and empower residents. Its core tenets are designed to prevent such tragedies from recurring by addressing issues across the entire building lifecycle, from design and construction to occupation and ongoing maintenance.

A fundamental and innovative pillar of this legislation is the formal designation of the Accountable Person (AP). This role is meticulously crafted to centralise responsibility for managing fire and structural safety risks in occupied higher-risk buildings, which primarily include residential buildings at least 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys and containing at least two residential units. The BSA 2022 extends its scope beyond residential buildings to include hospitals and care homes during construction and major refurbishment. The AP is tasked with a profound responsibility: to take all reasonable steps to prevent major incidents arising from building safety risks and to reduce the severity of any such incidents that do occur. This report embarks on a detailed exploration of the AP’s statutory duties, the stringent legal liabilities associated with non-compliance, and the significant operational challenges and practical implications that entities assuming this critical role must navigate. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the pivotal concept of the ‘golden thread’ of information, a cornerstone of the new regime, and the enhanced role of the newly established Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as the primary enforcement body.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The Accountable Person: Definition and Scope

The Building Safety Act 2022 meticulously defines the Accountable Person, establishing a clear framework for identifying who holds this critical responsibility. This precise delineation is vital for ensuring that accountability for building safety risks is unambiguous and enforceable.

2.1 Legal Definition and Identification Criteria

Under Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022, an Accountable Person (AP) is defined as an individual, a partnership, or a corporate body that meets one of two specific criteria in relation to a higher-risk building (HRB):

1. They hold a legal estate in possession of any part of the common parts of the building; or
2. They are under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any part of the common parts of the building.

The term ‘legal estate in possession’ broadly refers to an ownership interest that grants current entitlement to possession. For the purposes of the BSA 2022, this typically encompasses freeholders or leaseholders with long leases (e.g., 7+ years remaining) who have an interest in the common parts. ‘Common parts’ are generally understood to include the structure and exterior of the building, and areas that are not solely occupied by a single dwelling or unit, such as hallways, stairwells, lifts, lobbies, plant rooms, and shared recreational spaces. The definition aims to capture those entities with the legal right and practical ability to control and manage these critical safety elements.

The second criterion, ‘relevant repairing obligation’, applies where an entity, by virtue of a lease or other agreement, has a duty to repair or maintain common parts. This often applies to managing agents, Right to Manage (RTM) companies, or Residents’ Management Companies (RMCs) who may not hold a legal estate in possession but are contractually obligated to maintain parts of the building essential for its safety. This broad definition ensures that no potential point of responsibility for building safety is overlooked, encompassing a wide array of stakeholders, from traditional freeholders and landlords to more complex corporate structures and resident-led management entities.

Identifying the precise AP can be complex, particularly in buildings with mixed-use elements (e.g., residential apartments above commercial units), fragmented ownership structures, or where management responsibilities are distributed among multiple entities through various leases and agreements. The Act anticipates these complexities, requiring careful examination of property titles, leasehold agreements, and management contracts to accurately ascertain the responsible parties. In practice, this often necessitates expert legal advice to navigate the intricacies of property law and contractual obligations, ensuring that the correct entities are identified and formally recognise their new, significant duties.

2.2 Principal Accountable Person (PAP)

In many higher-risk buildings, there may be more than one Accountable Person. For instance, a freeholder might be responsible for the main structure, while an RTM company manages the internal common areas, or different entities might manage separate blocks within a larger development. To provide a clear hierarchy and central point of contact for the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), the BSA 2022 mandates the identification of a Principal Accountable Person (PAP).

Section 73 of the BSA 2022 defines the PAP as the AP who has responsibility for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building, or a relevant repairing obligation in relation to the structure and exterior of the building. In cases where no single AP is responsible for the entire structure and exterior, the PAP is designated as the AP responsible for the greatest extent of the structure and exterior.

The role of the PAP is crucial for overall coordination and oversight. The PAP is the primary point of contact for the BSR and holds overarching responsibility for ensuring compliance with the building safety regime across the entire HRB. Their duties include:

• Overall Management and Coordination: The PAP is responsible for the overall management of building safety risks for the entire HRB. This includes coordinating the activities of any other APs within the building to ensure a cohesive and comprehensive approach to safety.
• Consolidated Safety Case Report: While individual APs may contribute specific information, the PAP is ultimately responsible for preparing and submitting a consolidated Safety Case Report (SCR) for the entire building to the BSR, demonstrating how all building safety risks are being managed.
• Communication with BSR: The PAP serves as the primary liaison with the Building Safety Regulator, providing information, responding to queries, and ensuring that all necessary regulatory submissions are made in a timely manner.
• Strategic Oversight: The PAP must take a strategic view of building safety, ensuring that all safety measures, systems, and procedures are integrated and effective across the entire building, bridging any potential gaps between the responsibilities of multiple APs.

The establishment of the PAP aims to prevent fragmented accountability, which was a significant failing identified prior to the BSA 2022. By centralising ultimate responsibility, the Act seeks to ensure that there is always a clear entity accountable for the overall safety of the building and the well-being of its occupants, simplifying enforcement and communication channels for the BSR and residents alike. The process of designating the PAP is critical, and where disputes arise or the PAP is not clearly identifiable, the BSR has powers to determine the PAP’s identity.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Statutory Duties and Legal Obligations

The statutory duties imposed upon an Accountable Person (AP) under the Building Safety Act 2022 are extensive, precise, and legally binding. These obligations represent a significant shift from previous, less prescriptive regimes, demanding a proactive, continuous, and highly documented approach to building safety. Failure to adhere to these duties carries severe penalties, underscoring the gravity of the AP’s role.

3.1 Risk Assessment and Management: The Cornerstone of Safety

A fundamental and continuous duty of the AP is to undertake comprehensive assessments of building safety risks. These risks specifically pertain to the spread of fire and structural failure in higher-risk buildings (HRBs). The AP must then take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of a major incident resulting from these risks and to mitigate the impact of any such incidents that may occur. This proactive stance necessitates a robust, ongoing process rather than a one-off exercise.

Detailed Risk Identification and Evaluation:

• Fire Safety Risks: This extends beyond basic fire alarms to include the entire fire safety system: the external wall system (cladding, insulation, balconies), internal compartmentalisation (fire doors, walls, floors), means of escape, fire suppression systems (sprinklers, risers), smoke control systems, emergency lighting, and fire service access. The assessment must consider the combustibility of materials, the integrity of firestopping, and the effectiveness of passive and active fire protection measures. The AP must also consider the management arrangements for these systems, including regular maintenance, testing, and inspection schedules.
• Structural Integrity Risks: This involves assessing the stability and integrity of the building’s load-bearing elements, foundations, and key structural components. It requires regular structural surveys, monitoring for subsidence, material degradation, and the impact of alterations or repairs. The AP must ensure the building can safely withstand expected loads, environmental factors, and potential events.
• Associated Risks: While the primary focus is fire and structural safety, the AP must also consider how other building services and systems interact with these primary risks. For example, the safety of lifts and escalators for evacuation, the proper functioning of ventilation systems, and the management of hazardous materials like asbestos which, if disturbed, could impact fire safety or structural integrity in specific contexts.

‘All Reasonable Steps’: A Continuous Process:

The phrase ‘all reasonable steps’ implies a duty to act diligently and professionally, considering what a competent person would do in similar circumstances. This entails:

• Competence: Ensuring that all individuals involved in assessing and managing risks possess the necessary skills, knowledge, experience, and training (SKET). This applies to internal staff and external consultants (e.g., fire engineers, structural engineers, building surveyors).
• Methodology: Employing recognised risk assessment methodologies and standards, such as PAS 9980:2022 for external wall systems, and comprehensive fire risk assessments in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Assessments must be specific to the building’s design, materials, age, and occupancy profile.
• Documentation: Meticulously recording all risk assessments, identified hazards, evaluation of risks, and the control measures implemented. This documentation forms a critical part of the Safety Case Report.
• Review and Monitoring: Risks are not static. The AP must establish a system for continuous monitoring, regular review (e.g., annually or after significant events like refurbishment, change of use, or incidents), and updating of risk assessments and mitigation strategies. This dynamic process ensures that the building’s safety profile remains current and effective.

3.2 The Safety Case Report (SCR): A Living Document

A cornerstone of the new regime is the requirement for the AP (specifically the Principal Accountable Person, PAP, for the entire building) to prepare and maintain a Safety Case Report (SCR). This document is far more than a mere tick-box exercise; it serves as the definitive demonstration of how building safety risks are being managed and mitigated throughout the HRB’s lifecycle.

Purpose and Content:

The SCR is essentially a comprehensive ‘safety justification’ for the building. It must:

• Identify Building Safety Risks: Detail all identified fire and structural risks, as well as any other risks that could lead to a major incident.
• Demonstrate Risk Management: Clearly explain the measures taken, or to be taken, to prevent a major incident and to mitigate its impact if one occurs. This includes detailing the fire safety strategy, structural integrity measures, and the overarching safety management system.
• Outline Safety Management System: Describe the processes, procedures, and organisational arrangements for managing safety, including roles and responsibilities, competence management, change control, and emergency planning.
• Include Resident Engagement Strategy: Detail how residents are informed about safety matters and how their concerns are handled.
• Provide Evidence of Compliance: The SCR must be evidence-based, supported by relevant reports, surveys, certificates, and records (e.g., maintenance logs, testing results, inspection reports).

The SCR is not a static document. It must be actively maintained and updated to reflect any significant changes to the building, its occupancy, its safety systems, or the risk profile. Any material revisions must be promptly notified to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). This dynamic nature ensures that the SCR remains a truthful and current reflection of the building’s safety status.

Submission and the Gateway Regime:

The BSA 2022 introduces a ‘gateway’ system for new buildings and major refurbishments, requiring regulatory approval at key stages. For occupied higher-risk buildings, the BSR will call in existing buildings for assessment under a phased approach. The PAP will be required to submit the SCR and apply for a ‘Building Assessment Certificate’. This certificate will confirm that the BSR is satisfied that the AP is complying with their building safety duties. Failure to obtain or maintain this certificate could lead to enforcement action, including the prohibition of occupation.

3.3 Resident Engagement and Communication: Fostering a Safety Culture

The AP has a mandatory duty to establish and operate a robust residents’ engagement strategy. This duty stems from the recognition that residents are not merely passive occupants but active stakeholders whose cooperation and understanding are vital for maintaining building safety. A well-executed strategy fosters trust, empowers residents, and leverages their unique insights into the day-to-day conditions of the building.

Key Elements of the Strategy:

• Information Provision: Residents must be provided with clear, accessible, and timely information about building safety matters. This includes:
  • Identified building safety risks and how they are being managed.
  • Emergency procedures (e.g., evacuation plans, ‘stay put’ policy, muster points).
  • Safety measures and the functioning of safety systems within the building.
  • Details of the AP, PAP, and how to contact them regarding safety concerns.
  • The latest Safety Case Report or key summaries thereof.
  • Information on any planned works that may affect safety.
• Communication Channels: Establishing multiple, accessible channels for communication is crucial. This might include:
  • A dedicated online portal or website for safety information.
  • Regular newsletters or information leaflets.
  • Notice boards in common areas.
  • Resident meetings or forums specific to building safety.
  • Clear contact points for queries and concerns.
• Formal Complaints System: The AP must operate a clear, fair, and impartial complaints system specifically for safety-related complaints. This system must:
  • Be easily accessible and widely publicised.
  • Outline the process for making a complaint and the expected timescales for response and resolution.
  • Ensure complaints are handled by competent individuals.
  • Provide for escalation and, if necessary, external review.
• Engagement Opportunities: Beyond just providing information, the AP should seek to actively engage residents in safety discussions, explaining decisions, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility. This could involve consultations on proposed safety works or policy changes.

Special consideration must be given to vulnerable residents, those with disabilities, or residents for whom English is not a first language, ensuring information is provided in appropriate formats and languages where necessary. The effectiveness of this strategy will be assessed by the BSR, ensuring that it genuinely empowers residents and contributes to a safer living environment.

3.4 Mandatory Reporting and Compliance: A System for Continuous Learning

The AP is required to establish and operate a system for mandatory occurrence reporting (MOR) concerning ‘building safety risks’ and ‘building safety incidents’. This system is designed to facilitate the timely identification, investigation, and rectification of safety issues, contributing to a continuous learning cycle and preventing future incidents.

What to Report:

• Building Safety Incidents: These are specific events that have occurred and relate to fire spread or structural failure, or other events that could lead to a major incident. Examples include small fires, structural defects that emerge, significant system failures (e.g., sprinkler system malfunction), or incidents resulting from poor management practices.
• Building Safety Risks: This refers to latent or emerging risks that have been identified but have not yet led to an incident. For example, discovery of unapproved cladding materials, degradation of firestopping, or a change in occupancy that alters the risk profile.

The Reporting Process:

The MOR system must ensure that incidents and risks are promptly reported internally within the AP’s organisation and, crucially, to the Building Safety Regulator where they meet specific criteria for severity or significance. The system should define:

• Who is responsible for reporting (staff, contractors, residents, where applicable).
• How reports are made (e.g., through a dedicated portal, form, or contact point).
• The timeline for reporting.
• The process for investigation, root cause analysis, and corrective actions.
• The criteria for mandatory reporting to the BSR.

The BSR uses this reported data to identify trends, inform guidance, and target enforcement actions. Non-compliance with these reporting requirements is a serious offence and can lead to significant legal consequences, including unlimited fines and imprisonment, underscoring the importance of adherence to statutory obligations. This mechanism aims to ensure transparency and accountability, turning individual incidents into collective learning opportunities for the entire building safety sector.

3.5 The Golden Thread of Information: A Digital Blueprint for Safety

One of the most transformative elements of the Building Safety Act 2022 is the requirement for the AP to establish and maintain a ‘golden thread’ of information. This concept is central to the new regulatory regime, designed to ensure that comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date information about a higher-risk building is available digitally and remains accessible throughout its entire lifecycle.

Defining the Golden Thread:

The golden thread is not merely a collection of documents; it is a system for managing crucial building information. Its core principles are:

• Accuracy and Reliability: Information must be verified, trustworthy, and reflect the current state of the building.
• Availability and Accessibility: Information must be easily accessible to those who need it, including the AP, PAP, BSR, and emergency services, in a digital format.
• Clarity and Understandability: Information must be presented in a way that is clear, concise, and easy to interpret by various stakeholders.
• Consistency: Information should be structured and presented consistently across different datasets and over time.
• Proportionate: The level of detail should be appropriate to the complexity and risks of the building.

What Information Forms the Golden Thread?

The golden thread encompasses a vast array of data and documents related to the building’s design, construction, and ongoing management, specifically focused on fire and structural safety. Key information includes, but is not limited to:

• Design and Construction Information: As-built drawings, specifications, material safety data sheets, fire strategy documents, structural calculations, and certificates for installed systems.
• Building Safety Case Report: The complete SCR and all supporting evidence and assessments.
• Risk Assessments: Detailed fire risk assessments, structural integrity assessments, and other relevant safety evaluations.
• Maintenance and Inspection Records: Logs of all maintenance, testing, and inspection of fire safety systems (e.g., sprinklers, alarms, smoke control), lifts, structural elements, and external wall systems.
• Change Control Records: A clear record of all significant changes, alterations, or refurbishments made to the building, particularly those impacting fire or structural safety, including details of who authorised the change and their competence.
• Competence Information: Records demonstrating the competence of individuals and organisations involved in design, construction, and safety management.
• Emergency Plans: Up-to-date emergency evacuation plans, personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs), and fire rescue service information.
• Resident Engagement Information: Records of resident communication, feedback, and complaints related to safety.

AP’s Role in Maintaining the Golden Thread:

The AP is responsible for establishing and maintaining this digital golden thread. This requires:

• Implementing a Digital System: Investing in and utilising appropriate digital platforms or software to store, manage, and retrieve the information securely.
• Ensuring Data Integrity: Implementing robust processes for data input, verification, and version control to maintain accuracy.
• Regular Updates: Ensuring the golden thread is continuously updated to reflect changes, maintenance activities, incidents, and reviews.
• Accessibility: Ensuring the information is readily accessible to the BSR and other authorised dutyholders and emergency services, and that relevant parts are available to residents.

The golden thread is designed to prevent crucial safety information from being lost or fragmented over time, a significant issue identified in previous building safety failures. It empowers the AP and the BSR to make informed decisions swiftly, especially during emergencies, and ensures continuous oversight of the building’s safety performance.

3.6 Competence Requirements: Ensuring Professional Expertise

Implicit within all the AP’s duties, and explicitly stated in the BSA 2022, is the fundamental requirement to ensure that all individuals and organisations involved in managing building safety risks are competent. This extends to the AP’s own staff, contractors, consultants, and anyone undertaking work on the higher-risk building that impacts safety.

Defining Competence:

Competence, in this context, refers to having the necessary skills, knowledge, experience, and training (SKET) to perform a task safely and effectively. It’s not just about qualifications, but also practical experience and ongoing professional development. For those involved in building safety, this includes:

• Technical Knowledge: Understanding of fire dynamics, structural engineering principles, building regulations, and relevant British Standards.
• Risk Management Expertise: Ability to identify, assess, and manage complex building safety risks.
• Legislative Understanding: Familiarity with the BSA 2022, the Fire Safety Order, and other relevant legislation.
• Practical Skills: Proficiency in conducting inspections, interpreting data, and implementing safety measures.

AP’s Responsibility for Competence:

The AP must:

• Assess and Verify Competence: Implement rigorous processes for assessing the competence of internal staff and external contractors/consultants before they undertake any work related to building safety. This could involve checking qualifications, professional memberships, references, and relevant experience.
• Provide Training: Ensure that staff involved in building safety receive appropriate and ongoing training to maintain and update their skills and knowledge.
• Monitor Performance: Regularly monitor the performance of those carrying out safety-critical tasks to ensure continued competence.
• Maintain Records: Keep detailed records of all competence assessments, training provided, and certifications, which will form part of the golden thread.

The BSR has a strong focus on competence across the building industry. The AP’s demonstration of robust competence management is a critical factor in satisfying their statutory duties and for the BSR’s assessment of the Safety Case Report. This drives a significant shift towards professionalisation and higher standards within the industry.

3.7 Cooperation and Coordination: Collaborative Safety Management

Effective building safety management, especially in complex higher-risk buildings, is inherently a collaborative endeavour. The AP is therefore mandated to cooperate and coordinate their actions with various other dutyholders and stakeholders.

Key Areas of Cooperation:

• Other Accountable Persons (APs): In buildings with multiple APs (e.g., separate residential and commercial parts, or different management companies for different parts), Section 85 of the BSA 2022 places a duty on each AP to cooperate with every other AP to enable each to comply with their duties. The Principal Accountable Person (PAP) plays a crucial coordinating role here.
• Dutyholders under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO): The FSO remains in force, and its ‘Responsible Person’ (RP) will often be the same entity as the AP or PAP, or a closely related entity. Close cooperation is essential to avoid duplication, identify gaps, and ensure a unified approach to fire safety management, particularly regarding common parts and emergency plans.
• Construction Dutyholders: For new buildings or major refurbishment, the AP must cooperate with the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor to ensure the ‘golden thread’ of information is properly handed over and maintained from the design and construction phases.
• Residents: As discussed, cooperation with residents through robust engagement strategies is vital for shared understanding and a proactive safety culture.
• Emergency Services: The AP must provide relevant information to the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) and other emergency services to assist them in planning for and responding to incidents. This includes up-to-date building plans, fire safety strategies, and details on any specific risks or vulnerable occupants.

This duty of cooperation and coordination ensures that all parties with a role in building safety work together seamlessly, preventing gaps in responsibility and promoting a holistic approach to risk management. It represents a move away from fragmented responsibilities towards integrated safety governance.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Legal Liabilities and Enforcement

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduces a formidable framework of legal liabilities and enforcement mechanisms, designed to ensure rigorous adherence to the new safety standards. The penalties for non-compliance are severe, reflecting the critical importance of the Accountable Person’s (AP) duties and the potential for grave consequences in higher-risk buildings.

4.1 Consequences of Non-Compliance: Criminal and Civil Penalties

Failure to fulfil the statutory duties imposed upon an AP can lead to significant and far-reaching legal repercussions, impacting both corporate bodies and, crucially, individuals.

Criminal Offences and Penalties:

The BSA 2022 creates several new criminal offences for non-compliance. These are not merely administrative penalties but can result in custodial sentences, underscoring the shift towards individual accountability. Examples of specific offences include:

• Failing to register an HRB: An AP (or PAP) must register their higher-risk building with the BSR. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.
• Failing to apply for a Building Assessment Certificate: Once an HRB is ‘called in’ by the BSR, the PAP must apply for and obtain a Building Assessment Certificate. Failure to do so is an offence.
• Failing to provide a Safety Case Report or Golden Thread information: Non-compliance with the requirements for preparing, updating, and maintaining the SCR or the golden thread of information can lead to prosecution.
• Obstructing the Building Safety Regulator: Hindering or obstructing BSR inspectors in the exercise of their powers is a serious offence.
• Providing false or misleading information: Knowingly providing false or misleading information to the BSR is a criminal act.
• Breaching compliance notices: Failing to comply with a compliance notice or stop notice issued by the BSR carries significant penalties.

The penalties for these criminal offences are substantial. They include:

• Unlimited Fines: Courts have the power to impose unlimited fines on corporate bodies for various offences.
• Imprisonment: For certain offences, particularly those involving obstruction, providing false information, or serious neglect leading to risk, individuals (including directors and senior managers) can face imprisonment for up to two years. This personal liability is a potent deterrent, emphasising the need for robust oversight and diligence at all levels of management.

Beyond direct penalties, a conviction can lead to significant reputational damage for the corporate entity, impacting its ability to manage other properties or secure future contracts. It can also affect property values and the relationships with residents, lenders, and insurers.

Civil Liabilities:

While the BSA 2022 primarily focuses on criminal enforcement, non-compliance with its duties can also form the basis for civil claims. Residents or other affected parties could potentially bring claims for negligence or breach of statutory duty if they suffer harm as a result of the AP’s failure to meet their obligations. For example, if a fire safety defect, which the AP should have identified and remediated, causes injury or property damage, the AP could face civil litigation for compensation.

4.2 Enforcement Mechanisms of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR)

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR), established within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), is the principal authority responsible for overseeing and enforcing the new building safety regime for higher-risk buildings. The BSR possesses a wide array of powers to ensure compliance, ranging from proactive oversight to punitive actions.

BSR’s Powers and Actions:

• Regulatory Oversight: The BSR proactively monitors compliance by reviewing submitted Safety Case Reports, golden thread information, and other documentation. It will also conduct planned assessments of HRBs.
• Inspections and Audits: BSR inspectors have extensive powers of entry to premises to conduct inspections, audits, and investigations. They can examine documents, interview personnel, and collect evidence related to building safety.
• Information Requests: The BSR can demand any information or documents from the AP that it deems necessary to assess compliance.
• Compliance Notices: If the BSR identifies a contravention of a building safety duty, it can issue a compliance notice. This notice will specify the contravention, the steps required to rectify it, and a deadline for completion. Failure to comply with a compliance notice is a criminal offence.
• Stop Notices: For more serious and immediate risks, the BSR can issue a stop notice. This prohibits certain activities (e.g., occupation of part of the building, specific works) until the risk is adequately addressed. Breach of a stop notice is a criminal offence.
• Building Assessment Certificates: As mentioned, the BSR will assess a building’s safety case and issue a Building Assessment Certificate if satisfied. The BSR can revoke this certificate if the AP ceases to comply with their duties, potentially leading to an occupation prohibition.
• Prosecution: As detailed above, the BSR has the power to initiate criminal prosecutions against corporate bodies and individuals for breaches of the Act.
• Cost Recovery: The BSR can recover the costs incurred in exercising its enforcement powers from the dutyholder, including costs associated with inspections and investigations.

The BSR’s role is not just punitive; it also aims to be a source of guidance and support for dutyholders. However, its primary function is to enforce the law, and it is expected to take a firm stance where serious breaches of building safety duties are identified. The Regulator’s oversight is continuous throughout the building’s occupation, ensuring that safety standards are maintained over time, not just at points of construction or major refurbishment.

4.3 Directors’ and Officers’ Liability: Personal Accountability

A critical aspect of the BSA 2022’s enforcement strategy is the clear articulation of personal liability for individuals within corporate structures. This is a significant departure from previous regimes where corporate liability often shielded individuals.

Section 156 of the BSA 2022 (amending the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) and other provisions within the Act empower the BSR to prosecute directors, managers, secretaries, or other similar officers of a corporate body (or individuals purporting to act in such a capacity) if an offence committed by the corporate body:

• Is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of the officer; or
• Is attributable to any neglect on the part of the officer.

This means that senior decision-makers and those responsible for oversight within an organisation that acts as an AP can face personal prosecution, unlimited fines, and even imprisonment if they are found to have been complicit in, or negligent regarding, the corporate body’s failure to comply with its building safety duties. This provision aims to deter a culture where responsibility is diffused, ensuring that those at the highest levels of an organisation are directly accountable for the safety performance of the buildings under their charge.

The implications for corporate governance are profound. Boards of directors and senior management must ensure that robust systems, sufficient resources, and adequate training are in place to enable the AP to comply with its duties. They must also exercise due diligence in monitoring compliance and responding to identified safety concerns. This increased personal liability necessitates careful consideration of Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) liability insurance and comprehensive internal compliance frameworks to mitigate risks.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Practical Implications and Challenges

The implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the assumption of the Accountable Person (AP) role present significant practical implications and formidable challenges for building owners, managers, and associated stakeholders. Navigating these complexities effectively requires strategic planning, substantial investment, and a fundamental shift in operational culture.

5.1 Resource Allocation and Management: A Major Investment

Effectively fulfilling the multifaceted duties of the AP demands substantial resources – financial, human, and technological. This represents a significant new cost burden that many building owners and management companies may not have previously anticipated or budgeted for.

Financial Resources:

• Surveys and Assessments: Initial and ongoing costs for detailed fire risk assessments, structural surveys, external wall system assessments (e.g., using PAS 9980 methodology), and specialist reports from fire engineers, structural engineers, and other building safety consultants. These can run into hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds for complex or problematic buildings.
• Remediation and Works: The most significant financial challenge for many APs, particularly for legacy buildings, is the cost of undertaking necessary remediation works to address pre-existing fire safety defects (e.g., unsafe cladding, inadequate firestopping, balcony issues). While government funds (Building Safety Fund, Cladding Safety Scheme) and developer/manufacturer contributions exist, many costs may still fall to the AP, potentially recovered through service charges from leaseholders.
• Ongoing Maintenance and System Upgrades: Ensuring that all fire safety and structural systems are regularly maintained, tested, and upgraded to current standards requires continuous investment.
• Technology and Software: Investment in digital platforms and software solutions for managing the ‘golden thread’ of information, resident engagement portals, and mandatory occurrence reporting systems.
• Legal and Professional Fees: Engaging legal counsel to understand obligations, drafting contracts, and navigating compliance issues; engaging consultants for safety case preparation and ongoing advice.
• Insurance: Increased costs for professional indemnity insurance for the AP and its advisors, and potentially higher building insurance premiums for HRBs.

Human Resources:

• Specialised Personnel: The need to employ or contract highly competent personnel with expertise in building safety, risk management, fire engineering, structural integrity, and regulatory compliance. This may necessitate hiring new, dedicated safety managers or upskilling existing staff through extensive training programmes.
• Training and Competence: Ongoing investment in training and professional development to ensure all staff involved in building safety maintain the requisite skills, knowledge, experience, and training (SKET) in line with new competence frameworks.
• Administrative Burden: Significant administrative resources are required for meticulous record-keeping, documentation management for the golden thread, preparing the Safety Case Report, managing resident engagement, and handling mandatory reporting.

These resource demands can pose particular challenges for smaller entities, residential management companies (RMCs), or Right to Manage (RTM) companies that may lack the established infrastructure and financial reserves of larger property developers or institutional landlords. The implications for service charges levied on leaseholders are also substantial, leading to potential disputes and affordability concerns.

5.2 Coordination Among Multiple Accountable Persons: Navigating Complexity

In scenarios where a single higher-risk building has multiple Accountable Persons, the coordination and communication required to ensure cohesive safety management are immensely complex. This arises in mixed-use developments, large estates with multiple blocks, or where ownership structures are fragmented.

Challenges of Multi-AP Structures:

• Delineation of Responsibilities: Clearly defining who is responsible for which specific parts of the building and which safety risks can be challenging. Overlaps or, critically, gaps in responsibility can occur if not meticulously managed.
• Information Sharing: Ensuring consistent and timely sharing of critical safety information, risk assessments, and maintenance records between different APs is vital for the holistic management of the building’s safety case.
• Decision-Making: Achieving consensus and coordinated decision-making on significant safety works, policy changes, or emergency procedures among multiple independent entities can be difficult and time-consuming.
• Dispute Resolution: Mechanisms are needed to resolve disagreements or conflicts between APs regarding safety priorities, resource allocation, or the interpretation of duties.

Strategies for Effective Coordination:

• Principal Accountable Person (PAP): The PAP’s role as the central coordinating body is paramount. They must actively facilitate communication and collaboration.
• Inter-AP Agreements/Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs): Formal agreements outlining each AP’s responsibilities, communication protocols, and dispute resolution mechanisms are essential.
• Shared Information Platforms: Implementing a common digital platform for the golden thread that all relevant APs can access and contribute to, ensuring a single source of truth.
• Regular Joint Meetings: Scheduled meetings between representatives of all APs to discuss safety performance, emerging risks, planned works, and regulatory updates.
• Unified Safety Management System: Striving towards a single, overarching safety management system for the entire building, even if different APs manage specific components, to ensure consistency and prevent fragmentation.

The BSR expects robust coordination, and the failure of one AP to cooperate with others can lead to enforcement action against all involved parties if the overall building safety is compromised.

5.3 Resident Engagement and Education: Building Trust and Awareness

While critical for fostering a culture of safety, effectively engaging and educating residents presents its own set of practical challenges for the AP.

Challenges in Resident Engagement:

• Apathy and Disengagement: Residents may exhibit apathy towards safety matters, particularly if they perceive risks to be low or if previous engagement efforts have been ineffective.
• Distrust: Following past events and ongoing debates about remediation costs, some residents may harbour distrust towards building owners or management, making open communication difficult.
• Communication Barriers: Differences in language, digital literacy, and accessibility needs among residents can impede effective communication of complex safety information.
• Information Overload/Underload: Striking the right balance between providing sufficient detail without overwhelming residents, or conversely, providing too little information, can be challenging.
• Managing Expectations: Handling residents’ anxieties, managing expectations regarding remediation timelines, and addressing specific concerns while adhering to privacy regulations.
• Varying Understanding: Residents will have differing levels of understanding regarding technical safety concepts, requiring information to be tailored and simplified where appropriate.

Strategies for Effective Engagement:

• Clear and Accessible Communication: Using plain language, visual aids, and multiple formats (digital, print, in-person meetings) to convey safety information. Providing information in multiple languages where appropriate.
• Proactive Information Sharing: Not waiting for incidents, but proactively informing residents about safety measures, maintenance schedules, and the AP’s duties.
• Responsive Complaints System: Ensuring the complaints system is genuinely fair, transparent, and results in timely resolutions, building residents’ confidence that their concerns are taken seriously.
• Resident Champions/Forums: Establishing resident safety forums or appointing resident champions to act as a bridge between the AP and the broader resident community.
• Demonstrating Action: Showing residents that their feedback is valued and acted upon, reinforcing the credibility of the AP’s commitment to safety.

Building a strong safety culture relies on an informed and engaged resident community, making this a continuous and nuanced challenge for the AP.

5.4 Legacy Buildings and Remediation: A Monumental Task

A significant proportion of higher-risk buildings in the UK are ‘legacy buildings’ constructed prior to the BSA 2022, many of which are known to have significant fire safety defects, particularly related to external wall systems. The AP’s role in addressing these defects is a monumental practical challenge.

The Remediation Burden:

• Identification of Defects: The AP must undertake comprehensive investigations, often intrusive, to identify and verify the presence and extent of fire and structural safety defects in existing buildings. This requires specialist expertise and can be disruptive for residents.
• Funding Remediation: Securing funding for remediation works is a major hurdle. While the government has introduced schemes (e.g., Building Safety Fund, Cladding Safety Scheme) and new legal protections to shift costs away from leaseholders (e.g., Leaseholder Protections in BSA 2022, Section 130 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023), significant costs can still fall to the AP or remain contentious.
• Project Management: Managing complex, long-term remediation projects, which involve multiple contractors, consultants, regulatory approvals, and resident liaison, is a demanding undertaking.
• Occupancy Management During Works: Ensuring resident safety, managing access, and minimising disruption during extensive remedial works presents significant logistical and communication challenges.

The remediation of legacy buildings is a long-term commitment that often predates the formal AP role but becomes a central part of their duties once established. It requires a sustained effort, significant financial outlay, and a high degree of technical and project management expertise.

5.5 Insurance and Indemnity: A Shifting Landscape

The increased legal liabilities and duties of the AP have profound implications for insurance, creating a shifting and often challenging landscape for securing adequate cover.

Key Insurance Challenges:

• Professional Indemnity (PI) Insurance: Consultants and professionals advising APs on safety matters (e.g., fire engineers, building surveyors) are facing significantly increased PI premiums and reduced availability of cover, reflecting the heightened risk of claims.
• Building Insurance: HRBs, particularly those with identified fire safety defects, have seen substantial increases in building insurance premiums, or in some cases, difficulty securing cover at all. This directly impacts service charges for leaseholders.
• Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) Liability Insurance: Given the personal liability for directors and senior officers of the AP, D&O insurance has become a critical consideration. However, securing adequate D&O cover that fully protects against the new BSA-related liabilities can be challenging and expensive.
• Exclusions and Limitations: Insurers are increasingly applying specific exclusions or limitations related to external wall systems and fire safety, meaning policies may not provide full coverage for all BSA-related risks.

AP’s must carefully review their insurance policies, seek specialist advice, and understand the scope and limitations of their cover. The evolving insurance market adds another layer of financial and operational complexity to the AP’s role, requiring diligent risk management beyond mere compliance with statutory duties.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Conclusion

The Building Safety Act 2022, through the pivotal role of the Accountable Person (AP) and Principal Accountable Person (PAP), instigates a fundamental transformation in the management of safety within higher-risk buildings across the United Kingdom. This legislative overhaul represents a profound shift from a fragmented and often reactive approach to a robust, proactive, and continuously accountable system, directly addressing the systemic failures exposed by past tragedies. The designation of the AP centralises responsibility, demanding unprecedented levels of diligence, transparency, and competence in ensuring the safety of occupants.

As this report has meticulously detailed, the AP’s statutory duties are extensive and permeate every aspect of building safety. These include, but are not limited to, rigorous and continuous risk assessment and management of fire and structural risks; the meticulous preparation and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive Safety Case Report, serving as the definitive demonstration of safety compliance; the establishment and maintenance of the ‘golden thread’ of information, ensuring a perpetually accessible and accurate digital record of the building’s safety profile; the imperative to foster meaningful and effective resident engagement and communication; and the implementation of a robust mandatory occurrence reporting system for incidents and emerging risks. Underpinning all these duties is the fundamental requirement for the AP to ensure that all individuals and entities involved in managing building safety possess the requisite competence.

While the AP role heralds a new era of enhanced safety standards and clear lines of accountability, it simultaneously imposes significant legal obligations and presents formidable practical challenges. These include substantial financial and human resource demands for surveys, remediation, technological infrastructure, and specialist personnel; the complexities of coordinating multiple APs in shared buildings; the nuanced art of effective resident engagement, often against a backdrop of historical distrust; the monumental task of addressing legacy building defects; and the increasingly intricate landscape of insurance and indemnity. These challenges necessitate strategic foresight, substantial investment, and a deeply ingrained commitment to safety as a core operational value.

Notwithstanding these complexities, the introduction of the Accountable Person offers an unparalleled opportunity to genuinely elevate safety standards and profoundly enhance occupant well-being in higher-risk buildings. By embracing these responsibilities with diligence, investing in necessary resources, and fostering a culture of proactive risk management and continuous improvement, APs can contribute decisively to the creation of safer living and working environments. The success of the BSA 2022 hinges on the effective and conscientious execution of the AP’s duties, ensuring that the lessons of the past are learned and that a safer future for all building occupants becomes an enduring reality.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Building Safety Act 2022. (2022). Public General Acts 2022, c. 30. The National Archives. Available from: legislation.gov.uk
• Browne Jacobson. (2022). Building Safety Act 2022 | impact on the ownership and occupation. Available from: brownejacobson.com
• Clyde & Co. (2022). Building Safety Act 2022: Identifying the accountable person and principal accountable person. Available from: clydeco.com
• Construction Management. (2022). Accountable persons under the building safety regime: what does it all mean? Available from: constructionmanagement.co.uk
• Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. (2023). Building Safety Act: Leaseholder protections. Available from: gov.uk
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2023). Building Safety Regulator. Available from: hse.gov.uk/buildingsafety/
• Jones Day. (2022). Guide to the UK Building Safety Act 2022. Available from: jdsupra.com
• Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. (2023). Public General Acts 2023, c. 55. The National Archives. Available from: legislation.gov.uk
• Marlowe Fire & Security. (2022). Building Safety Act 2022 | Fire Safety Legislation. Available from: marlowefireandsecurity.com
• MosaicGT. (2022). The Accountable Person. Available from: mosaicgt.com
• Norton Rose Fulbright. (2022). The new building safety act regime: Who is the accountable person and what must it do. Available from: nortonrosefulbright.com
• PAS 9980:2022. (2022). Fire risk appraisal of external wall construction and cladding of existing blocks of flats – Code of practice. British Standards Institution (BSI).
• Pennington. (2022). The Building Safety Act 2022: Everything you need to know in 5 minutes. Available from: info.pennington.org.uk
• The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. (2005). Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1541. The National Archives. Available from: legislation.gov.uk