UK Construction

Most building-safety applications failed: the regulator resets

By Staff Writer  |  25 July 2026

The Building Safety Regulator is changing how it assesses higher-risk buildings, with a more targeted approach based on risk indicators. That should focus minds on evidence rather than paperwork.

The government said the regulator will introduce a more proportionate and targeted process for building assessment certificate applications. The aim is to prioritise buildings where the available information points to higher risk.

For accountable persons, the message is simple enough. A safety case report cannot read like a compliance brochure. It needs to show that building safety risks have been identified, assessed and managed for the actual building.

Speed cannot come at the cost of safety, but neither can unnecessary complexity.

Charlie Pugsley, Acting Chief Executive of the Building Safety Regulator

The regulator's direction also matters because the building assessment certificate regime sits on top of live building management. A building may have residents, maintenance works, remediation planning, insurer queries and lender questions all moving at once.

Evidence beats form filling

The Health and Safety Executive guidance says the safety case report should summarise the safety case for the building and explain how fire and structural safety risks are being managed. That is a fact-heavy exercise.

The building's age, construction, occupation, fire strategy, maintenance record, resident profile and known defects may all matter. The harder task is showing the link between those facts and the measures in place.

A risk-based regulator will expect the file to explain why the building is safe enough to manage, rather than merely showing that a template has been completed.

That puts pressure on the quality of surveys and the way uncertainty is recorded. If a wall build-up, fire stopping detail or structural alteration is unknown, the report should say what is unknown and what is being done about it.

Procurement teams should read across

The change also matters to consultants and contractors working on remediation, surveys, fire-door packages, alarm upgrades and resident engagement. If buildings are prioritised by risk, urgent packages may need quicker scoping and clearer evidence trails.

That affects instructions, access records, survey assumptions and variations. If a contractor is asked to proceed on limited information, the contract should say what is assumed and how later discoveries will be treated.

Consultants should also avoid treating the safety case as a one-off submission. The file should be kept alive as works are completed, defects are found, residents report issues, or management arrangements change.

The assessment route is regulatory, but the consequences are commercial. Better records now may save argument later.