Building Safety Act 2022 What It Means for Property Owners
The Building Safety Act 2022 changed the way residential buildings are designed, managed, repaired and paid for in England. For property owners, it is not just another compliance update. It can affect legal duties, service charge recovery, building insurance, saleability, refurbishment plans and personal liability.
The Act was introduced after the Grenfell Tower tragedy and sits alongside other fire and building safety reforms. Its purpose is clear: make buildings safer, make responsibilities easier to trace, and stop serious defects being passed from one party to another without accountability.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Property owners should take advice on their own buildings, leases and responsibilities.
What the Building Safety Act 2022 changed
The Act created a stronger legal framework for building safety, with a particular focus on higher-risk residential buildings. It brought in new roles, new duties and tougher enforcement powers.
The biggest changes include:
A new Building Safety Regulator, run by the Health and Safety Executive
More detailed duties for people who design, build, refurbish and manage buildings
A new approval process for higher-risk buildings
Ongoing safety duties once higher-risk buildings are occupied
Extended legal routes for claims over defective work
New protections for many leaseholders facing historic remediation costs
Stronger powers to pursue developers, landlords and associated companies
The Act does not affect every property owner in the same way. A person who owns a single buy-to-let flat will have different concerns from a freeholder of a high-rise block, a developer, or a resident management company.
Still, even owners outside the highest-risk category should understand the direction of travel. Regulators, lenders, insurers and buyers now expect clearer records, safer works and better evidence.
Which buildings are most affected
The most demanding parts of the Act apply to higher-risk buildings in England. In broad terms, these are residential buildings that are at least 18 metres high or have at least seven storeys, and contain at least two residential units.
The rules also catch certain buildings during design and construction, such as hospitals and care homes, although the occupation rules focus mainly on residential use.
For existing occupied residential buildings, the key question is usually whether the building meets the height or storey threshold. If it does, the owner or manager may need to comply with registration, safety case and resident engagement duties.
Property situation | Likely impact |
Freeholder of a high-rise residential block | Significant duties may apply, including registration and ongoing safety management |
Resident management company for a qualifying block | The company may have duties as an accountable person |
Long leaseholder in a flat | Leaseholder protections and service charge rules may matter most |
Owner of a low-rise freehold house | Most higher-risk building duties will not apply, but standards for building work still matter |
Developer or contractor | Greater exposure to claims, regulatory checks and extended liability periods |
The Act uses specific legal tests, so owners should not rely on rough assumptions. A building’s number of storeys, height, use and legal ownership structure can all matter.
The new Building Safety Regulator
The Building Safety Regulator is one of the central changes introduced by the Act. It oversees safety and standards for higher-risk buildings and has a wider role in improving building control.
For higher-risk buildings, the regulator has powers across the building lifecycle. That means from design and construction through to occupation.
Its role includes:
Overseeing the building control process for higher-risk buildings
Checking key stages before work can move forward
Holding a register of occupied higher-risk buildings
Taking enforcement action where duties are not met
Encouraging better competence across the building industry
For property owners, the practical point is simple. Building safety is now more closely supervised, and weak paperwork can create real problems.
A building may be physically safe, but if records are missing, unclear or unreliable, owners can struggle to prove compliance. That can affect sales, refinancing, insurance and future works.
What accountable persons must do
For occupied higher-risk buildings, the Act introduces the role of the accountable person. There may also be a principal accountable person where more than one party has responsibility for the building.
An accountable person is usually the organisation or individual responsible for repairing or maintaining the common parts of the building. This could be a freeholder, landlord, management company, right to manage company, or commonhold association.
The duties can include:
Registering the building where required
Assessing building safety risks
Taking reasonable steps to prevent or reduce those risks
Preparing and maintaining a safety case report
Keeping key building information up to date
Providing information to residents
Running a residents’ engagement strategy
Handling building safety complaints properly
The main risks covered are spread of fire and structural failure. That does not mean other safety issues can be ignored, but these risks sit at the heart of the higher-risk building regime.
Accountable persons should avoid treating this as a one-off paperwork task. The duty is ongoing. If the building changes, the records and risk assessment may need to change too.
The safety case and the golden thread
Two phrases appear often in guidance on the Act: safety case and golden thread.
A safety case is the body of evidence showing that building safety risks have been identified and are being managed. The safety case report summarises that evidence for the regulator.
The golden thread means keeping accurate, accessible and up-to-date information about the building. It should help the right people understand how the building was designed, built, altered and managed.
Useful information may include:
Fire strategy documents
Structural information
Plans and specifications
Details of external wall systems
Fire door records
Maintenance and inspection records
Refurbishment history
Resident engagement records
Details of safety-related decisions
For many older buildings, the challenge is that records are incomplete. Property owners may need to reconstruct information through surveys, professional reports and careful document review.
Good records also help with day-to-day decisions. If a leaseholder asks to alter a flat entrance door, or a contractor proposes work in a riser, the owner or manager needs to know what effect that could have on the wider building.
What changes for building work and refurbishments
The Act affects new higher-risk buildings and certain works to existing ones. It introduced a stricter approval process often described through “gateways”. These are key points where information must be checked before a project can proceed.
For higher-risk building projects, owners and developers should expect more scrutiny before construction starts, during the works and before occupation.
This matters because delays can be costly. A project that lacks the right design information, competence checks or safety evidence may not move forward when expected.
Property owners planning major works should focus on:
Appointing competent designers, contractors and advisers
Keeping clear records from the start
Checking whether the building falls into the higher-risk regime
Understanding approval points before setting a programme
Making sure fire and structural safety decisions are documented
Avoiding informal design changes that are not recorded
Even where the full higher-risk regime does not apply, the message is the same. Poorly documented works create future risk.
Leaseholder protections and remediation costs
One of the most important parts of the Act for flat owners is the leaseholder protection regime. This was designed to limit the costs that certain qualifying leaseholders may have to pay for fixing historic building safety defects.
The rules are detailed and depend on factors such as the type of lease, the date of ownership, the value of the property and the landlord’s position.
In broad terms, the Act can restrict the ability of landlords to recover some remediation costs through service charges from qualifying leaseholders. It also places more pressure on landlords, developers and others connected with the original defects.
Key points for property owners include:
Some leaseholders may be protected from certain historic remediation costs
Landlords may need to provide certificates and evidence before seeking payment
Service charge demands can be challenged if they do not follow the rules
The identity and financial position of the landlord can affect recovery
Different rules may apply to cladding and non-cladding defects
For freeholders and building owners, this means remediation funding must be handled carefully. The Act does not allow owners to assume that costs can simply be passed down to leaseholders.
For leaseholders, the Act may provide protection, but it does not remove the need to check demands, certificates and building-specific facts. The detail matters.
Extended liability for defective buildings
The Act also made major changes to how long claims can be brought for defective residential work.
It extended limitation periods under the Defective Premises Act 1972. In broad terms, claims relating to older work may be possible for a much longer period than before, while claims for new work also have an extended period.
The Act also introduced new routes for claims linked to refurbishment work and allowed courts to make building liability orders in some cases. These can make associated companies liable where the legal test is met.
For property owners, this has two sides.
If a building has serious historic defects, the Act may improve the chances of pursuing those responsible. That may include developers, contractors, designers or associated companies.
If the owner carried out development or refurbishment work, the Act may increase exposure to claims. Records, contracts, warranties and insurance arrangements become even more important.
What property owners should do now
The right next step depends on the building. A high-rise residential block needs a different approach from a converted house or a small commercial unit with flats above.
Still, most owners can start with the same practical review.
Identify the legal role
Work out whether the owner is a freeholder, landlord, accountable person, principal accountable person, developer, management company or leaseholder. A single building can involve several responsible parties.
Check whether the building is higher-risk
Confirm the height, number of storeys and use. Do not rely only on estate agent descriptions or old sales documents.
Gather core building information
Find plans, fire risk assessments, structural reports, external wall information, fire door records and previous works documents. Store them in a way that can be updated.
Review service charge and leaseholder issues
Before demanding remediation costs, check whether leaseholder protections apply. For leaseholders, review any demand carefully and ask for the required supporting documents.
Plan future works with compliance in mind
For major works, involve competent advisers early. Build enough time into the programme for approvals, inspections and record keeping.
Keep residents informed
Poor communication often turns a safety issue into a dispute. Residents should know how safety decisions are made, how to raise concerns and what information they can access.
Common mistakes to avoid
The Act is complex, but many problems start with simple mistakes.
Property owners should avoid:
Assuming the rules only apply after something goes wrong
Treating registration as the whole of compliance
Relying on incomplete fire or structural records
Passing remediation costs to leaseholders without checking protections
Starting major works before checking approval duties
Ignoring resident complaints about safety
Letting contractors make undocumented changes
Waiting until a sale or refinance to gather building information
A cautious approach is usually cheaper than fixing a compliance failure later. It also helps protect residents, which is the point of the regime.
The takeaway for property owners
The Building Safety Act 2022 increases responsibility, evidence and accountability. Owners of higher-risk residential buildings have the most demanding duties, but the wider effect reaches many parts of the property market.
For freeholders and landlords, the priority is to understand legal responsibility, manage fire and structural risks, and keep reliable records. For leaseholders, the key issue is often whether remediation costs are lawful and whether statutory protections apply. For developers and owners carrying out works, the Act raises the standard for competence, documentation and long-term accountability.
The safest position is to act early. Confirm the status of the building, gather the evidence, take proper advice and keep residents informed. Building safety is no longer something owners can leave in the background. It is now part of responsible property ownership.
Comments