A conversation with Amy Farr, Head of Building Safety and Construction Compliance at Workman, and Bhavini Patel, Senior Associate and co-Head of the Building Safety Group at law firm Howard Kennedy.

Amy: I use this phrase constantly because satisfying the Regulator means proving you meet basic, minimum standards. Going ‘beyond compliance’ means providing buildings that exceed this — giving residents safe, well-maintained homes with proper long-term management plans.

I’m seeing forward-thinking clients, particularly institutional funds, adopt this approach across all their assets, not just Higher Risk Buildings. Why should someone in a four-storey block feel less safe than someone in a twelve-storey tower? This aligns with Grenfell Phase II recommendations that government review the HRB definition, which the industry anticipates will encompass buildings above 11 metres.

One recurring issue: operators carry out Fire Risk Assessments thinking they’ve met obligations, but on closer inspection, numerous actions remain unclosed. There needs to be a mental shift from “we’ve never had a fire” to “we prevent fires.”

Bhavini: ‘Beyond compliance’ establishes deeper understanding of your building and demonstrates ongoing compliance to the Regulator. It’s also directly in the landlord’s interest; potentially reducing insurance premiums, enhancing asset value, and prolonging building life expectancy.

I expect all aspects of the HRB regime will eventually apply to all buildings regardless of height. The culture change for all residential buildings must start now. Gone are the days where “we built it in the 1930s and had no issues” meets the threshold for post-Grenfell compliance.

Bhavini: The building safety reforms are proven necessary, but there are huge gaps. The press tells us landlords and developers are slow to remediate. But what about leaseholders who won’t allow access for necessary works? Unfortunately, the legal framework didn’t build in proper scope beyond basic access provisions, so landlords often end up in lengthy legal battles rather than focusing on making buildings safe.

I sympathise with leaseholders; they purchased homes expecting minimum safety standards. But being obstructive won’t help and will ultimately affect property values. Leaseholders need to understand the scope: it’s remediation of historic defects, not construction of a new building.

What works is frequent consultation to build trust. If leaseholders feel trapped with reduced flat values, remediators need to explain what’s being undertaken, how it impacts their flat, and what benefits they’ll see when works complete. Building this trust is key to unlocking deficiencies in the legal framework.

Amy: Over recent months we’ve seen the Regulator take a keen interest in structural information as part of Building Assessment Certificate applications. Some requests have been for formal Structural Risk Assessments, despite the Regulator previously stating additional surveys wouldn’t be required. We’re now advising clients on the importance of regular structural assessments, formalising these as part of ongoing Planned and Preventative Maintenance programmes. Why not regularly review all building safety matters — health and safety, mechanical and electrical, security, water quality, asbestos, structure, and fire — across all asset types?

Bhavini: It’s not called “the cladding act.” Recent case law makes clear the Court will draw “unsafe” as widely as possible — it’s refused to narrow this to fire safety alone. We’re still seeing people obtain reports, resolve immediate action points, then do nothing further. This isn’t what the Building Safety Act envisages. The culture change requires active engagement with building users. The Regulator wants evidence of not only how well you know your building, but how well occupiers know it and what steps you’ve taken to help them understand it. If occupiers don’t know how to escape in a fire or report building safety risks, it doesn’t matter how many assessments you have. Equally, residents have responsibility to follow guidelines ensuring they’re not creating fire risks within their homes.

Amy: Let’s break this down. An EWS1 is required by lenders and sometimes insurers, but you can only obtain one following a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls undertaken using PAS 9980 methodology. These aren’t required by law, but were introduced by lenders and RICS post-Grenfell to help lenders understand external wall system risk profiles.

A FRAEW is required on any multi-occupied residential building, irrespective of height, where there are questions over external wall combustibility risk. This may initially be flagged in the standard Fire Risk Assessment. The Fire Safety Act 2021 amendments confirm external walls include cladding, balconies, and attachments.

However, merely having a FRAEW isn’t enough. It’s key that findings and recommendations are addressed, action plans are in place to remediate, and where applicable, the fire strategy is reviewed and communicated to residents. The building’s insurer should also be advised. If the appraisal is on an HRB, this needs documenting as part of the Golden Thread. The Regulator will be looking at how the Principal Accountable Person is managing building safety risk, not just identifying it.

Bhavini: As understanding of fire safety risk assessment grows, with the industry recognising the EWS1 isn’t the golden ticket, I expect its relevance will phase out. Many lenders I work with are now getting comfortable with PAS 9980 reports and FRAEWs, when accompanied by comprehensive action plans showing how to resolve identified issues.

Amy: We’re finding operators are generally on the front foot, actively delivering PAP obligations like Mandatory Occurrence Reporting and Resident Engagement. However, PAPs cannot legally offload their responsibilities just because there’s an operator in place.

Bhavini: PAPs are slow to embrace the necessary culture change. But it isn’t just culture change. Failure by the AP and PAP to comply with the legal framework is a criminal sanction carrying fines and imprisonment. While day-to-day management may pass to an operator, the Regulator will focus on what the PAP knows about their building and how they’ve contributed to compliance with the duty holder regime and safety case report.

If an AP or PAP delegates this function, the Regulator will be interested in seeing evidence that those delegated to have the necessary competency to perform that function. This isn’t a one-time competency check. The AP and PAP must engage with building safety routinely; I’d say engaging less than every three months isn’t enough. Gone are the days of building owners collecting income from operators but having no involvement in management and safety.

Bhavini: In HRBs, there’s a duty to ensure day-to-day PAP functions are properly discharged. This means assessing and managing building safety risks, engaging with residents, and having comprehensive “living” strategies for residents’ engagement, mandatory occurrence reporting, and complaints procedures. This culminates in a safety case and safety case report: a continually evolving document that could change day-to-day. There must be evidence of how this evolution is monitored and addressed through the golden thread.

Failure to comply is a criminal offence attracting fines and imprisonment – that’s for directors of the AP and PAP, not the managing agent. Beyond criminal sanctions, enforcement authorities can issue stop notices requiring buildings to decant, compliance notices, and alterations notices. The effects go beyond making buildings safe – negative impacts on insurance premiums, asset valuations, and leaseholder satisfaction.

For landlords not engaging, the Building Safety Act introduces novel remedies allowing leaseholders, the Secretary of State, and interested persons to apply for court orders mandating landlords to fix defects. Case law overwhelmingly favours remediation, leaving landlords with large legal bills, strict timeframes, and reputational damage.

Amy: “Safe buildings are a safe investment” I heard this from Brendan Geraghty, CEO of The Association of Rental Living, and it resonated. I’m often asked by investors to advise on acquisitions, and BSA compliance is one of the first questions. Sometimes investors want a yes or no answer, but it’s never that simple.

Vendors who don’t know enough about their buildings or haven’t efficiently maintained building safety elements are racing to obtain surveys and digital evidence ahead of completions or facing substantial price reductions.

This brings us to digital records and the Golden Thread. The Grenfell Inquiry reported hours were lost because nobody knew enough about the building. As an industry, we’re still behind on collating, storing, and managing the Golden Thread in the occupied phase.

Principal Contractors seem to have this sorted for design and construction, but what happens once it’s handed over to the PAP? Do PAPs understand the requirement to advise local fire and rescue services of updates to their buildings and fire strategies? That’s the work we need to focus on right now.