IN Brief:
- The regulator will prioritise building assessment certificate applications already under examination.
- Further buildings will be called into assessment selectively while revised processes are developed.
- Legal safety-management duties remain unchanged for more than 6,000 accountable parties.
The Building Safety Regulator is adopting a more targeted programme for assessing occupied higher-risk buildings after its building assessment certificate process took longer than anticipated and produced a high proportion of refusals.
Applications already under examination will receive priority, while further buildings will be called into assessment selectively as the regulator develops revised procedures. A more proportionate reassessment route is also being considered for buildings that have previously been refused a certificate but can subsequently demonstrate that identified deficiencies have been corrected.
Introduced in April 2024, building assessment certificates form part of the regulatory regime governing occupied higher-risk buildings in England. Principal accountable persons and accountable persons must manage building safety risks, maintain prescribed information, engage residents, and provide evidence showing how fire spread and structural safety risks are being controlled.
Nearly 2,000 buildings have been called into the assessment process, although the regulator has acknowledged that individual cases have taken around twice as long as originally expected. During 2026, 66% of applications have been refused, exposing persistent weaknesses in the completeness, coordination, and quality of the documents submitted.
While the revised programme alters the order in which buildings will be examined, it does not change the statutory obligations attached to them. More than 6,000 principal accountable persons and accountable persons must continue to maintain safety case reports, operate mandatory occurrence reporting arrangements, preserve the golden thread of information, and involve residents in decisions affecting building safety.
Support will be strengthened for resident-led principal accountable persons, who may have fewer technical and financial resources than institutional owners, large housing associations, or specialist managing agents. These organisations can face particular difficulty when inherited building records are incomplete or when responsibility for historical alterations, façade systems, and maintenance work is unclear.
The proposed reassessment route could reduce repeated work where an earlier refusal has identified a defined set of deficiencies. Instead of restarting the entire process, applicants may be able to demonstrate that the relevant shortcomings have been addressed, provided the regulator is satisfied that the building’s wider management arrangements remain suitable.
Certification confirms that the regulator accepts the way safety duties are being managed; it does not replace the underlying engineering, inspection, maintenance, or remedial work. Owners still need to show that arrangements described in policies and safety case documents are reflected in the day-to-day operation of the building.
Occupied-building assessments sit alongside, but remain separate from, the Gateway 2 regime controlling the start of construction on new higher-risk buildings and major work to existing ones. More than 12,000 homes have moved through the pre-construction system as Gateway 2 approval volumes have begun to increase, yet both processes depend on coordinated designs, competent dutyholders, and records capable of withstanding regulatory examination.
For buildings that have been occupied for several years, assembling that evidence can become a substantial technical exercise. Properties may have changed ownership, managing agent, maintenance contractor, or responsible person several times, while refurbishment programmes and product replacements may not have been documented consistently.
Where original design information is absent, responsible parties may need intrusive surveys, structural assessments, façade investigations, fire engineering input, or retrospective product identification. Those investigations can reveal defects requiring physical remediation before a credible safety case can be submitted, extending both cost and programme well beyond the preparation of regulatory paperwork.
Greater selectivity should allow regulatory resources to be directed towards buildings where risk, management performance, or poor evidence creates the greatest concern. It may also provide space to refine guidance and distinguish between serious failures and applications that could be resolved through clearer documentation or limited corrective work.
Owners whose buildings have not yet been called into assessment nevertheless have an opportunity to strengthen their position before a formal direction arrives. Safety case reports, resident engagement strategies, maintenance records, fire-door information, structural data, and change-control procedures need to remain current rather than being assembled hurriedly once an application is requested.
Digital records alone will not satisfy the regime where operational practice is inconsistent. Contractors and facilities teams must be able to demonstrate how inspections are commissioned, how defects are escalated, how remedial work is verified, and how changes to the building are reviewed before they proceed.
The narrower programme should reduce some pressure within the assessment system, although its effectiveness will depend on decision times, the quality of guidance, and the treatment of previously refused cases. Buildings entering the process will still be expected to present a coherent account of their risks and the measures used to control them.
