Building engineering firms are struggling to get to grips with new safety legislation and a big part of the problem is the “dense and confusing legal terminology” being used to describe their roles and responsibilities.

An industry-wide survey, carried out by AMA Research on behalf of the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA), shows that awareness of the Building Safety Act and its implications is rising, but the pace of real change remains much too slow.

Just 9% of the companies who told us they were aware of the Act and what it means have, by their own admission, actually taken any meaningful action to comply with it. This is not simply a case of the industry carrying on in its old bad habits – although that is still a huge problem – but many people are genuinely confused.

88% of respondents to our survey showed some awareness of the Act with almost a third claiming to be “fully aware”. There were higher levels of awareness among BESA members than the industry as a whole, but detailed understanding of roles and responsibilities was decidedly mixed and varied by building and project type.

Compliance and legal understanding of the legislation, which came into force in 2022, are proving to be significant challenges for organisations who told our researchers they needed more training and a closer working relationship with the Building Safety Regulator to embed the changes required to improve building safety.

Awareness
The AMA survey showed that awareness of the legislation is higher amongst those working on higher risk buildings (HRBs), with those working on new construction projects and major refurbishments also more likely to be aware of the Act. Levels of awareness also vary according to company size with larger organisations, both in terms of turnover and number of employees, shown to be more up-to-speed.

However, most contractors believe the Act has only had a minimal impact on their businesses so far, according to the report. 65% of respondents said it had been neither a positive nor a negative factor to date – and just 9% reported making “significant changes” to help them comply with the legislation.

That is 9% of just 330 respondents to a survey that was sent to 22,000 companies who AMA had established were affected by the Act. In other words, that is somewhere below 1% of the total. We have a very long way to go.

We also intended the research to help the Regulator gain a better understanding of the sector’s position and the challenges it faces, so that it can also improve the way it supports compliance. However, its latest statement that it intends to cut down ‘conversations’ about planning applications even further to try and tackle the current delays in the process is very concerning.

Gateway Two is proving to be a substantial bottleneck because so much detail is required at that stage and without a positive two-way dialogue it is hard to see how this situation will improve. You can’t just say “we don’t offer advice” just go back and submit it again.

We do recognise that the industry has a lot to do to put its house in order and that shifting the industry’s focus from speed and cost to putting quality first is taking even longer that feared, but lack of a productive relationship with our regulator is a real hindrance to change.

Collaboration and communication are key – and many respondents to our survey said they felt intimidated by the level of legal and technical detail in the legislation and the whole regulatory process. Rather than intimidation most want education – that surely must be the way forward.

Some firms have used the Act, and the wider post-Grenfell context, as an opportunity to re-set employees’ focus on what makes them good at their jobs and where they find deficiencies, to carry out more training. However, this is far from universal and access to appropriate training remains another key challenge for our sector and one that BESA is pursuing vigorously.

During the latest BESA webinar chaired by BESA chief executive officer David Frise, the role of clients came under intense scrutiny. Speakers reported that clients not involved in HRBs were still driven primarily by lowest cost. This has huge implications because it means those companies trying to provide a quality driven solution find themselves being priced out of contracts.

“It is going to take a massive shift of mindset to change this culture,” said Suzannah Nicol, CEO of BuildUK. “A lot of people still don’t think it applies to them and that it is all about HRBs. Others find the whole thing too big and overwhelming…they don’t know where to start.”

So where should you start?

The webinar panel agreed that the best starting point would be to focus on the competence of the people you employ. The principle should be that you could stand up in a court of law, put your hand on your heart and swear that all the people you had working on a project had the right skills, knowledge, experience and displayed the right ‘mind set’ or behaviours (SKEB).

The right ‘behaviours’ includes calling out sub-standard work when you see it (not just your own) and recognising that everything you do on a project has a long-term implication for everyone who goes on to occupy that building.

However, many clients still seem to think that the Building Safety Act is more like a ‘Construction’ Safety Act that has been set up simply to scrutinise work while the building is being constructed. That is not its purpose. It is there to ensure building occupants are safe throughout the entire life of the building. Therefore, decisions made at the construction stage should be focused on ensuring long-term quality and not on finding the cheapest short-term solution.

Nicol urged the industry to “stop fighting the system”, make sure their people were competent, and reap the rewards

.

“[Achieving compliance] will force clients to engage more closely with specialist contractors…and that will lead into other things like better payment practices,” she told the BESA webinar. “Contractors will also be able to say what is not acceptable, including what level of risk they are not prepared to accept.”

Big prize
She said that the “big prize” of getting the safety regime right will be a more productive and financially resilient industry.

Architects too will need to engage more closely with contractors and Wayne McKiernan from the Royal Institution of British Architects (RIBA) told the webinar that they would not be able to deliver Gateway planning applications without good collaboration with principal contractors. That is a huge shift in attitude which is to be welcomed.

BESA’s Building Safety Act advisory group continues to work towards a safer and more compliant industry, but it has highlighted the pressures contractors face considering current commercial realities and the investment needed to embed a safety-first approach – moving from a culture that puts price first to one that prioritises quality.

The Association will, therefore, focus on the practical implications for contractors throughout 2025. We will look to help members, and others, improve data gathering and production of evidence that supports safer buildings, but also within the context of business issues like late payment and insolvency risk.

New buildings are highly likely to be safer, but the existing stock is a huge (potentially insurmountable) problem without a focus on funding and public resource. The pressure for a national retrofit programme will grow and this is another priority during 2025 because tens of thousands of people are still living in unsafe buildings.

Resources from BESA

BESA provides resources to help its members, and the wider sector, step up to this challenge. We have our Building Safety Act Hub which is a dedicated digital resource developed to keep the sector up-to-date with the latest developments, tools and regulatory information related to Act.  

For those wondering about their role and responsibilities, the interactive Play it Safe Guide uses football to illustrate how companies and individuals fit into the ‘team’ needed to deliver building safety and comply with the legislation. 

Firms can also demonstrate their organisational capability through BESA’s Competence Assessment Standard (CAS), which is a rigorous business management review and technical audit which enables a company to demonstrate its organisational capability, as required by the building safety act.

The CAS audit evaluates members against a range of quality and safety standards, ensuring that they’re aligned with safety regulations. Passing this audit demonstrates a commitment to excellence, offering a distinct advantage in competitive tendering and client assurance. It also instils confidence in stakeholders that they’re working with a certified, competent business that adheres to the requirements of the Building Safety Act.