Building safety duties overwhelm SMEs as BESA calls for clearer enforcement

by ConstructionFeatured NewsFire EngineeringResearchSafety

BESA survey flags pressures from building safety regime

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has reported that many small construction firms feel overwhelmed by the Building Safety Act, based on new research presented at London Build Expo in London on 26 November 2025.

The association said its second annual survey of the sector showed that, although 88% of industry professionals are aware of the legislation, most small and micro-businesses view it as “overwhelming and daunting” and feel “left behind”.

BESA added that these businesses make up 99% of the construction sector and related professions, which it described as the “lifeblood” of the industry.

There was also evidence that many clients are still operating on a “business as usual” basis, with cost and speed often taking precedence over safety.

The survey findings were discussed during a panel session at the London Build Expo, which focused on enforcement, communication and training needs linked to the new regime.

Rachel Davidson, director of specialist knowledge at BESA, said: “This is critical because those companies are the lifeblood of the industry.

“There are also a lot of people who still think the legislation only applies to HRBs (higher risk buildings).”

Davidson said: “A lot of this comes back to leadership and culture.

“78% of companies tell us that this is important to them but fewer than half report having taken enough action.”

Calls for clearer enforcement and targeted building safety guidance

Davidson noted that building engineering contractors increasingly want consistent enforcement of the Building Safety Act.

She stated that many contractors believe some clients will continue to treat compliance as optional unless there are visible consequences for non-compliance.

BESA is expanding its guidance to show firms “what good looks like” within their particular part of the sector, Davidson explained.

The association is advising companies that they do not need to master every detail of the Act, but instead concentrate on the clauses that relate directly to their role and responsibilities.

Davidson said this approach is intended to help smaller firms identify where they have direct duties and where they need to coordinate with other dutyholders.

BESA has set up a Building Safety Hub to host this material, including a new guide aimed at Principal Contractors.

Communication challenges across a 2.6 million-strong workforce

Fellow panellist Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, highlighted the scale of the communication task given that the sector employs around 2.6 million people.

She said that messages about the Building Regulations and building safety standards need to move beyond compliance alone and address behaviour and pride in work.

Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, said: “We need to be innovative about how we communicate and appeal to personal values because that is going to be more effective than continually talking about regulation.

“But getting 2.6 million people to pull in the same direction is a huge challenge.

“We need to ask people why we are doing this [which is] to keep people safe and make sure the Grenfell tragedy cannot happen again.

“That means talking about ‘purpose’…people should want to make a difference.

“This can’t just be about ticking boxes.”

Carpenter argued that more use should be made of non-traditional communication channels, including partnerships with organisations such as HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

She said these bodies already have strong links to individuals and small construction businesses, which could help reach audiences that traditional industry channels do not.

The panel also heard that the industry’s average reading age is around 11, according to Hertfordshire Building Control Chief Executive Officer Gary Cass.

Cass said this creates additional barriers to spreading information about regulatory duties and good practice through text-heavy material.

Regulator progress and pressure on Building Control resources

Cass noted that there are signs of progress at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) on planning approvals for higher risk buildings.

He said the new leadership team at the BSR has cut the average processing time at Gateway Two to 17 weeks, down from as high as 38 weeks earlier in 2025.

Cass added that the regulator has been “very honest” about its earlier backlogs and is now moving in what he described as a more positive direction.

However, he said the longer-term success of the new regime will depend on closer collaboration between industry and the regulator.

Gary Cass, Chief Executive Officer at Hertfordshire Building Control, said: “However, the industry needs more education about the Building Regulations.

“People need to be looking at compliance and focus on what is required in the regulations not guidance.

“Building Control Officers are regulators first and foremost but the industry used to rely on them to guide them through the process…and now it needs to be educated [about how the new process works].”

Cass said enforcement can be applied in a constructive way and does not always have to lead directly to legal action.

He also warned of a decline in the number of Building Control Officers (BCOs), which he said is creating a resource issue and reducing access to experienced inspectors.

How building safety pressures affect technical disciplines

The panel discussion concluded that more sector-specific training is needed so that different parts of the supply chain understand their duties under the Building Safety Act.

Speakers said that many of the firms that feel most overwhelmed are also those that deliver core technical services such as building engineering, installation and maintenance.

They added that these companies often sit at critical points in projects where design decisions, product choices and installation quality interact with regulatory requirements.

BESA said its Building Safety Hub is intended to give these businesses practical guidance, examples of good practice and role-based breakdowns of responsibilities.

Why building safety compliance burdens matter for practitioners

The survey findings and panel comments are directly relevant to building services engineers, fire engineering consultants and system installers who are working under the Building Safety Act.

These groups operate in a sector where small and micro-businesses account for 99% of organisations, and many report that the legislation feels “overwhelming and daunting”.

For building engineering contractors and Principal Contractors, the focus on clear enforcement, role-specific duties and practical examples of “what good looks like” may shape how they organise projects and allocate responsibilities.

Building Control Officers, and those who work with them, face pressure from reduced staff numbers and the need to move from an advisory role to one centred on regulation and education.

Facility managers and clients commissioning work will encounter an environment where cost and speed are more likely to be challenged by contractors who are conscious of compliance obligations and enforcement risks.

BESA calls time on disinterested third in UK construction competence drive

by ConstructionFeatured NewsSafety

BESA sets out disinterested third challenge

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has called for a disinterested third of UK construction professionals to be driven out of the industry if they will not raise their standards, following its annual conference in London.

BESA Chief Executive David Frise told delegates at The Brewery, London, that one third of people in construction and related disciplines already work to high professional, legal and technical standards.

He said a further third want to reach that level and need support to do so.

The final third, he argued, are “simply not interested” in improving quality, safety or sustainability.

Frise linked this split directly to the need for better control over competence and compliance across project teams.

David Frise, Chief Executive at BESA, said: “Just doing enough is not good enough.”

BESA used the conference to launch its Member Pledge initiative, which asks member firms to place competence and compliance at the centre of their operations and supply chains.

The association said the pledge is designed to give clients clearer assurance because BESA members must pass a technical audit.

BESA reported that it expelled 14 members earlier in 2025 for failing to meet its required standard.

Frise described that decision as proof that membership is tied to measurable competence.

David Frise, Chief Executive at BESA, added: “Membership needs to stand for something.”

Member Pledge links competence, membership and supply chains

BESA said the Member Pledge is intended to create a commercial incentive for clients to choose audited firms over those without such checks.

The association explained that firms signing the pledge commit to evidence their competence and to expect the same from their subcontractors and suppliers.

It argued that this approach can help address inconsistent quality and compliance through multi-layered supply chains.

BESA said its stance is also a response to persistent procurement and payment practices that place pressure on specialist contractors.

Speakers noted that competence efforts will struggle if contractors cannot secure work on sustainable terms.

They also highlighted the risk that firms willing to cut corners on quality will underbid more compliant competitors.

Procurement practices under fire from contractors

Procurement frameworks and contract terms were described as a central threat to the future of many specialist firms.

Remi Suzan, Managing Director of Gratte Brothers Group, said: “Procurement is killing our industry.”

He warned that many projects do not allow contractors to work at an acceptable profit margin.

Suzan stated that risk is often pushed unfairly down the supply chain.

He said clients are not “bad people” but will rarely remove risk from contracts voluntarily.

Remi Suzan, Managing Director of Gratte Brothers Group, explained: “If there are cost constraints then the contractor is bound to get aggressive and start looking for mistakes in the specification so they can charge for variations.”

Suzan pointed to recent insolvencies at ISG and HE Simm “among others” as examples of what can happen when margins and risk sharing become unsustainable.

He also reported that the quality of tender information has been deteriorating, making accurate pricing harder.

Lilly Gallafent, Director at Cast Consultancy, acknowledged that consultants contribute to this picture because they advise clients on what levels of contractual risk to accept.

Gallafent observed that many clients focus on short-term commercial wins during contract negotiations.

Lilly Gallafent, Director at Cast Consultancy, said: “Change needs to start with clients…and we need to persuade them that even if they feel they have ‘won’ now [in a contract negotiation] they won’t feel that in a few years’ time [when all the problems become apparent].”

She added that better procurement models already exist but are not widely used.

Gallafent reported that her firm tries to allocate risk more evenly by analysing it in more detail, but this depends on client agreement.

Public sector pressures and Building Safety Act duties

Noble Francis from the Construction Products Association told the conference that public sector procurement faces similar pressures.

He said civil servants can struggle to obtain Treasury approval if they plan to specify solutions that exceed allocated budgets, even when they are seeking better long-term value and quality.

Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, said: “The government has lots of theory and value matrices about how to improve procurement, but this rarely reflects reality…and the industry knows how it works so there will always be companies bidding work at the lower level.”

Speakers set this against the wider building safety agenda.

Gallafent said more clients are now considering the competence of their supply chains because of heightened awareness of legal responsibilities under the Building Safety Act.

Francis added that the Act makes clear that legal risk cannot be passed down contracts.

He said the legislation is changing incentives by placing formal responsibilities on clients.

Neil Hope-Collins from the Office of the Building Safety Regulator highlighted that clients are legally responsible for ensuring safety-related work is properly resourced.

He also said contractors are legally required to confirm that their clients understand their duties under the Act before work starts.

Neil Hope-Collins, from the Office of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “Otherwise, you are breaking the law.”

Competence of clients, late payment and retentions

Jon Vanstone, Chair of the Industry Competence Committee, said the competence of clients is a priority for the Building Safety Regulator.

He reported that guidance aimed specifically at clients will be published later in 2025.

Vanstone also acknowledged that building services and mechanical, electrical and plumbing firms can struggle to identify who the legal client is on complex projects.

The conference linked these issues to the government’s ongoing consultation on late payment and retentions.

Industry body Build UK said the current safety regime could change commercial performance and payment behaviour.

Build UK Chief Executive Suzannah Nichol described current arrangements for performance and payment as unstable.

She argued that the safety framework is “a massive game changer for performance and late payment”.

Suzannah Nichol, Chief Executive at Build UK, said: “We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something about [late payment and retentions].”

Nichol criticised retentions as a mechanism that removes cash flow from supply chains.

Suzannah Nichol, Chief Executive at Build UK, added: “This is not a system that works [but just] takes cash flow out of the supply chain.”

She questioned why companies remain in a supply chain if the client does not trust them enough to avoid retentions.

Nichol urged building engineering contractors to use the new safety framework when discussing cost and risk with clients.

She said clients should understand what they receive if they focus only on lower prices.

Nichol also linked the role of trade associations to this conversation.

She said clients should be using members of trade bodies, provided that membership criteria reflect measurable competence.

She pointed to the BESA Member Pledge as an example of how associations can set out what their membership represents for buyers.

How competence and procurement debates affect safety-focused roles

The issues raised at the BESA conference could affect building services engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, fire engineering consultants and system installers who rely on stable, competence-based procurement routes.

For these groups, the Member Pledge and BESA’s decision to expel 14 firms show how membership criteria can be used to demonstrate audited competence to clients.

Contractors and fire-protection specialists working under the Building Safety Act may need to document how they test that clients understand their legal duties before accepting work.

Facility managers and project clients in high-risk buildings can be directly affected by the clarification that legal responsibility for safety cannot be passed down the supply chain.

Procurement officers in both private and public sectors may have to balance budget constraints against the need to appoint competent, audited firms that can meet safety obligations over the life of a project.

Discussions on late payment and retentions are also relevant for specialist contractors delivering fire safety systems, where cash flow and risk transfer can influence their ability to maintain standards.

`Building safety is being ignored by clients’ say the Building Engineering Services Association

by Health and Safety

Construction clients are failing to engage with the new building safety regime, according to research carried out by the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA).

The Association used its regional meetings with members as ‘focus groups’ over a six-month period to gauge take-up of measures introduced under the Building Safety Act and awareness of roles, responsibilities and risks associated with the legislation, which has been in force since 2022.

Findings from the BESA report

The main finding was a lack of engagement from clients with BESA members reporting that not a single client had discussed compliance with them. They asserted that, far from seeing evidence of any significant culture change, the pressure to deliver projects faster and more cheaply was increasing at the expense of quality and safety.

Members from all UK regions confirmed that project decisions remained primarily driven by cost and speed, particularly by owners and developers whose buildings were not classified as ‘higher risk’ (HRBs). This confirmed the suspicion that most clients believe the Act only applies to this type of building.

The meetings followed in-depth research commissioned by BESA last year which revealed that, while awareness of the legislation was rising, contractors and clients were confused about their roles and responsibilities and there was little discernible change taking place.

BESA’s Director of Specialist Knowledge, Rachel Davidson’s statement

BESA’S Director of Specialist Knowledge, Rachel Davidson spoke out: “As there is currently very little enforcement of the legislation and, therefore, no apparent consequences, clients are still subjecting contractors to aggressive and sub-economic pricing.

“Not a single client has asked any of our members about compliance with the Act.  Tenders are still being won on lowest price and still being value engineered throughout the project on non-HRB works.

“Several contractors who insisted on applying more rigorous safety measures said they had been priced out of projects as a result.”

Davidson has called for a government driven public awareness campaign to improve client engagement.

BESA members and their consensus

The BESA meetings also confirmed that most clients erroneously considered the legislation to be a ‘Construction’ Safety Act i.e. aimed exclusively at the construction industry and did not, therefore, apply to those owning, managing and operating buildings throughout their lifecycle.

BESA members also expressed concern about the number of projects being delayed due to additional planning constraints exacerbated by severe shortages in local authority building control departments.

The need to pay for additional third-party testing to ensure building components meet the specification when operating as a system is another potential source of higher cost and project delays, the BESA meetings reported.

Davidson also discussed how : “The serious geographical divide with clear evidence that the further north you go the less awareness of and engagement with the legislation you find, particularly among clients.”

AMA Research’s survey

The industry-wide survey, carried out by AMA Research between May and September last year, reported that 88% of respondents 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 found to be mixed and varied by building and project type.

Most contractors told researchers that the Act was only having a minimal impact on their businesses and just 9% reported making any significant changes to help them comply.

Compliance and legal understanding of the legislation were proving to be challenging for most industry businesses who told researchers they needed more training and a closer working relationship with the office of the Building Safety Regulator to embed the changes required to improve building safety.

Levels of awareness vary according to company size with larger organisations, both in terms of turnover and number of employees, shown to be more up-to-speed.

BESA Director of Specialist Knowledge, Rachel Davidson’s final thoughts

“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,” added Davidson. “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.”

She added that the industry needed clearer and simpler guidance to help them both apply the legislation measures to their own businesses and explain them to their clients. She also called for a closer and more productive relationship with the Regulator involving open channels of communication and a greater willingness to offer advice on how to comply with Act.

“Also, if the government is really serious about improving standards of safety and performance alongside its ambitious plans for construction growth, it must properly resource the Regulator and ensure that this potentially game changing legislation is fully enforced,” said Davidson.

BESA say `building safety is being ignored by clients’: Summary

The Building Engineering Services Association have acknowledged what they say is a failure to engage with the new building safety regime. Noting project decisions being influenced by cost and speed as being important factors.