THE BUILDING SAFETY ACT: A NECESSARY RESPONSE, NOT A LEGAL INCONVENIENCE

The recent Netflix documentary on the Grenfell Tower tragedy has brought the devastating events of 2017 back into the public eye. It was a powerful reminder of how deeply flawed our approach to building safety had become and why legislation like the Building Safety Act 2022, no matter how imperfect, is absolutely essential.

However, we must also be honest. While the intention behind the Act is absolutely right, its execution has been far from perfect. Poor drafting, unclear definitions, and inconsistent implementation have created real problems, not only for the legal profession, but also for leaseholders, buyers, and sellers who are now facing unintended consequences. These issues need to be addressed.

At PCS Legal, we believe it is time to reframe the conversation. Yes, the Act is flawed, but it is still vital. We must work to improve it, not reject it, and ensure that its purpose of protecting people and preventing future disasters, is not lost in the challenges of implementation.

The Act is complex, has created uncertainty and demands more from legal practitioners than ever before, but we must not lose sight of what it was born from: a preventable disaster that claimed 72 lives. The Building Safety Act is about accountability, change and most importantly, ensuring that tragedies like Grenfell never happen again.

Following the tragedy, a series of sweeping reforms were introduced. The Act itself, along with the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, introduced long-overdue requirements that now form part of our day-to-day work in conveyancing. From mandatory fire door checks in buildings over 11 metres, to the appointment of accountable persons and the production of building safety case reports for high-rise structures, the legal landscape around multi-occupancy residential buildings has changed fundamentally, and rightly so.

For conveyancers, this means understanding and interpreting a wider range of responsibilities, from checking if external wall systems are compliant, to ensuring buyers are aware of who holds legal accountability for safety in their building. These obligations go far beyond paperwork.  They reflect a genuine shift in how we, as a country, protect the people who live in these homes.

Consider just a few of the tangible changes that followed Grenfell and are now legally required. High-rise buildings (those over 18 metres or seven storeys) must have secure information boxes for fire services, evacuation alert systems, and, from 2026, a second staircase for new developments. Regular fire door inspections are mandatory, and developers can no longer pass the cost of cladding remediation onto leaseholders without restriction. These changes are already saving lives and they are only possible because of legislation like the Building Safety Act.

Many clients, understandably, are confused or concerned when they hear terms like “relevant defects,” “qualifying leases,” or “remediation contribution caps.” It is our job not just to explain the law but to show them that behind every new regulation is a meaningful step toward safety.

But we also need to acknowledge the real problems caused by the way the Building Safety Act has been drafted and implemented. For all its good intentions, the legislation has been delivered in a way that makes it difficult to work with, not just for lawyers but for leaseholders too.

Key definitions are vague. The process around landlord and leaseholder certificates is unclear and inconsistently applied. There is still no centralised system or public register to help identify affected buildings. Many of the legal duties are complex, burdensome, and open to interpretation, leaving even experienced professionals unsure how best to advise their clients.

As a result, around 50 percent of law firms are now unwilling to handle transactions involving high rise or high risk buildings. Of those who do, many must charge higher fees to reflect the additional time and due diligence required, not because they want to, but because the legal risk is real and significant. Every transaction now requires extensive investigation into building status, safety documentation, responsible persons, and remediation histories, much of which is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain within usual timescales.

In addition, it is not just lawyers who are affected. Many flat owners across the country now find themselves stuck in properties they cannot sell. A striking example is The Mill in Ipswich, where leaseholders have staged protests after becoming trapped in unsellable flats due to unresolved building safety issues. The intentions of the Act are right, but the lived experience for many is one of anxiety, delay, and stagnation.

So, while we support the principles behind the Act, and we do, we also recognise that reform must be workable. A law that exists to protect people should not also leave them stranded.

We do not believe the Act should be ignored or avoided, but nor should it be treated as beyond criticism. We believe in engaging with it honestly, recognising its flaws while still standing by the need for stronger safety, accountability, and protection for residents. We owe that not just to our clients, but to the memory of those who lost their lives in Grenfell.

At PCS Legal, we are committed to helping clients navigate the challenges of the Building Safety Act, not because it is easy, but because it matters. We believe in regulation that works, and we support changes that keep people safe. But we also call for clarity, practicality, and reform where the law makes things harder than they need to be.

Grenfell exposed not just physical failings, but moral ones. It reminded us that the absence of regulation can have a devastating human cost. That is why, however frustrating some parts of the Building Safety Act may be, its existence is vital, and why we believe it is our professional and ethical responsibility to uphold it, while also pushing for the improvements it so clearly needs.