Stay Ahead, Stay Compliant. Navigate the Building Safety Act with Confidence

Hello, and thank you all for joining us today. I’m Lisa from SFG20, and I’m joined by guest speakers Rachel Davidson and Mark Whittaker. I’ll hand over to them in just a moment to introduce themselves.

While we wait for everyone to join the webinar, please feel free to use the chat function, which you’ll find at the bottom centre of your screen. If you open that, you can enter any questions you have for our panellists today. I’ll put as many of them live to Rachel and Mark as possible, and any we don’t have time to answer today, we’ll follow up on by email to all registrants.

Make sure you stick around for the full 45 minutes, because at the end, we’ll offer you a Building Safety Act checklist. It’s full of valuable, up-to-date tips on your responsibilities and how to comply.

So, let’s say hello to our two guest speakers today. Rachel, would you like to start by introducing yourself?

Rachel Davidson:

Thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Rachel Davidson, Director of Specialist Knowledge at the Building Engineering Services Association. We’re a trade body and membership organisation representing over 800 building services engineering contractors.

My role within the group focuses on leading our work around the Building Safety Act. I support our members in understanding their obligations under the building safety regime and in meeting the associated compliance requirements. I’m looking forward to the webinar and hope you find it valuable.

Lisa Hamilton:

Great, thanks so much, Rachel. Over to you, Mark.

Mark Whittaker:

Thanks, Lisa. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the webinar.

I’m Mark Whittaker. I wear two hats, really. I’m the General Manager at Thomson FM, a facilities management consultancy. We’ve been in business for around 22 years, with 15 staff, and we offer a broad range of consultancy support to both FM providers and client-side organisations across various requirements.

My other role is as Chair of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management—IWFM, as we like to call it. I’ve held that role for nearly four years, been on the board for six years, and served as a regional volunteer for about 15 years.

Lisa Hamilton:

Thank you. So I think it’s fair to say that we’re in safe hands today on this topic.

Thank you both for joining us to share your knowledge. Last month, I met Dame Judith Hackitt and we spoke about the FM industry’s progress towards meeting the requirements of the Building Safety Act. We’re going to refer to three clips from that interview, then turn to our panellists for their perspectives.

Let’s play Video One, please.

Dame Judith Hackitt:

The remit I was given by the then Secretary of State was to look at the regulatory system that was in place and identify what had gone wrong.

In less than 12 months, I was able to conclude that the regulatory system had failed, and as a result of that, poor practice was widespread. So none of the specific findings associated with Grenfell that came out of the public inquiry should have come as a surprise to people.

I had identified six years before then that those things were happening — and they were happening far more widely than just Grenfell. It was by no means a one-off, and it wasn’t just about cladding. Those poor practices in looking after buildings and everything to do with that were clear to me from every conversation I had with people.

Lisa Hamilton:

Rachel, let’s turn to you first. I know you’ve been doing some work in your role at BESA about awareness of the Building Safety Act. Can you talk to us about some of your findings?

Rachel Davidson:

Yes, sure. Listening to Dame Judith there and reflecting on the three years since the Act was introduced, I want to start on a positive note. I don’t think we should forget the positives. There’s been significant innovation and collaboration across the sector — more than I’ve seen at any other time in my career.

But I know there’s still more to do. There’s still a large proportion of non-compliance and poor practices, particularly around how buildings are designed, constructed, managed, and maintained.

We work in an industry where cash is king, which leads to cost and speed being prioritised over safety and quality.

Last year, at BESA, we wanted to get a factual understanding of the industry’s awareness of the Building Safety Act. Of those who were aware of the Act, what was their understanding of their roles and responsibilities? What measurable steps had companies taken to ensure compliance?

The findings were very revealing. We surveyed over 20,000 mechanical, electrical, and plumbing contractors and held 12 in-person regional forums.

Some key statistics stood out. 88% of respondents were at least somewhat aware of the Act, which was encouraging. However, only one in ten understood their dutyholder roles and responsibilities, and just 9% of businesses reported making significant changes in their practices.

What shocked me the most was the lack of client engagement. Many building owners were either unaware of the Act or actively ignoring it. As a result, the contracting chain had seen no real behavioural change — they were still facing aggressive tenders and pressure to cut corners.

We wanted to understand more about why this was happening. We found that poor practices tend to stem from three main issues. First, some people simply choose not to do the right thing. That’s where the Building Safety Regulator needs to step in and enforce the rules, because some will only change under threat of legal action.

Second, some people don’t have access to the information they need to understand their responsibilities. That’s where trade associations like BESA and institutions like IWFM have a key role to play in educating the sector. We’ve produced guidance on roles and responsibilities that we’re happy to share after the webinar.

Third, some individuals and organisations lack the competence to carry out their tasks. So we need more education and training to build that competence and accelerate the pace of change.

Before I hand over to Mark, my reflection is this:

how do we change the culture of poor practice? It’s so deeply ingrained. But a good place to start is by understanding your own role and responsibilities. We also need to showcase good practices to encourage good behaviours.

The Building Safety Regime applies to all buildings. At its core, it’s about designing, constructing, and maintaining buildings in line with the building regulations. We need to appoint competent people and capable organisations — and when we do that, we get better outcomes.

It might sound simple, but why wouldn’t we do that?

Lisa Hamilton:

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Rachel. Let's head over to Mark.

From an FM perspective, Mark, obviously, you’ve got those two hats as a consultant and Chair of IWFM. How widespread do you think some of the issues are that Dame Judith highlighted?

Mark Whittaker:

 

Thank you. I think, in short—and in all honesty—they are very widespread. I’ll come on to that in a second because there were a couple of threads in what Rachel was saying that I think are really pertinent from an FM perspective and deserve emphasis.

A lot of people in FM are daunted by the Building Safety Act and the scale of what it involves. Understanding where they fit into it and what their responsibilities are can feel overwhelming.

Some choose to ignore it, as Rachel mentioned, while others try to get clued up on what’s required. I think it’s worth saying that IWFM has been actively involved in consultations with government about the implementation of the Building Safety Act. I’ll come back to that later when we talk about resources IWFM has developed to help members.

But if we take a step back and look at good industry practice—and not just what’s required under the Act, but what should be happening anyway—there are still gaps. Things that really should be in place are still missing.

This webinar gives me a bit of a platform to raise these issues without boring people to tears. These are things I’ve been highlighting for years. As a consultancy, we encounter these problems time and again.

First is the accuracy of asset information. Having accurate, up-to-date data is absolutely essential. Good maintenance records are another key area where we regularly see shortfalls.

There also needs to be adequate training in the areas required under the Act. The good news is, there are experts out there who can help facilities managers understand what’s required and what responsibilities fall on building owners versus FM teams.

It’s important to remember that not all responsibility falls solely on the FM’s shoulders. You can—and should—bring in specialists to help. For example, fire safety experts are increasingly being brought in to offer that advice.

Another area that can’t be underestimated is compliance reporting. It’s essential.

Working with building owners on a comprehensive safety management plan is also crucial.

Finally, there’s the creation and maintenance of good building information. I know some people are daunted by that. I’ve spoken with organisations recently who’ve been inundated with requests to get this information together—information that often isn’t readily available.

It’s about balance. Understanding and prioritising your responsibilities is the first step. Then you can start implementing good industry practice. As a whole, I think the industry still has a way to go. But that needs to change.

Lisa Hamilton:

Okay, thank you, Mark. Let’s turn to Video Two.

Dame Judith Hackitt:

One of the things I hear a lot is people coming up with long work lists. It feels a bit like the hospital waiting list problem. If you just measure how many things need to be fixed, there’s a real risk that you focus on managing the numbers rather than managing the risk—which is what you should be doing.

Doing one thing might take a huge chunk of risk out of the system, leaving a lot of smaller tasks that can be handled later. On the other hand, you might fix 20 minor things and not reduce the overall risk much at all.

It’s really important to prioritise the actions that make the most difference.

Lisa Hamilton:

A clear message there—it’s about risk and focus. Rachel, if I come to you first, how clued up do you think building owners are about their responsibilities and their ultimate accountability for building safety?

Rachel Davidson:

Based on our research and industry engagement, it’s clear that many building owners—especially those with buildings below the HRB threshold—are less aware of their legal responsibilities than the rest of the supply chain.

There’s definitely more work to do in this area. Building owners have a range of critical responsibilities under the Building Safety Act. These legal duties cannot be passed down through the contractual supply chain as they might have been in the past. So, building owners must understand their roles in order to manage their risk effectively.

They’re required to take reasonable steps to prevent and manage building safety risks—particularly around fire safety and structural integrity. And once a building is occupied, a proactive maintenance regime becomes essential.

If you don’t have a proper maintenance plan, how can you effectively manage risk? And more importantly, how will you prove that your building is regularly maintained, your systems are in order, and your safety-critical features have been prioritised?

This includes using compliant materials and ensuring that training and competency are addressed. There’s a lot to do, and if building owners fail to meet their obligations, they could face criminal charges in the event of an incident.

Procurement is crucial here—ensuring you engage quality contractors and suppliers. Many building owners don’t have all the necessary skills and knowledge in-house, so they need to bring that expertise in.

Technology and data-driven tools also play a huge role—not just in tracking safety performance and identifying hazards, but in proving that maintenance regimes are running effectively. Ultimately, this helps building owners optimise asset performance and reduce risk.

As a trade association, BESA is launching an education campaign aimed at building owners. They are duty holders under the Act and must know their responsibilities, engage with a quality supply chain, and put effective measures in place to improve compliance.

By working more closely together across the supply chain, we can help reduce building owners’ risks, keep buildings safer, and protect the health and wellbeing of occupants.

Lisa Hamilton:

Yeah, we hear time and time again that building owners think they can outsource their risk. But actually, that’s a fallacy. You can outsource the work, but you remain accountable for that work. So it’s about making sure you work with reputable contractors and audit whether they’re doing what they’ve committed to.

Mark, over to you. How do you think FMs are feeling about all the changes brought about by the Building Safety Act?

Mark Whittaker:

It goes back to the point I made earlier, Lisa—there’s a definite sense of being daunted. There’s a big gap between where many FMs are now and where they need to be, and it can feel overwhelming trying to work out how to bridge that gap—especially when you add budget pressures into the mix.

Rachel spoke about building owners trying to outsource risk, and I think there’s a similar dynamic in FM. Sometimes, FM professionals also try to push that risk down the supply chain—particularly when it comes to compliance.

That’s something we’ve got to address. I want to share some figures from recent data, which I know came from SFG20 and was covered in Facilitate Magazine. These numbers illustrate how far we still need to go.

According to the data, 34% of respondents said they don’t update their asset registers, and only 9% thought their asset registers were fully up to date. That means 81% are likely not working from current records—which is quite frightening.

On top of that, 31% still use spreadsheets to manage their asset data.

It’s a massive issue. But SFG20 recently published a checklist that highlights three key actions, which I think are absolutely vital.

First is creating an accurate asset register. That’s the foundation. Everything else is built on that.

Second is having a robust way to audit contracted works and review the associated documentation. It’s not enough to just assume that work is being done correctly—you have to verify it.

And third is tracking that work through detailed maintenance records. It’s about being able to demonstrate compliance.

There are tools that can help. I’m not doing a sales pitch here, but using something like SFG20, which is recognised as an industry standard, is a way to ensure your specifications and records align with good practice.

For the 31% still using spreadsheets, you really need to think about transferring that data into a CAFM system. That allows you to generate PPM plans aligned with SFG20 and manage your compliance reporting more effectively.

There’s another point that Dame Judith made that really stuck with me—it’s not just about spending money. It’s about identifying your highest areas of risk and dealing with those first. You need a risk register, and you need to be recording the actions being taken to mitigate those risks.

That visibility is essential. You can’t have this information scattered everywhere. It needs to be centralised and easy to access.

So, from an FM perspective, those are some of the key areas we need to focus on. But again, there are tools, resources, and support out there. FMs don’t need to figure this all out on their own.

Lisa Hamilton:

Okay, thank you, Mark. So don’t be an ostrich—don’t bury your head in the sand. But also, don’t feel overwhelmed by the changes that need to happen.

Thank you for introducing SFG20 there, Mark. It feels like a good opportunity to launch a quick poll.

We’re going to offer attendees the chance to speak with one of our experts to learn more about the SFG20 software, which is how you access the SFG20 standard.

And I can’t stress enough how important it is to access the standard through our software. If you’re accessing SFG20 content in your CAFM that hasn’t been updated for 12 months or more—and we know this happens—or if you’re still working from outdated paper-based versions of SFG20, you’re potentially falling off the standard.

You might think you’re doing the right thing, but you’re exposing yourself to risk. On average, there are around 700 updates made to the SFG20 standard every year. So please make sure you’ve got an active licence and are accessing the latest version via our platform.

Our experts are happy to walk you through how the software works, what it looks like, and how it can benefit you.

Maybe you want to better understand the standard itself. It’s written and maintained by our team of technical authors—all qualified engineers who’ve worked hands-on in the field. They write the guidance in a way that’s practical, digestible, and easy for engineers to use.

Okay, I think that’s enough about that—thank you for your interest. Let’s go straight to Video Three.

Dame Judith Hackitt:

In your role as Chair of the Industry Safety Steering Group, what improvements are you seeing in building safety culture?

There’s a lot happening. A lot of people are trying to drive the right behaviours and support others in delivering those behaviours.

But I go back to my experience with other regulatory frameworks. Sometimes, even with the best intentions, the sheer amount of guidance from sources other than the regulator can become part of the problem. It can make people feel like it’s all too complicated—and they don’t know where to start.

One of the things we try to do through the Industry Safety Steering Group is to keep pushing people to think logically and to act proportionately.

For me, the biggest disappointment right now is that doing all of this—particularly thinking logically and making sound judgments—requires competence.

And we know the problem isn’t just about the volume of guidance. It’s about a widespread lack of competence across the sector.

Despite all the great work done over the last six or seven years to develop competence frameworks—and those who’ve led that work have done an outstanding job—the uptake of those frameworks is not where it needs to be.

So, one thing the whole industry needs to do is to look at its people—assess their competence—and start investing in building both competence and confidence.

Because when people are competent, they make better decisions. And better decisions cost less in the long run, compared to interpreting the rules to the nth degree and over-compensating unnecessarily.

Lisa Hamilton:

Some reasons to be cheerful there—Dame Judith talking about positive moves within the industry, all hinging on competence.

Rachel, can I ask you first:

how do you define competence?

Rachel Davidson:

In the context of the Building Safety Act, it creates the power to prescribe competence requirements for duty holder roles. These include the principal designer, principal contractor, contractors—and clients, too, who are also duty holders. Clients need to verify the competence of those carrying out work, including ongoing maintenance for all buildings.

The competence regime applies to both individuals and organisations. One of the most common questions we get asked is:

how do you measure and assess competence?

For individuals, competence means being able to demonstrate what’s referred to as SKEB—Skills, Knowledge, Experience, and Behaviours.

You have to show that you’re competent to carry out the duties assigned to you. That also means refusing to take on work that’s beyond your abilities. It means making sure the work you or your employees do complies with all relevant requirements—and refusing to carry out any non-compliant work.

This all depends on the organisation having a culture where individuals feel empowered to do that.

One area we definitely need more guidance on is how to practically measure and assess competence. That’s something BESA is currently working on. Because competence isn’t just about holding a qualification—it’s about maintaining a portfolio of evidence. Your skills can be measured through formal training, but your experience should also be backed up with project evidence and your CV.

Behaviours are harder to measure because they’re observed. But taking responsibility for your own CPD is a good example of a positive behaviour.

So, if you’re managing competence across your business, your competence management systems now need to be more comprehensive. And they need to be up to date—just like your maintenance regimes. Because you never know when you’ll need to demonstrate that someone on your team was qualified to do a particular job.

At the organisational level, competence is defined in the Act as having the right organisational capability. That means having the policies, procedures, systems, and resources in place to meet your obligations. And it’s not just about ticking a box—you need to live and breathe those processes.

It also includes how you manage the competence of employees, subcontractors, and your wider supply chain. How do you monitor and oversee work on site?

There’s now far more emphasis on recording, reporting, and retaining this kind of information.

The Building Safety Act hasn’t brought in lots of technical changes—it’s more operational and procedural in nature. But it means we need to be much more rigorous in how we prove compliance.

I agree with Dame Judith that we need to accelerate our efforts to improve competence. And we need learning environments that are engaging, personalised, and flexible.

Competence should start with individuals taking responsibility for their own learning. And organisations must provide the tools and opportunities for people to upskill.

At BESA, we offer a wide range of free online CPD courses through the BESA Academy. They’re open to the whole industry, flexible, and available on demand.

But we need more investment in training—especially in the building services engineering sector.

The Industry Safety Steering Group is doing great work on standardised SKEB statements and clear routes to competence. But there’s still a gap—particularly for service and facilities personnel.

So, we’re working on a practical SKEB toolkit to help plug that gap while those broader frameworks are still being developed.

There will be one for each occupation to support the sector.

Lisa Hamilton:

Thank you, Rachel. It’s clearly a hot topic—there’s already a side conversation happening in the chat about how decades of underinvestment in people have led to this point. So it’s great to hear that BESA is working on new support materials.

Mark, let me turn to you. Why do you think uptake of these competency frameworks is still low? And what is your organisation doing to foster competence?

Mark Whittaker:

Thanks, Lisa. A bit of a daft analogy came to mind while listening to the interview—it’s that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I think that applies here. There’s a lot of information available, but the motivation or resources to take advantage of it aren’t always there.

From an IWFM perspective, we’ve been involved in implementing the Building Safety Act from the beginning. We’re part of the Building Safety Alliance and continue to contribute to that work.

There’s a dedicated page on the IWFM website full of relevant links and resources. That includes guidance papers specifically for facilities managers to help them understand their responsibilities.

We also run training courses. In July, for example, we’re running a course on how to evidence organisational capability. We’ve also got a course focused on what FMs need to know and do under the Building Safety Act.

It’s all about making that information accessible and relevant, and helping people take action.

From a consultancy perspective at Thomson FM, we support clients with everything from asset collection and condition surveys to aligning maintenance strategies with the latest version of SFG20.

Because we’re aware of how frequently those updates happen—we have to stay on top of it ourselves to give the best advice.

We help clients develop PPM plans that meet their requirements, and we work with them to optimise their CAFM systems. A lot of clients have systems they’re barely using—maybe 10% of functionality—because the person who managed it has left or the data is out of date.

So, we support them in moving that asset data out of spreadsheets and into the system, which allows for evidence-based compliance and up-to-date reporting.

We also work closely with specialist partners—fire safety, structural engineers, and others—to give our clients access to technical input when needed.

Another area we support is documentation—technical libraries and standard operating procedures. Those are vital for demonstrating competence without creating an admin burden.

It’s about making sure those records are accessible, up to date, and reflective of actual good practice.

So, there’s plenty being done, but the sector needs to continue investing. We, as industry representatives, need to keep calling for that investment—and for consistent, high standards across the board.

That’s how we ensure compliance with the Building Safety Act and drive meaningful change.

Lisa Hamilton:

Thank you very much, Mark. We’re going to put our next poll up now. This is to give you the opportunity to receive our latest Building Safety Act checklist. It’s packed with useful, bite-sized information—practical guidance on roles, responsibilities, and how to get started with compliance.

We’ll also share the link in the chat to the full Dame Judith interview. It includes her predictions for the future of building safety, outlines the responsibilities of maintenance teams, and explains how they can transition to meet the new requirements. Dame Judith also shares her view on the role of the Building Safety Regulator and more. So I’d really encourage you to take the time to watch it.

Now we’ve got some questions coming in. One person’s just posted:

“Mark W. has done more than anyone to promote FM over the past 20 years—you should be proud.” Nice shout-out there!

Mark Whittaker:

That wasn’t my brother Simon, was it?

Lisa Hamilton:

We’ve also heard from Nathan Wood. He says that as an SME, they appear to be ahead of the curve on competence and compliance—thanks to BESA’s support—and are now spending a lot of time educating their major clients about SKEB and compliance.

Nathan asks:

“What facility is there for anonymous whistleblowing when SMEs uncover gaps in a client’s compliance? Would this be through hazard awareness notices or non-conformance notices?”

Rachel Davidson:

I can give my view on that. I know Nathan’s company well—it’s a BESA member and a high-quality contractor. If contractors are undertaking maintenance or project work and they uncover non-compliance on the part of a client, the first step is to communicate those concerns in writing.

That communication should outline the risks and propose mitigation measures. If that doesn’t prompt action—and if the risks remain—it can be escalated.

If the building is below the HRB threshold, you can report the issue to the local authority. There’s an online form you can use for that.

If the building is a higher-risk building, then the concern should be reported to the Building Safety Regulator.

What’s critical is documenting the issue, informing the client, and offering a risk mitigation plan. You can’t force the client to act, but if the risk is serious, you have a duty of care to escalate the matter.

Lisa Hamilton:

Thank you, Rachel. And with that, we’re just about out of time.

A big thank you to both Rachel and Mark for joining us today, for giving up your time, and for sharing so much valuable insight.

We, the hosts and panellists, will now switch off our cameras and microphones, but we’re going to leave the chat open for another five minutes. So if you’ve got any final questions, feel free to post them—we’ll respond by email afterward.

Someone asked whether there’ll be a certificate of attendance. Yes, we’ll make sure you receive one that you can share on LinkedIn or elsewhere.

Thanks again to everyone for joining us today.

Mark Whittaker:

Thank you.

Rachel Davidson:

Thank you.