The Building Safety Regime: Still Not Working for Standing Assets

There’s been a lot of attention on how the new building safety regime affects schemes under development, but for those of us dealing with standing, occupied assets, the reality is that the system is simply not working fast enough. And it’s starting to seriously hinder the ability to transact.

According to a recent parliamentary response (March 2025):

1,454 directions to apply for Building Assessment Certificates (BACs) have been issued

1,368 BAC applications have been submitted

Just 12 certificates have been issued

1 application has been refused

These are not new buildings. These are people’s homes. Residential blocks that are already occupied — many of which are trying to be refinanced, bought, or sold.

Safety is non-negotiable — but the system must function

There’s no doubt that the principles behind the Building Safety Act are the right ones. Ultimately, it is about getting it right. It’s about ensuring people are safe in their homes and that they feel safe. That’s something we all support.

But when the process to demonstrate compliance is unclear, slow, and inconsistent, we end up with a regime that undermines the very market it's meant to support.

Sellers face added complexity and slower processes in the absence of a certificate

Buyers and lenders are forced to navigate far greater uncertainty, making decisions more complex and cautious

Accountable Persons are engaging with a system that feels opaque and unpredictable.

A safety case — but to what standard?

Many building owners and advisors have invested significant time and resource into preparing detailed safety cases and resident engagement strategies. Yet in my experience the feedback from the BSR is often inconsistent and in some cases, raises questions that had not been anticipated or previously seen in other submissions.

This lack of transparency on what a "sufficient" submission looks like is creating a growing risk: that even well-prepared buildings can’t get over the line not because they’re unsafe, but because the expectations remain unclear.

The market needs answers

We need a functioning regime for standing assets. That means:

Consistency in how applications are reviewed

Transparency in what is expected

Pace in issuing outcomes — particularly where no major safety risks are identified

Right now, transaction timelines are slipping. Lenders are asking harder questions. And sellers and buyers alike are stuck in limbo. We risk creating a two-speed market: those buildings with BACs, and those without not necessarily due to safety risk, but because the system can’t keep up.

If we want to build confidence and unlock the capital needed to invest in safety and sustainability across the residential sector we need this regime to work in practice, not just on paper.

‍