The Building Safety Act 2022 was introduced in the wake of safety concerns for occupants of high-rise buildings after the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The legislation is intended to improve the design, construction and management of higher-risk buildings. It came into force from 1 April 2023.

provides an overview of the Act. The Act contains six parts and eleven Schedules addressing a range of issues relating to building safety and standards, with the intentions of the new legislation being to:

•	Secure the safety of people in or about buildings and 

•	Improve the design, construction and management of higher-risk buildings and

•	Improve the standards of fire safety within the buildings

The Act makes a number of changes to existing legislation, most notably the Building Act 1984.

 establishes a new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive.

deals with amendments to the Building Act 1984 as it applies to England and Wales, and defines the scope and provisions for the regime during the design and construction phase for higher-risk buildings. It also provides for the registration of building inspectors and building control approvers to better regulate and improve competence levels in the building control sector.

 is concerned with higher-risk residential buildings in England when they are occupied and defines the scope of the regime for higher-risk buildings in occupation. It defines and places duties on the Accountable Person (the duty holder in occupation) in relation to building safety risks in their building.

 details other provisions, including those relating to service charges, remediation and redress, and changes to the Fire Safety Order. It also includes provisions to require a New Homes Ombudsman scheme to be established, and powers to make provision for regulation of construction products for the UK. It allows disciplinary orders made against architects by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Architects Registration Board to be listed alongside an architect’s entry in the Register of Architects. It also removes the "democratic filter" which requires social housing residents wishing to escalate a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman to do this via a "designated person" or wait eight weeks.

 contains the technical sections related to the Act, including Crown application and provision for liability of officers.

The Act also acts as the vehicle for wider improvements including changes to the Architects Act 1997, the Housing Act 1996, and provisions to establish a National Regulator for Construction Products and a New Homes Ombudsman. And it takes forward further changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Fire Safety Order or FSO), building on the Fire Safety Act 2021. 

It applies in general to new or existing occupied buildings over 18 metres high or seven storeys or more, which contain at least two residential units. The design, refurbishment, and construction requirements also apply to care homes and hospitals meeting the same height threshold. The Act will also have implications on all buildings as it will make the Building Safety Regulator responsible for the performance of the building control sector to ensure standards are met, and for setting building standards.

The Act will focus on the following key areas:

•	The safety and standards of all buildings

•	Assuring the safety of higher-risk buildings, both in construction and occupation

•	Improving the competence of the people responsible for overseeing, managing, and delivering works to higher-risk buildings

•	Ensuring clearer standards and guidance

•	Putting residents at the heart of a new system of building safety

The legislation sits alongside other measures introduced in response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry and current legislation, including:

•	The Fire Safety Act 2021, which requires all responsible persons to assess, manage and reduce fire risks in residential buildings (including in relation to external walls and cladding)

•	The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which requires those who own, manage or operate a business to manage fire safety and fire risk within the business. This includes the identification of a “Responsible Person or Persons”. Where there is more than one Responsible Person, then Responsible Persons must cooperate and coordinate to ensure that duties are met. Other duties include:

o Carrying out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment (FRA)

o	Action on significant findings within the FRA and communication of relevant information from the FRA to employees and other relevant persons

o	Put in place and maintain appropriate fire safety measures

o	Develop and implement an emergency plan

o	Provide staff and other relevant persons with information, instruction and where applicable, training

The requirements set out in the Building Safety Act 2022 will affect building owners / managers and the built environment industry. This includes those who commission building work and who participate in the design and construction process, including clients, designers, and contractors.

The Act identifies an “Accountable Person”. The Accountable Person (building owner, freeholder, or management company) will have an ongoing duty to assess building safety risks and provide a ‘Safety Case Report’ which demonstrates how building safety risks are being identified, mitigated, and managed on an ongoing basis. They will also have to demonstrate how they are ensuring residents’ safety. In buildings where ownership structures are complex, there may be more than one Accountable Person, in which case there will be a Principal Accountable Person. This will include the requirement for a “Golden Thread of Information” which requires the keeping of vital up-to-date information about the fire safety design and fire safety controls relevant to the building stored digitally to ensure that Accountable Persons understand the fire safety requirements of the building both now and in the future to ensure the safety of the building and its occupants.

The legislation is intended to improve the design, construction and management of higher-risk buildings.

The Building Safety Act 2022

How much time and money do you spend on learning and development? How much value do you put on supporting the personal and professional growth of your team?

It’s time to review what developmental activities can do, not only for your people but also for the organisation.

The obvious reason to offer training to your team is to build their skill levels and enable them to undertake their daily duties more competently. Technical training starts from the very second employees join the organisation and we often underestimate the value a thorough induction can add. 

Try not to overload your new starter and always remember that everyone learns at a different pace and in different ways. Educate yourself and your more senior team members on different teaching methods and regularly check in with your new recruit.

This also goes for other technical training that may lead to tickets or qualifications. Don’t assume that everyone is happy and able to sit in a classroom or learn a new skill that’s alien to them. Continuous evaluation and assessment of the process is important.

This is an often overlooked area of professional development, and yet so important when trying to improve the way you work.

Project management, leadership, ISO, the list goes on. Identify what areas will bring the most benefits to the individual and the organisation. Soft skill training shouldn’t be prescribed – it should be agreed upon!

Your team will also benefit from personal skill development, which they are then able to apply at work. Don’t dismiss calls for further education, or additional qualifications in seemingly unrelated areas. Have someone who wants to attend a counselling course? Maybe they can be your new mental health first aider! Someone wants to diversify their career focus? That doesn’t mean they will neglect their day-job or leave. It’s likely they will show appreciation for being supported on a more personal level, which will reflect in their engagement and commitment.

SSG offer a variety of learning and development opportunities you may want to consider for your team. Please contact our customer service team or your consultant for recommendations.

The importance of development

May is mental health awareness month but despite having a better understanding of the dangers of stress in the workplace, we as a nation are still very much affected by stress.

And there is still a misconception of how to identify and deal with stressors at work, with now 78% of workers reporting they would happily throw in the towel if they were exposed to high levels of stress: 

So, considering the impact high employee turnover has on any organisation and its employees, it is more important than ever to have open conversations around stress prevention and take appropriate steps to ensure all team members feel fulfilled, challenged but not pressured to a point of exhaustion.

Discuss with your team what the difference is between stress and pressure. Change the language you use! Being under pressure is not a bad thing and completely normal. It can challenge us in a positive way and make us perform better and lead to better results.

Stress is the negative emotion we feel when pressure is not controlled. The best analogy for this is the Mental Health First Aid England stress container:

Consider sharing this with your team and discussing how we can all take better care of our mental wellbeing and ensure we have a ‘pressure release’ in place.

Rather than having general conversations around how stressful things may be in general, ask your team to be specific and help you risk assess tasks, processes and the working environment. The HSE stress management standard can provide you with the right tools for this process – or simply ask your SSG H&S Consultant!

Don’t forget to keep checking in. Don’t be afraid to mention ‘the S-word’. It’s normal to experience stress and it shouldn’t be taboo to talk about it. Employers are often afraid to open the floodgates by asking. But in this case no news is not good news.

Stress v pressure – the latest figures

Claimant was required to work 11-hour days without access to frequent toilet breaks, despite transport firm agreeing to make reasonable adjustments.

 has ruled that a bus driver with Crohn's disease soiled himself while working because he had to work 11-hour shifts and was denied frequent access to breaks.

His employer, Midland Red South, failed to make reasonable adjustments to the claimant’s shifts, despite an occupational health report from 2016 making clear recommendations about his working requirements. 

The claimant said he suffered a “huge amount of humiliation” following the events.

The judge agreed to withhold the claimant’s name because of the sensitive details discussed in the tribunal. The claimant was awarded almost £29,000 for injury to feelings.

The claimant had worked as a bus driver at the firm for more than 30 years at the Nuneaton depot. He experiences Crohn's disease and in 2016 attended an occupational health meeting to assess his condition. It determined he had a substantial health issue and a report stated that it was a serious condition.

The occupational health report made three recommendations: that he should have a predictable work pattern with an opportunity to have meals three times a day and an opportunity to take his tablets at the same time, regular toilet breaks, and to not work shifts of more than eight hours.

A break in routine could result in a flare-up of his condition, the report said, resulting in an “unpredictable and urgent need” to go to the toilet.

Following the recommendations, his employer agreed to grant him a fixed working pattern. It said every effort would be made not to change the pattern. However, in cases where it was changed, it said it would ensure that his start, finish and break times would be kept regular.

On 22 February, a meeting was held in which suitable shifts were agreed for the claimant and he was told that appropriate shifts would be implemented “within a couple of weeks”.

However, intermittently between April and June 2022, the claimant was asked to work multiple shifts that were longer than the agreed eight hours, with some lasting up to 11 hours. The claimant in some cases asked to work different shifts, but these requests were declined as he was told that it had to be “fair to other drivers” in its allocation of shifts.

From June, he was then asked to work inappropriate shifts of 11 hours again. He raised a grievance on 4 June but did not receive a response until 5 July.

He received the grievance outcome on 2 August, which determined he had been allocated unsuitable shifts and was instead offered shifts that met his requirements. However, these shifts were not implemented until mid-August.

Consequently, the tribunal determined: “We find that the claimant did soil himself as a result of his working unsuitable shifts. The claimant gave evidence to this effect, stating that he had ‘shit himself’ and that his attempts to work the unsuitable shifts resulted in him soiling himself.”

However, his employer denied that he ever soiled himself and its witnesses claimed that no incident of this nature was ever raised with them by the claimant.

The tribunal sided with the claimant on this matter, accepting his claims that “he found it difficult and embarrassing to discuss his condition”, and the tribunal said “it is therefore unsurprising that he chose not to raise these incidents with his supervisor”.

Additionally, the claimant said he found the process of having to continually ask for adjustments “exasperating” and that he felt a “huge amount of humiliation” at having to repeatedly make requests.

Employment judge Routley acknowledged that Midland Red South did not act out of malice, but that it had that “prohibited effect”.

“We have considered the circumstances of the case, in that the unwanted conduct occurred against a backdrop of repeated and ongoing requests by the claimant to have his reasonable adjustments implemented, dating back a number of years.”

They said the claimant was dealing with a “chronic and unpleasant condition that took a considerable amount of effort to manage, and the impact this had on his mental wellbeing”.

“We appreciate that the claimant’s requirements for staff can change and that it needs to be able to operate its business with some degree of flexibility. However, we find that in the event that the respondent needed to change the claimant’s shifts, he should have been assigned an alternative shift that met the three criteria [of the occupational health report],” said Routley.

“This would have alleviated the disadvantage suffered by the claimant, in that he would not then have soiled himself at work.”

They also noted that, as only 10 drivers at the depot required adjustments, management could have taken responsibility for ensuring that the shifts allocated to these 10 drivers met their requirements. 

Consequently, he was awarded £25,000 for injury to feelings, plus £3,819.18 interest.