Beyond Compliance: Why Getting it Right First Time Is the Only Real Protection Under the Building Safety Act

For decades, the construction industry operated within a relatively predictable framework for liability. Defects were typically governed by a 12-month defects liability period and a statutory limitation period of 12 years. Projects were completed, time passed, limitation periods expired, and often, liability remained contained. That is no longer the case. 

The Building Safety Act fundamentally altered the legal landscape — extending liability further back in time and further up the corporate chain than many developers and contractors ever anticipated. Two landmark court decisions, the most recent handed down just weeks ago, have made clear just how far those implications will reach. 

The question for anyone starting a project today is whether they are prepared for what those changes mean in practice. 

The ground has shifted

The first major change came through Section 135 of the Building Safety Act, which amended the Defective Premises Act 1972. For buildings completed before 28 June 2022, limitation periods were extended retrospectively to 30 years. For works completed after that date, the limitation period is now 15 years. Buildings long assumed to be beyond legal reach became potential liabilities overnight.

BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd, decided in December 2024, was the first significant award under the extended limitation period, resulting in damages of £14.4 million for fire safety defects on a development completed in 2004.

The second major change came through the introduction of Building Liability Orders (BLOs) under Section 130 of the Building Safety Act. These orders allow liability for defective construction works and design services to be extended to associated entities, including parent and group companies.

In Crest Nicholson v Ardmore, decided by the TCC in April 2026, Building Liability Orders were granted against group companies despite the contracting entity having entered administration. Folding an SPV after project completion is no longer the clean exit it once appeared to be. Ardmore appealed. The appeal was swiftly dismissed, with the court refusing additional time to pay and requiring the £14.9 million award to be satisfied within 14 days. The message from the courts could not be much clearer. Neither time nor corporate structure offers the protection it once did.

The industry understands the problem. So why are we still focusing on the wrong thing? 

Awareness of these legal developments is growing. But awareness and action are two very different things.  Across the industry there remains a tendency to view compliance as something that can be addressed towards the end of a project. Many teams still believe that if they build a quality asset, compliance will naturally follow. The reality is more complicated than that. The industry’s attention has largely been consumed by Gateway 2. Understandably so. Approval timelines, regulator capacity and project delays have dominated discussion over the past two years. 

But Gateway 2 is not where the greatest risk lies. The real challenge is Gateway 3, where developers must demonstrate that the completed building has been constructed in accordance with the approved design and complies with the Building Regulations.  This is no longer an exercise in handing over information held on file, but rather an exercise in demonstrating compliance through provision of evidence. And evidence cannot be created retrospectively. 

The processes, inspections, records and quality controls required to support Gateway 3 need to be built into a project from the outset. Yet on many schemes, they remain an afterthought. As the regulator continues to establish and refine its approach, the burden of demonstrating compliance is increasingly shifting to the industry itself. And this is not simply a legacy issue. 

It would be convenient to believe that the cases currently working their way through the courts are purely a reckoning for historic projects. That is not what we are seeing on the ground today.

Compliance is about proof 

The Building Safety Act does not explicitly mention quality assurance.  But in practice, quality assurance is the mechanism through which the Act’s requirements are delivered. The Act is not really asking for more paperwork. It is asking for proof. 

• Can you demonstrate that the building was constructed in accordance with the approved design? 
• Can you demonstrate compliance with all relevant legislation? 
• Can you evidence the decisions made throughout construction? 
• Can you prove that the completed building is safe for occupation? 

Those questions can only be answered if the right information has been captured throughout the life of the project. 

The golden thread must be created in real time, as construction progresses. It cannot be reconstructed after the event. A missing record is not simply an administrative issue. It may become a critical weakness in the event of a claim ten or fifteen years from now. There is also an important question about who is carrying out the checking. Many developers rely on warranty providers to undertake inspections as part of the warranty process. But warranty providers are ultimately providing an insurance product. Their role and objectives are different. 

Independent oversight serves a different purpose entirely.  Its sole function is to verify that what is being built matches what was designed, specified and approved, and to identify issues before they become defects, claims, and long-term liabilities.  Gateway 3 ultimately requires developers to demonstrate that the completed building complies with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations and is safe for those who will occupy it.  Without robust quality assurance and independent verification throughout construction, that becomes significantly harder.

Why experience matters 

While the UK industry is still adapting to the Building Safety Act, Ireland has operated under a comparable compliance regime since the introduction of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations in 2014. 

For more than a decade, Catalyst has been helping clients navigate that environment. We have seen what successful compliance looks like. More importantly, we have seen where projects struggle. The common theme is rarely poor intent. It is usually poor preparation. 

Projects that succeed treat compliance, quality assurance and record keeping as part of delivery from day one. Projects that struggle often attempt to assemble evidence at the end of the process, when the opportunity to capture it properly has already passed. 

Getting it right first time is your best defence

The courts have spoken clearly and moved quickly. Developers and contractors starting projects today are working within a 15-year liability window, and, as the cases of the last 18 months have shown, neither the passage of time nor the structure of your corporate affairs will provide the protection they once did.   

You get one chance to build it right. Make sure the right people are alongside you when you do. 

Want to learn how Catalyst can help? Get in touch.