Overview

The discussion highlighted the significant legal liability placed upon amateur resident directors under the new post-Grenfell regulatory framework.

• Accountable Person Duties: For Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) (over six storeys or over 18m), the RTM company is usually the “principal accountable person” in law. The legal liability under the Building Safety Act (BSA) cannot be outsourced to a managing agent, leaving the RTM company and its directors legally responsible for non- compliance.
• Personal Penalties: Directors are subject to unlimited financial penalties. Breaches under the BSA carry a maximum two-year prison sentence, while charges of gross negligence manslaughter could result in a maximum tariff of 18 years.
• Building Safety Director: The provision for a Building Safety Director role, intended to allow RMC directors to outsource their liability to a paid third-party expert, has never been enacted into law, ensuring that liability remains with the Principal Accountable Person (PAP). Despite a public consultation closing in February 2023, the Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government have not issued secondary legislation or guidance.
• New Regulations: Our expert adviser Jon Whittaker explained the difficulties resident managers have in navigating complex new regulations, including the Building Safety Act, Fire Safety (England) Regs (FS(E)R) and the new Residential Evacuation Plans (RPEEP) regulations, which commence on April 6th, 2026.

The rise of Right to Manage (RTM) and resident management models grant autonomy to leaseholders but also impose significant legal responsibilities. Our recent Lunch & Learn webinar addressed the core question: given the vast regulatory changes post-Grenfell, is it time for resident directors to step up or step down from their management roles? The session, featuring expert Jon Whittaker from RTM Northeast, focused on helping resident directors of residential leasehold buildings navigate this complex new landscape.

Details

The Burden of Personal Liability

Post-Grenfell legislation places significant legal liability on resident directors. For Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) (those over six storeys or over 18m), the RTM company is typically designated as the “principal accountable person” in law. Resident management models, including RTM and enfranchisement, all fall under this liability structure.

Crucially, “accountable person” duties under the Building Safety Act (BSA) cannot be outsourced to a managing agent, leaving the RTM company directly responsible for compliance breaches.

• Financial and Criminal Penalties: Directors are subject to unlimited financial penalties. Breaches under the BSA carry a maximum two-year prison sentence, while charges of gross negligence manslaughter could result in a maximum tariff of 18 years. Some liability, such as under the Fire Safety Order (FSO), can be transferred to a managing agent if they are deemed to be the Responsible Person in law.
• The Unenacted Building Safety Director: The BSA primary legislation provided for a Building Safety Director role to allow resident directors to outsource their liability, but this provision has never been enacted into law. As a result, the liability remains with the Principal Accountable Person (PAP). Although some firms offer the service, Jon Whittaker confirmed he has  not seen this implemented or actioned. Matt Hodges-Long shared the TPI advice from December 2025 that there is still no legal basis for appointment of a Building Safety Director.
• Registration Compliance: Failure to register an existing HRB with the Building Safety Regulator (the deadline was September 2023) is a criminal offence. Recent research by the Building Safety Register in London indicated that 85% of blocks that should be registered have not done so..

Navigating the Post-Grenfell Regulatory Changes

The regulatory landscape now includes a new layer of complexity on top of existing rules (such as the Fire Safety Order, Health and Safety at Work Act, and regulations concerning communal boilers, lifts, and electrical wiring). This new layer includes the Building Safety Act (with over 20 subordinate regulations), the Fire Safety (England) Regs (FS(E)R), and the Residential Evacuation Plans (RPEEP) Regs, which commence on April 6th 2026.

Building Safety Act (BSA)

The BSA introduces a risk-based regime, requiring the Principal Accountable Person (PAP) in higher-risk buildings to actively demonstrate that risks are being effectively identified and managed, rather than just ticking compliance boxes.

• Compliance Requirements: The PAP must maintain a “golden thread” of digital building safety information, conduct formal resident engagement, and manage mandatory occurrence reporting. Over half of Jon Whittaker’s time is spent assisting PAPs in navigating this regime, which often involves the monumental challenge of retrospectively locating information for older buildings.
• Competence and Cost: Compliance work, including the creation of safety case reports, can be expensive and often faces pushback from neighbours regarding service charge contributions. The regulator is mandated to question the competence of the individuals preparing these reports.
• Scale of the Law: The law does not differentiate by size, treating a small HRB the same as a 50-storey block.

Fire Safety (England) Regulations (FS(E)R)

The FS(E)R is a rules-based “responsible person” regime that is graduated in its requirements on the Responsible Person by the height of the building.

• High-Rise Duties: In high-rise buildings, duties include sharing information with the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS), monthly management checks of life safety equipment, and quarterly checks of communal area fire doors.
• Fire Door Checks: The FSER mandates annual flat entrance door checks, requiring the responsible entity to demonstrate “reasonable” or “best endeavors” to gain access, including keeping records of all attempts.
• Specialist Input: While Matt Hodges-Long noted the government intended for a caretaker to be able to do FS(E)R related equipment checks, a higher level of competence is needed for the initial survey or audit of doors and other equipment. Jon Whittaker agreed that basic matters, like checking for fire stopping around the door frame, require specialist input to establish a baseline.

Residential Evacuation Plans (RPEEP) Regulations

Commencing on April 6th, 2026, RPEEP Regs apply to all HRBs and mid-rise buildings using a simultaneous evacuation strategy.

• Identification and Consent: The responsible person must make “best endeavours” to identify “relevant residents” who are evacuation-impaired. The process involves offering a person-centred fire risk assessment, an emergency evacuation statement, and sharing a summary with the local Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) – only with explicit resident consent.
• Data Protection: Data protection is a concern, as some FRS unnecessarily request the resident’s name in digital submissions when only the flat number, floor, and required assistance are legally necessary.
• Compliance Tools: Compliance is based on documenting “reasonable endeavours”. A new toolkit, consisting of ten templated assets, forms, and guidance documents, is available from the Building Safety Register to provide a cost-effective way for RMCs to comply specifically with the RPEEP regulations (support is also available with BSA and FS(E)R compliance)

Remediation, Funding and Professional Support

Assessing building safety risks frequently uncovers base build defects that RTMs are obligated to correct or risk manage in the interim.

• Funding Schemes: Available schemes include the improved Cladding Safety Scheme (for buildings 11m+ with unsafe external wall systems) and a new scheme to assist buildings needing interim measures like fire alarm installations. The Developer Pledge covers defects in buildings constructed within the last 30 years.
• Professional Advice: For developer remediation contracts, RTMs/RMCs have the right to appoint their own paid consultants or experts to monitor the project to ensure the scope of works is adequate. Professional advice to resident directors can generally be paid for out of the funding scheme as a project cost. Jon Whittaker also mentioned an unadvertised scheme where local authorities can receive a grant of up to £100,000 to fund the pursuit of a remediation contribution order (RCO).
• Tolerable Risk vs. Futureproofing: Jon Whittaker confirmed that the baseline for public funding schemes, such as the Cladding Safety Scheme, is to reduce risk to a “tolerable level,” which may not bring the building up to current standards.

Summary

There is a significant gap between the need for complex technical knowledge and the current regulation, compounded by the complexity of relationships in multi-occupancy living. Targeted training for RTM and RMC directors is limited, as much of the advice is disseminated through professional bodies like the Institute of Fire Engineers, which resident directors typically do not belong to. 

Matt Hodges-Long expressed a personal view that resident directors have been inadequately supported and that excessive liability is being placed on people untrained to perform these duties. The paramount recommendation is to secure professional help and experienced advice to achieve “regulator readiness” and navigate the requirements to avoid potential fines and legal action.

Next Steps & Resources

• RPEEP Guide & Compliance Toolkit: Matt Hodges-Long offered to provide a demonstration of the new toolkit designed for Responsible Persons to cost-effectively comply with the RPEEP regulations.
• Next Webinar: The next Lunch & Learn session will be held on the first Thursday of May and will feature a Member of Parliament who serves as a housing spokesperson. Attendees were encouraged to start submitting questions regarding building safety and housing policy.

Legal Counsel for Mixed-Use Buildings: For complex mixed-use structures, Matt Hodges-Long advised that clients should obtain legal advice to review lease documents to correctly identify the Principal Accountable Person (PAP).