The Building Safety Act 2022 ("BSA") has rightly attracted attention for its remediation provisions, but its wider impact on the landlord and tenant relationship, particularly in higher-risk buildings, should not be overlooked. Broadly, the BSA 2022 defines a higher risk building as a building in England that is at least 18 metres in height (or has at least seven storeys) and contains at least two residential units.
At its core, the BSA introduces a new regulatory framework that places building safety at the heart of property management.
The "accountable person"
For landlords, amongst other things, this means the appointment of an 'accountable person' with statutory duties to identify, assess and manage building safety risks.
This includes maintaining a safety case report and securing a building assessment certificate from the Building Safety Regulator ("BSR"). These are not administrative niceties, they are enforceable obligations with regulatory consequences.
Tenants as stakeholders
Tenants, in turn, are no longer passive recipients of safety measures. The BSA mandates a resident engagement strategy, requiring landlords to provide clear, accessible safety information and establish mechanisms for resident input. This introduces a new dynamic: tenants are now stakeholders in the building’s risk profile, with recourse to the BSR where concerns are not addressed.
Fire safety
The BSA also amends the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, expanding the obligations of the 'Responsible Person' to include sharing fire safety information. This has practical implications for landlords, particularly in multi-occupancy buildings, where communication and record-keeping must now meet a higher standard. Landlords must ensure that fire safety information is not only accurate but actively communicated.
Service charge recovery
Landlords must consider how the obligations under the BSA interact with existing lease structures. The BSA introduces various measures intended to protect the leaseholder from bearing the brunt of remedial costs via service charge under qualifying leases. Even where a landlord is able to recover costs via the service charge, recovery may be subject to caps and other restricting mechanisms which operate by reference to existing lease drafting. This raises immediate questions around lease interpretation, drafting strategy, and the potential for disputes where recovery is contested.
The BSA is not simply a regulatory development but a shift in operational risk. Landlords must now approach tenant engagement, compliance, and documentation with the same rigour traditionally reserved for rent recovery or dilapidations. Failure to do so risks not only regulatory sanction but reputational damage meaning that strategic compliance is now a core part of asset management.
The BSA reframes the landlord-tenant relationship as a partnership grounded in transparency, accountability, and shared responsibility for safety. Whilst remediation remains a key concern, the long-term legacy of the BSA may lie in how it reshapes the expectations and obligations of those who own and occupy residential buildings.
