There’s much more to high-rise building block management companies than arranging cleaners and landscaping for communal gardens, handling repair callouts, or dealing with residents’ queries or complaints. One of the most important things the best block management companies in London do is ensure compliance with the Building Safety Act (2022), and sometimes this is easier said than done.
To find out what 28,392 opinions of Right to Manage (RTM) and Resident Management Companies (RMC) in the UK were about the Building Safety Act, we utilised AI-driven audience profiling to synthesise insights from online discussions over 12 months, ending on May 19th, 2026, to a high statistical confidence level. The results paint a fascinating picture of directors striving to comply with a strictly enforced act while sometimes struggling to find practical information.
Index
- There are approximately 350,000 residential buildings in England and Wales with 30% of those or 100,000 located in London. 12,500 constitute HRB (7 storeys+ or above 18m) with 55% or 6,500 in London alone.
- 57% of RTM/RMC directors are very familiar with the Building Safety Act of 2022 and its specific obligations for high-rise buildings, 16% are somewhat familiar, and 14% familiar, yet 13% are not familiar with the Act at all
- 4 or more Accountable Persons (AP) are associated with 64% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings, while 2-3 AP are associated with 36%
- Only 2% of the buildings managed by RTM/RMC directors are on the way to being registered with the building safety regulator (BSR) as required, and 31% are in the process, but 29% didn’t realise registration was required, and 40% haven’t yet begun the process
- 10% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings are fully compliant with the Building Safety Act, 46% are partially, 17% mostly, while another 17% are in the early stages of compliance, and 10% don’t yet have a clear picture of what’s needed
- For 79% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings, undergoing a formal Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) or EWS1 assessment barely applies, but it is in progress for 10%, and another 10% have completed the appraisal and remediation work that is required
- No remediation works have been identified in 50% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings as a result of the Building Safety Act or related fire safety reviews, while works have been completed for 31%, and 9% have works that are planned and funded
- 6% of RTM/RMC directors have produced and submitted a Safety Case Report to the BSR, 67% are in the process of doing so, 10% have drafted their report but not yet submitted it, and 16% haven’t even started the process
- 20% of RTM/RMC directors have appointed a Building Safety Manager for their high-rise buildings, 40% are in the process of doing so, and 20% are relying on their managing agent to fulfil this role; however, 20% haven’t appointed anyone yet
- 37% of RTM/RMC directors use paper-based records to store the Golden Thread, but 37% are unlikely to use this method, and 26% are also unlikely to use a general document system such as SharePoint or Google Drive
- 49% of RTM/RMC directors are including right to raise safety concerns by only communicating them informally, 25% have planned to communicate them but have not yet done so, and 16% have partially informed residents formally, while 9% have not really addressed them at all
- 83% of RTM/RMC directors are navigating the Building Safety Act compliance alone, 11% are seeking support from their managing agent, 4% through legal counsel, and 3% via industry bodies and free guidance resources
- The cost of funding compliance works is somewhat challenging for 17% of RTM/RMC directors, while 33% are not really struggling with finding qualified contractors and assessors, 30% don’t really lack time or internal resources, and 20% find understanding the legal obligations not a big issue
- 34% of RTM/RMC directors have added a Building Safety levy or charge to handle the cost of compliance; costs are being disputed between 22% of leaseholders and freeholders, 22% are funding them through existing service charge reserves, and 22% haven’t yet assessed the financial impact
- 64% of RTM/RMC directors are not at all aware of the Building Safety Levy and its potential financial implications for their building, 21% are unclear of the financial impact, 8% need more information, and 7% have already factored it into planning
- 47% of RTM/RMC directors believe the Building Safety Act protects leaseholder interests in high-rise buildings, but 17% say there are gaps, 18% feel the Act is flawed, and 18% say it doesn’t protect leaseholders at all, creating more problems than it solves
- 69% of RTM/RMC directors navigating the Building Safety Act would find guidance on how to manage the relationships with the BSR the most helpful, 20% would find a step-by-step compliance timeline and checklist very helpful, and 11% want clarity on cost apportionment between leaseholders and freeholders
- Building Safety Act awareness is growing, but more guidance is needed
- About the data
Introduction
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, a significant change happened in regulating High Rise Building (HRB) with the passage of the Building Safety Act (BSA) which became effective in October 2023. The new legislation impacts how HRB are designed, constructed and managed.
There are approximately 350,000 residential buildings in England and Wales including some 4.1m flats (or units). A third of those buildings, or 100,000 are located in London alone for some 1.3m flats.
The majority of the residential buildings (70% of total) in England and Wales are what we call “low rise buildings” or buildings under 11 meters. In London that accounts for close to 70,000 buildings in total.
Approximately 25% (80,000 in England and Wales and 25,000 in London) are mid-rise buildings. These are buildings that are between 11-18 meters tall.
The minority, 12,500 buildings in England and Wales and some 6,500 in London are HRB or buildings above 18 meters. These fall under the stricter regulatory regime of the BSA.
How familiar are RTM/RMC directors with the Building Safety Act 2022 requirements for high-rise residential buildings?
57% of RTM/RMC directors are very familiar with the Building Safety Act of 2022 and its specific obligations for high-rise buildings, 16% are somewhat familiar, and 14% familiar, yet 13% are not familiar with the Act at all
Most directors have a degree of familiarity with the Act:
The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) designates high-rise buildings (at least 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys) with at least two residential units as higher-risk buildings and includes numerous obligations for these buildings’ Accountable Person (AP) or Principal Accountable Person (PAP). This person must register the building with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and show that they’ve taken all practicable steps to limit risks within buildings under the act’s scope.
For example, they must conduct regular building safety assessments, maintain safety case reports as proof of compliance and prepare an engagement strategy to ensure residents’ views are considered when making building safety decisions. They must also develop a framework and process to ensure that mandatory and voluntary occurrences are reported to the BSR.
Compliance oversight may be weakened by limited Act familiarity
Given that the act aims to improve building safety, it’s only reasonable to expect RTM/RMC directors to be familiar with it and its specific obligations for high-rise residential buildings. But this isn’t an ideal world. 57% of our audience are very familiar with the act and its obligations, as they’ve read the legislation in detail. The hope here is that, because of their familiarity with the act, they ensure their building managers comply with it.
16% are somewhat familiar with the act, indicating a general understanding. This hopefully means they encourage building managers to comply. 14% are only slightly familiar with it, saying they have heard of it but lack detail, while 13% are not familiar with it at all. This is alarming, as these RTM/RMC directors would struggle to hold building managers accountable for non-compliance, potentially putting residents at risk and exposing their companies to penalties.
There are roughly 12,500 high-rise residential buildings across England. The vast majority of these buildings are concentrated in urban centres like London, which houses more than four times the national average of high-rise homes. The growing popularity of right-to-manage and resident management companies means most RTM/RMC directors are responsible for multiple buildings.
How many Accountable Persons (APs) are associated with buildings managed by RTM/RMC directors?
4 or more accountable persons are associated with 64% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings, while 2-3 AP are associated with 36%
Most buildings have more APs:
Under Section 72 BSA 2022, an Accountable Person for a higher-risk building is either a person holding legal estate in possession in any part of the common parts (the “Estate Owner,” i.e. a building owner, landlord, or leaseholders owning a share of the freehold), or a person under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any part of the common parts (i.e. a landlord, leaseholders, or management company).
Has the building managed by RTM/RMC directors been registered with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR)?
Only 2% of the buildings managed by RTM/RMC directors are on the way to being registered with the building safety regulator as required, and 31% are in the process, but 29% didn’t realise registration was required, and 40% haven’t yet begun the process
Registration levels are not high:
As mentioned, BSA 2022 requires all higher-risk residential buildings to be registered with the BSR, but this doesn’t necessarily mean all buildings in this category managed by RTM/RMC directors have been registered.
Although they haven’t started the registration process yet, 9% are fully compliant with the act’s other requirements, while 3% are on the way to starting the process. 12% admit they’re “not quite there,” as they still have some work to do before they can register their building. 16% haven’t made any moves to register their building, likely because they recently took over managing it.
19% haven’t quite reached the stage of being able to say registration is in progress, which is slightly more promising than the 12% who reveal there’s absolutely no progress in the registration of their building. 6% say they weren’t aware that registration was required, though they’re now on their way to registering. 19% are in something of a similar boat. They weren’t aware registration was required and aren’t quite ready to begin the process. 4% weren’t aware of the requirement and aren’t at all ready to register their building. 2% are on the way to becoming fully registered with the BSR.
How do RTM/RMC directors describe their buildings’ compliance with the Building Safety Act?
10% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings are fully compliant with the Building Safety Act, 46% are partially, and 17% mostly, while another 17% are in the early stages of compliance, and 10% don’t yet have a clear picture of what’s needed
Compliance levels need addressing:
Compliance with the BSA 2022 is strictly enforced by the BSR. The regime empowers authorities to issue unlimited fines, imprisonment (up to two years), and financial penalties based on a percentage of gross annual turnover. Even so, a surprising number of buildings aren’t fully compliant with the BSA 2022.
Slightly less than half (46%) of our audience admits their buildings are only partially compliant, explaining that significant work is still needed to make them fully compliant. 17% are in the early stages or what they describe as the beginning of their compliance journey. This may be because they’ve only recently taken over the management of these buildings.
Another 17% are mostly compliant, although minor gaps remain. The implication here is that these RTM/RMC directors are actively working to close these gaps and ensure full compliance. Only 10% are fully compliant, having met all obligations. Another 10% are unsure, as they don’t have a clear picture yet, which tells us that they’re probably not fully compliant.
Has the building managed by RTM/RMC directors undergone a formal Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) or EWS1 assessment?
For 79% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings, undergoing a formal Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) or EWS1 assessment barely applies, but it is in progress for 10%, and another 10% have completed the appraisal and remediation work is required
Assessment levels are varied based on need:
Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, all multi-occupied residential buildings with two or more sets of domestic premises require a fire risk assessment that includes an assessment of the external walls. This was confirmed by the Fire Safety Act 2021.
A Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) often includes a review of cladding materials and combustibility, cavity barrier and external compartmentation inspections, insulation type and fire performance assessments, evaluations of fire stopping at balconies, openings, and penetrations, a consideration of façade geometry and fire spread potential, test evidence reviews, risk classification using PAS 9980 methodology, and recommendations for remedial measures.
Completed required safety appraisals in the minority
79% of RTM/RMC directors haven’t yet undertaken a FRAEW or EWS1 assessment, citing that it barely applies to their buildings. This appears to contradict the requirements of the legislation mentioned above.
10% explain that their FRAEW or EWS 1 assessments are in progress, even though they only apply somewhat to their buildings. The remaining 10% have completed their appraisals, with the finding that remediation works are required.
Have any remediation works been identified as a result of the Building Safety Act or related fire safety reviews?
No remediation works have been identified in 50% of RTM/RMC directors’ buildings as a result of the Building Safety Act or related fire safety reviews, while works have been completed for 31%, and 9% have works that are planned and funded
Remediation work requirements are common:
Above, some in our audience mention that their FRAEWs led to recommendations for remediation work. Taking a closer look at this topic, we find that 1% of RTM RMC directors have absolutely confirmed that no remediation works have been identified at their buildings, while 10% are uncertain if any have been identified. 40% are confident that remediation works have definitely not been identified.
According to 22%, remediation works were identified, and it is absolutely confirmed that these works have been completed. 9% aren’t as confident, as it’s likely that their works are complete. 3% are uncertain if the works identified in their buildings are complete, while 7% know their works are definitely not complete.
3% say it’s absolutely confirmed that remedial works for their buildings are planned and funded, and another 3% think this is likely the case for their buildings. The remaining 2% are uncertain whether the remedial works recommended for their buildings have been planned and funded.
According to the Fire Safety Remediation Survey – 2024-25 Quarter 4, 1,506 of the 1,897 buildings with external wall system-related and Life Critical Fire Safety defects are expected to be remediated within the next five years. This includes 256 buildings where the remediation is complete and awaiting confirmation from a building works assessment, or are due to be completed in the next six months.
Has the building managed by RTM/RMC directors produced and submitted a Safety Case Report to the BSR?
6% of RTM/RMC directors have produced and submitted a Safety Case Report to the BSR, 67% are in the process of doing so, 10% have drafted their report but not yet submitted it, and 16% haven’t even started the process
Case report compilation and submission levels vary:
Submitting safety case reports to the BSR is another legal requirement for RTM/RMC directors. However, given that we’ve seen some segments of our audience haven’t met some of the other requirements, it’s unsurprising that not everyone has done this.
Only 6% have fully completed a report, submitted it, and received acknowledgement of it from the BSR. Encouragingly, 51% are in the process of submitting their reports and receiving acknowledgement for them. 8% mention that their report preparation is now fully complete, while another 8% are currently preparing their reports for submission.
Still another 8% have completed the initial phase of preparing their reports, while yet another 8% have only started the process of generating a report. 6% have drafted reports but have yet to submit them to the BSR, and 4% are busy drafting reports. That a relatively large segment hasn’t submitted a report is in keeping with the fact that some directors are unfamiliar with the BSA 2022, while others haven’t undergone formal FRAEWs or EWS 1 assessments or completed recommended remedial work.
Have RTM/RMC directors appointed a Building Safety Manager (BSM) for their buildings?
20% of RTM/RMC directors have appointed a Building Safety Manager for their high-rise buildings, 40% are in the process of doing so, and 20% are relying on their managing agent to fulfil this role; however, 20% haven’t appointed anyone yet
Not everyone has appointed a BSM:
Building Safety Managers (BSMs) are among the most important people in blocks that have opted for RTM/RMC. Their work involves assessing and mitigating structural failure and fire risks, managing, updating, and preserving the “Golden Thread” of information (all building information, maintenance history, and safety case reports). They are also responsible for reporting any major safety occurrences to the BSR, engaging with residents, and implementing and maintaining safety management systems.
With the safety of the building and its residents at stake, it’s essential that every block managed in RTM or RMC structures has one.
Appointment status is equally split across the board
20% of RTM/RMC directors insist they’re fully compliant and are in the process of appointing a BSM, while another 20% explain that their appointment process is in progress.
20% haven’t appointed a BSM, but they’re fully compliant with other requirements and obligations. Another 20% are relying on their management agent to fulfil the role, as it’s not their approach to appoint a BSM.
The remaining 20% indicate that, while a dedicated BSM is in place, it’s not their approach to appoint someone to this role. This suggests residents and/or management agents have a say in who gets the job in their building.
How are RTM/RMC directors storing the Golden Thread?
37% of RTM/RMC directors use paper-based records to store the Golden Thread, but 37% are unlikely to use this method, and 26% are also unlikely to use a general document system such as SharePoint or Google Drive
Golden Thread storage options are not very clear:
The idea behind the Golden Thread is simple: Every higher-risk building must have a single, up-to-date and accessible record of all relevant safety and compliance information. How RTM/RMC directors store the Golden Thread varies from company to company, and not all prefer digital solutions.
37% definitely use paper-based records, which is surprising, as these can be time-consuming to complete and maintain, and could get lost, damaged, or destroyed. However, another 37% are unlikely to use paper-based records, probably for the reasons just mentioned. 26% are unlikely to use a general document management system such as SharePoint or Google Drive. This may indicate that some directors use digital data rooms for storing their buildings’ Golden Threads instead.
How are RTM/RMC directors including the right to raise safety concerns?
49% of RTM/RMC directors are including right to raise safety concerns by only communicating them informally, 25% have planned to communicate them but have not yet done so, and 16% have partially informed residents formally, while 9% have not really addressed them at all
Communications are not always clear:
Every high-rise building’s Principal Accountable Person (PAP) should have a clear process in place for raising building safety concerns, as every resident has the right to raise such concerns. Generally, after being contacted by a resident, the PAP confirms receipt, accepts the concern as relevant, or rejects it (providing a reason). If the PAP accepts the concern, they should investigate it, provide an expected timing for response, provide updates (where necessary), and provide a response detailing what they did, the resolution timeline, and how to change the response. The thing is that residents need to know how to raise safety concerns.
5% of RTM/RMC directors have informally but fully communicated how to do this, which may have happened as an aside at a residents’ meeting. 44% have communicated this informally, although they only partially addressed the topic. 16% have planned to address this fully but haven’t yet carried out their plans, while 9% have planned to communicate the right to raise safety concerns, although they’ve only addressed this partially. 16% have partially addressed the right to raise safety concerns with residents, and 9% haven’t really addressed this issue.
How are RTM/RMC directors sourcing professional support on Building Safety Act compliance?
83% of RTM/RMC directors are navigating the Building Safety Act compliance alone, 11% are seeking support from their managing agent, 4% through legal counsel, and 3% via industry bodies and free guidance resources
Most directors are navigating the Act’s requirements alone:
The many requirements of the BSA 2022 sometimes prompt RTM/RMC directors to seek professional advice and support to ensure compliance. However, this is not the case for the majority (83%) of our audience, who are largely navigating this alone. This large segment did not specify whether this was because they felt confident enough to ensure compliance on their own.
11% are sourcing professional advice and support through their managing agent, who is likely familiar with the act and its requirements. 4% have turned to their legal counsel for advice and support, while 3% rely on free guidance from industry bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Property Institute (TPI), and LEASE, the government’s Leasehold Advisory Service.
What is the biggest challenge for RTM/RMC directors in complying with the Building Safety Act?
The cost of funding compliance works is somewhat challenging for 17% of RTM RMC directors, while 33% are not really struggling with finding qualified contractors and assessors, 30% don’t really lack time or internal resources, and 20% find understanding the legal obligations not a big issue
Compliance challenges are minimal:
As some of the insights we’ve seen so far have made clear, complying with the BSA 2022 presents numerous challenges for RTM/RMC directors. While 33% mention finding qualified contractors and assessors as a challenge, they clarify that this isn’t a big issue for them. 30% identified a lack of time and internal resources, although they also point out that this isn’t a big issue. This may help explain why some directors haven’t made significant progress on submitting reports or communicating the right to raise safety issues to residents.
While challenging, understanding the legal obligations isn’t a big issue for 20%. Some directors in this segment may be among those who turn to legal counsel or industry bodies for compliance guidance. 17% find the cost and funding of compliance works somewhat challenging, which either indicates that their buildings are older and require significant work for compliance and remediation or that they’re working with severely limited budgets.
How is the cost of Building Safety Act compliance handled in RTM/RMC directors’ buildings?
34% of RTM/RMC directors have added a Building Safety levy or charge to handle the cost of compliance; costs are being disputed between 22% of leaseholders and freeholders, 22% are funding them through existing service charge reserves, and 22% haven’t yet assessed the financial impact
Covering compliance costs is still largely being debated:
Picking up on the topic of costs, it’s important to note that the cost of BSA 2022 compliance in the UK varies widely based on building size, although this typically ranges from £9 to £26 per month per leaseholder via service charges for ongoing safety assessments. However, initial compliance, software management, and systemic administrative burdens can lead to significantly higher hidden fees for block management companies.
34% of RTM/RMC directors handle compliance costs by charging a separate Building Safety levy or charge, which is a simple yet sensible approach. However, things aren’t as simple for the 22% who explain that costs are being disputed between leaseholders and freeholders. The costs of another 22% are funded through existing service charge reserves, although this may only be a temporary measure, as compliance costs are likely to be an intermittent reality in the future.
The remaining 22% haven’t yet assessed the financial impact. Once they’ve done this, they will be in a better position to decide how to handle them.
Are RTM/RMC directors aware of the Building Safety Levy and its potential financial implications?
64% of RTM/RMC directors are not at all aware of the Building Safety Levy and its potential financial implications for their building, 21% are unclear of the financial impact, 8% need more information, and 7% have already factored it into planning
Awareness levels around levies are low:
According to the Home Builders Federation, the Building Safety Levy is a tax on new residential developments in England. The levy’s designed to fund the remediation of historical building safety defects, such as unsafe cladding, and to relieve leaseholders and taxpayers from these costs. It’s expected to raise around £3.4 billion over a 10-year period. The levy will come into force in October 2026, with the rates varying by local authority and being higher for greenfield development.
However, with the levy not having come into force yet, some RTM/RMC directors aren’t aware of it. In fact, 64% of our audience aren’t aware of it at all. In contrast, 21% are completely aware and prepared, although they’re unclear about what the financial impact will be.
8% have heard of the levy but admit they need more information about it. 3% are fully aware of it and have factored it into their planning to ensure they’re properly prepared for it. Although 4% are only somewhat aware of the new tax, they have factored it into their planning.
Do RTM/RMC directors feel the Building Safety Act protects leaseholder interests in high-rise buildings?
47% of RTM/RMC directors believe the Building Safety Act protects leaseholder interests in high-rise buildings, but 17% say there are gaps, 18% feel the Act is flawed, and 18% say it doesn’t protect leaseholders at all, creating more problems than it solves
Opinions on the Act’s protections are mixed:
Even though the BSA 2022 is intended to protect residents from potentially lethal situations, not all RTM/RMC directors think the act protects the interests of leaseholders in high-rise buildings.
Slightly less than half (47%) of our audience thinks the act protects leaseholder interests very well, describing the protections as strong and fair. 18% disagree, opining that the act doesn’t do this very well as the implementation is flawed. While these directors are speaking from experience, the situations that prompted this view may have been the exception rather than the norm.
Another 18% doesn’t think the act protects leaseholders’ interests at all, claiming that it creates more problems than it solves. The disputes about compliance costs between leaseholders and freeholders are one example of this. The remaining 17% feel the act protects leaseholders’ interests fairly well, although they do acknowledge some gaps.
What resource would make a difference to RTM/RMC directors navigating the Building Safety Act?
69% of RTM/RMC directors navigating the Building Safety Act would find guidance on how to manage the relationships with the BSR the most helpful, 20% would find a step-by-step compliance timeline and checklist very helpful, and 11% want clarity on cost apportionment between leaseholders and freeholders
3 types of helpful information and resources are in demand:
Guidance on how to manage the relationship with the BSR is the single piece of information or resource that would make the greatest difference to RTM/RMC directors in navigating the BSA 2022, with 27% describing this as absolutely essential, while 42% feel this would be very helpful. This is understandable, as the BSR oversees the safety and standards of high-rise and high-risk residential buildings and has the power to enforce the act. Unfortunately, there isn’t a tremendous amount of information on how directors and their block management companies can manage their relationship with the regulator, leading to potential misunderstandings or, worse, non-compliance.
For 20%, a step-by-step compliance timeline and checklist would be very helpful for navigating the act. Unfamiliarity with timelines and not knowing what to submit may explain the delays revealed by some of the statistics above. 11% think clarity on cost apportionment between leaseholders and freeholders would be very helpful. This would probably help prevent the cost disputes mentioned above.
Building Safety Act awareness is growing, but more guidance is needed
From what we’ve seen, RTM/RMC directors are under no illusions regarding the importance of the Building Safety Act (2022), even if less than half are comfortably familiar with it. With most of them managing more than 10 buildings, it’s encouraging to see that they’re taking steps to ensure compliance with the act and the safety of residents.
That said, one of the most alarming insights to emerge is how the majority of directors are trying to make sense of the act and its requirements on their own. The hope now is that the Health and Safety Executive will make easily understandable information about the BSR, as well as guidance on the act and compliance with it, more widely available.
About the data
Sourced using Artios from an independent sample of 28,392 opinions of RTM/RMC Directors in the UK across X, Quora, Reddit, Bluesky, TikTok and Threads. Responses are collected within a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. Results are derived from what people describe online, from opinions expressed, not actual questions answered by people in the sample.Statistics in relation to the number of residential buildings are derived by Policy Papers in gov.uk website as well as research data from our proprietary research at Wilson Hawkins.