An Open Letter To Tim Galloway Of The HSE.

By Andrea White MSc BSc(Hons) IEng FIFireE C.BuildE FCABE CFIOSH  

............................................

Dear Tim Galloway

At a conference in October last year, it was refreshing to hear you admit that assumptions and modelling related to the building safety regime had “not survived first contact with reality”.  You also said that the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is having to “rebuild trust” after a challenging start.  Based on my own experiences with the BSR, I agree with you.  But I wondered how others in industry felt about their interactions with the BSR so I canvassed peers to gain a broader perspective.  Below are some of my findings.

BSR Enforcement Policy Statement

Published in December 2023, this document helpfully sets out the enforcement approach of the Building Safety Regulator.  The following principles of good enforcement practice are listed as being applied by the BSR in both enforcement and the management of relevant enforcement activities:

·         Proportionality

·         Consistency

·         Transparency

·         Accountability

Proportionality

The policy statement states that “As BSR, we…..encourage and support duty holders to manage risk and ensure compliance with the law in a sensible and proportionate way”.  The report then clarifies that it is the requirements of building regulations that must be complied with and makes reference to how some legal duties under building legislation are specific and absolute whilst others require ‘reasonable steps’.  This all concurs with my knowledge and understanding of health and safety legislation and fire safety legislation, gained over the last 30 years.

Unfortunately, experiences of a number of professionals demonstrate that this ethos of proportionality is not always being applied by BSR staff.  It would appear that there is more to do in terms of ensuring that individuals working for the BSR understand the difference between the functional requirements of building regulations, statutory guidance and industry guidance and their associated place in our legal framework.

I heard accounts of building safety cases being returned from an initial assessment with tens of queries – this seems proportionate.  Yet when the responses were submitted they were returned with several hundred further queries.  I have also heard about investigations of a building control consultancy that continued for months until something; anything was found to be wrong.  As an ex-enforcement officer, this does not feel proportionate to me.

Consistency

The policy statement states that the BSR “adopt a consistent approach to enforcement of the law across different activities that we regulate”.  Those willing to offer comment disagreed, stating that there seems to be inconsistency in what is being accepted with conditions and what’s being rejected.  They cited inefficient and inconsistent submission methods, including email address and single-use links, all of which they considered unsuitable for structured information submission.  They explained that this prevents effective signposting of information and complicates assessors’ ability to correlate submissions with the original request.  Respondents stated that they were unclear whether assessors can access their hyperlinked documents and gave examples of the BSR’s systems being unable to upload large files, as well as losing documents.  Feedback received from the BSR was cited to be inconsistent and difficult to interpret, with page numbers incorrectly referenced, “floating” feedback that could not be connected to a particular report section and overly broad instructions with no specific guidance.

Responses from Fire & Rescue Service (FRS) staff stated that they cannot access the BSR information for quality assurance purposes.  They stated that there is no clear guidance on the role of FRS In either Gateway 2 or 3 and no process for disagreement between multi-disciplinary team (MDT) members.  More worrying was the statement that, on occasion, FRS have not been sent legally required statutory consultations.  The evidence highlights a lack of consistency.  One respondent called the BSR “an utter shambolic mess”.

Transparency

The policy statement states that “Our regulators will clearly and promptly explain the decision taken, their reasons and the actions required to achieve compliance”.  My own experiences are that this is not the case, with BSR either unwilling or unable to do these things.  Furthermore, BSR staff refuse to disclose the qualifications and professional registrations of assessors when their competence is called into question.  These actions demonstrate a lack of transparency, as does the BSR’s unwillingness or inability to respond to questions put to their representatives at a number of industry conference stage sessions.  One respondent called the BSR a “cartel operation”.

Accountability

The policy statement states that “We publish information for duty holders, or others affected by our enforcement actions, to raise complaints, request reviews or appeal certain decisions made by us.  This information is available online”.  I had the opportunity to test this process when myself and 2 other fire engineers all disagreed with a BSR decision.  I couldn’t find the complaints procedure online so I phoned.  The individual who phoned me back advised that there was not yet a written complaints procedure but that I should email my concerns, which I did.  The complaint was reviewed by one of the two members of the BSR staff who were involved in the case.  He maintained his position.  When I queried this, I was told there was no appeals process.  My experience does not concur with the policy statement regarding accountability.

Competence

But perhaps my biggest concerns regarding the BSR relate to competence.  Respondents told of emails sent to industry professionals when the first round of BSR jobs were being advertised - these emails apparently stated that experience wasn’t necessary.  Most recently, job adverts have listed a Level 5 qualification in “regulatory compliance, health and safety, building and/or facilities design, planning, build or management” as necessary for the role of Building Safety Regulatory Lead.  None of these qualifications stipulate a level of fire safety knowledge, which would be fine if suitably competent fire safety professionals were also involved in the process.  However, respondents reveal that this doesn’t seem to be the case, with assessors demonstrating a lack of adequate fire safety knowledge when responding to applications. 

Perhaps more worrying is the fact that (accordingly to a HSE LinkedIn post) MDTs include “building inspectors, fire protection officers, structural engineers and more – a powerhouse of building safety expertise”.  There is no mention of fire engineers; respondents stated that fire engineering consultancies are being brought in to review applications, which raises questions.  How are these consultancies being selected?  Is there a conflict of interest?  Are individuals suitably competent?  Who decides the level of competence required?  Who is checking the process?  Are they technically competent?  When professionally registered fire engineers who can demonstrate their competence are being told their fire safety solutions are inadequate by individuals with a much lower level of demonstrable competence and this is queried, surely the correct response is curiosity and investigation rather than staunch defence of an existing opinion.

Responses from Fire & Rescue Service staff identified instances where the BSR Regulatory Leads overseeing the MDTs ignored both Registered Building Inspectors and FRS staff or overruled the fire engineer, despite having no competence in fire safety.  Other respondents cited instances where FRS aren’t being involved in MDTs at all.

Conclusion

Rebuilding trust is never easy;  it means that trust has already been lost.  Fear-based responses such as defensiveness and arrogance will go no way to rebuilding trust.  Instead, we know that honesty, humility and openness; requesting help and showing our vulnerabilities, these all demonstrate strength rather than weakness and help to build trust.

It was interesting that respondents were keen to comment but were not keen to be named.  I was told that a letter such as this “would not be received well”.  It seems that industry professionals fear retribution for speaking up, despite all that we have heard about the importance of ethics and raising concerns after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.  Surely the BSR must lead by example and welcome constructive criticism.  

Let’s see…..

Andrea White MSc BSc(Hons) IEng FIFireE C.BuildE FCABE CFIOSH

..........................

Andrea White is an independent fire engineer and fire risk assessor, with her own consultancy – A W Fire Ltd.  She is Founder and Director of the Women Talking Fire group, an independent women’s networking and support group for the UK fire safety industry.  In 2022, Andrea was voted an influencer within the fire safety industry by IFSEC Global and in 2023 she was voted one of the Top 100 most influential women in the construction industry.  Andrea is a finalist for the Princess Royal’s Women in Science and Engineering Lifetime Achievement Award 2025.

More Information from Andrea:

www.hse.gov.uk/building-safety/assets/docs/enforcement-policy.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrea-white-fire-engineer_demonstratingcompetence-transparency-levelplayingfield-activity-7250411157922922496-gw_h?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop