Right Repair, Right Time, First Time: Why Repairs Are No Longer Routine

Bradley Pallister is the Technical Manager at VENTI Group explains why repairs have a new significance

You think you are carrying out a repair. Tighten a hinge. Swap out a closer. Reseal a joint. A small, everyday act that seems almost beneath notice. And yet, if you are working in a High-Risk Building, you are no longer fixing a thing. You are altering the narrative of a living system. You are changing a page in the building’s permanent record. You are, whether you realise it or not, playing a direct role in the life safety of every person who sleeps behind those doors.

That is the strange new reality of the Building Safety Act. You don’t get to separate “repairs” from “compliance” anymore. What once belonged to different departments, different mindsets, different budgets, now belongs to the same indivisible whole. And the sooner you recognise this, the safer you will be — not only for your tenants, but for yourself.

The old world was comfortable. Repairs were operational. Compliance was regulatory. You could keep the two in separate boxes, blame the contractor if a job went wrong, and hope that tenant satisfaction surveys smoothed over the cracks. You could think of a “First Time Fix” as a matter of scheduling efficiency. A metric to keep costs under control. A target to report to the board.

But the Act has erased that comfort. Suddenly, what you once treated as mundane is now evidence. And evidence is not operational. Evidence is existential.

The Fire Door Example

If you doubt this, consider the fire door. You receive the call mid-morning: a tenant reports that the communal corridor door sticks. A minor annoyance. You dispatch a carpenter. He arrives, toolbox rattling, the smell of sawdust lingering in the corridor. He trims the door by a few millimetres. It swings cleanly now. Tenants are happy. Job done.

Except it isn’t. That door, though unremarkable to the untrained eye, is a linchpin in the building’s compartmentation strategy. Its certification depended on precise specifications — thickness, intumescent seals, door closers rated for a particular fire rating. Trimming it compromises its performance. In the old world, no one would have noticed. In the BSA world, the regulator will notice.

Weeks later, during a routine audit, the Building Safety Regulator requests evidence of the door’s compliance. You check the Golden Thread. The record shows a compliant door in place. The photos are from before the trim. The carpenter’s decision — practical, well-intentioned — is now a discrepancy. It is no longer a small operational matter; it is a breach. Accountability sits squarely on the named Accountable Person.

The lesson is sharp and immediate: the “First Time Fix” was completed, yes. But the right repair? It was not. Efficiency without comprehension, speed without understanding, competence without traceability — all illusions of safety. And yet, this is the reality of a High-Risk Building: a minor adjustment, a moment’s decision, can escalate into regulatory exposure.

You may bristle at this. The instinct is to dismiss it as overkill. Why must we elevate every minor adjustment into a legal matter? Why burden the humble operative with the weight of a regulator’s gaze? Yet the deeper truth is that this has always been the case. Safety does not care whether you call something maintenance or building work. Fire does not distinguish between a capital project and a repair order. Water does not respect the filing structure of your asset management system. The building either holds together in a crisis, or it does not. Labels are irrelevant.

The Act simply removes the luxury of ignorance.

This is why “Right Repair, Right Time, First Time” has acquired a new and urgent meaning. In the past, it was a philosophy for efficiency. A way to cut costs, reduce repeat visits, keep tenants happy. Today it is far more than that. It is your shield. Your evidence. Your legal defence. If you cannot prove that the repair was the right one, carried out at the right time, and done correctly the first time, then you may find yourself explaining to the Regulator — or to a coroner — why your building did not behave as it should have done.

Think about that next time you are tempted to chase a KPI rather than solve a problem. Numbers can be manipulated. Metrics can be gamed. But evidence has a way of coming back to haunt you.

The truth is that the whole concept of “repair” has been too small for too long. We’ve allowed it to mean something functional, transactional, low-status. It has lived in the shadow of construction, where the big projects happen, where the architects make drawings and the contractors deliver marvels. Repairs, by contrast, were the poor cousin — the invisible army who kept things ticking over but never received much recognition.

The Building Safety Act flips this hierarchy on its head. Suddenly, the small act matters more than the big one. The day-to-day repair becomes the decisive factor in whether your building safety case holds up. The carpenter, the electrician, the plumber — these are no longer peripheral actors. They are custodians of the Golden Thread. The everyday is no longer everyday. It is the fabric of safety itself.

A New Culture of Accuracy

This demands a new culture. A culture where the first instinct is not speed but accuracy. Where the question is not “can we close the job quickly?” but “can we stand behind this decision, years from now, when asked to explain it?” Where the person raising the order understands that they are triggering a chain of events that could one day be scrutinised in court.

And here is a second vignette to bring this home: You’re on a routine inspection of the smoke ventilation system. The morning is still, the stairwell echoing with your footsteps. A sensor has triggered a minor fault. The contractor arrives, pops open the control panel, resets the mechanism, leaves a brief note in the maintenance log. The building seems fine. Another check next month. No harm done, you think.

Then a fire drill exposes the truth. That vent fails. Smoke fills the stairwell faster than anticipated. Evacuation is slower. You watch the trainees shuffle through choking smoke, the smell of burnt plastic filling the stairwell. Nobody is harmed this time, but the system has revealed a latent failure. Investigators will trace the work back to that reset. The Golden Thread entry is vague: “System reset, issue cleared.” No diagnostic detail, no evidence of parts replaced, no confirmation of competency.

Under the BSA, that record is insufficient. The regulator does not ask if the tenants were unaffected; they ask if you can prove that the building will perform safely under stress. The reset was a repair, yes. But it was not a repair that could be defended. The work lacked traceable evidence, lacked competency verification, lacked proper documentation. One minor decision — one missing record — and suddenly the safety case for that stairwell is compromised.

You realise that the definition of “done” has changed. A repair is not complete when the problem stops today. A repair is complete when it is recorded, evidenced, verified, and defensible for the life of the building. In other words, first time fix must now include the Golden Thread fix.

You will also notice something else. Tenants can tell. They may not know the intricacies of the Act. They may not care about the BSR or the precise definition of a High-Risk Building. But they know when a repair is done properly. They know when they are treated as participants in a process rather than nuisances to be managed. And when they feel that, they trust you more. They forgive the occasional delay. They even work with you. Because they can sense the difference between an organisation cutting corners and one that takes its responsibilities seriously.

This is where the philosophy and the law finally converge. What was once good practice is now a legal necessity. What was once about saving money is now about saving lives. The incentives, for once, are aligned. Efficiency, compliance, and tenant satisfaction all flow from the same source: a commitment to doing it right, recording it right, first time.

The Golden Thread

But make no mistake. This will test you. Because your old habits will not serve you here. You cannot simply digitise your old processes and expect compliance to follow. Bad processes become worse when digital. The Golden Thread is not a software solution you can buy off the shelf; it is a mindset you must embed. If your culture prizes speed over accuracy, blame over learning, numbers over outcomes, then no database in the world will save you.

You will need to re-engineer. To look again at how a repair is raised, diagnosed, allocated, completed, and recorded. To ensure that the person attending has the skills, the materials, and the authority to finish the job properly. To invest in their competence, not just their availability. To treat their judgement as a resource, not an inconvenience.

And you will need to face uncomfortable truths. That the reason so many repairs fail first time is not incompetence but the system you have built. That chasing down a backlog with patch fixes is a false economy when every patch creates new risk. That your supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and that you cannot outsource accountability. The Act makes sure of that.

This is not a call for perfection. Perfection is unattainable. But it is a call for seriousness. For recognising that you cannot shrug off the failures of repair culture as operational noise. In a High-Risk Building, they are no longer noise. They are signal. They are the measure of whether your building is safe.

So when you next hear the phrase “Right Repair, Right Time, First Time,” resist the temptation to treat it as another slogan. Hear instead the deeper challenge. To act as though each repair is a building project in miniature. To understand that each repair alters the safety case. To accept that each repair is a line in a story you will one day have to read aloud to the Regulator, with no opportunity to edit.

And here is the final inversion: you may find that by taking repairs more seriously, you achieve not just compliance, but grace. Because what is grace, in this context, if not a building that holds itself together when it matters most? A home that protects its people in the worst of circumstances? A record that shows not perfection, but diligence, care, honesty? That is not bureaucracy. That is stewardship.

You are not merely fixing broken things. You are maintaining trust. You are upholding dignity. You are bearing responsibility for lives unseen. That is the real work of repair. That is why it matters, now more than ever, to do it right, to do it at the right time, and to do it first time.

Because if you cannot do it right, the first time, then when the time comes, you may not get a second chance.

So, what do you do with this knowledge? You take action. You refuse to treat repairs as trivial. You embed diligence into every call, every visit, every hand on a tool. Review your processes, question every assumption, and make traceability non-negotiable. Invest in people, not just technology. Train, support, empower, and hold accountable. Ensure every repair leaves behind a Golden Thread of evidence — clear, verifiable, and defensible.

Because the moment you shrug off a “minor” task, you gamble with safety, trust, and compliance. The moment you act with care, with attention, with purpose, you create a building that is not just standing, but resilient; a service that is not just functional, but trusted; and a record that is not just bureaucratic, but bulletproof.

The Building Safety Act is no longer a distant regulatory threat. It is the lens through which every repair, every intervention, every decision must now be seen. Your move is simple, but profound: do it right, at the right time, first time — and make sure the Golden Thread shows it.

About the Author

Bradley Pallister is the Technical Manager with VENTI Group, where specialises in decentralised mechanical extract ventilation systems and Approved Document F compliance. He is a strategic thinker passionate about driving positive change. With extensive experience managing large-scale, multi-year projects, his expertise spans various sectors, including fire safety, healthcare, and social housing. A lifelong learner, Bradley is committed to personal and professional growth, and his approach is characterised by a careful consideration of complex issues, which allows him to develop thorough plans that anticipate future needs. He is also adept at dissecting and resolving intricate problems and excels at fostering collaborative environments that empower individuals and teams to succeed.

Bradley Pallister
Bradley Pallister is the Technical Manager at VENTI Group, where he specialises in decentralised mechanical ventilation systems and compliance with Approved Document F. With extensive experience in fire safety, healthcare, and social housing, Bradley has managed large-scale, multi-year projects that prioritise safety and regulatory adherence. His career spans roles at Ventro Group, where he focused on fire safety in social housing, and Vtec Group, a manufacturer of fire-rated wall panelling.

A strategic thinker and lifelong learner, Bradley is passionate about driving positive change through innovation and safety maturity modelling. His approach is characterised by meticulous attention to detail and a commitment to developing thorough plans that anticipate future needs. Bradley excels at fostering collaborative environments that empower teams to succeed and is dedicated to creating systems that ensure safety, compliance, and trust.

In his guest article for Golden Thread, Bradley explores the transformative impact of the Building Safety Act on repair culture, emphasising the critical importance of accuracy, traceability, and accountability in high-risk building maintenance.