FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Building control approvers
AI can score project risk and propose inspection stages, but the OSRs require a risk-based approach that the building control body can explain and audit. An algorithm that skips a critical stage leaves the body without a defensible reason.
Part of: AI in building control approvers
In short
Operational standards rules 1.1 and 3.7 require building control bodies to use a risk-based approach to set inspection regimes and project-specific inspection plans. AI tools that score projects from application data and propose inspection frequency can help allocate scarce inspectors. The risks are skipped inspections at critical stages, risk scores no one can explain, and bias towards some builders or project types. Annex 1.2 of the RBI code requires decisions to be auditable, and the body must send complete and correct returns to BSR. A missed stage is a common basis for negligence allegations.
Every building control body has to decide how often to inspect each project and at which stages. AI tools now suggest inspection plans from application data: building type, height, construction method, the builder's history, the designer, previous contraventions and the volume of similar work. Some produce a risk score and a list of key stages, and some adjust the plan automatically as inspection results come in.
This can direct inspectors to higher-risk work. It also moves an important professional judgement into a model that may not be transparent about how it weighs different factors.
The plan also drives the data a building control body reports. OSR 4.5 requires complete and correct returns to BSR, and inspection numbers and intervention rates may be compared across bodies. If a model quietly reduces inspections on lower-risk work, the body needs to be able to explain that choice to the regulator as well as to any claimant.
The main duties that apply are:
Sources: operational standards rules, RBI code and RBCA conduct rules.
A model trained on past contraventions may learn that a builder with a clean record needs fewer inspections, and drop a stage where hidden work such as fire stopping or cavity barriers is installed. A score that rises or falls without a reason the inspector can state is hard to defend. Bias is possible too: a model that under-weights new construction methods or small builders can skew attention.
Illustrative: an RBCA uses an AI planning tool that classes a three-storey timber-frame block as low risk because the contractor has a good history. The plan omits an inspection before the plasterboard goes up. Later, missing cavity barriers are discovered during remedial work, and the owner alleges the body failed to inspect a stage that any competent inspector would have treated as key. The file shows the AI score but no human reasoning for dropping the stage.
An allegation that a body failed to inspect at a key stage is usually treated as professional negligence, subject to the policy terms. The defence will turn on whether the plan was reasonable at the time and properly recorded. Fire-related defects may engage fire safety restrictions; see fire safety PI exposure. Insurers may ask how inspection plans are set, especially if automation reduces inspection numbers.
Practical controls include:
Related: AI-assisted remote inspections, AI defect detection in photos and BSR codes and AI. Apex arranges PI for building control bodies and inspectors, and a broker can check how your policy treats AI-assisted inspection planning. See the AI in building control hub.
It can propose them, but OSR 3.7 requires the building control body to apply a risk-based approach and keep plans under review. The RBI code requires decisions to be auditable, so an inspector should approve each plan and record the reasons for key choices.
Annex 1.2 of the RBI code requires records that show how decisions were reached. If a stage was skipped because of a score nobody can explain, the body may struggle to show the plan was reasonable when a defect later emerges.
It is usually treated as a negligence allegation, subject to the policy terms. Cover may be affected by fire safety restrictions, and the defence will depend on whether the inspection plan was reasonable and properly recorded at the time.
They can. OSR 4.5 requires complete and correct returns and reports to BSR as directed. If an AI tool changes inspection frequency, check that reported figures reflect inspections actually carried out, and be ready to explain how the risk-based approach was applied.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
