Aipedia: Principal designers and building safety

AI and mandatory occurrence reporting

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-27

AI can help sort incoming safety reports, but a principal designer remains responsible for reporting safety occurrences on higher-risk buildings. A tool that screens out a reportable occurrence leaves the PD exposed to regulatory action and later claims.

Part of: AI in principal design and building safety

In short

On higher-risk building projects, the principal designer and principal contractor must run a mandatory occurrence reporting system (SI 2023/909 reg 32), notify the regulator of safety occurrences without undue delay and give a written report within 10 days (reg 33). The reg 34 defence covers reasonable belief that the other principal dutyholder had reported. AI triage can help with volume, but false negatives are the risk. Set tools to escalate uncertainty, review what they screen out and agree reporting arrangements with the principal contractor.

How AI might be used for occurrence triage

On a higher-risk building project, designers, contractors and site visitors raise many observations. Some will be safety occurrences that must be reported to the Building Safety Regulator. AI tools are being considered to classify incoming reports, suggest whether they meet the reporting threshold, draft the written report and track deadlines.

Triage at volume is a fair use of software. The danger is a false negative: an occurrence screened out as not reportable. See the AI for principal designers overview for other PD uses of AI.

The duties that apply

Mandatory occurrence reporting is in SI 2023/909 Part 4:

Reg 32: the principal designer and principal contractor must set up a system for prompt reporting of safety occurrences before construction begins, maintain it, and instruct designers and contractors on it. The PD must ensure appropriate frequency of inspection for safety occurrences in HRB design work.
Reg 33: a principal dutyholder aware of a safety occurrence must notify the regulator by the quickest practicable means without undue delay, and give a written report within 10 days.
Reg 34: a defence where the dutyholder reasonably believed the other principal dutyholder had already notified and reported.
Reg 35: a safety occurrence includes an aspect of design that, if built, would meet the risk condition, meaning a likely risk of a significant number of deaths or serious injuries if the building were used without remedy.
Reg 37: the client must take reasonable steps to confirm a PD or PC it appoints can meet regs 32 and 33.

What can go wrong

Illustrative scenario. A PD sets up an AI triage step that reads incoming design queries and flags those likely to be reportable. A designer raises a concern about a structural connection detail in casual language, and the tool classifies it as a routine design query. No report is made. Weeks later the issue is escalated by the principal contractor, and the question becomes why the PD did not report on first awareness.

Points to note:

the reg 34 defence concerns reasonable belief that the other principal dutyholder had reported; it does not mention reliance on software;
reg 33 refers to section 35 of the Building Act 1984 in the context of failure to comply, so non-reporting is a regulatory matter, not just a process gap;
a classification threshold tuned to reduce noise will tend to increase misses.

How PI usually responds

PI is aimed at civil liability. Fines or penalties for failing to report are generally not insurable. If an unreported occurrence later causes loss and a civil claim follows, PI would usually respond to the negligence element, subject to the wording and any fire safety restrictions. Some policies may help with legal costs of a regulatory investigation; check the terms. Apex's guide to the higher-risk building regime covers the wider duties.

Practical controls

Set AI triage to escalate anything uncertain, not to close it.
Have a named competent person review every item screened out.
Agree with the principal contractor who reports what, so reg 34 reliance is reasonable.
Track the 10-day written report deadline outside the AI tool as well.
Instruct reporting persons in plain language and test that they use the system.
Record reports in the golden thread (see golden thread information).
Link design-side occurrences to coordination review (see AI design coordination).
Consider the competence implications of the system you choose (see the competence question).

How Apex helps

Apex arranges PI for principal designers on higher-risk buildings. A broker can explain what your policy says about regulatory investigations and how it would respond to claims after an occurrence.

Sources

Frequently asked

Can a PD rely on AI to decide what is reportable?

It can help sort reports, but the duty to report sits with the principal dutyholder on becoming aware of a safety occurrence. Uncertain items should be escalated to a competent person rather than closed by the tool.

What is the reporting deadline?

Under SI 2023/909 reg 33, the initial notice goes to the regulator by the quickest practicable means without undue delay, and a written report follows within 10 days of the principal dutyholder becoming aware.

Does the reg 34 defence cover reliance on the principal contractor?

It applies where the dutyholder reasonably believed the other principal dutyholder had already notified and reported. Clear agreed arrangements with the principal contractor help make that belief reasonable.

Should AI-drafted occurrence reports be checked before submission?

Yes. The written report must include the details of the occurrence, the nature of the risk and any remedial measures. A competent person should confirm those details are accurate, because false or misleading information can itself create liability.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

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 callback

Apex 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.