The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) is the most significant reform of the building safety regime in England since the Building Act 1984. Passed in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire and the findings of the Hackitt Review, it introduces a lifecycle regulatory framework for higher-risk buildings (HRBs), rewrites the scope of designer and contractor duties, extends the reach of civil liability for defective work, and creates new mechanisms by which claims can be brought against parties who might once have considered themselves out of time or out of reach.
For architects, the practical consequence is that both prospective duties (how projects are designed, documented and approved) and retrospective exposure (claims arising from work carried out decades ago) have expanded materially. Professional indemnity (PI) cover, the terms on which it is written, and the way claims and circumstances are notified, must all be considered against this new backdrop. This entry sets out the main provisions of the BSA 2022 as they affect architects and their PI position. It sits alongside our architects PI insurance UK guide, our engineers PI guide, and our design and build contractor guide.
Part 3 of the Act (sections 30 to 64) establishes the higher-risk building regime. In the design and construction phase, an HRB is a building of at least 18 metres in height or at least seven storeys that contains at least two residential units, together with hospitals and care homes meeting the height threshold. The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/909) set out the procedural detail. In the occupation phase, the scope is narrower and centres on residential HRBs, with the Accountable Person and Principal Accountable Person duties in Part 4 of the Act. Architects should note that the design-and-construction and occupation definitions do not coincide, and a building can be within scope for one but not the other. See our companion entry on BSA 2022 implications for architect PI for a shorter primer.
The Act, taken with the Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023, embeds a statutory Principal Designer role for building regulations compliance. This is distinct from, and additional to, the CDM 2015 Principal Designer role for construction health and safety, although the same practice may occupy both. The building regulations Principal Designer must plan, manage and monitor the design work, coordinate matters relating to the design, and ensure that all designers cooperate and comply with the Building Regulations. For HRBs, the responsibilities are more prescriptive and connect directly to the Building Safety Regulator's gateway approvals.
From a PI perspective, three points matter. First, most architect PI policies do not, as standard, exclude the statutory Principal Designer role, but insurers are increasingly asking about it at renewal. Second, the practice's competence to act as Principal Designer under the Building Safety Act must be genuine and evidenced; taking on the role without the underlying expertise is both a regulatory and an underwriting concern. Third, appointment terms should be aligned with what the policy covers. See our entry on Principal Designer HRB PI cover.
The Building Safety Regulator, hosted by the Health and Safety Executive, operates three gateways for HRBs. Gateway 1 sits at planning and requires a fire statement. Gateway 2 is the pre-construction hard stop: the Regulator must approve the building control application before construction can begin. Gateway 3 is the completion certificate before occupation. Each gateway involves the submission of documented design information, and the Regulator can decline, require change, or refuse to progress the application.
The PI consequence is that programme risk becomes design risk. A Gateway 2 rejection is not merely a delay; it can trigger claims from developers and contractors alleging that the architect's design or documentation caused the failure. Policyholders should ensure that appointment terms account for the possibility of Regulator-driven change and that limitation on liability and net contribution clauses are appropriately drafted.
Section 88 of the Act underpins the golden thread obligation: a set of digital information about an HRB that is created, maintained and passed on across the building's life. The duty applies from the design stage through construction, handover and occupation. Architects will contribute to, and often orchestrate, significant elements of the golden thread. Underlying regulations require that the information be accurate, up to date, accessible, and held in a structured digital form.
For PI, incomplete or inconsistent golden thread records are a claims red flag. Where a defect emerges, the golden thread is likely to be the first document set requested by claimants, the Regulator, and forensic experts. Practices should confirm what their records systems retain, for how long, and in what format. Ten-year retention is a floor rather than a ceiling under the current retrospective liability position.
Section 135 of the Act amended section 4B of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend limitation for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972). For prospective work — dwellings completed after the commencement date — the limitation period is 15 years. For retrospective work — dwellings completed before commencement — the period is 30 years. The DPA 1972 imposes a duty on any person taking on work for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling to see that the work is done in a workmanlike or professional manner, with proper materials, so that the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.
The Court of Appeal in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 772 confirmed the reach of the extended period and clarified that developers may recover against original consultants for remediation costs even where the developer had itself already parted with the buildings. The decision was later considered by the Supreme Court. Architects should now assume that projects going back three decades remain within potential scope for DPA 1972 claims. Our Limitation Act and BSA architect PI entry sets out the ripple effects for archives, notification decisions, and policy triggers.
Sections 130 to 134 of the Act introduce building-liability orders (BLOs) and associated information orders. A BLO allows the court to treat a body corporate as jointly and severally liable for a relevant liability of an associated body corporate, where it is just and equitable to do so. Relevant liabilities include liabilities under the DPA 1972, section 38 of the Building Act 1984, or in respect of a building safety risk. The mechanism has been used to reach behind special purpose vehicles and dissolved contractors to hold parent companies liable.
For architects, the direct exposure to BLOs is generally lower than for developers and contractors, because a BLO targets bodies corporate in the same group. However, architects operating through group structures, or those involved as expert witnesses in BLO proceedings, are affected. See our building-liability orders PI implications entry for the detail.
Architects' PI policies are written on a claims-made basis, which means the policy responding is the one in force when a claim (or notified circumstance) is made, subject to retroactive cover. The BSA 2022 accentuates several long-standing tension points. Aggregation of claims across a common HRB defect can rapidly exhaust a policy limit. Fire safety exclusions and cladding sub-limits are widespread in the current market. Retroactive dates that pre-date a practice's oldest live HRB project are essential. Run-off cover on retirement or firm closure should now be planned across a much longer horizon, given the 15-year and 30-year DPA periods. Our architect fire safety BSA claim case study illustrates how these pressures play out in practice.
Architects can take several concrete steps. Map current and legacy projects against the HRB definition, and record where a building was completed, in what year, and to what specification. Review appointments and collateral warranties for HRBs to ensure duties, limits, and net contribution clauses reflect the Act. Confirm that the practice's PI policy retroactive date reaches back to the oldest HRB completion, and that fire safety terms have been read and understood. Establish an archive policy sufficient to serve DPA 1972 claims across 15 and 30 year windows. Notify circumstances promptly; a defensible narrative about when knowledge crystallised is worth more than post-hoc reconstruction.
Apex Insurance Brokers arranges PI cover for architectural practices working across HRB and non-HRB portfolios, and can assist with market submissions, appointment reviews, and notification support. Please get in touch to discuss your position.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.