The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) is the most significant reshaping of construction liability in a generation, and for architects it has changed the risk profile of past and future work. It introduced a new safety regime for higher-risk buildings, extended the limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972, created building-liability orders that reach into corporate groups, and codified a statutory principal designer duty. For any architect whose portfolio touches residential work above 18 metres, the arithmetic on professional indemnity cover no longer looks the same.
Part 3 of the Act (sections 30 to 64) creates the higher-risk building (HRB) framework, overseen by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) established under section 2. An HRB is a building at least 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys that contains two or more residential units. Care homes and hospitals of the same scale are captured for design and construction, though the in-occupation regime differs.
The regime operates through three gateways. Gateway one runs at the planning stage, requiring fire-safety information to accompany the planning application. Gateway two must be cleared before construction can start, with the BSR approving the detailed design. Gateway three must be cleared before occupation, with the BSR satisfied that the building has been built in accordance with the approved design and the golden thread of information is in place.
The Act introduces a statutory principal designer duty that is distinct from the CDM 2015 principal designer role. Under the BSA-linked Building Regulations amendments, the principal designer must plan, manage and monitor design work so that the completed building complies with building regulations. Architects who accept the appointment take on a statutory duty that is separate from their CDM safety-in-construction obligations, and the two roles may be held by different people on the same project.
Section 88 of the Act creates a duty to keep prescribed information — the golden thread — across the lifecycle of an HRB. The information must be accurate, accessible, digital, and handed on at each transition. For architects, the practical consequence is that design decisions and rationales must be recorded in a form that survives the practice and the appointment.
Section 135 amends section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. For defects existing at 28 June 2022 in dwellings completed before that date, the limitation period for a DPA claim is now 30 years from completion, applied retrospectively. For new work completed after 28 June 2022, the limitation period is 15 years. This is a step change from the previous six-year DPA position, and it applies to any dwelling, not only to HRBs.
Worked example: an architect designed a residential block completed in 2015, retired in 2020, and placed six years of run-off cover through to 2026. Under section 135, a DPA claim relating to the 2015 design can now be brought until 2045 — a 30-year retrospective window from completion. The six-year run-off no longer matches the limitation horizon, and the architect's estate could face a claim two decades after cover lapsed. For architects still in practice, the same arithmetic applies to any residential project on the books: the tail is longer than the market previously priced for.
Part 4 of the Act (sections 130 to 134) allows the High Court to make a building-liability order requiring an associated company to meet a relevant liability of another. Where a special-purpose vehicle set up to develop a building is insolvent or dissolved, the court can reach into associated entities in the same corporate group. For architects working through practice companies with associated design entities, the corporate veil is thinner than it was.
Longer tail, deeper reserves, stricter disclosure. Insurers underwriting architect PI are looking harder at residential exposure, cladding involvement, HRB scope, and the completeness of project records. Proposal forms increasingly ask for HRB counts, cladding audits, and details of any Gateway 2 or 3 involvement. Run-off periods that made sense before 2022 may need re-examining, particularly for principals approaching retirement. Firms that have moved out of residential work still carry the legacy exposure of what they designed years ago.
Architects should also review sub-consultant arrangements, warranty positions, and net-contribution clauses, because a building-liability order could shift liability between associated design entities in ways that older contracts did not anticipate.
Related guides on the Apex site: architects PI insurance, design and build contractors PI insurance, and engineers PI insurance.
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.