Enforcement Powers Of The Building Safety Regulator: Key Lessons From Recent Case Law

Dame Judith Hackitt's Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy highlighted that regulatory oversight was inadequate and enforcement powers were "often not pursued", or where they were used, penalties were "so small as to be an ineffective deterrent".

In response, the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) overhauled the system, creating the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and arming it (and local authorities) with stronger enforcement tools. One key aim was to introduce more rigorous oversight during design and construction of high-risk buildings, but another was to strengthen the existing Building Regulations regime, including providing proper appeals and extending enforcement timeframes.

In this article we explain how two recent decisions – one from the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) and one from the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) – illustrate the significant enforcement powers now held by the BSR and how they are being exercised and interpreted in practice.

Decision 1: 30 Burstock Road (First-tier Tribunal, Dec 2025)

This was the first judicial interpretation of Regulation 18A of the Building Regulations 2010, which allows appeals to the BSR against a local authority's refusal to issue key building certificates (e.g. completion or regularisation certificates).

The Burstock road case is the first test of the BSR's powers under Reg 18A. The applicant, Mr Thursfield, had carried out building work (a loft conversion and extension) on a house in Wandsworth. His private building inspector became insolvent mid-project, forcing him to ask the council (London Borough of Wandsworth) for a regularisation certificate for the works in 2022. The council took two years and then refused to issue the certificate, vaguely citing that some work was "unsatisfactory" without clear details. Mr Thursfield appealed to the BSR under Reg 18A.

However, the BSR's handling of the appeal also proved problematic: after a 15-month delay, the BSR issued a decision refusing the appeal – i.e. upholding Wandsworth's refusal – but it did so on grounds that were different from those the council had originally given. The BSR's decision letter listed new reasons and cited a regulation that the council hadn't mentioned,

The FtT found that the BSR had acted ultra vires by refusing the appeal on new grounds not raised by the local authority and failing to follow basic principles of fairness and transparency. The FtT held amongst other things that:

• The BSR's appellate role is binary: it must either allow or refuse the appeal based on the original grounds.
• It cannot introduce new reasons for refusal or vary a decision unless the appeal is first allowed.

Decision 2: HSE (for BSR) v Integritas Property Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 2613 (TCC)

On 12 August 2025, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (then acting as the Building Safety Regulator) obtained a without‑notice interim injunction preventing occupation of Deakin's Yard. The court was presented with evidence of serious fire safety defects and a credible risk of imminent offences under the BSA if students moved in. The judge therefore granted short‑term relief to preserve the position until both parties could be heard at a return date.

Standing and jurisdiction

The court acknowledged that such injunctions are usually brought by local authorities under s.222 Local Government Act 1972 or by the planning authority under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The novel feature was the regulator applying. Drawing on ss.11A and 13 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (broad incidental powers) and the equitable principles established in previous authorities, the judge held there is a serious issue to be tried that HSE has standing to seek an injunction to stop imminent criminal breaches within its statutory remit. The court also relied on previous authority indicating that a public body with a statutory responsibility may obtain injunctive relief unless there is legislation to the contrary.

Two points mattered in practice. First, the regulator was the lead authority for building safety. Second, the local authority supported the application but could not act before the anticipated occupation date. Even so, the judge stressed this was a new use of powers under the BSA and should be tested properly at the return date.

American Cyanamid and procedure

Applying American Cyanamid, the court held there was a serious issue to be tried; damages were plainly inadequate given life‑safety risks; and the balance of convenience favoured a short order maintaining the status quo. Proceeding without notice was justified because occupation was imminent and difficult to unwind. Following FSA v Sinaloa Gold,¹ no cross‑undertaking in damages was required from a public authority acting to protect the public, though that could be revisited at the return date.

What this means for enforcement

For developers and building owners, the Integritas decision is a clear warning: the BSR can seek injunctive relief to prevent occupation or halt works, although expect injunctive applications to remain exceptional, focused on imminent life‑safety risks, and used alongside the established notice‑and‑prosecution regime rather than as a substitute for it. The Burstock Road case, meanwhile, demonstrates that BSR decisions themselves are subject to scrutiny – the regulator must act within its powers and follow fair procedures, or risk having its decisions overturned.

Post‑script: institutional change

From 27 January 2026, the BSR became an independent statutory body. The change in corporate status does not undermine the analysis: actions taken by HSE in its building safety capacity are treated as actions of the BSR, and the new body may continue extant proceedings.

Looking ahead: further enforcement reform

These cases illustrate the BSR's expanding enforcement toolkit in action, but the government has signalled that more significant reform lies ahead. As we recently reported, the Construction Products Reform White Paper proposes tougher criminal sanctions for product safety breaches—including up to two years' imprisonment and unlimited fines—alongside new civil monetary penalties and director disqualification powers. Meanwhile, the Single Construction Regulator Prospectus envisages a unified regulator with expanded oversight and licensing functions, notably closing the current regulatory gap so that all construction products fall within scope of enforcement action. As these reforms take shape, we can expect a regime with clearer standards, more decisive enforcement, and genuinely deterrent consequences for those who fail to meet their obligations.

Our leading Building Safety team advises on a myriad of issues relating to building safety, including regulatory investigations, enforcement and criminal sanctions. With expertise drawn from a specialist cross-discipline team, we provide practical, easy-to-understand advice, with clear recommendations.

Footnote

1. The Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold Plc [2013] UKSC 11

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.