Why has my safety case report failed?

A safety case can contain a lot of information but still fail to demonstrate that the Principal Accountable Person understands and is managing the building's safety risks.

Cascade Risk Management

There is rarely one universal reason.

A safety case may contain a great deal of information but still fail to demonstrate that the Principal Accountable Person understands and is managing the building's safety risks.

Potential weaknesses include insufficient building-specific information; inadequate assessment of fire spread or structural failure scenarios; assertions that are not supported by evidence; significant findings from surveys that are not reflected in the safety case; actions with no timescale or interim measures; legacy features assessed only against modern standards without explaining the actual risk; insufficient justification for decisions not to undertake further work; uncertainty about construction or structural condition that is not acknowledged or managed; inadequate explanation of how safety-critical measures are maintained and monitored; and a report that describes compliance activities without bringing them together into a coherent risk argument.

A useful first step following a refusal or RFI is therefore to assess the report against the BSR's published criteria and identify whether the problem is missing information, weak evidence or insufficient demonstration of risk management.

Next step

Talk to us about reviewing your building safety case

Already have a report? We can look at the risk argument and the evidence behind it.

Find out more

Related questions

Share with your team

LinkedInEmail

Building safety legislation, regulation and Building Safety Regulator guidance can change. This page is general information, not legal advice — always refer to current legislation and official guidance for your building.