The Care Quality Commission (CQC) remains ‘sedentary’ in its approach, despite a new regulatory regime promising a more ‘dynamic’ assessment of its services.

The latest figures show that physical inspections have dropped from a peak of almost 23,000 in 2016, to less than 4,500 inspections conducted so far in 2025. Current figures remain lower than pre-lockdown levels (17,671 in 2019 and 7,711 in 2020), with regulatory action also falling.

According to data obtained by law firm Pannone Corporate under the Freedom of Information Act, the total number of regulatory actions taken by the Commission has decreased year-on-year and recently sat at around half of pre-lockdown levels.

Despite an obvious drop-off in the number of regulatory actions taken in 2020, figures have remained consistently low ever since, between 3- 5,000 per year compared with upwards of 15,000 each year in the period following the CQC’s receipt of enhanced powers in 2015. The use of Warning Notices has also dropped year-on-year since 2022, currently sitting at 98.

Bill Dunkerley, associate partner at Pannone Corporate, commented: “The Care Quality Commission’s new regulatory model has been in place for some time but,  despite the fanfare, it could be said to have had something of an inauspicious start.

“How the introduction of a single assessment framework differs, in practice, from the previous assessment models, is questionable. Likewise, whilst in its promotional material the CQC was hopeful that its new approach would enable it to be more dynamic in its assessment of services, and permit more contemporaneous data collection to take place, the extent to which it has achieved these objectives remains to be seen.”

He added: “Far from becoming a more proactive, dynamic and responsive agency, the CQC remains relatively sedentary in its approach. That being said, there are perhaps early indicators that this consolidation of activity is perhaps the forerunner to a renewed and re-focussed CQC, which is not afraid to utilise the full range of statutory powers at its disposal.”

The figures show that the number of times registrations have been cancelled, fixed penalties issued and conditions imposed have remained fairly consistent since the CQC obtained its additional powers in 2015.

The data obtained by Pannone also reveals that there are currently 101 open criminal investigations concerning specific incidents or unregistered providers, and the number of prosecutions brought does appear to be slowly on the increase, with 10 prosecutions being concluded in 2024, and seven so far during 2025. The majority of prosecutions, by far, are brought under Regulation 12 – failure to provide safe care and treatment.

The average fine following prosecution by the CQC is just shy of £102,000, with average prosecution costs being in the region of £12,500. This represents a slight decrease from previous years.

Dunkerley said: “As made clear in the latest State of Care report, the CQC has stated its intention of, “taking action to protect people from poor care”. This mindset is perhaps indicative of a more bullish approach by the Commission, as it becomes accustomed to its new operating model and starts to subject to increasing scrutiny those providers who are not meeting the required standards.

“However, to be an effective regulator going forwards, and one with real teeth, the CQC has to combine its new inspection and assessment framework with meaningful regulatory activity. Whilst the CQC’s recently stated aim is to protect people requiring of care, to be effective it must fully embrace the powers at its disposal. The latest figures are perhaps indicative of that mindset, but only time will tell whether this trend and pattern of behaviour continues.”

The Government has confirmed that, subject to parliamentary approval, Phase 1 of Awaab’s Law will come into force on 27 October 2025. Guidance has now also been published, which is intended to provide additional support to landlords to help them achieve and maintain compliance with their new obligations.

Background

It is almost three years since the Coroner issued her Prevention of Future Deaths to the Department for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities at the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Awaab Ishak.

The government of the day responded to that report by tabling amendments to the already existing Social Housing Regulation Bill, inserting an implied covenant requiring lessors to comply with all prescribed requirements applicable to a relevant lease. Whilst landlords have historically only been responsible for damp and mould caused by a structural defect, and ensuring that a property is fit for human habitation, Awaab’s Law serves to extend that duty further by mandating specific actions and responses within specified timescales.

Phase 1

Phase 1 serves to require social housing landlords to investigate concerns of damp and mould, and to attend to emergency repairs. Phase 2, coming into force in 2026, will extend the obligation to include additional hazards, including excess cold and heat, with the inclusion of further hazards (with the exception of over-crowding) being introduced in 2027.

Given the time taken already for Awaab’s Law to finally reach the statute books, this confirmation is to be welcomed but it is hoped that those operating in the market have already addressed their minds to the changes they may need to implement within their businesses going forwards.

The key obligations coming into force in October are:

• investigate any potential emergency hazards and, if the investigation confirms emergency hazards, undertake relevant safety work as soon as reasonably practicable, both within 24 hours of becoming aware of them
• investigate any potential significant hazards within 10 working days of becoming aware of them
• produce a written summary of investigation findings and provide this to the named tenant within 3 working days of the conclusion of the investigation
• undertake relevant safety work within 5 working days of the investigation concluding, if the investigation identifies a significant hazard
• begin, or take steps to begin, any further required works within 5 working days of the investigation concluding, if the investigation identifies a significant or emergency hazard. If steps cannot be taken to begin work in 5 working days this must be done as soon as possible, and work must be physically started within 12 weeks
• satisfactorily complete works within a reasonable time period
• secure the provision of suitable alternative accommodation for the household, at the social landlord’s expense, if relevant safety work cannot be completed within specified timeframes
• keep the named tenant updated throughout the process and provide information on how to keep safe

Whilst the reference to working days allows landlords some breathing space to respond, it could also result in repairs (and potentially avoidable harm) being delayed due to the intervention of a non-working weekend.

Defences

The duties are not absolute and social housing landlords will have a defence if they can show that they have used all ‘reasonable endeavours’ to avoid breaching the requirements of Awaab’s Law. In other words, it will be a defence for landlords to demonstrate that despite them having taken all reasonable steps to comply with the requirements of the regulations, it has simply not been possible for reasons genuinely beyond their control.

Examples provided within the government’s guidance document include:

• The landlord may not be able to complete work within the timeframes because the building is high-risk and building control approval from the Building Safety Regulator is required before starting works to make the property safe. In this case ‘reasonable efforts’ could be making an application to the Building Safety Regulator as soon as reasonably practicable. Likewise, other approvals and permissions might be needed from external bodies, and the landlord should show that they are taking the appropriate steps to obtain these.
• The landlord may not be able to gain access to the property to complete relevant safety works. For example, the landlord may have made multiple attempts to arrange a time to access the property but has been unable to do so within the given timeframes.
• The landlord may have been unable to source specialist contractors or materials within the required timeframes, but has made reasonable efforts to do so.
• The landlord may have made reasonable efforts to secure suitable alternative accommodation, but there may be no suitable properties which are within a reasonable distance of schools/ places of work or in the local area. In this case the landlord could work with the tenant to identify the best option.

If a tenant seeks compensation from a landlord following an alleged breach of Awaab’s Law, the onus will be on the latter to show why the failure was unavoidable. This will clearly be something which will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but at this stage, it is recommended that landlords retain clear, detailed and unambiguous records of all efforts made to achieve compliance.

What can providers do to prepare?

As touched upon above, it is to be hoped that social housing landlords are already well aware of the imminent changes and are ready for 27 October 2025.

If not done so to date, landlords may also want to address their minds to the following:

• Decanting processes: if there is an immediate risk, or other requirement to move tenants whilst works are undertaken, landlords need to have available empty properties into which to move them. This is likely to cause extreme difficulties for many social housing landlords, who have to balance ongoing waiting lists and limited available housing stock and it is unlikely to be practicable to retain empty properties solely as a decanting resource. An option may be for landlords to re-negotiate their contracts with local authorities to ensure that they retain more control over lettings. An alternative solution is paid-for hotel accommodation, but this will only serve to squeeze already stretch budgets, at a time when increased funding streams appear unlikely.

• Stock condition reports: it would be helpful for social landlords to understand where the risks are within their properties, and the nature and form of those risks. For example, it is accepted that contributory factors for damp and mould include structural issues, poor ventilation and over-crowding. All of these issues ought to form part of the stock condition report, and should therefore be monitored on a rolling basis. Damp and mould are largely seasonal issues and this variance in presentation ought to be taken into account when undertaking condition reports.

• Staff knowledge: it will be helpful for providers to understand where and how concerns are likely to enter their business. For example, first notification may be through a customer contact centre, and if so it will be necessary for customer-facing staff to be aware of the potential hazards being reported by tenants, and how they as representatives of the landlord can help identify emergency repairs – to ensure compliance with the relevant timescales. Staff may require training and education in this regard to ensure that they are alive to possible risks. There also needs to be consideration as to how staff engage with customers and the language which they use when discussing issues arising.

• Escalation processes: once a concern has entered into a business, landlords need processes to be able to respond in a timely manner and in compliance with the above timescales. Where works are required, there needs to be available maintenance and repairing resource to respond. Where these resources cannot be sourced internally, it would be prudent to have procedures in place to ensure that third party contractors can be appointed and are ablet o attend. In this case, it would also be beneficial to implement procedures and monitoring relating to the quality of work undertaken by third parties.

• Record-keeping: in light of the reasonable endeavours defence social housing landlords must be able to demonstrate what steps they have taken on becoming aware of a risk, and in responding to it. This will include attempts to engage with tenants, access properties and adherence to timescales. Should a query be later raised in terms that there has been non-compliance by the landlord, it will only help to have access to this information and data in an easily accessible format.

Conclusion

Despite the time taken for Awaab’s law to finally come into force, the direction of travel has been clear for a long time and although the recently issued guidance is to be welcomed, it ought not to come as a complete surprise to social housing providers.

What remains to be seen is how the application of Awaab’s law develops in practice, and specifically the extent and circumstances which will satisfy the reasonable endeavours defence. It is inevitable that case law will develop around this issue, and additional guidance may be required in due course.

Whilst the new obligations are clear, they will undoubtedly create real and practical difficulties for landlords: the resources to respond and comply with the new timescales must be secured. Compliance with Awaab’s Law will be a challenge but must nonetheless be a priority for providers going forwards. This may mean that other aspects of the landlord’s operations have to be de-prioritised by an equivalent amount, which may only serve in the long-term to prejudice those whom Awaab’s Law is designed to protect – the tenants.

The Legal 500 is positioned as the ‘client’s guide to the best law firms’ because it is underpinned by client feedback and insight about how a firm and its lawyers work. It’s an important benchmark, which celebrates our team, allows us to build on success and strive for continuous improvement.

The Legal 500 rankings for 2022 – highlighting the practice area teams who are providing the highest quality legal advice – feature Pannone Corporate in 15 areas of law, moving up in two corporate & commercial, and commercial property.

The rankings include Tier 1 listings for our contentious trusts and probate, media and entertainment, and debt recovery teams. As well as the teams’ success, three people were named in the Hall of Fame, the firm had six namechecks for ‘leading individuals’, two ‘next generation partners’ and four mentions for ‘rising stars.’

Beyond the numbers and fantastic recognition in the rankings, we’re proud to see all the feedback from clients. Here’s what they said:

Contentious trusts & probate

“What sets them apart is their ability to combine their knowledge of the law, the softer skills of client care and an ability to be direct. The clients I have referred to them are by the nature of the specialism in a highly emotional state and every one of them has been gushing in their praise of the work done by this team.”

Debt recovery 

“An engaging, tenacious team who are practical and efficient in what they do. They have worked with us and our functions to provide a seamless recovery service to suit our business needs.”

Media & entertainment

“Liaison with clients takes on a personal form and the relevant legal staff do not need reminding about issues. They keep in touch.”

Employment 

“Responsive, accessible and commercial practitioners who work with us, as the client, to arrive at the right outcomes for our business.”

Health & safety

“A new team but one with excellent experience and technical expertise with a dynamic can-do approach and a personable demeanour.”

Intellectual property

“…amazing from our first meeting right to the conclusion of my case, our first meeting gave me hope in a situation which I had long since deemed a lost cause… extremely empathetic to my situation and secured a settlement against a formidable adversary.”

IT & telecoms

“Attentive, personal and always available for advice and guidance.”  

Professional negligence

“Highly specialised firm with a strong track record in claimant professional negligence work.”’

Commercial litigation

“Pannone Corporate has lawyers at the top of their respective disciplines and a client base to match. Customer service is a key ethos at the firm with a high degree of partner involvement ensuring the client gets the service it needs. Electronic document management and searching ensures that key documents are identified early in the case.”

Corporate & commercial

“…adaptive and pragmatic in their guidance and advice. We completed three transactions with them and found them to be sensibly priced and adaptive in their approach to the size and scale of due diligence required.”

Property litigation

“Pannone Corporate strikes an excellent balance: they have the big-firm capacity to handle large and complex cases, but the small-firm responsiveness and personal touch. They have the flexibility and skills to manage cases that cross between different fields, for example real estate litigation that raises company law, insolvency or property damage issues.”

Commercial property

“The approach of Pannone and their staff is very much aligned to our values, what is important to us and the way we like to operate, Pannone recognise this and it’s reflected in the service they provide. It’s important when dealing with legal matters that a firm has the ability to tailor its service to work in partnership with its clients, take time to understand our objectives, the way we operate and therefore offer a more bespoke service to deliver the right outcomes. I feel that this is a specific strength of Pannone.”

Insolvency & corporate recovery 

“The team are always ready to help and have found innovative solutions to technical problems.”

Construction 

“All of the partners feel like extended members of the in-house team. They are flexible and accommodating.”

As part of the launch of our annual Care Report, barrister, Jonathan Landau, looks in more detail at the CQC’s new strategy and the likely consequences. 

The care sector is an integral part of the UK’s societal landscape – both in economic terms and the number of vulnerable people it services. With an ageing population – with estimates suggesting a 36% growth in the number of people aged over 85 by 2025 – it’s clear that the sector will only grow in prominence over the coming years. 

The regulatory structure that sits around the sector has been governed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since 2009 when the external body was created to regulate and monitor health and social care services in England, taking over the roles and responsibilities of the Healthcare Commission, Commission for Social Care Inspection and Mental Health Act Commission. In bringing together these three predecessor organisations it was (and remains) the CQC’s stated aim to ensure that, “health and social care services provide people with safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care.”

Initially the CQC inspected and monitored registered care providers in accordance with 16 ‘essential standards’ of quality and safety. However in the years that followed its creation there was, both within the CQC and the wider industry, a perceived lack of understanding as to how the essential standards were applied and interpreted in practice, prompting new ‘fundamental standards of care’ in 2015. To assist in enforcing the required standards, the CQC was given new powers, transforming it from an inspection and monitoring organisation into a regulator with teeth, including not only civil enforcement powers, but also the ability to prosecute those who had failed to meet those required standards.

Roll on six years and the role of the CQC remains a great source of debate. A global pandemic has made a seismic change to the way in which the CQC has pursued its objectives, and earlier this year it introduced a new strategy ‘for the changing world of health and social care’. The aim of the strategy, published in May 2021, is to strengthen the CQC’s commitment to deliver its purpose.

The CQC claims that its aims and role as a regulator won’t change – but how it works will be different. The strategy is based on four themes:

People and communities

Regulation that’s driven by people’s needs and experiences, focusing on

what’s important to people and communities when they access, use and move between services.

Smarter regulation

Smarter, more dynamic and flexible regulation that provides up-to-date and high-quality information and ratings, easier ways of working with the CQC and a more proportionate response.

Safety through learning

Regulating for stronger safety cultures across health and care, prioritising

learning and improvement and collaborating to value everyone’s perspectives.

Accelerating improvement

Enabling health and care services and local systems to access support to help improve the quality of care where it’s needed most.

The ‘smarter regulation’ theme is likely to have the biggest impact on providers, in terms of how they are inspected and rated. There will be a move away from relying chiefly on comprehensive on-site inspections. Instead, the CQC will develop continuous insight and monitoring methodologies. It anticipates that this will enable inspectors to spend more time speaking with people when on site rather than looking at paperwork.

The CQC also plans to develop innovative ways of analysing data and using AI to make decisions. Ratings will be more dynamic and won’t require an inspection for a change in rating.

All of this presents both risks and opportunities. In terms of risks, the validity of the CQC’s judgements will only be as robust as the systems it uses and the data it obtains. Providers, their advisors, and representative bodies will need to scrutinise the methodologies as they develop and quickly raise concerns. It’s likely that AI, for example, will pose some difficulties, with the potential for some very uncomfortable – even discriminatory – decisions for the CQC. Providers will also need to advocate for a fair system of challenging any decisions, as it seems unlikely that the factual accuracy correction procedure will not be available for such a dynamic regulatory scheme. That is particularly important if the CQC is obtaining information from sources it cannot itself verify and if it is making decisions on an AI (read automated) basis.

In terms of opportunities, providers that develop good relationships with stakeholders, and who invest time in understanding the CQC’s methodologies, will be well-placed to achieve good ratings and may benefit from lighter touch regulation. The more developed the CQC’s methodologies are, the easier it will be for providers to ensure that they can provide the evidence to satisfy the independent regulator.  

Currently, the CQC is targeting services with which it has concerns. In many cases, it does not have concerns about homes with lower ratings because of the improvements they have made. That leaves them stuck on lower ratings, because the CQC is not re-inspecting them. The ability for ratings to improve quickly is therefore very welcome.  

The themes of the new strategy are laudable, but it is inevitable that there will be unintended consequences and teething problems as the methodologies develop. Case associations and providers’ trusted advisors will be well-placed to keep them informed as the detail emerges.

Jonathan Landau is a barrister at 5 Essex Court. He has particular expertise in inquests and healthcare regulation. Joanthan is regularly instructed in relation to high profile Article 2 and jury inquests, often in the context of media coverage or regulatory investigations. He advises in respect of a broad range of healthcare regulatory matters including all levels of CQC and Ofsted enforcement, safeguarding investigations, commissioning disputes, contract monitoring, and mental capacity.

Whistleblowing in the UK’s care sector rose to its highest recorded level in 2020, driven by health and safety concerns brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

The number of whistleblowing complaints made to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has increased year-on-year since 2015, with a 43% rise between 2019 and 2020 – a total of 14,508 enquiries were received last year.

The figures obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the CQC – conducted as part of an annual Care Report by Pannone Corporate – also show that ‘concern’ enquiries increased by 39% between 2015 and 2020. However, the number of safeguarding complaints fell to its lowest level last year to 25,847, driven in large part due to a reclassification of abuse notifications in March 2018 and an increase in providers notifying their local authorities in the first instance rather than the CQC.

Bill Dunkerley, regulatory lawyer and director at law firm, Pannone Corporate, commented: “The global pandemic has had a profound effect on the care sector, touching every facet of the industry – whether that’s financially, operationally, or from a corporate governance perspective. Prior to 2020, the word ‘pandemic’ was unlikely to be considered as anything more than a theoretical risk. However, events since March last year, and the imposition of the first national lockdown in the UK, have demonstrated that providers must be prepared for all eventualities and risks.”

He continued: “In the context of the last 18 months, it comes as little surprise that the number of whistleblowing enquiries rose to its highest recorded level in 2020. In general terms, the majority of complaints in the UK relate to health and safety matters. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that the increase in complaints from 2019 to 2020 were related to the coronavirus, with safety concerns around COVID-19 extremely likely to have played a role in these figures.”

The Care Report 2021 shows that regulatory interventions rose by 109% between 2016 and 2019, understandably falling in 2020 due to a seismic change in how the CQC conducted itself as a result of COVID-19. The rise in interventions mirrors the number of enforcement actions carried out by the CQC, which revealed an 87% increase since 2014/15 in its latest annual report.

Dunkerley said: “In light of the increasing use of enforcement action by the CQC, as well as the apparent realisation of the intention to prosecute more cases, it’s imperative that service providers review their procedures, systems and address risk areas in anticipation of inspection or intervention. This includes assessing areas of their operation requiring immediate improvement; undertaking pro-active audits of risk areas and implementing remedial or control measures where appropriate; and responding to near misses and learning from them to prevent a recurrence.”

He added: “The last 12 months have had a particular impact on the CQC, which has had to respond to the novel challenges presented, as well as clarify its own role in regulating providers in light of recent criticisms. When you consider that people are also more alive to potential issues of concern, as well as becoming more aware of the CQC’s role as regulator and its power to take enforcement action in response to issues of concern, then we are likely to see considerable change in the care sector over the course of the next 12 months as providers and the CQC adapt.”

To read the report in full, click here

The Building Safety Bill was introduced to Parliament on 5 July by Housing Minister Robert Jenrick MP.

Although the headline proposals contained within the Bill have been known for some time, its formal introduction marks a significant – and crucial – moment in its development. The draft is not only voluminous (running to 218 pages), but also seeks to fundamentally revise the current system of building safety and regulation, with the Government confirming that it intends the Bill will “create lasting generational change”in terms of how buildings are designed, constructed and maintained.

The Bill is incredibly wide-ranging in its proposed scope and extent, but what are the key changes suggested?

A ‘Golden Thread’ of Information

A key objective of the Bill is to establish a ‘Golden Thread’ of information to identify at every stage of a residential building’s lifetime, from planning and design through to completion and occupation, who is responsible for ensuring safety standards, and for managing potential risks.

In general terms, the Bill proposes that the person or entity which creates a potential risk should, as far as possible, also be responsible for managing that risk.

To help the passage of information between duty holders, the current Building Act will be amended to introduce a new ‘Gateway’ regime. Each gateway is intended to act as a ‘hard stop’ with compliance and appropriate sign-off/regulatory approval being required before the next development stage is able to commence.

To assist in retaining the Golden Thread of information following completion, and to act as an identifiable point of liaison for residents, the Bill will establish an Accountable Person for all higher risk buildings, being those over 18m/ seven storeys in height and which contain at least two residential units. The Accountable Person may be an individual or corporate entity. Once appointed, the Accountable Person must apply to the Building Safety Regulator for a Building Assurance Certificate, as confirmation that they are complying with their statutory obligations and must manage the ‘golden thread’ of information.

In addition, the Accountable Person must also appoint a Building Safety Manager (before occupation in relation to higher-risk buildings) to assist them with the day-to-day management of safety within the building.

The Building Safety Regulator must be notified of the appointment of the Building Safety Manager and will have the power to veto their appointment if it is not satisfied that they have the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to discharge their responsibilities.

Building Safety Regulator

The Bill proposes extensive and wide-ranging powers for the new Building Safety Regulator, including the ability to investigate and prosecute those who fail to meet the new standards and requirements. Where corporate offences are found to have been committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of directors or managers, then those individuals will also be liable to prosecution in addition to the corporate entity. The Regulator will comprise both resident representatives and industry experts.

In addition, the Bill permits the Building Safety Regulator to appoint a Special Measures Manager to replace the Accountable Person or Building Safety Manager, where serious failures endangering the life of residents are identified.

Mirroring existing powers of the Health and Safety Executive, the Building Safety Regulator will also be able to issue compliance notices, which will require duty holders to rectify non-compliance issues by a specified date. In addition, the Regulator will have the ability to issue stop notices during the design and construction phase, mandating the stoppage of work until non-compliances have been addressed. Failure to comply with either type of notice will be an offence, punishable by a custodial sentence of up to two years for individuals, and/ or an unlimited fine for corporate entities.

Peter Baker, Chief Inspector of Buildings within the Health and Safety Executive, has said of the Bill’s introduction that it, “will give HSE the tools to deliver its important role as the Building Safety Regulator and is an important step in setting out what will be expected of future duty holders”.

He continued: “Everyone involved in higher risk buildings from design, construction and day-to-day operations will manage and control building safety in a way that is proportionate to the risks. This will ensure these buildings are safer for those who live in them, and they have a stronger voice. I encourage duty holders to use the Bill’s introduction in preparation for the new, more rigorous regulatory regime.

“The Building Safety Regulator will continue to work with industry and others to deliver the new building safety regime to ensure that residents of higher risk buildings are safe, and feel safe, in their homes now and in the future.”

New Homes Ombudsman

The Bill also proposes the establishment of a New Homes Ombudsman scheme, to receive complaints from the owners of new build homes and to help hold developers to account. The Ombudsman will be able to impose sanctions on developers who breach requirements, although an appeals procedure will also be available.

However, unlike other Ombudsman services, the Bill mandates that developers become, and remain, members of the new scheme.

Regulation of Construction Products

The Bill proposes to regulate construction products placed for sale on the UK market, through the concept of ‘safety critical products’ and their inclusion on a statutory list. The Bill also contains provision for future regulations to be introduced to prohibit the supply or marketing of products which are unsafe.

Where products do not fall under an existing regulatory regime and are not included on the statutory list, the Bill enables regulations to be created which will require manufacturers to ensure that the products they supply are safe, with breach resulting in prosecution.

Conclusion

The draft Bill has a long way to go before it receives Royal Assent. Given that there is little time for further discussion before the start of the summer recess at the end of July, the majority of discussions will likely take place from the autumn. Thereafter, it is unlikely that the Bill will come fully into force much before summer 2022.

Whilst it is hoped that the Bill will be able to be enacted without significant amendments, to the benefit of all stakeholders and residents, it is not expected to have an entirely smooth transition through Parliament. For example, it is anticipated that substantial amendments will be proposed by the opposition and rebellious Conservative backbenchers, especially in relation to the redress available to leaseholders within unsafe buildings.

If you would like more information on the Building Safety Bill, contact regulatory director, Bill Dunkerley, on Bill.Dunkerley@pannonecorporate-com.stackstaging.com or call 07920 237681.