Building safety portfolio reviews: what the regulator now expects from landlords

What the regulator said

On 9 July 2026, the Building Safety Regulator announced a more proportionate, intelligence-led and risk-based approach to assessing higher-risk buildings, after reporting that 66% of building assessment certificate applications decided in 2026 had been refused. Of particular note for larger landlords:

• The risk-based approach will initially focus on organisations responsible for multiple higher-risk buildings
• The regulator plans a single point of contact for principal accountable persons with multiple buildings, such as local authorities, housing associations and larger landlords
• It will carry out sample interventions based on risk or intelligence

In other words, a portfolio landlord's weakest building may be the one the regulator looks at first – and what it finds may shape its view of the whole organisation. See why safety cases get refused.

What a portfolio review does

A building safety portfolio review gives you one picture of where every building stands, and turns it into a prioritised programme. Typical outputs:

1. A register of every building – height, storeys, residential units, higher-risk status, registration and key building information
2. An evidence map – for each building: fire strategy, fire risk assessment and action status, FRAEW, compartmentation, fire doors, structural information, safety case report status
3. A risk score – combining building factors (height, external walls, evacuation strategy, sprinklers) with evidence gaps and outstanding actions
4. A programme – what to commission, in what order, at what cost
5. Governance – reporting for boards and committees, and a clear owner for each building

How to prioritise

Start with buildings that combine higher inherent risk with weaker evidence:

• External walls with medium or high FRAEW outcomes, or no FRAEW – see what is an FRAEW?
• No reliable fire strategy, particularly where stay put depends on unverified compartmentation – see retrospective fire strategies
• Overdue high-priority FRA actions
• Converted buildings and those with complex mixed uses
• Buildings where residents have raised concerns

Standardise the approach, not the evidence

Templates, document structures and processes should be consistent across the portfolio – it saves time and makes oversight easier. But each safety case report must describe that building's risks and evidence. Copied text is one of the quickest ways to fail an assessment.

Don't forget medium-rise buildings

Buildings of 11–18m aren't higher-risk buildings, but they're the focus of the proposed medium-rise register and cladding remediation duty – see the Remediation of Unsafe Cladding Bill. A portfolio review should cover them too.

Making the information work

A portfolio review is only useful if it's kept current. Hold the register and evidence in a golden thread system, update it when anything changes, and report on it regularly. See the golden thread.

A 90-day plan for a portfolio review

1. Days 1–30: gather. Build the register, collect existing documents and confirm higher-risk status and registration for every building.
2. Days 31–60: assess. Map evidence gaps, score risk, and identify urgent issues that need action now.
3. Days 61–90: plan. Agree a prioritised, costed programme, assign owners, and set up reporting for the board.

After that, the portfolio review becomes a living register, updated as surveys, works and safety case reports are completed.

Our Building Safety Act support includes portfolio reviews and strategic advice, with safety case reports delivered building by building.

Sources

• GOV.UK – BSR to introduce more proportionate and targeted approach for higher-risk building assessments (9 July 2026)
• Hamlins – Government introduces Remediation of Unsafe Cladding Bill

This guide is general information based on the law and guidance in England as at 8 November 2026. It isn't legal advice – for advice on a specific building, get in touch.