New legislation, new terminology and, most significantly, new personal accountability have changed what it means to be responsible for building safety. For many RMC and RTM directors, often volunteers, this responsibility can feel daunting, even intimidating.
At Prime, we want to start by saying something important: This is a huge responsibility, and it’s okay to acknowledge how hard it is.
Why the Accountable Person role exists
Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, it became clear that responsibility for building safety was too fragmented. Critical risks, particularly fire and structural safety, were being assumed, passed between parties or lost in complex leasehold arrangements.
The Building Safety Act introduced the Principle Accountable Person (PAP) and Accountable Person (AP) role to change that.
An AP is the organisation or individual who owns, or has a legal obligation to repair and maintain, the common parts of a building, areas such as:
- the structure and exterior
- corridors, staircases and lobbies
APs can include freeholders, landlords, management companies operating under a lease, RMCs, RTMs and commonhold associations.
There can only be one PAP for a building and the PAP is ultimately responsible for overseeing building-wide fire and structural safety and acts as the main point of accountability with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
This clarity matters. It ensures that safety is actively managed, not assumed.
But clarity does not reduce pressure.
Why the responsibility feels so heavy
APs and the PAP cannot delegate their legal accountability, even if they appoint professionals to help carry out the work. That means the responsibility, and potential liability, remains firmly with them.
APs and PAPs are expected to:
- Understand the building’s fire and structural risks
- Maintain the “golden thread” of safety information
- Prepare, update and maintain the building safety case
- Engage with residents transparently and clearly
- Work collaboratively with other APs where responsibilities overlap
- Register buildings and report safety occurrences to the BSR
For RMC and RTM directors, this can feel overwhelming, especially when layered on top of complex lease structures, resident concerns and evolving guidance.
This is where competence becomes critical, and also one of the greatest sources of anxiety.
Competence: what’s expected - and why it’s challenging
The legislation is clear: APs and PAPs must be competent, or must appoint people who are.
Competence is not just about qualifications. It includes:
- Skills, knowledge and experience
- The right behaviours and ethical approach
- Organisational capability, systems and resources
For individuals, this may involve training, qualifications and evidence of experience.
For organisations, it means having robust procedures, clear governance, and the capacity to manage safety effectively.
Standards such as PAS 8673 provide guidance, but even then, there is no single checklist that removes uncertainty.
We hear directors say:
- “How do I know if I’m doing enough?”
- “What does ‘competent’ really mean for me?”
- “What happens if something is missed?”
These are reasonable questions, and you’re not alone in asking them.