Facilities management compliance can quickly become complicated.
Fire safety, electrical systems, water hygiene, asbestos, lifting equipment, contractor management and general health and safety can all bring different responsibilities, inspections and records.
With so much to coordinate, it is easy for compliance to become focused on completing the next task on the calendar.
But completing an inspection does not necessarily mean the risk has been managed.
Some of the biggest compliance gaps occur between the inspection taking place and the issue actually being resolved.
Here are five common compliance mistakes facilities managers should look out for, along with practical ways to avoid them.
Keeping track of inspection and renewal dates is important, but statutory compliance is not simply a collection of annual, monthly and five-yearly tasks.
Effective compliance starts with understanding the risks within each building.
Two properties may contain similar equipment but require different approaches because of their age, condition, occupancy, use or previous inspection history.
Fire safety is a good example.
The Responsible Person must carry out and regularly review a fire risk assessment, record it and maintain appropriate fire precautions. The assessment should reflect the actual risks within the premises rather than simply being renewed because a date has appeared on a spreadsheet.
A facilities team might successfully arrange every scheduled inspection while overlooking:
A compliance calendar remains extremely useful, but it should support a wider risk-management process.
The better approach: Use planned schedules alongside regular reviews of building risks, asset condition and outstanding actions.
Compliance should answer more than “Is the inspection in date?”
It should also answer “Is the risk actually being controlled?”
This is one of the most important distinctions in compliance management.
Not necessarily.
Reports frequently contain observations, recommendations, defects or remedial actions. If nobody takes ownership of those actions, an organisation may have evidence that a problem was identified but no evidence that it was resolved.
Imagine a fire risk assessment identifies a damaged fire door…
The assessment itself may have been completed on time, but the risk remains until the issue is appropriately addressed.
The same principle can apply to:
A strong process should record:
Facilities managers should be able to see outstanding actions just as easily as upcoming inspection dates.
An inspection identifies the risk. Closing the action helps manage it.
Ask someone for a particular compliance record and how quickly can they find it?
If the answer involves checking someone’s inbox, searching through a shared drive, calling the contractor and opening three spreadsheets, there may be a problem.
Facilities management often involves numerous contractors and service areas, which can lead to information becoming fragmented.
Certificates might be stored in one location, asset information in another and remedial actions somewhere else entirely.
The issue becomes particularly important when organisations need to demonstrate what has happened.
For example:
If answering those questions requires a detective novel, the compliance system probably needs simplifying.
Good record-keeping is particularly important in areas such as fire safety. Government guidance requires Responsible Persons to record their fire risk assessment, while HSE guidance for Legionella management also places importance on recording monitoring, inspection and maintenance arrangements.
Records should ideally be:
The objective is not to collect as many documents as possible.
It is to create an audit trail that clearly shows how building risks are being managed.
Facilities management often involves several parties.
There may be a landlord, tenant, property manager, managing agent, FM provider and multiple specialist contractors involved with one building.
That can create a dangerous assumption:
“Someone else must be dealing with it.”
Responsibility should never be left unclear.
Depending on the requirement, legal responsibility may sit with an employer, building owner, landlord, Responsible Person, dutyholder or another party with control over the premises.
Contracting work out does not automatically remove every responsibility from the organisation arranging it either.
Facilities teams should establish:
This should also extend to contractor competency.
Choosing a contractor because they are available or already work on site is not enough for specialist or safety-critical work.
Organisations should check that contractors have the appropriate skills, experience, qualifications and registrations for the work they are being asked to undertake.
HSE guidance emphasises the importance of competence when managing workplace health and safety, and contractors themselves have duties to properly plan, manage and monitor their work.
The better approach: Make compliance ownership visible.
For every requirement, someone should know exactly who is responsible for arranging it, reviewing the outcome and dealing with any actions.
Buildings do not stand still.
Rooms are refurbished, teams move, equipment is replaced and contractors carry out alterations. Occupancy levels shift, spaces are repurposed and some areas or water outlets may fall out of regular use.
The problem is that compliance information does not always change at the same pace.
A risk assessment that accurately reflected a building two years ago may no longer reflect how that building is being used today. When physical or operational changes take place, existing compliance records should be reviewed to make sure they are still accurate and relevant.
This can affect several areas of facilities management.
Changes to a building layout, occupancy or use can affect escape routes, evacuation arrangements and the overall fire risk. Following significant changes, existing fire safety information and risk assessments may need to be reviewed.
Alterations to water systems, changes in occupancy or periods of low use can affect Legionella risk. Existing assessments and control measures should therefore be reviewed where changes could affect how the system operates.
Maintenance and refurbishment work can create additional risk where contractors do not have access to accurate asbestos information before work begins.
For example, a contractor may arrive on site to drill into a wall or ceiling. An asbestos register may exist, but if nobody checks it or shares the relevant information before the work starts, the document has not served its purpose.
Having the information is not enough. It needs to be accurate, accessible and used at the right time.
Build compliance reviews into the way building changes are managed.
Whenever refurbishment, maintenance works, changes in occupancy or other significant alterations take place, consider whether any associated information also needs updating.
This could include:
Keeping compliance information aligned with the building as it changes helps reduce the risk of outdated records influencing important safety decisions.
Most compliance gaps are not caused by a lack of activity.
In many cases, inspections are being completed, contractors are being appointed and records are being created. The problem is that those activities are not always connected.
Actions are identified but not tracked. Responsibility is unclear. Documents exist but are difficult to locate. Risk assessments are completed but not updated when the building changes.
That is why effective statutory compliance needs to be managed as an ongoing process rather than a series of individual tasks.
A strong compliance programme should make it easy to understand:
A useful starting point is to ask five simple questions:
Do we know what applies? Identify the relevant responsibilities for each property, system and asset.
Do we know who is responsible? Assign clear ownership for arranging, reviewing and closing each requirement.
Can we see what is outstanding? Keep upcoming inspections and unresolved remedial actions visible.
Can we evidence what has happened? Maintain an organised audit trail of assessments, certificates, reports and completed works.
Does our information reflect the building today? Review compliance records following significant physical or operational changes.
If any of these questions are difficult to answer, there may be a gap in the compliance process.
Good facilities management brings compliance into the wider day-to-day management of a building.
Planned maintenance, inspections, contractor management, records and remedial actions should all work together rather than sitting in separate systems.
This gives facilities teams greater visibility, helps identify issues earlier and makes it easier to demonstrate how risks are being managed.
Managing statutory compliance across a building or wider estate can involve a large number of contractors, inspections, records and follow-up actions.
The FM Company helps clients bring these elements together through a structured and proactive approach to facilities management.
Our support can include:
Our aim is to give clients a clearer picture of what needs attention, what has been completed and what needs to happen next.
If you would like greater visibility and control over your facilities management compliance, speak to The FM Company about how we can support your buildings and wider estate.
This article provides general information and should not be treated as legal advice. Statutory duties vary according to the premises, equipment, location and relevant dutyholder. Appropriate professional advice should be obtained where necessary.
