Misconduct and disciplinary process for registered buildings inspectors and building control approvers

On 23 July 2026, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) published its proposed Disciplinary and Sanctions Procedure for registered building inspectors (RBIs) and registered building control approvers (RBCAs).

Regulation of building control professionals

The Building Safety Act 2022 imposed new regulations on approved inspectors – now called RBCAs – and on RBIs (individuals who provide advice to local authorities or registered building control approvers overseeing building work). These professionals must now be registered with the BSR and comply with professional conduct rules.

The Codes of Conduct

The Professional Conduct Rules (PCRs) for registered building control approvers and Code of Conduct (Code) for registered building inspectors in England were updated on 22 May 2026. For Wales, the PCRs for Registered Building Control Approvers (Wales) 2024 and Code for Registered Building Inspectors (Wales) apply (last updated on 7 May 2025), but are substantially in the same form. These rules set out the standards of professional conduct expected by the BSR and are structured as six core principles and detailed standards. The Principles require registered building control approvers to:

1. Act with honesty.
2. Act with integrity.
3. Maintain their professional competence.
4. Deliver services with professional skill and care.
5. Uphold public trust and confidence in the provision of services and the profession.
6. Treat everyone fairly and act in compliance with their legal obligations.

The detailed standards address key issues such as the scope of the Codes/PCRs, insurance, use of technology and the standard of service required.

Enforcement and disciplinary process

As mentioned, the BSR has now published a document explaining how it will enforce the Codes: the Disciplinary and Sanctions Procedure (Procedure) covers both England and Wales. The disciplinary process is a two-stage process: during stage 1, the papers will be reviewed by a disciplinary officer who will decide whether the matter can be dealt with within stage 1, or whether referral to stage 2 (consideration by a disciplinary panel) is required.

The burden of proof will be on the BSR to prove professional misconduct and the BSR will rely on its enforcement policy statement, the Code and PCRs to guide its decision making. Allegations must be proven on the balance of probabilities.

There is no set timescale, although the BSR states that it will conclude both stages "within the shortest practicable timescales considering complexity and fairness" and will provide indicative timeframes to the parties at the outset of a complaint.

Investigation stage

The Procedure contains sparse details about the investigation stage, but state that a matter is likely to enter the disciplinary process when the evidence indicates professional misconduct (or contravention of the PCRs in the case of RBCAs) and sanctions are likely to be required to address the misconduct or contravention.

Once a decision to refer into the disciplinary process has been made, the professional will be notified of the nature of the allegations and provided with:

• a copy of the disciplinary procedure.
• a copy of the evidence.
• an opportunity to indicate admission or denial of the allegation or allegations.
• an opportunity to provide written submissions.
• financial assessment information request.

The professional then has 28 days to submit evidence and written submissions, including on whether the matter is suitable for stage 1 or 2.

This has the potential to be problematic in practice as the Procedure suggests that the first notification to the professional is after a decision to refer into the disciplinary process has been made. At this point, the investigator may only have heard "one side of the story". Natural justice requires that the accused have the opportunity to explain themselves before decisions are made about their culpability; albeit the Procedure makes clear that no findings of fact will be made until stage 1 or, if referred onwards, stage 2.

Once the professional has responded, a disciplinary bundle will be compiled, which will include details of the allegations, copies of all evidence and the professional's submissions. The officer or panel can consider any evidence it considers fair and relevant, regardless of whether it would be admissible in court. Oral evidence may be given in hearings, although curiously this will not be on oath: another potential problem, as the oath underlines the seriousness of the matters in issue to any witnesses.

Stage 1: disciplinary officer

The disciplinary officer will assess the information contained in the bundle against the relevant Code or PCRs and decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the professional has contravened the Code or PCRs.

If the disciplinary officer makes a finding on the papers that the allegations are proved, they can impose sanctions. If the officer concludes that the allegations are not proven, the process will end there, although the officer may still make recommendations to the professional to improve their practice. If the officer decides to refer the matter to stage 2, the officer will not make any findings.

The disciplinary officer can convene a hearing, particularly in cases where they consider it necessary to test the credibility of a witness, there is a dispute of fact or it is in the interests of justice to do so. The officer can also request clarification or additional information as reasonably necessary and proportionate.

A referral on to stage 2 is likely where:

1. Harm has occurred which is attributable to the alleged misconduct or contravention.
2. The alleged misconduct or contravention is so serious that it may lead to a cancellation of the RBI or RBCA’s registration.
3. The allegations relate to repeated misconduct or contravention.
4. There is evidence to indicate a careless disregard of the Code or PCRs.
5. There has been a failure to comply with an information notice under section 58G and section 58S of the Building Act 1984.
6. There has been intentional obstruction by the RBI or RBCA to the investigation.
7. The alleged misconduct or contravention relates to a criminal offence including cases where there is evidence of a potential criminal offence arising from the investigation.
8. There is any other serious matter that, in the opinion of the disciplinary officer, requires consideration by a disciplinary panel.

Where a matter is referred to stage 2, the officer will give reasons in writing.

Stage 2: disciplinary panel

Disciplinary cases will be referred to stage 2 where justified on the basis of the seriousness or complexity (in the disciplinary officer's view) or where the disciplinary officer considers that fairness or public interest demand a hearing. If the panel finds the allegations proven, they can impose sanctions. If the disciplinary panel concludes that the allegations are not proven, the process will end there but, again, the panel can still make recommendations to the RBI or RBCA to improve their practice.

The panel will be comprised of an independent legally qualified chairperson, a building control expert (who is RBI class 2 or above) and a third 'lay' person who is not an RBI. The BSR is presently recruiting members.

By default, matters referred to stage 2 will be considered at a disciplinary panel meeting, although the disciplinary officer will take in to consideration any submissions by the professional regarding whether a meeting or a full hearing is appropriate.

Panel meetings will be held in private on the papers, and the professional cannot attend, although they will be notified 28 days before the date of the meeting and be given the opportunity to make further representations on sanction. It is not clear from the Procedure whether the representations on sanction must be submitted before the meeting or after and only if the allegations are found proven. If earlier, this will be difficult for the professional, not knowing which allegations might be proven and often in circumstances where the misconduct is disputed.

Hearings are stated to be conducted by video conference as default, and will only take place in person in exceptional circumstances. The Procedure is silent on whether they are conducted in private or open to the public, which may be an important factor for the professional in indicating whether they think a meeting or a hearing is the most suitable forum. The professional will be given 28 days to give details of the issues in dispute and witness requirements and can provide additional evidence or submissions at this stage. Notice of the hearing will be given to the professional 56 days before the hearing, together with an updated copy of the bundle 14 days before.

Professionals have the right to appear at the hearing, make representations and question witnesses. They can be represented by a legal representative, a trade union or professional body representative or an individual of their choice. The representative must be able to present the case with independence, honesty and integrity, act fairly and effectively and understand the Procedure. Professionals without a legal representative may be assisted by the legally qualified chair with any question of law or procedure, or the legal interpretation of the Code or PCRs.

If the professional does not appear at the hearing, the panel may proceed in their absence provided appropriate to do so having regard to the professional's awareness of the hearing and the public interest. Applications for a postponement must be made by 4.00pm on the last working day before the hearing.  Hearings may be adjourned if necessary and in the interests of justice.

Hearings will proceed as follows:

1. The chairperson will reading out the particulars of the case, including the allegations and identify the professional.
2. The professional will be asked to state whether they admit or deny the allegations, in part or in their entirety.
3. Both the BSR and the professional will have an opportunity to present their cases.
4. Either party can call witnesses to give oral evidence. The panel's permission is required for witnesses whose statement is not already in the bundle. Witnesses will be examined by the party who called them, and then cross-examined by the opposing party, and may be asked questions by the panel.
5. The panel will make a unanimous decision with each member given a single vote. In exceptional circumstances a simple majority will be permitted.
6. An audio recording will be made of the hearing.

Meetings of the panel convened privately will proceed in a similar way, with the chair noting the professional's plea.

Sanctions

Before imposing a sanction, the disciplinary officer or panel will consider whether alternative measures are suitable, such as recommending a course of training, a direction to improve existing systems or a letter of contravention. Both disciplinary officers and the panel are empowered to make recommendations to the professional to improve their practice.

Decisions regarding sanctions will be made in the public interest and are intended to be a fair, reasonable and proportionate reflection of the seriousness of the conduct in question, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Possible sanctions which can be imposed by either a disciplinary officer or the panel include (in order to escalating seriousness):

• a financial penalty of a specified sum (from £1 to £10,000 for RBIs or from 0.1% to 5% of gross annual turnover for RBCAs – payable within 28 days of the disciplinary order unless there is an appeal).
• a variation of the registration (for example to limit the types of work that a professional can do, or imposing a condition).
• a suspension of the registration for a specified period.
• cancellation of the registration from a specified date.

Performing regulated activities while suspended or after cancellation is a criminal offence. If a professional's registration is cancelled, they can make an application for re-registration, but this is unlikely to be granted until they can demonstrate that they have taken reasonable rehabilitative steps and no longer pose a risk to the public.

Where more than one allegation is proven, more than one disciplinary order may be made, suggesting that there is the potential for multiple fines to be issued. The seriousness of the allegations will reflect the culpability of the professional, the impact or potential impact of the misconduct and any aggravating or mitigating factors arising in connection with the proven allegations, such as evidence of dishonesty or deception. In relation to culpability, the officer or panel will consider what efforts were made to comply with the Code/PCRs, whether negligence or gross negligence was involved and whether the conduct was intentional.

Aggravating factors include conduct that:

1. Existed over a significant period.
2. Involved dishonesty.
3. Involved taking advantage of vulnerable parties.
4. Involved an abuse of professional position.

Mitigating factors include where the conduct arose as a result of the actions or otherwise of a third party or existed over a short period.

The Procedure states that disciplinary orders may be published, together with the reasons for them. Appeals can be made within 21 days of service of the disciplinary order.

Conclusion

We anticipate that the new Procedure will be generally welcomed as all parties benefit from clear processes and expectations. However, the suggestion that professionals will not be notified of a complaint until after a decision has been made to refer a complaint into the disciplinary process is a flaw that deprives professionals of the opportunity to try to resolve matters at an early stage. In theory, clients should complain direct to the professional before approaching a regulator, but in practice, such processes are not always followed. Further, the Procedure is unclear on negotiated outcomes following admissions. This is something that would benefit from greater clarity by the BSR. However, this is a newly created disciplinary regime, which will no doubt evolve as cases are dealt with, so professionals should ensure that they stay up-to-date on developments (for example, by subscribing to our Thinking).

Our experience in defending professionals against disciplinary cases suggests that those who engage early with experienced representatives are likely to achieve the best outcomes. Emma Wherry and Sarah O'Callaghan have a strong track record in supporting construction professionals though the stress and risk involved in a professional disciplinary case and would be delighted to discuss any queries, questions or potential instructions arising from this article.