Introduction
From 2026, regulatory oversight is shifting away from fragmented supervision toward a more consolidated approach, often referenced as a Single Construction Regulator (SCR) environment.
For London, this matters for one reason above all others:
Product liability is moving upstream.
In practice, this means procurement teams, designers and principal contractors can no longer treat product compliance as a supplier responsibility. Under a stricter regulator environment, product decisions become traceable, auditable and increasingly linked to dutyholder accountability.
This guidance sets out:
- what changes in 2026 regulatory posture,
- how product liability exposure grows in London projects,
- and the checklist your team should use to reduce risk.
1. The Regulator’s 2026 Expectation (Product Decisions Are Now Audited)
In 2026, regulator scrutiny increasingly focuses on how safety-critical products were selected, verified and controlled, not merely whether they were certified.
The regulator expects:
In 2026, regulator scrutiny increasingly focuses on how safety-critical products were selected, verified and controlled, not merely whether they were certified.
The regulator expects:
- Traceable Product Selection: Clear evidence of why a specific product/system was chosen and where it is suitable.
- Verified Performance Claims: No reliance on marketing, generic datasheets or ambiguous certificates.
- Controlled Substitution: Any change (brand swap, specification change, alternative component) must be documented, justified and approved through the project’s control system.
For London HRBs, product selection must also reflect:
2. How Product Liability Shifts in 2026 (What Changes)
In a consolidated regulator environment, product liability becomes a chain of accountability, not a single party problem.
The new reality:
- tight access constraints,
- complex façade/fire interfaces,
- mixed tenure stakeholder environments,
- and extremely low tolerance for compliance ambiguity.
2. How Product Liability Shifts in 2026 (What Changes)
In a consolidated regulator environment, product liability becomes a chain of accountability, not a single party problem.
The new reality:
- Suppliers remain liable for false or misleading claims
- But dutyholders become exposed if they failed to verify, record, or control what was installed
The risk exposure increases most in:
3. The Most Common Product Liability Failure Points (London Projects)
Based on recurring patterns in compliance failures, these are the primary risks:
Unverified Product Claims
- façade and external wall systems
- fire stopping and compartmentation products
- structural fixings and load-bearing components
- internal fire doors and life-safety interfaces
- any product linked to the as-built safety case / Golden Thread
3. The Most Common Product Liability Failure Points (London Projects)
Based on recurring patterns in compliance failures, these are the primary risks:
Unverified Product Claims
- Failure: Using brochures or third-party summaries instead of primary evidence.
- Regulator expectation: Proof that claims are supported by valid test evidence and is applicable to the installed configuration.
Substitution Without Control
- Failure: Equivalent products swapped due to procurement pressure or lead times.
- Regulator expectation: Controlled change process, documented approval and updated Golden Thread records.
Missing Installation Evidence
- Failure: Correct product specified but installed incorrectly or without evidence of correct installation.
- Regulator expectation: Installation records, QA evidence and sign-off trail (especially for fire stopping and compartmentation).
Lack of System-Level Compatibility
- Failure: Individually compliant products assembled into a non-compliant system (interfaces ignored).
- Regulator expectation: Evidence that the system performs as intended in the real configuration (especially façade + fire strategy interfaces).
Golden Thread Gaps
4. 2026 Product Liability Compliance Checklist (London)
Use this checklist to reduce product liability exposure under the SCR/BSR enforcement environment:
Selection & Evidence
✔ Safety-critical products are selected using primary evidence (test reports, certifications, declared performance).
✔ Evidence is applicable to the actual configuration (not similar system assumptions).
- Failure: No accurate what was installed, where, and why record.
- Regulator expectation: A live record of product decisions and evidence that can be audited.
4. 2026 Product Liability Compliance Checklist (London)
Use this checklist to reduce product liability exposure under the SCR/BSR enforcement environment:
Selection & Evidence
✔ Safety-critical products are selected using primary evidence (test reports, certifications, declared performance).
✔ Evidence is applicable to the actual configuration (not similar system assumptions).
Substitution Control
✔ Any product substitution is formally approved, documented and traceable.
✔ Design team review is recorded for any change impacting fire/structure safety.
✔ Any product substitution is formally approved, documented and traceable.
✔ Design team review is recorded for any change impacting fire/structure safety.
Installation & QA
✔ Installation evidence exists (inspection, QA sign-off, photos where appropriate).
✔ Fire stopping/compartmentation has documented inspection and verification.
✔ Installation evidence exists (inspection, QA sign-off, photos where appropriate).
✔ Fire stopping/compartmentation has documented inspection and verification.
System Compatibility
✔ Interfaces between products are assessed (façade-fire, door-frames, penetrations, fixings).
✔ System-level performance is validated where required.
✔ Interfaces between products are assessed (façade-fire, door-frames, penetrations, fixings).
✔ System-level performance is validated where required.
Golden Thread Records
✔ Records include what was installed, where, date, batch/lot where relevant and evidence pack.
✔ Ownership of product information is assigned and maintained through handover.
5. Programme Implications (London Reality)
Product compliance failures are rarely minor. In 2026 they increasingly trigger:
✔ Records include what was installed, where, date, batch/lot where relevant and evidence pack.
✔ Ownership of product information is assigned and maintained through handover.
5. Programme Implications (London Reality)
Product compliance failures are rarely minor. In 2026 they increasingly trigger:
- delayed approvals and handovers
- expensive intrusive inspections
- remediation works
- increased PI and warranty friction
- reputational and commercial fallout
How Product Liability & the SCR Transition Intersects with London’s 2026 Regulatory Architecture
The evolving role of the Single Construction Regulator (SCR) in 2026, particularly as it relates to product liability and design responsibility, does not sit in isolation but reflects a broader regulatory ecosystem shaping London’s construction compliance landscape. It connects directly with how building control functions are transferred to the BSR, and with the strengthened submission expectations seen at Gateway 2, where insufficient evidence often leads to rejection before construction can begin.
It also informs the conditions under which phased occupation and partial Gateway 3 approval may be granted, as this regulator transition alters accountability and risk profiles for developers and dutyholders. These systemic changes sit alongside heightened competence standards for Principal Designers, whose decisions now carry identifiable responsibility in both design coordination and product specification.
Similarly, evolving fire safety requirements, including second staircases and evacuation strategies, are increasingly evaluated through the lens of product performance and regulatory expectation. At the same time, regulators are placing growing emphasis on remediation delivery timelines, where liability for product-related defects can significantly influence programme certainty and compliance risk.
Taken together, these developments form a connected regulatory environment in which design evidence, product accountability, competence and delivery certainty are inseparable components of successful 2026 submissions for London Higher-Risk Buildings.
|
Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus
Founder of London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist | 15+ years in construction, 10+ years delivering projects in London. Writing practical guidance on regulation, compliance and real on-site delivery reality.
|
