Status	2026 Regulatory Impact Analysis
Regulator	Single Construction Regulator (SCR) / Building Safety Regulator (BSR)
Applicability	London Construction Projects – Contractors, Designers & Product Specifiers
Compliance Window	Active (Product Liability Enforcement Escalating)

 

In 2026, product liability in UK construction is no longer fragmented — it is being consolidated, enforced and traced.

The emergence of the Single Construction Regulator (SCR) marks a fundamental shift in how product liability is assessed, enforced and attributed across UK construction. For London projects — particularly Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) — this change directly affects contractors, designers and anyone involved in specifying, approving or substituting products.

Historically, responsibility for defective or non-compliant products was diffused across supply chains, insurers and contractual boundaries. The SCR model collapses that diffusion. It aligns product safety, design intent, installation and occupation into a single enforcement lens.

This shift sits alongside the Building Safety Regulator and is increasingly visible at Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 decision points, where product choices are no longer treated as commercial details, but as regulated safety decisions.

1. What the Single Construction Regulator actually changes

The SCR does not replace existing law — it changes how it is enforced. Its role is to unify oversight of:

• Construction products and their claimed performance.
• How products are specified, substituted and installed.
• Who made decisions affecting product safety.
• Whether unsafe products remain in use.

For contractors and designers, the critical shift is this: liability now follows decision-making and control, not just contractual position.

This is why product issues increasingly surface during Construction Control Plan reviews and at completion, where the as-built reality must be defensible under scrutiny.

2. How product liability now attaches to contractors

Contractors are no longer insulated by “we installed what we were given”. Under the SCR framework, liability can attach where contractors:

• Accept substitutions without verifying performance.
• Install products inconsistently with tested systems.
• Proceed with products despite unclear or incomplete certification.
• Fail to record and evidence what was actually installed.

This risk is amplified on HRBs, where product performance directly affects life safety. The façade is the clearest example, as explained in Façade Strategy, Fire Performance and Liability Exposure in London HRBs.

Contractors who cannot demonstrate control of product selection, installation and verification are increasingly exposed at Gateway 3 and completion certification.

3. How product liability now attaches to designers

Designers are exposed where product choices form part of the safety strategy. Under the SCR model, liability can arise where designers:

• Specify products without sufficient evidence of performance.
• Rely on generic classifications disconnected from system behaviour.
• Approve substitutions without reassessing safety impact.
• Allow design intent to drift without formal change control.

This links directly to competence expectations for Principal Designers, where the ability to control and justify product decisions is now central to professional credibility.

4. Substitution: the fastest route to liability

Product substitution is now one of the most common triggers for SCR attention. What was once treated as a commercial optimisation is now assessed as a safety decision.

Substitutions create exposure when they:

• Alter tested system behaviour.
• Invalidate assumptions made at Gateway 2.
• Are poorly documented or justified.
• Are discovered only at completion.

This is why the SCR’s influence is increasingly felt when the BSR revisits Gateway 2 commitments during Gateway 3 assessment.

5. The Golden Thread as a liability boundary

The Golden Thread is now one of the strongest defences against product liability — but only if it is complete, accurate and operational.

Where product records are missing, unclear or inconsistent, liability exposure increases sharply. This directly links to operational readiness and Golden Thread usability.

If the Golden Thread cannot show what product was installed, where, why and under whose authority, the SCR’s enforcement path becomes straightforward.

6. A practical product liability checklist (2026)

For contractors

✔ Products verified against approved design.
✔ Substitutions assessed for safety impact.
✔ Installation matches tested systems.
✔ As-built records complete and traceable.

For designers

✔ Product specifications evidence-led.
✔ System behaviour understood, not assumed.
✔ Changes formally assessed and recorded.

Key takeaway

The Single Construction Regulator changes product liability by removing ambiguity. In 2026, liability follows those who specify, approve, substitute and control products — not just those who manufacture them. Contractors and designers who embed product control into Gateway submissions, construction governance and the Golden Thread reduce risk. Those who do not are increasingly exposed.

image: constructionmagazine.uk

Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist