1. Introduction
Competence is one of the most misused concepts in anchor selection and testing. It is often reduced to training certificates, product familiarity or years of site experience. Under BS 8539, that interpretation is incorrect and increasingly unsafe.
BS 8539 does not treat competence as a personal attribute. It treats it as a functional condition tied to decision-making authority, scope of responsibility and consequence of failure. Where post-installed anchors are relied upon to resist load, provide restraint or protect life safety, competence becomes a prerequisite for legitimacy, not a badge of experience.
Under the Building Safety regime, competence is no longer inferred from participation. It must be demonstrated through defined roles, controlled decisions and retained evidence. Where anchor performance is relied upon, the absence of demonstrable competence is treated as unmanaged risk rather than a technical omission.
Root principle: under BS 8539, competence is not proven by doing the work. It is proven by being authorised, capable and accountable for the decisions that make the work safe.
2. What BS 8539 actually means by competence
BS 8539 does not provide a single universal definition of competence. Instead, it links competence to function.
A person is competent under BS 8539 only when they:
Competence is one of the most misused concepts in anchor selection and testing. It is often reduced to training certificates, product familiarity or years of site experience. Under BS 8539, that interpretation is incorrect and increasingly unsafe.
BS 8539 does not treat competence as a personal attribute. It treats it as a functional condition tied to decision-making authority, scope of responsibility and consequence of failure. Where post-installed anchors are relied upon to resist load, provide restraint or protect life safety, competence becomes a prerequisite for legitimacy, not a badge of experience.
Under the Building Safety regime, competence is no longer inferred from participation. It must be demonstrated through defined roles, controlled decisions and retained evidence. Where anchor performance is relied upon, the absence of demonstrable competence is treated as unmanaged risk rather than a technical omission.
Root principle: under BS 8539, competence is not proven by doing the work. It is proven by being authorised, capable and accountable for the decisions that make the work safe.
2. What BS 8539 actually means by competence
BS 8539 does not provide a single universal definition of competence. Instead, it links competence to function.
A person is competent under BS 8539 only when they:
- understand the technical risks associated with anchors
- operate within a clearly defined scope
- have authority appropriate to the decisions they are making
- can recognise when assumptions are invalid
- know when escalation is required
Competence is therefore contextual. A person may be competent to install anchors but not competent to select them. A person may be competent to carry out testing but not competent to interpret results. A person may be competent to witness installation but not competent to accept anchor performance into use.
BS 8539 explicitly rejects the idea that competence transfers automatically between roles.
3. Competence in anchor selection
Anchor selection is a design act whenever performance is relied upon. Under BS 8539, this is not a procurement decision and not a trade choice.
Competence in anchor selection requires the ability to:
- understand load paths and load combinations
- assess base material condition and uncertainty
- recognise manufacturer limitations and assumptions
- identify when testing is required
- understand consequences of failure
Where anchors are selected without defined design intent, the party making the selection assumes accountability for suitability. If that party lacks competence, the act of selection itself becomes non-compliant.
BS 8539 does not allow anchor selection to be delegated to convenience. If a person cannot justify why a specific anchor is suitable for a specific substrate under specific loads, they are not competent to select it, regardless of training or experience.
4. Competence in installation
Installation competence under BS 8539 is narrower than commonly assumed.
An installer may be competent to drill, clean, inject or torque an anchor, but that competence does not extend to redefining embedment, substituting products or modifying installation parameters.
Installation competence requires:
- adherence to defined installation parameters
- understanding of why those parameters matter
- ability to identify deviations
- authority to stop work when assumptions are breached
BS 8539 treats installation quality as a condition of performance, not a workmanship preference. Installation carried out outside defined assumptions invalidates compliance regardless of installer experience.
Competence in installation includes knowing when not to proceed.
5. Competence in anchor testing
Anchor testing is one of the most misunderstood areas of competence.
Testing competence under BS 8539 is limited to:
5. Competence in anchor testing
Anchor testing is one of the most misunderstood areas of competence.
Testing competence under BS 8539 is limited to:
- conducting tests correctly
- applying load accurately
- recording results faithfully
- reporting behaviour observed
Testers are not competent by default to:
- approve design adequacy
- redefine allowable loads
- legitimise unknown assumptions
- accept anchors into use
Unless explicitly appointed to assume design responsibility, testers do not carry accountability for anchor performance. Treating testing competence as design competence is a critical compliance error. A competent test does not equal a competent decision.
6. Who decides whether competence is sufficient
Under BS 8539, competence is not self-declared.
Competence must be recognised and relied upon by the party controlling the risk. In practice, this typically includes:
- designers assessing suitability of anchor strategy
- contractors controlling selection and execution
- dutyholders managing building safety risk
Where no one has verified competence for a safety-critical role, that role has not been competently discharged. The Building Safety regime does not accept informal competence assumptions.
7. Common competence failures seen on site
Recurring failures include:
- installers making selection decisions without authority
- testers being treated as sign-off authorities
- manufacturer training being used as competence proof
- competence inferred from historic practice
- lack of clarity over who is competent for what
In each case, the technical task may be completed, but the compliance framework is broken. BS 8539 treats unclear competence boundaries as a governance failure.
8. Competence under the Building Safety regime
Under the Building Safety Act, competence is a dutyholder requirement, not an optional attribute.
Dutyholders must be able to demonstrate:
- who was competent for each safety-critical decision
- what that competence was based on
- how it was verified
- how it aligned with responsibility
Where anchor-related decisions affect building safety, regulators will not accept competence by implication. If competence cannot be demonstrated, the decision is treated as invalid.
9. Evidence of competence
Defensible evidence typically includes:
- defined role descriptions
- scope of authority
- training appropriate to the function
- experience relevant to the decision being made
- records showing when escalation occurred
Certificates alone are insufficient. Experience alone is insufficient. Silence is fatal. Under BS 8539, competence must be visible, bounded and traceable.
10. Conclusion
BS 8539 does not elevate competence as a status. It uses competence as a control mechanism.
- Only competent persons may select anchors.
- Only competent persons may define assumptions.
- Only competent persons may interpret evidence.
- Only competent persons may accept anchor performance into use.
Installation and testing do not create competence. Responsibility defines it. Under BS 8539 and the Building Safety regime, competence is not about who touched the work. It is about who understood the risk, controlled the assumptions and accepted the consequence.
That is why competence is not optional. It is the foundation on which anchor compliance stands.
|
Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus
Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist |
