Building standards - operating and performance frameworks for verifiers: research summary

8. Operating framework considerations

Starting position and issues

Most Review Group members and almost all verifiers responding to the online feedback tool are content with the current verifier functions as expressed in the OF remain fit for purpose.

Forward considerations from Review Group member interviews and the online feedback tool (stage 1)

• Make clearer that enforcement forms part of the holistic picture of the verification role, since this is key to building safety. NB: It is felt that enforcement has become somewhat detached from the overall verifier function, possibly because verifiers do not currently have the mechanisms to record the cost.
• Emphasise the importance of good record keeping and robust auditing to promote consistency.
• Place greater emphasis on training and mentoring plans.
• Place stronger focus on future business planning.
• Ensure that changes to the PF and the resource implications these have are reflected in the OF where appropriate, such as reference to sampling.
• Reference the new time recording system in the OF, including its intended benefits.

“One thing I’d add was that the 2003 Act split verification and enforcement duties – it was more integrated prior to that. How can you appoint a verifier and not think about enforcement and non-compliance?”

Local authority verifier

Operating Framework – proposed changes based on the workshops (x2) with local authority verifiers (stage 2, informing the Review Group workshop at stage 3)

• Introduction: Make clearer that enforcement forms part of the holistic picture of the verification role, since this is key to building safety and protecting people in and around buildings.
• 1.2: Place greater emphasis on training and mentoring plans.
• 1.3: Place stronger focus on future business planning.
• 2.3: Revisit wording here since question raised as to whether quality assurance should take place before a decision is communicated for it to be effective, rather than relying on corrective work (although acknowledgement that some verifiers do this anyway).
• 2.3: Clarify what should be done with the 5% sample, what is meant by “checked for accuracy”, what quality assurance should actually involve (e.g. linked to risk assessment completed per application) and how checks should be prioritised, e.g. newer staff.
• 3.3: Emphasise the importance of good record keeping to promote consistency.
• Wider: Ensure that changes to the PF and the resource implications these have are reflected in the OF where appropriate.