Mind the Gap: how do landlords know fall protection works?

“Mind the gap.”

On the London Underground, the warning is immediate and the danger identifiable.

In our homes, residents deserve an equally clear answer to a basic question: what protects me from a fall, and how does my landlord know it works?

Housing associations in England already have enforceable safety duties. What I want government and the Regulator of Social Housing to establish is a published, enforceable minimum specification for inspecting and recording the condition of safety-critical windows, restrictors, balcony barriers and their fixings throughout their life.

That would give residents, landlords and investigators a clearer basis for checking whether the protection at an individual home has been properly examined and maintained.

A restrictor being present is only the starting point

There is a practical example of why this matters. In a December 2021 decision concerning Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association, the Housing Ombudsman found service failure in its response to window concerns.

The landlord had offered restrictors; the resident explained they were already fitted.

The Ombudsman said it should then have inspected the windows to establish whether those restrictors were fit for purpose. It had not done so.^[1]

The lesson is specific: knowing that a restrictor is present does not establish that it provides suitable protection.

In May 2026, the Ombudsman returned to window complaints, highlighting cases involving absent or inadequate risk assessments.^[2]

These findings illustrate failures requiring action; they do not establish how widespread those failures are.

What does an inspection actually establish?

The regulator’s Safety and Quality Standard already requires current property-level condition records based on physical assessments, compliance with applicable safety law and reasonable steps to protect tenants.^[3]

Those requirements must be enforced now.

The question is what evidence demonstrates that a particular safety component remains effective. A general stock-condition survey is only useful for that purpose if its scope and method can identify the relevant defect.

The regulator’s Code of Practice gives a five-year rolling survey programme as an approach that might suit some providers, while explicitly recognising that some homes need more frequent assessment.^[4]

It is no guarantee of safety between surveys.

Inspection intervals need a reasoned basis, and new information must trigger earlier action where necessary.

Why this matters to bereaved families

As a bereaved mother, I find the distance between general assurances and specific answers painfully important.

We find ourselves navigating “should”, “could” and “subject to interpretation”, while living with something utterly definite.

The person we love is dead.

There is no discretion in that. No revised wording that brings them home.

We are navigating shades of grey while living in a world that has become brutally black and white.

Mostly black, to be honest.

Residents should not need a lawyer to understand the protection they are entitled to. Bereaved families should not need to reconstruct it afterwards.

Four things that need to be specified

I want four things specified consistently across registered providers in England.

1. What a competent inspection must cover

A minimum inspection scope for each type of fall-prevention component, developed with technical experts and residents. It should cover condition, secure attachment, operation and suitability for the home and its occupants, with clear competence requirements. It must also account for ventilation and escape requirements.

2. When checks must happen

A recorded justification for inspection intervals and defined triggers for earlier checks, including reported defects, alterations and incidents.

Professional judgment would remain, but the reasons for exercising it would be available for scrutiny.

3. Who is responsible for restoring safety

A traceable route from finding a defect to restoring safety: an identified person responsible for action, a deadline proportionate to risk and applicable legal timeframes, interim protection where needed, and verification of the completed repair.

4. What the records must show

A component-level record showing what was inspected, by whom, when, what was found and how it was resolved. Clear retention and transfer requirements should keep that history accessible through changes of contractor, managing agent or owner.

Residents should receive an understandable account of the protection and any outstanding action.

Some of this will already form part of meeting existing duties. Some providers may already deliver it well. The proposed change is to specify the minimum inspection content and evidence consistently, so that the test of adequate assurance is clearer to everyone.

Under that specification, a record saying “window checked” would be insufficient. It would need to identify the relevant protection, the checks undertaken and the findings. Where inspection was incomplete or access unavailable, the limitation and the steps to resolve it would also be recorded.

The evidence must remain available

That same evidence matters after a death. Where building safety or management may have contributed, police and other relevant investigators need access to the component’s history, the decisions taken and the people responsible. Preserving those records and documenting changes after an incident should be part of the framework.

A family’s search for answers should not depend on piecing together disconnected contractor files.

What needs to happen now

There is progress to build on. Awaab’s Law already sets timeframes for emergency hazards; its next phase extends to significant falls hazards from 30 November 2026.^[5] Effective preventive inspection must accompany that response to hazards becoming known.

Government and the regulator should now consult on this minimum specification, publish an implementation timetable and explain which requirements can be secured through existing powers.

Where those powers are insufficient, government should bring forward the necessary legislation.

Providers can start now by testing whether their inspection and repair records answer the questions above.

To those who say “we already do this”: show how. Show the inspection scope, the findings, the completed repairs and the evidence that the protection remains effective.

Mind the gap between the duty and the evidence.

Then close it.