Know
Identify the asset
Start here · A short introduction
The Joshua Test, explained simply.
If a railing is there to stop someone falling, how do those responsible know that it is still safe?
The Joshua Test asks for clear, recorded evidence that the balconies, communal railings and other protective barriers at people's homes can still do the job they were installed to do.
A proposal for change. This independent Green Paper focuses on England. It is a campaign proposal for government consideration, not a law already in force or a government publication.
What would change?
- Know which safety barriers a building has and who is responsible for them.
- Arrange checks by people with the right skills, at intervals based on risk.
- Investigate deterioration or uncertainty, including hidden corrosion where it is suspected.
- Repair defects and take appropriate action to protect residents.
- Keep clear evidence of inspections, investigations and completed work.
What does “testing” mean?
The proposal calls for the right checks for each structure. It does not call for the same physical test on every railing.
A competent specialist would decide when closer investigation, engineering assessment or load testing is appropriate. Residents should never push, shake or test a barrier themselves.
Why does this matter?
A barrier can look tidy while important parts have deteriorated. Fresh paint, a past inspection or the fact that it is still standing cannot, on their own, show that it remains structurally safe.
Ready for the detail?
Read the full 202-page Green Paper, version 1.5, or explore the proposed framework below.
Explore the proposed duty and inspection framework
The draft proposal
The Joshua Test
A continuing duty to demonstrate safety.
The draft Green Paper proposes a proportionate system of lifecycle assurance — not one physical test or one inspection method for every structure.
“If this barrier failed tomorrow, could those responsible demonstrate, with documented evidence, that they had taken reasonable, competent and proportionate steps to ensure that it remained structurally capable of preventing a fatal fall?”
If yes, the Joshua Test has been met.
If no, the law should require prompt investigation, appropriate remedial action and, where necessary, regulatory intervention.
The proposed Joshua Duty
Every person responsible for a residential fall-protection structure shall be under a continuing duty to demonstrate that the structure remains capable of preventing the fall it was installed to prevent.
Eight linked functions — not a single physical test
Assess
Understand risk
Inspect
Obtain competent evidence
Investigate
Resolve material uncertainty
Act
Control significant risk
Verify
Confirm significant work
Record
Preserve the evidence
Review
Reassess and learn
What the duty would require
Reasonable and proportionate steps, evidenced throughout service life.
The framework would apply continuously — not only at construction, after a complaint, when damage becomes visible or after an incident.
- Identify relevant fall-protection structures
- Understand their design and construction
- Assess their age, exposure and condition
- Establish an appropriate inspection regime
- Appoint competent people where specialist assessment is required
- Investigate evidence of deterioration
- Complete remedial work within proportionate timescales
- Retain relevant safety records
- Provide appropriate assurance to residents and regulators
The Joshua Test · Green Paper v1.5
Read the full 202-page policy and draft legislative proposal.
The central principle
Evidence, not assumption.
A life-safety structure should not be presumed safe solely because it remains standing, looks intact or complied when it was first built.