Landlord compliance: Responsibilities after the lease has been signed

Landlord compliance can sometimes fall into being treated like a paperwork problem.

As long as the right documents exist somewhere; fire risk assessments, inspection logs, contractor reports, everything feels under control. The building is compliant on paper, and paper has a reassuring weight to it.

But regulators don’t inspect filing cabinets.

They inspect outcomes.

And in commercial property, landlord compliance has quietly shifted from a background obligation to a front-line responsibility for public safety.

UK government guidance is explicit that responsibility sits with those who own, occupy, or control premises, not simply those contracted to carry out checks.

This distinction matters, because it reframes security compliance as something continuous rather than occasional, and accountable rather than administrative.

Compliance audits and where responsibility really sits

A compliance audit has an inconvenient habit of turning “shared responsibility” into “singular accountability”.

When auditors arrive, they don’t ask who was paid to do the work. They ask who is legally responsible for ensuring it was done, and done properly. Under UK fire safety legislation, for example, the “responsible person” retains accountability even when inspections and maintenance are outsourced.

Outsourcing may change who performs the task.

It does not change who answers for the outcome, or ensure compliance audit readiness.

Regulatory reform; including the Building Safety Act, has reinforced expectations around governance, risk management, and demonstrable oversight across commercial property portfolios.

The Building Safety Regulator now places emphasis on accountability, traceability, and control; particularly in higher-risk buildings.

Compliance has moved up the organisational chart. And with it, so has scrutiny, meaning proof of compliance is more important than ever.

Why managing compliance is getting harder, not easier

Managing compliance hasn’t become harder because people stopped caring. It’s become harder because buildings became busier, portfolios became broader, and responsibility became more diffuse.

Modern commercial properties are shared spaces. Multiple parties may hold overlapping duties, and UK guidance makes clear that cooperation is required, which sounds straightforward until compliance depends on coordination rather than individual competence.

In this environment, compliance doesn’t usually fail loudly. It drifts.

A check is completed on site.
It’s recorded later.
It’s summarised by a contractor.
It’s reviewed by an agent.
It’s surfaced to the landlord as a dashboard or report.

Like a commercial-property version of chinese whistpers, the message degrades at each handover. Audits exist to interrupt that process, and they tend to do so abruptly.

Compliance audits don’t test intent. They test evidence

A compliance audit isn’t a character reference. It’s a stress test for evidence.

Auditors are not interested in how seriously compliance is taken, they’re interested in whether activity can be verified. When records are incomplete, inconsistent, or reconstructed after the fact, audits shift quickly from confirmation to investigation.

This is where assurance based on trust starts to feel fragile.

See also:

• Kinexio’s Proof of Compliance system

UK security legislation and regulation set expectations around licensing, accountability, and oversight of licensable security activity, reinforcing the principle that security compliance must be demonstrable, not assumed.

The broader direction of travel is clear. Preparedness, accountability, and evidence are no longer optional extras. They are becoming baseline expectations, e.g. Martyn’s Law.

Managing compliance across multi-site portfolios

A single site can hide a multitude of issues. A portfolio can’t.

As estates grow, managing compliance becomes less about performing checks and more about ensuring consistency, comparability, and visibility across locations. Landlords increasingly feel the pressure not when something goes wrong, but when they’re asked a simple question and can’t answer it quickly.

At scale, compliance stops being about effort.

It becomes about systems.