The missing rung: smart buildings still can't prove they're compliant

PropTech Connect's July 2026 roundtable brought together owners, investors, managers and engineers from some of the biggest names in UK and European real estate to discuss the divide between landlords and occupiers. Their report is worth reading. It concludes that technology isn't what holds buildings back: the sensors, meters and platforms largely exist. What's missing is the ability to turn information into decisions, and decisions into outcomes you can prove.

Statutory compliance doesn't appear anywhere in the report. That's the gap we want to talk about.

The ladder starts lower than people think

The report sets out a four-step ladder of digital readiness. At the top, buildings respond to how they are actually used. The bottom rung is simply being visible: a reliable asset register and proper documentation of what's in the building.

One contributor from M&G Real Estate put it bluntly: "We're still in the Stonehenge era in real estate." Many buildings can't say with confidence which assets they hold, let alone prove what has been done to them.

Every statutory duty depends on that first rung. You can't prove a fire alarm panel was serviced, a lift thoroughly examined or a water system risk assessed unless the asset is on a register and linked to the duty that applies to it. Any analytics or AI built on a weak register inherit the same weakness.

Detect, act, verify

The roundtable describes a loop every insight should go through: spot the problem, decide what matters, act, then verify the result. Each action needs a named owner and evidence that it worked.

The final step is the one the industry skips. Maintenance software is good at showing activity, such as jobs raised and jobs closed. It is much weaker at answering the question a regulator, insurer or buyer will actually ask: can you prove the legal duty was met, on time, by a competent person, with the certificate to show for it?

That is the part SAMTAP owns. SFG20 specifies the work, the CAFM schedules it, and SAMTAP proves the duty was discharged.

Compliance has no split incentive

Much of the report deals with the split incentive: the landlord pays for the technology, the occupier enjoys the savings, and so investment stalls.

Statutory compliance doesn't work that way. The law has already decided who holds each duty, the spend isn't optional, and the consequences of getting it wrong fall on a named duty holder. What's often missing is a clear record of which duty sits with whom, especially where leases, managing agents and contractors are involved. Making that allocation visible is the first job of any compliance record.

Proof protects value

The report names capital value as one of the main returns on smart-building investment, because operational evidence strengthens a building's position at sale, refinancing and risk assessment. It cites RICS reporting that a stabilised City office drew 15 lender bids, against 2 for a weaker single-tenant asset.

When a building changes hands, the asset survey is often visual only and done as cheaply as possible. That makes the documented history the only real evidence of what has been done to the building. A seller who can hand over a complete, dated and evidenced record negotiates from a far stronger position than one hoping the paperwork turns up.

Start at the bottom

The report advises raising the digital floor before adding another dashboard. We'd go one step further: before you make a building smart, make sure you can prove it's legal.

Covered. Done. Proven.