FIS Member Note: Zentia Administration
FIS legal advisers, Hill Dickinson, have provided guidance for FIS members regarding the current administration of Zentia.
The note includes guidance on products already in situ on schemes that are nearing completion (i.e. in relation to the status of the product), as well as concerns regarding fulfilment of orders for existing products.
June 2026
Zentia (acoustic ceiling manufacturers) went into administration on 8 June.
Initial reports indicate production has ceased, and it is uncertain whether operations will resume or be acquired.
What might developers, construction professionals and contractors consider now where products have been specified on a project?
Regulatory Context and Duty holder Responsibilities
There is currently no advertised formal regulatory position that prevents the use of construction products supplied by a manufacturer in administration. However, established guidance makes clear that product compliance must be actively demonstrated throughout the lifecycle of a project. Legislation such as the Construction Products Regulations (CPR) and the Building Safety Act requires manufacturers to maintain Declarations of Performance (DoP) and valid UKCA or CE markings. The consistent message across this guidance is that responsibility sits firmly with dutyholders, including designers and contractors. It is not sufficient to rely on manufacturer assurances or historic approvals.
Implications of Manufacturer Insolvency
Insolvency poses a key risk by undermining access to, or confidence in, the information needed to evidence compliance.
The question is not about the status of the manufacturer, but the ability of dutyholders to evidence compliance at the point the product is used. Where that evidence remains complete, accessible and verifiable, the product may still be acceptable. Where it cannot be reliably obtained or validated, the risk profile changes significantly.
In practical terms, products become increasingly difficult to justify where test data cannot be accessed, certification cannot be confirmed, or ongoing technical support and lifecycle information are no longer available.
Gateway 2 and Higher-Risk Buildings
For Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs), these issues are amplified. Gateway 2 approval rests on demonstrating compliance, competence and traceability across the design and construction process.
If manufacturer insolvency undermines access to product evidence, or creates uncertainty about the reliability or completeness of that evidence, it may affect the basis on which approval was originally granted. In such cases, project teams may need to revisit design assumptions, initiate formal change control, or consider product substitution.
This is not simply a technical issue but one of regulatory assurance. Without demonstrable evidence, compliance cannot be confidently maintained.
Building Control Compliance
From a Building Control perspective, the key issue is whether any change arising from this situation affects the approved design or its performance characteristics.
Where a Zentia product is replaced on a like-for-like basis, and the alternative can be clearly shown to deliver equivalent or better performance without altering the design intent, the impact on Building Control approval may be limited. In these circumstances, the focus should remain on evidencing equivalence and ensuring that documentation is properly recorded within the project in line with BSA specifications.
However, where a replacement product differs in its performance, or where its introduction alters any aspect of the approved design, the position becomes more complex. Such changes must be treated as design changes and should be reviewed with the project designer. The Principal Designer must be satisfied that the revised solution continues to meet regulatory requirements, and that the change has been properly assessed and justified.
The position is more stringent still on Higher-Risk Buildings. Under the Higher-Risk Buildings (HRB) Procedures Regulations, changes to specified products may constitute either notifiable or major changes, depending on their nature and impact.
Where a substitution affects fire performance (for example, a fire-rated ceiling system), it is likely to be at least a notifiable change and may be classified as a major change where it alters or undermines the approved fire strategy or the basis of compliance. This reflects the fact that such elements may form part of the building’s passive fire protection strategy.
Major changes require formal approval and can’t be implemented without following the prescribed process. Failure to recognise and manage this correctly carries significant regulatory risk, including the potential to invalidate approvals or delay project progression.
In this context, the safest and most robust approach is to treat any product substitution as a potential design change unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise. Early engagement with the design team, the Principal Designer, and the Building Safety Regulator or Building Control Body is essential. All decisions should be supported by clear evidence, including performance comparisons and impact assessments, and fully documented within the project record.
Other Considerations
If a manufacturer warranty is no longer available or valid, this may affect the contractual position for the parties, particularly where warranties are required as part of the project deliverables.
One practical tip for a project team would be to act quickly to secure all relevant documentation. At present, product data remains available via Zentia’s website, but there is no guarantee as to how long this will remain the case. Consider downloading and retaining all relevant test reports, certifications and technical data.
Additional Guidance on Manufacturer Warranties 3rd July 2026
Following publication of this guidance, FIS sought further clarification from its legal advisers, Hill Dickinson, regarding the status of manufacturer warranties where a manufacturer has entered administration.
The enforceability of a warranty will depend on who ultimately stands behind it. Where a warranty is insurance-backed, there may be continuing recourse through the insurer. However, where a warranty is simply a contractual commitment given directly by the manufacturer, administration can significantly affect its practical value.
Based on a review of information publicly available on Zentia’s website, there is currently no indication that Zentia’s standard product warranties are insurance-backed. If this is the case, the warranties are likely to have been provided directly by Zentia Limited.
As a result:
- Any warranty claim would be against a company that is now in administration.
- Administrators are not normally obliged to continue honouring warranty claims, although their position should be confirmed directly.
- If the company is ultimately dissolved, there may be no entity remaining capable of fulfilling warranty obligations.
This does not automatically mean that every warranty is void, but it does create significant uncertainty regarding the practical enforceability of warranty claims.
Members with live projects where manufacturer warranties are a contractual requirement should review their contract obligations carefully and consider engaging early with clients and project teams if concerns arise. Depending on the contractual arrangements, options may include agreeing an alternative warranted product, securing an alternative form of protection, or exploring insurance-backed warranty solutions where appropriate. Equally it may be deemed that given the circumstances the warranty is not longer expected, this should not be assumed unless the contract makes express provision.
FIS would encourage members who have concerns regarding existing Zentia warranties to contact the administrator directly to establish whether any provision has been made for warranty obligations going forward.
If you have specific questions, please call FIS on 0121 707 0077 or email info@thefis.org and we will work with our legal advisors to get the best possible response for you.
