Background

All good property managers will have their buildings regularly assessed for fire safety, however, post-Grenfell, the concept of risk-based fire safety analysis has given way to tick-box exercises where every possible risk is highlighted with little or no guidance as to what would be considered reasonable precautions to mitigate fire risk.

As a property manager, I have long been confused and somewhat misled by the differences between law, recommendation, good practice etc and we find ourselves in an environment where leaseholders are being asked to spend thousands on unnecessary fire safety upgrades.

When I attended the Property Institute Fellows Day in October 2023, I discovered that I was far from alone. I have written separately about this truly eye-opening day and that article can be downloaded here.

The Post Grenfell environment

Two significant changes to approach have occurred.

1. Cover all bases
   The first is a “cover-All-Bases” Approach – Lack of Proportionality: It’s widely observed that many assessors and building owners have adopted a “do everything possible” mindset rather than a “do what’s necessary and proportionate” approach.
   The subjective wording of regulations contributes to this. The Fire Safety Order 2005 requires “appropriate” fire precautions and “reasonable” measures but doesn’t draw clear lines on when enough is enough. This ambiguity makes assessors err on the safe side – better to over-spec and avoid blame later. As one block manager quipped, “The law’s phrasing is ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ – so no one dares leave out a potential action”. The result is overkill in many FRAs. Recommendations that might be marginal (or purely upgrades to gold-standard equipment) are often given the same prominence as critical life safety fixes.
2. Profiteering
   Unfortunately, the cover all bases approach has also led to many firms profiteering in this environment of regulatory confusion and fear. Unscrupulous companies will often pressure managing agents to implement improvements based on current building standards even if what is in place is perfectly safe. We would certainly advocate using fire risk assessors unconnected to companies that sell the fire safety upgrades.

Variable Quality and Competence of Assessors:

Another flaw in the “standard format” of surveying has been inconsistency in assessor expertise. Fire risk assessment in the UK was an unregulated practice for years – you didn’t need a license, and qualifications varied. While many assessors are retired firefighters or certified professionals, others may lack deep understanding of building design or fire dynamics in complex residences. This led to overly generic, tick-box reports in some cases, or conversely, overly zealous reports. Inconsistent training meant two assessors might give different advice on the same building. For example, one assessor might insist on fitting expensive fire alarms throughout a small block which has never had them (misreading guidance), whereas a more experienced assessor might say that’s unnecessary if the building has a robust “stay put” design. Indeed, there have been instances of fire authorities directly contradicting risk assessors’ recommendations. Recognizing this issue, the industry and government have been moving to improve competency standards:

Common Ground’s approach

Common Ground does use external, qualified fire risk assessors and we work with standardised formats such as BS 9792 or BAFE SP205, however, we see the HSFRA report as being a guidance document NOT a legal document.
Many of the recommendations can be implemented cheaply and easily (e.g. signage) so we will generally run with these.

Where it becomes more difficult is when there is a recommendation to spend thousands of pounds on fire safety upgrades and this is where we will challenge these.

The first port of call is the fire assessor themselves. Our property managers do not blindly follow “recommendations” but will challenge them and attempt to establish a risk vs reward metric which is a perfectly acceptable approach; The Fire Safety Order’s requirements adjust to the context: the phrase “so far as is reasonably practicable” is a well-established legal qualifier (borrowed from health & safety law) that demands a balance between risk and sacrifice. In the landmark case Edwards v.

National Coal Board (1949), the court explained that “reasonably practicable” means making a computation of the risk versus the trouble, time and cost of mitigating it.

Where expensive upgrades are recommended and the fire safety assessor won’t back down then we simply seek the opinion of a higher authority, essentially a fire safety enforcement officer and ask the question “Would you enforce this?”
As I alluded to earlier, the BS 9792 or BAFE SP205 is merely a checklist whereas an enforcement officer will look at the building holistically and make an assessment based on risk rather than tick boxes (at least the one we use does this).
This approach has saved our clients tens of thousands of pounds whilst having the peace of mind that the fire risks are low.

Agents that continue to run with the cover all bases approach risk challenges under section 19 of the landlord and tenants act 1985 (The reasonableness test). Personally, I would love to see such a case reach the First Tier Tribunal as it would likely give much needed guidance to property managers