Competent by whose standards? The high stakes of fire risk assessments

If we expect someone installing a new bathroom or boiler to demonstrate that they are properly qualified and working to a recognised standard, we should expect far more from someone carrying out a fire risk assessment. An inadequate assessment can expose people to serious harm and the responsible person to enforcement or prosecution. Yet neither the current regime nor the proposed competence duty gives responsible persons a sufficiently clear and objective basis for choosing an assessor.

The legal bit

Article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the responsible person to make a “suitable and sufficient” assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed, for the purposes of identifying the general fire precautions needed to comply with the Order.

That is the legal test. But what does it mean in practice?

Who is the responsible person?

In a workplace, this is usually the employer where the premises are under its control.  In other premises, it will generally be the person who has control of them in connection with a trade, business or otherwise the owner.  Home Office guidance explains that there may be more than one responsible person and, in that circumstance, they must cooperate with each other to ensure compliance with fire safety measures.

Who are the relevant persons?

In broad terms, relevant persons include anyone lawfully on the premises and anyone in the immediate vicinity who is at risk from a fire on the premises. For example, if the premises are a shop, people in a flat above may be at risk from a fire in the shop and may therefore be relevant persons, whether or not the shop controls the flat.

What does “suitable and sufficient” mean?

This requires a level of judgment from the responsible person.  It is not defined in the Order beyond the requirement for an assessment to identify the general fire precautions needed.  Again, guidance is available.

So again, we look to guidance, which sets out the matters a fire risk assessment should consider and stresses the importance of review. A fire risk assessment is not a static document. Although the law does not prescribe a fixed review period, it must remain up to date. A change to the premises, for example, should prompt the responsible person to arrange a review and confirm that the assessment remains suitable and sufficient.

The government recommends that responsible persons use a professional fire risk assessor. However, it also recognises the difficulty responsible persons face when judging the competence of the companies and individuals that advertise fire risk assessment services.

The legislation and guidance therefore identify the required outcome: a suitable and sufficient assessment that remains up to date. The unresolved practical question is how a responsible person, often without specialist fire-safety knowledge, can reliably identify an assessor capable of delivering that outcome.

Competence

The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, commissioned following the Grenfell tragedy, recommended a review of the competence of fire risk assessors. In response, the Government proposed requiring a responsible person to appoint only a competent person to conduct a fire risk assessment. Respondents to the consultation overwhelmingly supported that proposal.

It came in the form of Section 156(4) of the Building Safety Act 2022 which will insert a new Article 9A into the Fire Safety Order.   Once commenced, it will require a responsible person who appoints another person to make or review a fire risk assessment to ensure that the assessor is competent.  As of September 2026, Article 9A has not been brought into force.

Article 9A may clarify that competence must be considered, but its practical effect remains uncertain. The existing duty already requires a suitable and sufficient assessment, and an assessment produced by someone without the necessary competence could hardly satisfy that standard. The new provision will materially strengthen the regime only if it gives responsible persons a clearer and more consistent basis for judging competence in practice.

Moreover, the requirement does not resolve the wider problem of competence within the industry. Instead, it places responsibility for judging competence on ordinary employers who may have little or no experience of the sector and may feel unqualified to make that judgment.

The Order will define competence by reference to training and experience, or knowledge and other relevant qualities, which largely reflects existing guidance.  Although placing the test on a statutory footing may strengthen and standardise the duty, responsible persons, often lay people without specialist fire-safety knowledge, must still choose an assessor without a clear, objective benchmark, despite the serious consequences of getting it wrong.

Consequences of getting it wrong

Understanding these duties matters because failure is not merely technical: an inadequate assessment can leave hazards unidentified, expose people to serious harm and lead to enforcement action or prosecution of the responsible person.  The practical consequences may include having to remedy deficiencies urgently, disruption to the use of the premises and significant reputational and financial damage, particularly where failings come to light only after an incident.

Article 9A will not close the competence gap by itself. The government should pair commencement with clear statutory guidance on the evidence of competence that responsible persons may reasonably rely on and should consider stronger regulatory oversight of those who hold themselves out as competent fire risk assessors. Without both a usable benchmark and meaningful oversight, the provision risks remaining stronger in principle than in practice.

Local authorities: one duty, two regimes

Local authorities may manage a large and varied property portfolio, making a clear understanding of their fire-safety duties essential.  Depending on their functions and ownership arrangements, their estates may include offices, schools, libraries, leisure centres, community buildings, depots, workshops, markets, car parks, care facilities, temporary accommodation and housing, including blocks of flats and sheltered or supported schemes.  Differences in use, occupancy, construction, management arrangements and fire risk mean that the applicable fire-safety requirements may also vary.

There appears to be some confusion about whether the Fire Safety Order applies in Wales, perhaps because building safety and housing are devolved matters.  The Building Safety Act 2022 largely applies only in England, other than provisions amending existing legislation that applies in both countries, while Wales has the separate Building Safety (Wales) Act 2026.

But whether an English or Welsh local authority, the legal starting point for fire risk assessments is the same: the Fire Safety Order applies.  The responsible person must therefore comply with the Order’s core duties in either nation, including the requirement to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.  What differs is the additional regulatory framework and guidance that sits alongside the Order in each jurisdiction.

Within the Order, there are Welsh specific provisions (although not yet commenced), and both the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers have powers to make regulations about fire precautions.

In England, local authorities responsible for relevant residential buildings must also account for the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, which do not extend to Wales.  Authorities must therefore identify the regulations and guidance applicable in their jurisdiction when appointing competent assessors, documenting that decision and acting on assessment findings.

Ruth O'Sullivan is an Associate (Public Law & Regulatory) at Capital Law.