FRAEW and fire safety assessments: where do responsible entities go from here?

Posted: 19/02/2025

The suspension of Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire has led to a greater willingness of building owners, managing agents and RMCs (together, ‘responsible entities’) to question the efficacy of the assessments they receive from ‘pledge developers’.

It is now widely known that Adam Kiziak was suspended following a ‘failure to uphold the reputation and standing of the Institution and profession of fire engineering’. The allegations include a failure to discharge his professional duties with honesty, integrity, impartiality, and objectivity. The property market has since reacted, with high street lenders now withdrawing mortgage offers where fire safety certificates have been issued by Tri Fire.

There are two key questions that arise from the recent events. These are:

1. What should a responsible entity do if it is in receipt of an assessment by Tri Fire, and remedial works at its building have been scoped in reliance on this?
2. What can a responsible entity do to avoid being put in this position in future?

In respect of the first question, it is reasonable (and becoming expected) for responsible entities to insist on either a new assessment, or further assurance in respect of the existing one. That can often mean the procurement of a new FRAEW (if works are external), fire safety assessment (if works are internal), or, alternatively, having an independent fire engineer carry out a peer review of the existing Tri Fire assessment.

This process is also in the developer’s best interests. Ultimately the developer needs to get to a position where a qualifying assessment (QA) can be issued on completion of the remedial works. A QA is a post-works FRAEW or fire safety assessment carried out in accordance with the relevant standard, which confirms that any fire safety risk which arose from any defects in the building is now tolerable. It is simply too risky for developers to go through the entire remedial works process relying on a questionable assessment, only to fall at the last hurdle and fail to obtain a QA.

In addition, responsible entities may be quick to point the developer to the government’s Joint plan to accelerate developer-led remediation and improve resident experience. Here, developers have committed to using independent, competent assessors to undertake all assessments of buildings. It is doubtful that an assessment by Tri Fire would be seen to meet these criteria.

In respect of the second question, the position is not as straightforward. Absent the suspension, responsible entities would have faced significant resistance had they questioned the efficacy of a Tri Fire assessment, or indeed had they insisted that a further assessment be undertaken.

There is support in the ‘deed of bilateral contract’ (‘the developer pledge contract’) for developers to bear the cost of professional advisors undertaking independent reviews on behalf of the responsible entity. However, many developers remain reluctant to acknowledge this and are refusing to pay. While many responsible entities have made the decision to nevertheless procure an independent review and incur the cost of doing so, this is not an option available to every responsible entity.

In the circumstances, it is expected that responsible entities will make use of the government’s commitment to commission audits of pre-works and post-works building assessments obtained by developers. This forms part of the joint plan referred to above. It is said that the process should take 12 weeks – although naturally this will be highly dependent on resourcing.

While it is not easy for a responsible entity to question the assessment procured on behalf of the developer, and potentially delay matters by doing so, recent events have shown that it is becoming increasingly more important to take this approach. Ultimately, at the end of the process, a responsible entity needs to be satisfied that the works carried out mean that the building is now safe, that the leaseholders can sell if they need to, and that the whole process does not need to be repeated in years to come.

Return to news headlines