27/01/2025
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has now published its Phase 2 report looking at the causes of the tragic events that unfolded on 14 June 2017. The 7 volume report comprehensively reviews the “path to disaster”, identifying failings “of a wide range of institutions, entities and individuals over many years that together brought about that situation.” Volume 7 of the report includes recommendations relating to the construction industry, including mandatory accreditation for fire assessors and protection by law of the profession of ‘fire engineer’.
Fire risk assessors
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO), which came into force on 1 April 2006, introduced the requirement for ‘responsible persons’ (a person who has control of the premises) to carry out fire risk assessments. In many cases, commercial fire risk assessors are engaged and this was the case with Grenfell.
According to the report, concerns around the competence of some commercial fire risk assessors had been raised as far back as 2009, when the initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the FSO in March 2009 raised concerns about competence particularly in relation to more complex buildings. Although the London Assembly Report and a report by the Fire Sector Federation in 2010 recommended national guidance be drawn up with mandatory minimum standards for fire risk assessors, this was resisted by the Government at the time, who favoured voluntary methods. Certification schemes for Fire Risk Assessment were available in 2009 but it was not necessary to be certified to work in the sector. Following the inquest into the fire at Lakanal House on 3 July 2009, where six people lost their lives, the Coroner wrote to the Fire Sector Federation in March 2013 encouraging them to consider if they could offer further guidance on training of fire risk assessors. Although a Work Stream was set up, the existence of well-established self-certification schemes as well as the government’s “general opposition to regulation”, meant that mandatory accreditation was not proposed. It was suggested in a paper published by the Fire Sector Federation in October 2016 that a licensing scheme for fire risk assessors be set up but this was also not taken forward by the government, who felt that existing guidance and voluntary accreditation were sufficient.
The fire risk assessor at Grenfell Tower was not certified by any professional or certification body as competent to carry out fire risk assessments and had elected not to join any professional bodies as “he did not feel that he would gain anything from such memberships.” Concerns were raised about his competence and the quality of his risk assessments on many occasions, but the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) continued to rely on him, despite these concerns. In particular, concerns were that he failed to sufficiently check whether the TMO had taken action in response to risks he had identified in previous assessments, or take into account the risk posed to residents of the very large backlog of remedial works that had not been carried out. He also copied text from fire risk assessments of other buildings into his assessment of Grenfell Tower, inappropriately extended the times for completion of remedial measures and did not carry out sufficient inspections of a representative sample of exterior doors or to report problems with the self-closing devices being broken or disconnected by residents.
It had previously been suggested by Sir Ken Knight in his initial draft report on the Lakanal House fire in July 2009 that the onus should be on the ‘responsible person’ to ensure that fire risk assessors were competent to undertake the assessments. He recommended that the FSO be revised to reflect this but the Government policy team were not keen to revise the FSO so soon after it had come into force and this recommendation did not make it into the final report. The Grenfell report now recommends that the government establish a system of mandatory accreditation to certify the competence of fire assessors, by setting standards for qualification and continuing professional development. It is envisaged that a new regulator for the construction sector will accredit fire risk assessors, ensuring that responsible persons can have confidence in the skills of those they instruct.
Fire Engineers
In the UK there are professions where there is a legal requirement to have certain qualifications or experience in order to use a protected title, such as the title of Architect requiring registration with the Architects Registration Board. The report notes that the term “fire engineer” does not currently denote any formal qualification and those practicing as ‘fire engineers’ may not have the specialised education and experience required for the role.
During the Grenfell tower refurbishment, Exova (UK) Ltd – a company specialising in fire engineering – were appointed to produce fire safety strategies for both the existing, and the refurbished, tower. Despite the professed expertise, the majority who worked on the project had no formal training in fire engineering, with the only input of a trained fire engineer being “negligible”. The report indicated that Exova’s involvement in the project gave others “a false sense of security” that fire safety measures had been comprehensively addressed, which was not the case. It concluded that if a fire engineer with experience of overcladding high-rise residential buildings had managed the project, “the critical importance to fire safety of the components of the external wall” might have been recognised, which may have prevented the disaster.
The report recommends that the profession of ‘fire engineer’ be recognised and protected by law, and an independent body be established to regulate the profession. It also recommends that the government take urgent steps to increase the number of places on high-quality masters level courses in fire engineering – indicating that there may not currently be enough qualified fire engineers to meet demand. Pending the establishment of a regulating body, the report also recommends that the government convene a group to produce an authoritative statement of the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer.
The phase 2 report includes many recommendations, such as the formation of an independent body to regulate the construction industry, including accrediting fire risk assessors, and changes to statute, including making ‘fire engineer’ a protected title. The extent to which the recommendations are implemented, and the speed of such implementation, remains to be seen. Given the criticisms of the fire risk assessor at Grenfell, responsible persons should look to ensure that anyone undertaking fire risk assessments and any fire engineers appointed on their behalf is suitably qualified in advance of any mandatory requirements being brought in.
