MHCLG Launches Consultation on the Fire Risk Assessor Profession: Raising the Bar on Competency

Following the Grenfell Tower fire and the Inquiry’s Phase 2 recommendations, the Government committed to establishing a mandatory accreditation system for fire risk assessors. The Inquiry highlighted the absence of universal competency standards, rigorous oversight, or mandatory qualifications for those carrying out life-critical fire risk assessments.

Currently, fire risk assessors operate in an unregulated profession with:

• No single professional body
• No protected title or defined role
• No mandatory training or qualifications
• No consistent career pathways or CPD requirements

This lack of standardisation has resulted in variable levels of competency across the sector, increasing risks for building owners and occupants.

Key Focus Areas of the Consultation

The consultation covers three primary areas shaping the future of the profession:

1. Development of the Fire Risk Assessor Profession – Government is seeking input on what the role of a fire risk assessor should formally encompass, and how the profession should evolve. This includes defining protected duties and the scope of assessments.
2. Regulatory Powers Needed – The MHCLG proposes introducing regulatory powers that would allow Government to oversee:

• Accreditation and certification
• Professional conduct
• Oversight of training and qualifications

These powers aim to ensure consistent national standards and improve public confidence in the profession.

3. Implementation of Competency Requirements – This includes proposals for:

• A formal competency framework.
• Mandatory verification of skills and experience.
• Clear career pathways, including apprenticeships.
• CPD requirements to maintain competency over time.

Government’s Position and the Ministerial Message

Samantha Dixon MP, Minister for Building Safety, emphasises the critical importance of fire risk assessors in safeguarding residential, commercial, and public buildings. She urges industry-wide participation to ensure that the new system delivers “consistent competency across the profession.”

The Government affirms that implementing mandatory accreditation responds directly to the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendation to create a robust system ensuring assessors have the necessary competence and capability.

Why Tick‑Box Fire Risk Assessments Are Inadequate and Dangerous

One of the critical themes underpinning the MHCLG consultation is the need to move away from superficial, checklist‑driven (“tick‑box”) fire risk assessments and toward genuinely competent, evidence‑based evaluations carried out by trained professionals. The consultation makes clear that the current unregulated landscape, where assessors may have no mandatory qualifications, defined role, or professional standards, has contributed to inconsistent and sometimes dangerously inadequate assessments across England.

Tick‑box approaches fail because they prioritise form over substance. They may create the appearance of compliance but do not, according to the MHCLG, meaningfully evaluate the specific fire hazards present in a building, nor do they assess whether the existing fire precautions are appropriate for the building’s design, occupation, or risk profile. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry exposed how superficial assessments contributed to systemic failures in identifying and mitigating life‑critical risks, failures that the Government is now working urgently to rectify.

A competent FRA requires professional judgment informed by training, experience, and an understanding of fire behaviour, building systems, and regulatory duties. Yet, as the consultation highlights, the absence of:

• Mandatory training or qualifications,
• Clear competency frameworks, and
• Oversight of assessor conduct

has created conditions where some assessments have been reduced to basic tick-box checklists rather than meaningful evaluations. This inconsistency, the MHCLG suggests poses significant risks to residents, building managers, and the wider public.

Tick‑box assessments also fail to account for the complexities of modern buildings. They do not identify deeper issues such as compartmentation failures, inappropriate materials, defective fire doors, or the cumulative impact of building alterations, issues repeatedly highlighted in post‑incident investigations. The consultation’s focus on establishing protected duties, verifying competence, and setting clear competency standards directly responds to the need for comprehensive assessments that go beyond surface‑level checks.

However, another fundamental problem is that checklist‑driven FRAs often become a race to the bottom on cost. Because they can be completed quickly, sometimes by individuals without verified training or qualifications, they encourage building owners, especially those seeking the cheapest option, to prioritise affordability over quality. In an unregulated market where no mandatory standards exist, this commercial pressure has led to assessments being carried out by assessors with variable competence, who may not have the expertise required to assess complex or higher‑risk buildings.

Ultimately, the move away from tick‑box assessments is at the heart of the Government’s push for mandatory accreditation, verified professional competence, and clear career pathways. Without these reforms, assessments may continue to vary widely in quality, undermining the very purpose of the Fire Safety Order and the lessons learned from Grenfell. The consultation’s proposals represent a necessary pivot toward professionalisation and accountability, ensuring that fire risk assessments are not just completed, but completed well, with the rigour required to keep people safe.

Conclusion

This consultation represents a pivotal moment for fire safety in England. By seeking to professionalise and regulate the fire risk assessor role, the Government aims to ensure that fire risk assessments, central to preventing loss of life, are carried out by individuals with verified competence, are of sufficient quality with clear accountability, and ongoing professional development.