Introduction
Property managers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the fire risk assessors they appoint are competent, not simply qualified and this distinction matters. A poor fire risk assessment (FRA) can lead to misdirected expenditure, repeated remedial works, regulatory scrutiny, and, at worst, serious life-safety consequences.
Competence is Key
Across the UK fire safety landscape, the direction of travel is clear: competence is being formally defined, structured, and verified. The publication of BS 8674:2025 marked a significant step, introducing a tiered framework for individual fire risk assessor competence and creating a shared language for duty holders, assessors, certification bodies, and regulators. This is reinforced by competency requirements set out in BS 9792.
Alongside this, there is growing reliance on nationally recognised registers and third-party certification schemes, such as the National Fire Risk Assessors Register and competence-based schemes operated by professional bodies. These developments reflect not just industry preference but the broader post-Grenfell reform environment, where duty holders are expected to justify why the Assessor they appointed was competent for the specific task.
Instead, it is defined as a combination of:
- Skills – what the assessor can do in practice
- Knowledge – what they understand and can correctly apply
- Experience – where and at what level they have done this work before
- Behaviours – professional conduct, integrity, evidence-based judgement, and knowing one’s limits
This “SKEB” model is increasingly reflected in third-party schemes, which require demonstrable evidence such as experience records, CPD, peer review, and registration, rather than relying solely on qualifications.
The Procurement Trap
“Advanced” Does Not Always Mean “Right”
BS 8674 introduces tiered competence levels (often described as foundation, intermediate, and advanced) to help clients align assessor capability with building complexity and risk profile.
However, a common procurement trap has emerged: defaulting to an “advanced-only” requirement. While understandable, this default stance can obscure the most important factor “fit-for-purpose experience.”
An assessor may hold an advanced registration yet still be poorly suited to a particular building, for example:
- An assessor experienced mainly in modern offices may overlook management-system weaknesses common in older mixed-use residential stock.
- Someone highly competent in high-rise residential may lack experience with complex evacuation strategy changes in medium-rise buildings.
- A generalist may identify issues accurately but struggle to prioritise actions where evacuation strategy is the dominant risk driver.
Registration level is not a substitute for relevant experience. BS 8674 is intended to prevent assessors working beyond their capability, not to encourage clients to treat “advanced” as a universal badge.
What Property Managers Should Ask For (Beyond Certificates)
When appointing a fire risk assessor, selection should be based on evidence mapped to the SKEB framework.
- Skills – Can the assessor demonstrate practical ability to do the work required? Ask for anonymised examples of similar FRAs showing how they identified significant findings, tested management controls (not just physical features), and justified risk-based prioritisation.
- Knowledge – Do they understand the key risk mechanisms in your buildings? This includes construction era, compartmentation assumptions, common defects, occupancy vulnerabilities, and how these affect life-safety risk. Competent assessors welcome this level of scrutiny during scoping.
- Experience – Do they have direct experience with your building type and the specific challenges? A short case list of comparable premises, covering height, complexity, occupancy, evacuation strategy, and implementation outcomes, will provide far more insight than certificates alone.
- Behaviours – Do they act like a professional you can rely on under regulatory or legal scrutiny? Look for clear boundaries on scope, traceable evidence, willingness to explain and be challenged, and the absence of fear-based or boilerplate recommendations.
Registers and Schemes Matter – When Used Properly
Registers and third-party schemes remain essential. They provide independent assessment, monitoring, and baseline competency assurance, supported by guidance from bodies such as the National Fire Chiefs Council and schemes like BAFE SP205.
The best outcomes, however, come when registration is treated as an entry filter, followed by your validation of relevant skills, knowledge, experience, and behaviour for your specific premises or your specific problem.
A Practical Competence Checklist
When appointing a fire risk assessor, consider:
- Appropriate registration – nationally recognised and suitable for the building’s risk and complexity, not simply the highest tier.
- Relevant building experience – direct exposure to your premises type and recurring issues.
- Demonstrable practical skills – evidence of judgement, prioritisation, and management-system assessment.
- Current technical knowledge – legislation, guidance, construction, and risk interaction relevant to your stock.
- Clear limits – willingness to say when specialist input is required.
- Professional behaviour – clarity, independence, and auditable reasoning.
- Fit for purpose – neither under-competent nor misaligned despite high credentials.
Bottom Line
Qualifications and registers are important, but they are only inputs. Property managers should appoint assessors based on demonstrated skills, knowledge, experience, and behaviour aligned to the real risks of their buildings.
BS 8674 and the wider shift toward recognised registers are raising the baseline, which is positive for the market and for safety, but competence is not a badge, it’s proven performance.
Competence is not a badge, it’s demonstrated in practice. It’s why experience, judgement, and fit-for-purpose assessment matter. If you’d like to discuss this further, contact us.