FIRE SAFETY
fire damper installation practices, where contractors had used the wrong fixings. The issue was raised publicly by the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) and prompted government action with the Office for Product Safety & Standards (OPSS) saying it would act to address the continued controversy surrounding the installation of smoke control dampers in buildings. In a nutshell, the issue was that use of self-drilling (‘Tek’) screws for joining duct sections made installation quicker, cheaper, and easier. Remember, fire dampers themselves are not that expensive, the main cost is in installing them, so this was a false economy that may have benefitted installers but certainly has not helped building users. Let us not forget that using the quick self-drilling screw option has been contrary to guidance going back to 2010. These fixings have long been a known risk and where they have been used, they must be replaced, or the risk in some way be mitigated. This is because ductwork connected to
fire dampers should be provided with ‘break-away’ joints, which are created by using fixings and connectors with low melting points. The break-away joint reduces the risk of a fire damper being pulled away from the fire compartment in the event of a collapse of the ductwork or damaging the penetration seal around the damper through the expansion of ductwork. Self-drilling screws simply do not melt at low enough temperatures to achieve this. The Building Engineering Services
Association (BESA) ran an awareness campaign about this back in 2022, at which point it was clear that all establishments had a duty to investigate their own installations urgently. Easier said than done because, for many, it meant starting from scratch and finding out where their dampers even were and then undertaking expensive work to install inspection hatches. This only highlighted how non-compliant many estates were because asset registers should already have been in place and existing guidance already stated that inspection access hatches should have been fitted. Meanwhile BESA set about revising its
Potentially thousands of fire dampers in hospital premises are non-compliant
access hatches in a working building starts to add significant cost and disruption. So, the inspection and testing backlog has been building for years and the current imperative to address it urgently adds unwelcome pressure to severely pressed budgets. Even when budget is found, costs can
Close up of curtain fire damper.
existing guidance on fire damper installation. DW145 – Fire Dampers (E/EI) and Leakage Guide to Good Practice for Installation, Design and Selection, Inspection and Maintenance was published at the end of 2024. All credit to BESA for putting its head
above the parapet and addressing a shocking situation, but the 2024 guidance has been of limited use for duty holders and competent persons managing existing infrastructure. A welcome new Technical Bulletin from BESA, published in July 2025, does now provide advice for legacy systems.
The access issue Even before the Tek screw issue was highlighted, driving the current urgency into fire damper inspection and compliance, there was already a huge elephant in the room. While safety regulations require that fire dampers should be inspected and tested at least annually, the sheer difficulty/impossibility of getting to them meant that was not happening in many cases. Where dampers are present, there are
often not enough access hatches, perhaps only on one side of the damper and not both. This is surprising because, again, ventilation ductwork accesses hatches are fairly basic, and they are relatively inexpensive and easy to fit when ducting is first installed. In contrast, retrofitting
still escalate due to lack of co-ordination between trades. In new installations and old alike, we find access hatches that are impossible to use because other pipes or ducts obstruct them, or the electrical trade has come in and installed cables and cable tray beneath them. This lack of co-ordination is astonishing. Is it perhaps an issue that arises when too many sub-contractors are involved in the chain and the team that arrives on site armed with a specific job sheet has no overview or interest beyond it? So much for the digital record/golden thread of information which should include all new installation or modifications, as detailed in the Building Safety Act and Building Regulation 38. The only remedy is to install new
hatches and access arrangements, which can potentially be prohibitively expensive and near impossible to achieve or apply risk-based mitigation.
Sign off Let us take a pause here to wonder who ever signed off non-compliant systems in the first place? Also are current duty holders putting their name to incomplete annual inspection reports and, if so, are they fully cognisant of the potential implications of duty holding? Guidance (BS9999) clearly says that fire dampers should be inspected and tested at least annually and replaced or upgraded if they do not pass.
It does seem to me that the quality of
reporting from inspection companies might also be an issue here. Major issues and critical failures should be clearly highlighted up front, not buried in pages of information. If nothing else, it shows that someone has read and analysed the findings. We were pleased to see a requirement for contractors/maintenance providers to record and report issues to the duty holder in the latest BESA guidance.
Could any technician access this hatch? IFHE DIGEST 2026 Fire rated access panel in place.
Risk based maintenance Risk-based facilities management is not a new concept. It is a strategic approach that prioritises maintenance and resource allocation based on the potential risks associated with different assets, with a focus on ensuring a safe and efficient environment. By understanding the
53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
