Industry Viewfinder The recommendations included suggestions that the roles and responsibilities


of those procuring, designing, constructing and maintaining buildings are unclear, that regulations and guidance are ambiguous and inconsistent, competence across the system is ‘patchy’, and the voices of residents often go unheard. According to our research, housing professionals have been broadly positive


about these recommendations. While a modest majority (63%) of our respondents said they have been following the Hackitt Review, 82% of those who had agreed that the proposed measures go far enough, with one respondent calling it “a restart for the industry,” and another that “it’s comprehensive given what can realistically be achieved.”


EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS One such area that can be ‘realistically achieved,’ and in which Hackitt made multiple suggestions for, was in the specification of fire safety products. In her review, Hackitt argued that some “treat the minimum standards in the


Approved Documents as a high bar to be negotiated down,” and that the sector “must begin thinking about buildings as a system so that we can consider the different layers of protection that may be required to make that building safe on a case-by-case basis.” She underlined that “products used throughout the life cycle of a building


have a critical impact on its safety” – pointing the finger of responsibility not just at the builders of such properties, but at those maintaining them. Landlords and housing associations can therefore address their responsibility


head-on by exceeding the minimum standards wherever possible, and using ‘better’ products to provide such essential functions – or at the very least not cutting corners. It must first be made clear however what makes a ‘better product’, what


products or other failures are causing the fires in the first place, and how quickly these issues are identified and addressed.


FIRE RISK IDENTIFICATION In the UK, there are approximately 37,000 house fires a year, which, as indicated earlier, include 200 fire-related deaths; the majority of the latter occurring within the home between 10pm and 6pm, when residents are asleep. The nocturnal nature of these fires is largely attributed to a lack of awareness – with your sense of smell decreasing to almost nothing when asleep – and as


With a clearly delineated route to identifying fire risk in housing, the questions remain, who is responsible for addressing these issues, and why do these risks remain present?


such, fire safety products can be the only barrier here between life and death, making the identification of any potential faults in these products vital. Since October 2006, Fire Risk Assessments have been a legal requirement


under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, with regular fire risk assessments now being an essential tool in identifying any gaps in these barriers, and highlighting where fire is most likely to occur, and what can be done to prevent it. The vast majority of our respondents reported that regular fire assessments


are conducted on each property under their company’s remit, with 7% doing so every month, 4% every three months, 12% every six, and 59% every year. There were however 13% that only do so every two years or more, and a shocking – though small – 4% who’s properties never undergo fire risk assessments. Of those who did conduct assessments, when asked how often these


assessments passed, the average was 77.98% (answering between less than 10% and 100%). While this may seem fairly high, it means that 1 in 5 assessments highlighted a potentially fatal risk, again indicating their importance. While there were a range of issues – some focussed on tenant negligence such


as candles and smoking, for example – the majority of the causes of these failures were issues with poor or older products and properties. Broken fire doors was the most common cause of failure among our respondents, at 54%, followed by older properties (28%), ageing products (24%), smoking (19%), lacking fire safety information (19%), holes in walls (17%), flammable products (13%), and poor regulation (7%).


ACTION With a clearly delineated route to identifying fire risk in housing, the questions remain, who is responsible for addressing these issues, and why do these risks remain present?


“What are the main causes of fire risk assement failures?”


22 | HMMOctober/November 2021 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


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