The Building Safety Act 2022 has been widely discussed since its introduction, often presented as a clear and structured step forward for building safety.
In principle, it is. In practice, the reality is more complex.
For those working on the ground, particularly Fire Risk Assessors, the Act hasn’t just introduced new requirements. It has fundamentally changed expectations, accountability and the way fire safety is approached day to day.
From Framework to Reality
The Act sets out a framework focused on:
-
- Clear accountability
-
- Improved competence
-
- Better management of building safety risks
This is absolutely the right approach, but frameworks don’t operate in isolation.
They rely on interpretation, implementation, and coordination across multiple parties; often in buildings that are anything but straightforward.
For fire risk assessors, this has created a working environment where:
-
- Expectations have increased significantly
-
- Guidance is still evolving
-
- Interpretation plays a central role
The result is a noticeable gap between what the legislation intends and how it is being delivered in practice.
Where It Becomes Challenging in Practice
On paper, requirements can appear clear.
On site, they rarely are.
Assessors are routinely dealing with:
-
- Existing buildings that don’t align neatly with guidance
-
- Incomplete or inconsistent information
-
- Legacy issues that pre-date current standards
-
- Conflicting priorities between stakeholders
For example, an assessor may identify external wall concerns, incomplete fire stopping, or unclear evacuation strategies, but the resolution of those issues often sits across multiple parties, timelines and budgets.
The assessment itself is only one part of a much larger process.
And that process doesn’t always move at the same pace as the expectations placed on it.
Increased Accountability and Pressure
One of the most significant shifts introduced by the Act is around accountability.
Fire risk assessments are no longer viewed as standalone documents. They are expected to:
-
- Be detailed and evidence-based
-
- Clearly justify decisions
-
- Withstand scrutiny from regulators, clients, and, if necessary, legal review
This has changed the nature of the role.
Assessors are not just identifying risk, they are:
-
- Explaining it
-
- Defending it
-
- And, in some cases, being challenged on it
At the same time, responsibility within buildings is more clearly defined.
The role of the Responsible Person is central, but the expectation on assessors to produce work that supports that responsibility has increased significantly.
This creates a level of pressure that goes beyond technical competence.
Competency: More Than Qualifications
The Act has placed a strong emphasis on competency, but in practice this goes far beyond formal qualifications.
There is an increasing expectation that assessors can demonstrate:
-
- Depth of experience
-
- Sound professional judgement
-
- The ability to assess complex, real-world scenarios
Two buildings may appear similar on paper, but function very differently in reality.
Understanding:
-
- How a building is actually used
-
- How occupants behave
-
- How a fire might develop and spread
-
- How evacuation would work in practice
requires more than knowledge, it requires experience.
And increasingly, that experience is being tested.
The Expanding Administrative Burden
Alongside technical expectations, there has been a significant increase in administrative requirements.
Fire risk assessments now sit within a wider system of:
-
- Ongoing record-keeping
-
- Information sharing
-
- Regular review and updates
The concept of the “golden thread” of information is a positive step towards
transparency and accountability.
But in practice, it introduces additional layers of:
-
- Coordination
-
- Documentation
-
- Time
Assessors are not just producing reports, they are contributing to a broader information system that must be accurate, consistent, and accessible.
This inevitably increases the time required to complete work to the expected standard.
Experience vs Legislation
Legislation provides structure.
It does not remove the need for professional judgement.
In many cases, assessors are required to interpret guidance and apply it to buildings that:
-
- Are older
-
- Have been modified over time
-
- Do not fit neatly into standard categories
This is where the gap between legislation and reality becomes most apparent.
Because while legislation can define expectations, it cannot account for every scenario.
Assessors are often making decisions in grey areas whilst balancing:
-
- Risk
-
- Practicality
-
- Proportionality
And those decisions now carry greater weight.
A Changing Relationship with Clients
Another subtle but important shift is in how fire risk assessments are perceived by clients.
Previously, an assessment might have been seen as:
✔ A requirement to complete
Now, it is increasingly:
✔ A document that must stand up to scrutiny
This changes expectations on both sides.
Clients may:
-
- Expect more detailed justification
-
- Require clearer explanations
-
- Be more likely to challenge findings
At the same time, there can still be tension where:
-
- Recommendations involve significant cost
-
- Timescales are tight
-
- Priorities differ
Navigating this relationship is becoming a more prominent part of the assessor’s role.
A Role That Continues to Evolve
The role of the fire risk assessor is no longer what it was even a few years ago.
It is becoming:
-
- More accountable
-
- More detailed
-
- More scrutinised
-
- More reliant on professional judgement
And importantly, more visible.
The work produced is no longer just a record, it is part of a wider system of building safety management.
The Gap That Still Exists
The Building Safety Act has set a clear direction.
But the industry is still working through:
-
- How guidance is applied consistently
-
- How roles and responsibilities align in practice
-
- How information is managed across multiple parties
-
- How expectations are balanced with real-world constraints
This is not a criticism of the legislation.
The Building Safety Act represents more than a change in legislation. It reflects the reality that today’s built environment is more complex than ever before, and that improving fire safety cannot rest with one profession alone. Fire risk assessors have a vital role to play, but meaningful improvement will only come through collaboration, shared responsibility and a collective commitment across the industry to continually raise standards.
Final Thoughts
The Building Safety Act represents a significant and necessary shift in how building safety is approached.
But legislation alone does not deliver change.
It is implemented, interpreted and applied by people who are working in real buildings, with real constraints.
For fire risk assessors, this means operating in a space where:
-
- Expectations are higher
-
- Accountability is clearer
-
- And the margin for error is smaller
The framework is in place.
The challenge now is ensuring that, in practice, it works.
Where FRAU Stands
At FRAU, we recognise that the reality of fire safety doesn’t always align neatly with legislation.
Our aim is to:
-
- Support professionals navigating these changes
-
- Provide practical insight into real-world challenges
-
- Create a space for open, informed discussion
-
- Ensure the voices of industry professionals are heard
Because understanding how things work in practice is where real progress happens.
