Fire Risk Assessment vs Fire Safety Audit

The main difference is risk evaluation versus management assurance.

A fire risk assessment asks:

• What could cause a fire?
• Who could be harmed?
• Are escape routes and fire precautions suitable?
• What further measures are required?
• When should the assessment be reviewed?

A fire safety audit is more likely to ask:

• Is the current FRA available and still suitable?
• Have the recommended actions been completed?
• Are inspections, servicing and training taking place?
• Are records complete and accessible?
• Are responsibilities clearly assigned?
• Are procedures being followed consistently?

The audit may use the FRA as its starting point, but it normally looks beyond the report to test whether the organisation’s fire safety arrangements are working day to day.

In England and Wales, the responsible person must carry out and regularly review a fire risk assessment for relevant non-domestic premises. The assessment should identify the fire hazards, people at risk and general fire precautions required for the premises.

Depending on the building, it may consider:

• Ignition sources and combustible materials
• People who may need additional assistance
• Escape routes and final exits
• Fire detection and warning systems
• Emergency lighting
• Fire doors and compartmentation
• Firefighting equipment
• Evacuation procedures
• Testing, maintenance and training arrangements

The assessment should then record its findings and any further measures required. What Should a Fire Risk Assessment Include explains the expected report content and what makes the recommendations usable.

A fire risk assessment is not simply a check that certificates exist. Records provide evidence, but the assessor must still evaluate whether the precautions are appropriate for the premises, occupation and risks present.

A fire safety audit checks whether the organisation’s arrangements are complete, current and operating effectively. Its scope will vary, so the service should be defined before appointment.

A practical audit may review:

• The current FRA and its action plan
• Fire alarm and emergency-lighting records
• Extinguisher servicing
• Staff training and fire drills
• Emergency and evacuation procedures
• Contractor reports and completion evidence
• Fire safety policies and assigned responsibilities
• Management of building alterations and changes

A fire compliance audit often places greater emphasis on documented duties, inspection records and evidence that actions have been completed. The exact deliverables still need to be stated because different providers may use the word “audit” for anything from a desktop document check to a full site-based review.

Government guidance recognises that a planned audit can identify significant changes affecting fire safety systems and indicate whether the fire risk assessment needs a fuller review.

No. An audit does not remove the need to maintain a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment.

The audit may confirm that the FRA remains current, identify gaps in its implementation or recommend reassessment. It should not be presented as the required FRA unless its scope and methodology genuinely cover the fire risk assessment process.

For example, an audit may find that:

• The FRA no longer reflects the building layout
• Fire-door actions remain outstanding
• Alarm servicing records are incomplete
• Staff training has lapsed
• Responsibility for shared escape routes is unclear

Those findings matter, but a document-led audit may not have reassessed every hazard or fire precaution across the premises.

Where the applicable duties or terminology are unclear, Fire Risk Assessment Legal Requirements Across the UK explains the differences between jurisdictions.

An audit is particularly useful where an organisation needs assurance across several buildings or wants to test whether its existing procedures are being applied consistently.

Typical reasons include:

• Taking over a new property portfolio
• Changing managing agent or facilities provider
• Preparing for an enforcing-authority inspection
• Checking progress after remedial works
• Investigating inconsistent records between sites
• Reviewing duties in a multi-occupied building
• Carrying out due diligence before acquisition or refurbishment

Consider a managing agent taking responsibility for 20 mixed-use buildings. Each property may have an FRA, but the reports use different formats and priority systems. Inspection records sit with several contractors, and some actions have no completion evidence.

A portfolio audit can show what information exists, whether actions are being managed and which buildings need reassessment or further work. Fire Safety Audits for Managing Agents explains this approach in more detail.

The strongest approach is to treat the services as connected stages within the same compliance process.

1. Complete or review the fire risk assessment.
2. Record the required actions and priorities.
3. Assign responsibility and target dates.
4. Arrange surveys or remedial works.
5. Retain evidence before closing each action.
6. Audit the ongoing management arrangements.
7. Review the FRA where the audit identifies significant change or new risk.

What Happens After a Fire Risk Assessment explains how findings move into surveys, defined work packages and completed actions.

The audit should check whether actions have been closed properly. A contractor invoice or attendance record does not necessarily prove that the original deficiency was resolved.

A request for a “fire safety audit” can produce very different quotations unless the intended service is clearly defined.

The tender pack should state:

• The buildings and areas included
• Whether a current FRA is available
• The documents and records to be reviewed
• Whether physical inspections and interviews are required
• The required report, action plan and portfolio summary
• The programme, access arrangements and turnaround time

It should also identify whether the requirement is a new FRA, an FRA review, a management audit, a combined service or a portfolio-wide gap analysis. Without this distinction, one bidder may price a desktop review while another allows for full site inspections.

A strong submission should confirm the methodology, relevant experience, competence, assumptions, exclusions, quality controls and report format. For a combined service, it should separate formal FRA findings from wider management assurance.

How Fire Contractors Can Win More Commercial Tenders explains why clear assumptions and direct responses to the issued scope make submissions easier to assess.

Where several buildings need new assessments or structured reviews, suitable Fire Risk Assessment Companies can be compared against one consistent brief. Defined programmes can also be published through Fire Risk Assessment Tenders.

A common mistake is commissioning an audit when the building actually needs a new FRA. This can result in a detailed records review while the underlying assessment remains outdated or unsuitable.

Other frequent problems include:

• Failing to define what “audit” means
• Assuming an audit satisfies the legal FRA duty
• Reviewing documents without inspecting the premises where inspection is required
• Checking that certificates exist without reviewing recorded defects
• Failing to follow up overdue actions
• Using inconsistent audit formats across a portfolio
• Appointing solely on the lowest price

Section 156 of the Building Safety Act 2022 strengthened requirements to record the FRA in full, record fire safety arrangements and cooperate with other responsible persons. Controlled records and clear ownership are therefore particularly important in multi-occupied premises.

A structured tender process keeps the scope, supporting documents, bidder questions, clarifications and submissions within one controlled project record. This ensures bidders respond to the same requirement and creates a clearer audit trail for the appointment decision.

Is a Fire Safety Audit a Legal Requirement?

The core legal duties are to complete and review a suitable fire risk assessment and maintain appropriate fire safety arrangements. An audit can test those arrangements, but it is not normally a separately prescribed universal document.

Can the Same Provider Complete the FRA and Audit?

Yes, provided the provider has suitable competence and the scope distinguishes the formal risk assessment from the wider compliance review.

How Often Should a Fire Safety Audit Be Completed?

There is no single interval suitable for every premises. Frequency should reflect the building risk, size of the portfolio, management changes, previous findings and the organisation’s assurance procedures.

Will an Audit Identify Remedial Work?

It may identify overdue actions, maintenance failures or concerns requiring further investigation. Detailed pricing may still require specialist surveys, drawings or asset schedules.

Does the Premises Need Its Fire Risks Reassessed?

Where the current assessment is missing, outdated or no longer reflects the building, compare competent Fire Risk Assessment Companies with relevant premises experience.

Is Wider Management Assurance Required?

Where the FRA exists but its implementation, records and responsibilities need checking, Fire Safety Audits for Managing Agents explains how a structured audit can identify portfolio-wide compliance gaps.

Is There a Defined Assessment Programme to Procure?

For multi-building FRAs, combined assessment programmes or clearly defined review requirements, Fire Risk Assessment Tenders provides a structured route for issuing one scope and comparing submissions consistently.