do you really need a fire risk assessment under law of is it a nice t have for a building? I wonder if this is to do with money more than anything else?

Much has been made of the new Fire Risk Assessments that came into force a long time ago. The level of detail required in the Fire Risk Assessments is always a bit dubious and I'm aiming to confirm what is actually required to meet the new regulations.

I've visisted a number of premises and the standard  Fire Risk Assessments template can be found on the internet.

It generally should look at the type of risk the building possess and how the ocntents of the document can mitigate andy risk.

It should look at the level of detection offered, current adequacy of escape routes, and any problems the building may have in terms of fire risk. Generally for offices the risk is genrally low, however there may be kitchen facilities. Looking at the use of both heat detection and smoke detection is always useful.

The new regulations are very unclear and much has been made about the quality of the fire risk assessments in use. I use a standard template that encourages common sense and the practicalities of fire. Are the current measures up to standard? What are the requirements by law. How likely is the risk of fire, and what do the new mitigation strategies offer in terms of reducing risk?

These have replaced the old fire certificate and can be done by anyone who is deemed competent under the eyes of the law. Competence is a funny one.