The Four Types of Fire Risk Assessment: How to Choose the Right Level for Your Building

One of the most consequential decisions a responsible person makes when commissioning a fire risk assessment is selecting the correct type. Under BS 9792, the four types of assessment have been redefined with clearer boundaries, and fire and rescue services are increasingly challenging assessments where the chosen type does not match the building's risk profile.

Getting this wrong is not merely an administrative issue. An assessment that is too shallow for your building's complexity could be deemed unsuitable and insufficient under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, exposing you to enforcement action and, in the worst case, personal liability.

Understanding the Four Types

#### Type 1: Common Areas Only, Non-Intrusive

A Type 1 assessment is the minimum requirement under the Fire Safety Order. It covers the common areas of a building through a non-intrusive visual inspection.

When it is appropriate:
- Lower-risk buildings with a straightforward layout
- Buildings where there is no evidence or suspicion of structural fire protection deficiencies
- Properties with a good maintenance history and no previous significant findings

Limitations to understand:
Type 1 is a starting point, not a default for all buildings. Fire and rescue services are already pushing back on Type 1 assessments for higher-risk buildings, older properties, and those with known or suspected compartmentation issues. If your building has a complex history or serves a vulnerable population, a Type 1 assessment may be found insufficient on review.

#### Type 2: Common Areas Only, Intrusive

A Type 2 assessment covers the same common areas as a Type 1 but includes elements of intrusive inspection. This means physically checking areas that a visual survey cannot adequately assess -- for example, investigating fire stopping behind service risers, checking compartmentation integrity at ceiling voids, or examining conditions within concealed spaces.

When it is appropriate:
- Where a previous Type 1 assessment has identified significant failures or flaws that could compromise compartmentation
- Buildings where there are concerns about the integrity of passive fire protection in common areas
- Properties where alterations or refurbishment works may have affected fire stopping

What it adds:
The intrusive element provides confirmation -- rather than assumption -- about the condition of structural fire protection and compartmentation within the common parts. It moves the assessment from "we cannot see a problem" to "we have checked and can confirm the position."

#### Type 3: Common Areas Plus a Sample of Dwellings, Non-Intrusive

A Type 3 assessment extends beyond the common areas to include a non-intrusive inspection of a sample of individual dwellings. This provides a deeper understanding of fire safety conditions across the building as a whole.

When it is appropriate:
- Higher-risk buildings where a whole-building understanding is essential
- Properties being acquired by a new landlord or freeholder, where the condition inside dwellings is unknown
- Buildings with vulnerable tenants, where fire safety within individual units directly affects the overall risk profile
- To support the building safety case for higher-risk buildings under the Building Safety Act

What it adds:
By entering a sample of dwellings, the assessor can identify fire hazards, assess conditions, and evaluate safety measures within the domestic premises themselves. This is particularly valuable where the fire risk assessment needs to justify the chosen evacuation strategy or where person-centred fire risk assessments are being planned.

#### Type 4: Common Areas Plus a Sample of Dwellings, Intrusive

A Type 4 assessment is the most thorough option, combining inspection of common areas and a sample of dwellings with an element of intrusive and destructive survey work.

When it is appropriate:
- Where serious unaddressed fire safety defects have been identified in both common areas and individual apartments
- Buildings where there are specific concerns or suspicions about the construction history
- Properties where there is a high risk of fire spread and a need for in-depth inspection of compartmentation and fire stopping
- Following a fire incident or where enforcement action has highlighted structural fire protection failures

What it adds:
The intrusive element within dwellings allows the assessor to investigate conditions that cannot be assessed visually -- for example, checking compartment walls and floors, examining fire stopping around service penetrations, and verifying the integrity of fire-resistant construction. This is the assessment type that provides the highest level of confidence in the building's fire safety performance.

The Nine-Step Approach Under BS 9792

Whichever type of assessment you commission, BS 9792 sets out a structured nine-step process that every fire risk assessment should follow. This replaces the previous five-step approach under PAS 79-2 and HSE guidance, and it demands a more detailed and transparent methodology.

#### Step 1: Obtain Relevant Information

Before setting foot in the building, the assessor must conduct a document review. What fire safety information is held? Are there previous fire risk assessments, fire strategies, as-built fire plans, maintenance and testing records? This "information troll" is the foundation upon which the entire assessment is built.

#### Step 2: Identify Fire Hazards

Walk the building and identify all fire hazards present. Under the amended Fire Safety Order, this now means all fire-related hazards -- not just those previously considered "significant."

#### Step 3: Determine Existing Control Measures and Assess Likelihood of Fire

What systems and management arrangements are already in place to prevent fire? Based on the information gathered in Steps 1 and 2, the assessor makes a subjective assessment of the likelihood of a fire materialising.

#### Step 4: Assess Physical Fire Protection Measures

Examine all physical fire protection measures in the building -- both active systems (fire alarms, detection, sprinklers, smoke ventilation, firefighting equipment) and passive systems (compartmentation, fire doors, fire stopping, means of escape protection).

#### Step 5: Determine Fire Safety Management Arrangements

What documentation and evidence is available to demonstrate that fire safety is being actively managed? This includes maintenance records, testing certificates, evacuation procedures, staff training records, and resident engagement activities.

#### Step 6: Assess the Consequences of Fire

Based on the findings from Steps 1, 4, and 5, the assessor makes a subjective assessment of the likely consequences if a fire were to occur -- considering the harm that could result to all persons at risk.

#### Step 7: Determine the Overall Level of Risk

Steps 3 and 6 are combined to produce a final assessment of risk. BS 9792 provides for a transparent 3x3 risk matrix that balances likelihood against consequence. The methodology must be clearly documented within the assessment so that anyone reviewing it can understand how the risk rating was derived.

#### Step 8: Develop a Prioritised Management Action Plan

Where the assessment identifies shortcomings, new controls are needed, or existing controls require improvement, the assessor must produce a prioritised action plan. This should include clear timelines and be ordered by urgency and risk significance.

#### Step 9: Determine the Frequency of Review

The assessment must conclude with a recommendation for when the fire risk assessment should next be reviewed. This is not a one-and-done exercise. Fire risks change -- new technologies emerge, building use evolves, and maintenance conditions vary over time. The review frequency should reflect the building's specific risk profile.

Moving Beyond the Tick-Box Approach

One of the most important shifts embedded in the nine-step approach is the requirement for transparent, risk-based justification at every stage. A tick-box format is not inherently wrong -- but a tick box without accompanying commentary explaining why the box has been ticked, what evidence supports the conclusion, and how the assessor has reached their professional judgement, is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

The standard also introduces a clear expectation around risk matrices. Whatever system is used to determine and express risk levels, it must be:

- Transparent -- clearly documented within the assessment
- Defined -- with each risk level accompanied by a definition of what it means in practice
- Actionable -- with proposed timelines for remedial measures linked to each risk rating

What Responsible Persons Should Do Now

1. Review which type of assessment your buildings currently have. If you have been defaulting to Type 1 across your portfolio, consider whether that level of coverage is truly appropriate for every property.

2. Ask your assessor to justify the type they recommend. Under BS 9792, the justification for selecting a particular assessment type must be included within the assessment itself. If your assessor cannot explain why a Type 1 is sufficient for a specific building, that should raise questions.

3. Consider the building's history and context. Older buildings, converted properties, buildings that have undergone significant refurbishment, and those serving vulnerable populations are all more likely to require a Type 2, 3, or 4 assessment.

4. Treat fire risk assessments as living documents. The law requires that they are reviewed regularly and updated when circumstances change. New technologies such as lithium-ion battery-powered devices, changes in occupancy, and building alterations can all affect the fire risk profile.

5. Do not wait for enforcement. If your current fire risk assessment predates BS 9792, it is worth commissioning a review to check whether it meets the new expectations. Fire and rescue services are not waiting for a transition period -- they are applying the new standard now.

The Bottom Line

Selecting the right type of fire risk assessment is not an area where cost savings should drive the decision. The type must be proportionate to the building's risk, complexity, and occupancy. BS 9792 provides the framework; it is for responsible persons and their appointed assessors to ensure it is applied correctly.