Unverified Fire Door Inspection Findings
During a routine assessment of a 12-storey residential block, the assessor samples 20 of 240 flat entrance fire doors. She finds 7 doors with gaps exceeding the permitted tolerance at the head or latch side, 4 with missing intumescent strips, 3 with non-fire-rated letter plates, and 2 that have been replaced entirely with unrated doors. The building's fire strategy relies on stay-put evacuation and protected common corridors. The managing agent says the sample is small and the results are "probably not representative," and proposes to log the findings and address them at the next planned maintenance cycle in 18 months. A residents' group has asked for the assessment report.
1. Assess the significance of the sample findings for the stay-put strategy and evaluate the agent's 18-month deferral.
Read the worked answer
The sample is 20 of 240 doors, about 8 percent, and 16 of 20 have at least one defect, with 2 being wholly unrated replacements. Even allowing for sampling error, a defect prevalence near 80 percent in a random sample makes it implausible that the population is sound; the correct inference is that the defect rate is high and the sample should be extended, not dismissed. The defects matter because the stay-put strategy depends on flat entrance doors resisting fire and smoke long enough to protect the common corridor and stairs. Missing intumescent strips and oversized gaps defeat smoke control at the door, and unrated replacements defeat fire resistance entirely, so the strategy's core assumption is not met. An 18-month deferral is not defensible for the unrated doors and missing strips; these are immediate or short-term actions. A proportionate response is: make safe or upgrade the 2 unrated doors and 4 missing-strip doors urgently, schedule the gap and letter-plate defects on a short programme, and survey the remaining 220 doors to establish the true extent before deciding whether interim measures such as a temporary simultaneous-evacuation approach are needed.
2. What should the report say, and how should the assessor handle the residents' request and the agent's pressure?
Read the worked answer
The report should state the sampling method, the sample size and its limits, the observed defect types with counts, the inferred risk to the stay-put strategy, and a prioritised action list with target dates and owners. It should distinguish confirmed findings from inference, and recommend extending the survey rather than asserting a population defect rate as fact. On the residents' request, the assessor should follow the applicable disclosure and data-protection rules and the client's instructions, but should not misrepresent or suppress material safety findings; if disclosure is restricted, the assessor should record the request and the basis for any withholding. On pressure from the agent, the assessor's duty is to the accuracy of the assessment, so she should decline to soften the risk rating, document the exchange, and escalate material disagreement in writing. Softening findings to preserve the client relationship undermines the report's purpose and the assessor's own accountability.