Remediation Priority Under a Fixed Budget
A responsible person for a 1970s office block has an assessment report listing 14 deficiencies and a remediation budget of GBP 180,000. The most expensive item is a full compartmentation upgrade at GBP 140,000; the rest are smaller items: inadequate fire door closers (GBP 9,000), a defective dry riser outlet (GBP 6,000), missing escape signage (GBP 4,000), blocked escape routes used for storage (GBP 2,000 to clear), and a failing emergency lighting circuit on two floors (GBP 11,000). The building is occupied by 300 staff, and the top two floors are let to a tenant who refuses access for survey. The responsible person proposes to spend the whole budget on the compartmentation upgrade and defer everything else.
1. Construct a defensible prioritisation and explain why the proposed allocation is unsafe.
Read the worked answer
Prioritisation should be driven by risk to life and by whether an item defeats a defence relied on in the fire strategy, not by cost or visibility. The blocked escape routes are a near-zero-cost, immediate life-safety issue and must be cleared now. The defective dry riser outlet compromises firefighting operations and should be corrected early. The failing emergency lighting on two floors affects escape in the exact conditions the strategy assumes, and the door closers affect compartmentation at the most common failure point. The compartmentation upgrade is significant, but spending the entire budget on it while leaving escape routes blocked, the dry riser defective, and emergency lighting failing produces a building that is less safe during the remediation period than its report suggests. A defensible allocation funds the immediate and low-cost items first, then phases the compartmentation work, and records the residual risk and interim measures for anything deferred. The assessor should state that the proposal is not consistent with the assessment findings and should be documented as a disagreement.
2. How should the assessor handle the tenant's refusal of access, and what should the report say about the unsurveyed floors?
Read the worked answer
The refusal is a material limitation, not a reason to assume the floors are satisfactory. The report should record the request, the refusal, the date, and the effect: the assessment cannot confirm compartmentation, escape provision, or detection on those floors, so conclusions about the building as a whole are qualified. The assessor should recommend that the responsible person pursue access through the lease or other lawful means and should set a date by which the survey must occur. Interim measures should be considered, such as confirming that the floors have functioning detection and escape routes and that the tenant is aware of their obligations. The report should not rate the unsurveyed floors as compliant, and it should state clearly that the overall risk rating is provisional pending access. Recording the limitation protects both the assessor and the responsible person, and it gives the authority an accurate picture rather than a false assurance.