The fire-safety template
You are a general practice chartered surveyor with 14 years' experience in commercial property. A lender instructs you to inspect and certify the external wall system of an 18-storey residential tower before a remediation funding decision. The fee is £4,500 and the report is due in 10 days. You have no fire-engineering qualification; your only relevant training is a two-hour webinar on cladding last year. The lender's template asks you to confirm 'no obvious defects' and to state the wall system is 'safe for mortgage purposes'. The building has known ACM cladding on two elevations, and missing cavity barriers were noted in a 2021 report. The client says: 'We do not need a full fire assessment - just sign the template; the valuer last time did.'
1. Should you accept the instruction as scoped? Apply the competence and public-interest rules.
Read the worked answer
I should not accept it as scoped. Rule 2 requires me to provide services only where I have the necessary competence, and a two-hour webinar does not make me competent to certify an 18-storey external wall system with known ACM cladding and missing cavity barriers. Rule 5 requires me to act in the public interest and prevent harm; a false comfort letter could affect fire safety and the lender's decision. The template wording 'no obvious defects' and 'safe for mortgage purposes' is especially dangerous because I already know of defects from the 2021 report. I could accept a narrowly defined instruction to inspect and report visible conditions, but only with a competent fire engineer or cladding specialist, and only if the lender understands the limits. I would not sign a certificate that implies a safety judgement I cannot make. If the client insists on the template, I should decline.
2. What would you tell the client, and what would a compliant scope look like?
Read the worked answer
I would explain in writing that I am not qualified to certify fire safety or the adequacy of the external wall system, and that the template asks for conclusions outside my competence. I would recommend a suitably qualified fire engineer or cladding assessor, and offer to coordinate or to provide a general practice inspection limited to visible defects, access and documentation. The scope should state that it is not a fire risk assessment, not a safety certificate and not an EWS1 form unless completed by a competent person. It should identify the known ACM and cavity-barrier issues, list limitations and access constraints, and require specialist input before any 'safe' statement. I would revise the fee and 10-day deadline if necessary; speed cannot justify an unsafe opinion. If the lender will not accept a qualified scope, I would decline the instruction.
3. What are the consequences if you sign the lender's template anyway?
Read the worked answer
Signing would misrepresent my competence and the building's condition. The 2021 report already records ACM cladding and missing cavity barriers, so a statement of 'no obvious defects' could be false. The lender may rely on it to release remediation funds or make a mortgage decision, and residents could be exposed to fire risk. I could face negligence claims, loss of insurance cover, RICS disciplinary action and damage to public confidence. The client's assurance that 'the valuer last time did' is not a defence; the previous valuer's conduct does not make it right. The pressure of the £4,500 fee and 10-day deadline is not a justification. If I was asked to sign and refused, I would document the refusal and the advice I gave. If someone else in the firm signs, I would escalate.