Building safety duties overwhelm SMEs as BESA calls for clearer enforcement

BESA survey flags pressures from building safety regime

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has reported that many small construction firms feel overwhelmed by the Building Safety Act, based on new research presented at London Build Expo in London on 26 November 2025.

The association said its second annual survey of the sector showed that, although 88% of industry professionals are aware of the legislation, most small and micro-businesses view it as “overwhelming and daunting” and feel “left behind”.

BESA added that these businesses make up 99% of the construction sector and related professions, which it described as the “lifeblood” of the industry.

There was also evidence that many clients are still operating on a “business as usual” basis, with cost and speed often taking precedence over safety.

The survey findings were discussed during a panel session at the London Build Expo, which focused on enforcement, communication and training needs linked to the new regime.

Rachel Davidson, director of specialist knowledge at BESA, said: “This is critical because those companies are the lifeblood of the industry.

“There are also a lot of people who still think the legislation only applies to HRBs (higher risk buildings).”

Davidson said: “A lot of this comes back to leadership and culture.

“78% of companies tell us that this is important to them but fewer than half report having taken enough action.”

Calls for clearer enforcement and targeted building safety guidance

Davidson noted that building engineering contractors increasingly want consistent enforcement of the Building Safety Act.

She stated that many contractors believe some clients will continue to treat compliance as optional unless there are visible consequences for non-compliance.

BESA is expanding its guidance to show firms “what good looks like” within their particular part of the sector, Davidson explained.

The association is advising companies that they do not need to master every detail of the Act, but instead concentrate on the clauses that relate directly to their role and responsibilities.

Davidson said this approach is intended to help smaller firms identify where they have direct duties and where they need to coordinate with other dutyholders.

BESA has set up a Building Safety Hub to host this material, including a new guide aimed at Principal Contractors.

Communication challenges across a 2.6 million-strong workforce

Fellow panellist Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, highlighted the scale of the communication task given that the sector employs around 2.6 million people.

She said that messages about the Building Regulations and building safety standards need to move beyond compliance alone and address behaviour and pride in work.

Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, said: “We need to be innovative about how we communicate and appeal to personal values because that is going to be more effective than continually talking about regulation.

“But getting 2.6 million people to pull in the same direction is a huge challenge.

“We need to ask people why we are doing this [which is] to keep people safe and make sure the Grenfell tragedy cannot happen again.

“That means talking about ‘purpose’…people should want to make a difference.

“This can’t just be about ticking boxes.”

Carpenter argued that more use should be made of non-traditional communication channels, including partnerships with organisations such as HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

She said these bodies already have strong links to individuals and small construction businesses, which could help reach audiences that traditional industry channels do not.

The panel also heard that the industry’s average reading age is around 11, according to Hertfordshire Building Control Chief Executive Officer Gary Cass.

Cass said this creates additional barriers to spreading information about regulatory duties and good practice through text-heavy material.

Regulator progress and pressure on Building Control resources

Cass noted that there are signs of progress at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) on planning approvals for higher risk buildings.

He said the new leadership team at the BSR has cut the average processing time at Gateway Two to 17 weeks, down from as high as 38 weeks earlier in 2025.

Cass added that the regulator has been “very honest” about its earlier backlogs and is now moving in what he described as a more positive direction.

However, he said the longer-term success of the new regime will depend on closer collaboration between industry and the regulator.

Gary Cass, Chief Executive Officer at Hertfordshire Building Control, said: “However, the industry needs more education about the Building Regulations.

“People need to be looking at compliance and focus on what is required in the regulations not guidance.

“Building Control Officers are regulators first and foremost but the industry used to rely on them to guide them through the process…and now it needs to be educated [about how the new process works].”

Cass said enforcement can be applied in a constructive way and does not always have to lead directly to legal action.

He also warned of a decline in the number of Building Control Officers (BCOs), which he said is creating a resource issue and reducing access to experienced inspectors.

How building safety pressures affect technical disciplines

The panel discussion concluded that more sector-specific training is needed so that different parts of the supply chain understand their duties under the Building Safety Act.

Speakers said that many of the firms that feel most overwhelmed are also those that deliver core technical services such as building engineering, installation and maintenance.

They added that these companies often sit at critical points in projects where design decisions, product choices and installation quality interact with regulatory requirements.

BESA said its Building Safety Hub is intended to give these businesses practical guidance, examples of good practice and role-based breakdowns of responsibilities.

Why building safety compliance burdens matter for practitioners

The survey findings and panel comments are directly relevant to building services engineers, fire engineering consultants and system installers who are working under the Building Safety Act.

These groups operate in a sector where small and micro-businesses account for 99% of organisations, and many report that the legislation feels “overwhelming and daunting”.

For building engineering contractors and Principal Contractors, the focus on clear enforcement, role-specific duties and practical examples of “what good looks like” may shape how they organise projects and allocate responsibilities.

Building Control Officers, and those who work with them, face pressure from reduced staff numbers and the need to move from an advisory role to one centred on regulation and education.

Facility managers and clients commissioning work will encounter an environment where cost and speed are more likely to be challenged by contractors who are conscious of compliance obligations and enforcement risks.

Fire Aware sets out call for unity in fire safety

Unity across duty holders at heart of Fire Aware Code of Conduct

Fire Aware has called for Unity across the fire safety supply chain in a new Code of Conduct and series of charters published on Tuesday 9 December 2025.

The organisation said the initiative is aimed at aligning designers, developers, suppliers, contractors, asset owners and other duty holders around shared moral responsibilities, alongside legal duties under the Building Safety Act.

The call has been set out by Gavin Skelly, CEO of Fire Aware, in a message to businesses and organisations involved in the built environment.

Moral responsibility and duty of care across the supply chain

According to Fire Aware, everyone involved in fire safety work should recognise that keeping the public safe is more than a job and that the sector operates as a vocation.

The organisation stressed that moral responsibility sits with all parties in the supply chain, including designers, developers, suppliers, contractors, asset owners, manufacturers, managers and installers.

Fire Aware’s message frames public safety as a right for people who live and work in the buildings where fire protection measures are installed.

The organisation linked this responsibility to the duty of care held by duty holders from the earliest stages of a project.

Gavin Skelly, CEO of Fire Aware, said: “The fire safety industry needs to be united in its initiative for the moral and behavioral changes in culture needed to improve standards.

“We should consider the moral responsibility required of all concerned in the supply chain from top to bottom, including designers, developers, suppliers, contractors, asset owners, manufacturers, managers and installers and many more.

“Let’s not forget, keeping the public safe is more than a job.”

Unity as the basis for Fire Aware charters

Fire Aware stated that all industry participants should treat the Building Safety Act as a minimum benchmark and that member companies are encouraged to move beyond simple legislative compliance.

The organisation has introduced a Fire Aware Code of Conduct, supported by a series of charters aimed at main contractors, property developers, building management, designers, local councils, specialist contractors and sub-contractors.

These charters are designed to shape behaviour and culture by setting expectations on how member companies uphold their duty of care.

Fire Aware emphasised that its Charter Conditions do not override any legal obligations on sector-specific professions and that members must still comply with all relevant laws and regulations.

The organisation said the charters ask member businesses to consider the safety of the end user and to go beyond minimum standards as part of identifying themselves as businesses that care.

Fire Aware added that the charters also recognise those outside the specialist fire sector who hold a duty of care but are not directly part of fire safety professions.

Building Safety Act context and sector-wide culture change

Fire Aware positioned the Building Safety Act as a framework intended to guide duty holders through processes that support best practice in fire safety.

The organisation noted that the fire sector contains a wide range of duty holders but that they share a single core requirement, which is to understand that their primary role is to keep the public safe.

The message called on those who make decisions about fire safety to think about their moral duty at the outset of any project rather than treating it as a later-stage consideration.

Fire Aware said members of its community are “taking a stand” and that by working together they can contribute to a wider cause of safety.

The organisation argued that raising standards in this way is linked directly to saving lives.

Fire Aware also stated that there is an opportunity to unite the fire safety industry beyond traditional silos by combining technical expertise in specialist fields with a consistent set of behaviours.

The organisation framed its community as a group of businesses and organisations taking action in the name of moral responsibility and invited prospective members to engage if they wish to join or seek advice.

Sector implications of Fire Aware’s Unity message

Fire Aware’s focus on Unity is presented as an effort to bring a common approach to fire protection across different roles in the built environment.

The organisation said a consistent approach to behaviour and decision-making can support the effective application of technical guidance from specialist areas.

By encouraging member businesses to commit publicly to going beyond minimum standards, Fire Aware aims to make culture change visible to clients and building users.

Fire Aware explained that its charters are intended to sit alongside existing regulations and professional codes rather than replace them.

Why Fire Aware’s unity call matters for practitioners

Fire Aware’s Unity message is directly relevant to organisations that act as duty holders, including contractors, designers, developers, building managers and asset owners.

For these groups, the Fire Aware Code of Conduct and charters set out an expectation that projects should be planned from the outset with moral responsibility and end-user safety in mind, not only legislative compliance.

Fire engineering consultants, system installers and fire-protection contractors may view the charters as a framework for aligning technical decisions with a wider duty of care across the supply chain.

Local councils and building management teams are explicitly named as audiences for the charters, which positions them as part of a broader community committed to going beyond minimum standards.

For property developers and main contractors, joining the Fire Aware community means signing up to conditions that affirm legal compliance while also committing to behaviours that identify the business as one that cares about the people who use its buildings.

How Sungrow kept ESS safety intact under forced thermal runaway

Sungrow residential system completes UL 9540B ESS safety trial

Sungrow has reported that its SBH Series: Residential ESS has passed the world’s first UL 9540B large-scale fire test for residential energy storage systems of 20kWh and below, conducted by UL Solutions, setting out a new reference point for residential ESS safety.

The company stated that this development follows two earlier real-unit combustion verification tests on utility-scale storage units.

Sungrow explained that it has extended this approach to the residential sector as home energy storage becomes more common and concern about safety incidents grows.

The manufacturer framed the UL 9540B result as evidence that the SBH system can manage thermal runaway and restrict fire spread in demanding test conditions.

UL 9540B standard focuses on thermal runaway

According to Sungrow, UL 9540B is a safety standard designed for residential energy storage systems up to 20kWh capacity.

The test forces fully charged systems into thermal runaway to assess how they handle flammable gas build-up, venting and ignition.

UL 9540B evaluates whether a system can prevent fire spread, explosions and other secondary hazards under these conditions.

Sungrow said the SBH system was exposed to a 24 hour trial with no external intervention.

During this period, test parameters included closely spaced battery units, disabled active fire suppression and repeated ignition triggers.

The company reported that the SBH system met all evaluation criteria over the full duration of the test.

Design features limit fire spread and heat transfer

Sungrow attributed the SBH Residential ESS performance in the test to features such as cell-level fire-resistant insulation, bottom heat dissipation and multi-directional pressure relief.

When a unit entered thermal runaway, flames were confined to the pressure relief area of the cabinet.

Adjacent units recorded internal surface temperatures of 21°C, below the 154°C venting threshold defined for the test.

Eave temperatures reached 35°C, which was also well under the 150°C limit specified in the standard.

System self-extinguishes and avoids explosion risk

The company stated that structural design choices were intended to promote heat dissipation and thermal isolation between modules.

In the UL 9540B trial, thermal runaway remained confined to the bottom module within the SBH system.

With fire suppression kept offline, open flames self-extinguished within one hour of ignition.

Further ignition attempts over the remaining 24 hours produced no re-ignition of the system.

Sungrow added that no additional combustion events, explosions or projectile hazards occurred during testing while the active suppression system stayed disabled.

The cabinet structure remained intact, which the company said shows the design’s focus on fire resistance, explosion management and mechanical stability.

Broader ESS safety approach and previous testing

Sungrow noted that the SBH Residential ESS had already completed the UL 9540A Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation Test before the UL 9540B assessment.

The company positions the combination of UL 9540A and UL 9540B results as a demonstration of system-level control from individual cells through to the full enclosure.

Sungrow stated that it aims to keep developing safety-focused technologies for energy storage as residential adoption grows.

The manufacturer added that it sees adherence to demanding standards as a way to increase confidence among homeowners in residential ESS installations.

New UK guidance on lithium battery fire, explosion and smoke hazards from asecos

New lithium battery whitepaper for UK workplaces

asecos has published a new lithium battery safety whitepaper for UK workplaces, responding to requests from safety professionals for clearer guidance on emerging risks.

The company announced the document on Wednesday 26 November 2025 from Derby, UK.

Titled “Lithium-Ion Batteries – Fire, Explosion and Smoke Hazards You Must Address,” the whitepaper focuses on workplace hazards associated with thermal runaway.

The publication is intended to help organisations understand and manage the rise in lithium-ion battery incidents being recorded by UK fire services.

According to asecos, the document is designed to bring together evidence, legal context and practical measures in a single reference for duty holders.

Rising incident rates and thermal runaway hazards

The whitepaper highlights what asecos describes as a marked increase in lithium-ion battery fires attended by UK fire and rescue services.

The company reports that fire services are now dealing with at least three lithium-ion battery incidents a day.

It links these incidents to hazards arising from thermal runaway, including the potential for fires, explosions and heavy smoke generation.

asecos notes that these hazards affect a wide range of equipment powered by lithium-ion cells in workplace environments.

The company positions the paper as a resource to help safety professionals interpret these developing risks in the context of day-to-day operations.

Legal duties and support for organisations

asecos states that the whitepaper sets out how existing legal frameworks apply to lithium-ion battery use and storage in workplaces.

The document refers to the Health and Safety at Work Act, DSEAR and the Fire Safety Order as key sources of duty-holder obligations.

According to asecos, the paper explains how these laws influence the need for risk assessment, hazard control and documentation around lithium battery management.

It also discusses legal exposure where organisations fail to implement protective measures that regulators and insurers are increasingly expecting to see.

The company says the whitepaper outlines practical steps aimed at achieving what it describes as a “gold standard” approach to lithium battery safety.

asecos adds that the publication draws attention to the support it offers through free site surveys, its Derby showroom and annual maintenance plans.

Les Day, Commercial Director at asecos, said: “The lithiumion revolution has transformed how we work but it’s also created a complex, fast-evolving safety challenge.

“This whitepaper offers professionals the evidence, legal clarity and technical guidance needed to act decisively before an incident occurs.”

Practical relevance for battery risk management and compliance

Fire safety officers can use the whitepaper to align existing lithium-ion storage and charging arrangements with legal expectations linked to DSEAR and the Fire Safety Order.

Facility managers across industrial, commercial and public sites gain a single reference for checking whether lithium-ion powered tools, devices and systems are covered by suitable controls.

Risk assessors can draw on the incident data and thermal runaway discussion when reviewing workplace assessments that currently treat lithium-ion batteries in the same way as conventional batteries.

System installers and fire-protection contractors may need to consider how the “gold standard” measures described by asecos influence specifications for cabinets, ventilation and fire-detection interfaces.

Procurement officers can reference the legal and insurance sections when evaluating investment in containment products, maintenance plans or site surveys related to lithium battery hazards.

Why the vape effect matters: A plea to the tobacco industry from Fire Rover’s Ryan Fogelman

Vapes, weather and waste fire trends, by Ryan Fogelman

As we approach the end of the year, the waste and recycling industry is on track to reach a record number of publicly reported facility fire incidents in the US and Canada.

Much of the increase is driven by improperly discarded lithium ion batteries, including the rapid rise of disposable vapes that continue to enter waste streams in huge volumes.

In this month’s report, I share November’s fire data, explain the scale of the vape effect and outline the key points from my open letter to the tobacco industry urging collaboration on solutions the waste and recycling sector cannot deliver alone.

November 2025 fire data

We started 2025 on the wrong note by setting concerning records that marked the worst start to a year since I began tracking publicly reported waste and recycling facility fires in 2016.

July’s 56 reported incidents were the highest number ever recorded for that month and the highest single month total in the past decade.

August followed with 49 incidents and September reached 45.

In October there were 48 publicly reported incidents, outpacing the previous record year of 2022 by ten incidents at that stage in the calendar.

In November we had 27 fires, which was not a record but was only one incident below our highest November in 2020.

Scrap metal recycling yards fell behind waste, paper and plastic facilities with nine incidents, while waste, paper and plastic facilities recorded 13.

Organics management, rubber, construction and demolition and chemical or hazmat facilities each recorded one incident.

Year to date, scrap metal yard fires are still around 30 percent of all publicly reported incidents, which is in line with the long term pattern.

Based on current totals, I would be shocked if we did not end 2025 with the highest number of fire events ever recorded.

Even applying a simple December average would put the total at more than 440 incidents.

Unless December is unusually low, 2025 will be the worst year for publicly reported incidents since I began tracking in 2016.

What Fire Rover data shows

Fire Rover is seeing similar incident patterns.

Through September we responded to more than 3,000 confirmed fire events at client facilities and successfully responded to and suppressed 383 using our patented FM approved smart monitoring solution.

Like the publicly reported data, our incident volumes slowed entering the last two months of the year.

Once the year closes, I will release our full performance dashboard for 2022 to 2025.

At RCon I joined Alex Finkelstein of Teledyne FLIR for a discussion on how Fire Rover’s solution helps protect facilities from lithium ion battery hazards in critical infrastructure.

We took a deep dive into early detection and remote operated smart monitoring solutions and how our partnership led to the first FM approved remote operated fire protection system.

Although lithium ion batteries are a major contributor to increased incidents, I have also found that increased heat and dryness across the US and Canada remain significant factors for waste and recycling operations.

I will analyse weather correlations in my 2025 annual report, publishing in March 2026.

The vape effect

In my research I have identified what I call the vape effect.

The US and Canada have seen a 26 percent increase in the average number of facility fire events from 2022 to 2025 compared with the previous six years.

That figure does not include the 7 to 10 percent of facilities protected by Fire Rover, but if those were included I believe the increase would be closer to 40 percent.

The rapid shift from traditional cigarettes to vapes is a major contributor.

There were approximately 6 million new vape users from 2022 to 2024.

Many vapes are marketed as daily disposables and contain lithium ion batteries that must be handled as hazardous products.

We are lacking safe and convenient drop off locations, which means these devices often end up in waste streams where they can be crushed or punctured.

My estimate of 48 million vapes per week entering waste and recycling streams is likely conservative.

Biffa sorted 840,000 vapes in four months at only four locations, averaging 7,000 per day.

Extrapolated across an estimated 10,000 waste and recycling facilities in the US, the total would exceed 70 million vapes improperly discarded every day.

Regardless of whether the real number is 48 million per week or far higher, the scale is staggering.

Battery manufacturers are contributing through voluntary programmes and extended producer responsibility legislation, but the current level of funding and infrastructure is not enough.

Tobacco manufacturers need a seat at the table to address the device design issues that drive so many of these problems.

What I said in my open letter to the tobacco industry

In November I wrote an open letter to executives in the American tobacco industry addressing the growing number of facility fires linked to discarded vaping devices.

In the letter I explained that my data highlights a clear and concerning rise in fires linked to vapes and that this trend poses safety risks to workers and the public as well as financial and environmental harm.

I made it clear that I was not blaming the tobacco industry or suggesting wrongdoing.

Instead I asked for collaboration on reasonable and achievable solutions that can reduce needless losses and injuries.

I explained that the waste and recycling industry cannot solve this problem alone and that tobacco manufacturers can play an important role in several areas.

I outlined the need for public awareness campaigns to inform consumers about proper disposal.

I called for product design changes to allow easy removal of batteries so that they can be safely recycled instead of entering waste streams.

I highlighted the importance of convenient local drop off locations for used vapes.

I emphasised the value of joint research and data sharing to deepen understanding of the problem and support practical solutions.

I explained that lithium ion batteries in vapes are causing billions of devices to enter waste facilities and that major fires linked to these batteries result in an estimated 1.2 billion dollars in damages annually.

I stressed that without the involvement of tobacco manufacturers, the problem will continue to escalate.

I closed by expressing confidence that collaboration between our industries can advance safety and sustainability.

Partnerships and next steps

I am pleased to announce a new partnership between Fire Rover and the Solid Waste Association of North America.

The goal is to provide resources that help waste operators understand and mitigate risks by expanding access to safe and convenient disposal in more communities.

We are also launching the first Anonymous Incident Database for reporting these hazards.

When combined with videos shared by customers, this database will be valuable to insurers, fire professionals and facility operators working to mitigate risk.

As we head into 2026, education, operational best practices and technologies like Fire Rover are working to reduce the risks of major or catastrophic losses across critical waste and recycling infrastructure.

Buyers should be careful.

Early detection and automated solutions are not Fire Rover.

There is no substitute for trained human operators and a comprehensive fire protection strategy that works every hour of every day.

About the author

Ryan Fogelman, J.D., MBA, is a fire protection consultant with Fire Rover known for his expertise in bringing innovative safety solutions to market.

Since 2016 he has published reports on fires at waste and recycling facilities in the US and Canada.

He is a member of the NFPA 401 Hazardous Materials Committee and contributed to the NFPA 18A task force for wetting agents in 2025.

He has been recognised as one of the Top Fire Influencers by Fire and Safety Journal Americas.

CROSS-UK examines ageing buildings, structural risk and battery safety considerations

Why battery safety belongs in every ageing building decision

Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK (CROSS-UK) has published a Topic Paper on the ageing built environment in the UK, setting out how existing buildings and infrastructure can be managed, extended in life or repurposed.

The organisation said the paper explains how ageing assets create both challenges and opportunities once structures reach or pass their intended service life.

According to CROSS-UK, the document is based on confidential reports from engineers, asset managers and construction professionals, supported by references to anonymised CROSS Safety Reports.

The Topic Paper describes how older structures may suffer from material degradation, incomplete documentation and historic design approaches that do not align with current expectations.

CROSS-UK frames the publication as guidance for policymakers, regulators, insurers, asset owners, facilities managers and construction professionals responsible for the safety and future use of ageing buildings and other structures.

The paper states that leaving ageing assets unassessed is not an acceptable option and argues for decisions that take safety, sustainability and economic outcomes into account.

Asset knowledge, deterioration and inspection

CROSS-UK places asset knowledge at the centre of decision-making for ageing structures and highlights reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as an example where incomplete records delayed action.

The Topic Paper notes that many older buildings lack accurate as-built information, have been altered without proper recording or contain materials that were not fully understood at the time of construction.

The report explains that this can leave owners unaware of critical elements and increase uncertainty when problems emerge.

CROSS-UK outlines how steel, concrete, masonry and timber each degrade over time, and how these processes interact with changing conditions such as climate impacts, heavier vehicles, new fire loads and system obsolescence.

The Topic Paper references failures including the Pipers Row car park, the gable collapse at Northwich Station and the Morandi Bridge to illustrate the outcomes of unmanaged deterioration.

CROSS-UK calls for structured inspection and maintenance regimes that combine scheduled and risk-based approaches and give targeted access to hidden or safety-critical components.

According to the paper, examples such as half-joint bridge failures, corroded tendons and concealed steelwork demonstrate how inaccessible details have driven catastrophic collapses.

CROSS-UK argues that maintenance must be treated as a core safety responsibility rather than a discretionary cost that can be reduced when budgets tighten.

Reuse, constraints and changing fire and battery safety risks

The Topic Paper sets out a case for reuse and repurposing as part of a lower carbon built environment, stating that retaining and adapting existing structures can reduce embodied emissions and support resource efficiency.

CROSS-UK explains that safe adaptation requires robust assessment, intrusive investigation where needed and careful review of load paths, fire safety measures and regulatory compliance when a building’s use changes.

The paper warns that poorly planned retrofit measures, such as some insulation approaches, have led to moisture problems and damage in existing structures.

CROSS-UK notes that constraints such as skills shortages, incomplete records, funding pressures and regulatory complexity can limit reuse options or push decisions towards unnecessary demolition.

The Topic Paper also refers to evolving risks, including new fire loads and obsolescent systems, and links to its separate Topic Paper on lithium-ion batteries for those addressing fire and battery safety in buildings that predate current technologies.

According to CROSS-UK, extending the life of structures requires experienced engineering judgement when applying modern standards to historic construction, with decisions based on risk, tolerable performance and the specific context of each asset.

The organisation concludes that collaboration, competence and long-term planning are needed if ageing structures are to be retained safely rather than removed by default.

How ageing asset guidance affects safety and engineering practice

The CROSS-UK Topic Paper has direct implications for asset owners and managers who oversee estates containing older buildings and infrastructure.

For these groups, the emphasis on structured inspection, record-keeping and maintenance describes practical steps that can reduce unplanned failures and support decisions on whether to retain, adapt or deconstruct structures.

Facilities managers in commercial, industrial and public sectors can use the paper’s focus on hidden components and access needs to frame inspection regimes and plan intrusive investigations where safety-critical elements are concealed.

Fire engineering consultants, architects and building services engineers gain a consolidated view of how ageing materials, changing fire loads and retrofit measures interact in older buildings, including references to separate guidance on lithium-ion battery risks.

Regulators and policymakers can draw on the discussion of RAAC, documented failures and maintenance backlogs when considering where to focus oversight, funding and future standards for existing stock.

The Topic Paper also highlights the need for skilled inspection and assessment, which is relevant for structural engineers and surveyors involved in appraising older structures for continued use, conversion or demolition.

UL Research Institutes turns lithium-ion incident data into practical battery safety actions

UL Research Institutes promotes battery safety with Take C.H.A.R.G.E.

UL Research Institutes has launched its Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety guidance on lithium-ion powered devices as holiday technology gifting and travel increase in the US.

The organisation noted that lithium-ion batteries now power smartphones, laptops, e-bikes, electric vehicles, power tools, toys and home energy systems.

According to UL Standards & Engagement, an average of two flights per week experienced lithium-ion battery incidents in 2024.

The data also showed that most travellers carry four lithium-ion battery-powered devices, with smartphones carried by 81% of passengers, laptops by 40%, wireless headphones by 38% and tablets by 35%.

UL Research Institutes reported that 50% of Americans say they do not know anything about lithium-ion batteries.

It added that 60% of travellers remain unaware of how common lithium-ion batteries are in everyday devices and of the dangers linked to damaged, counterfeit or improperly charged products.

The organisation stated that lithium-ion batteries store energy more densely than traditional batteries, and that damaged, overheated or improperly charged units can be at risk of catching fire.

Take C.H.A.R.G.E. campaign on battery safety

UL Research Institutes said the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety campaign is designed to improve public understanding of lithium-ion risks at home and in transit environments.

Nicole Sanders, Public Education Lead for UL Research Institutes, said: “Recent spikes in lithium-ion battery incidents in transit environments have underscored the need to expand public education.

“To improve public safety, we’ve developed clear guidelines for how to ‘Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety’ at home and on-the-go using best practices informed by response data and firefighter testimonials.”

The organisation explained that the guidance sets out practical steps for handling, charging and storing lithium-ion devices.

It added that the campaign emphasises keeping devices visible when charging, particularly while travelling.

UL Research Institutes also highlighted the need to keep lithium-ion battery-powered devices out of checked luggage.

The campaign frames the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. actions as an interconnected set of measures rather than standalone tips.

Key Take C.H.A.R.G.E. safety messages

UL Research Institutes advised that users should choose lithium-ion battery-powered devices that have been certified by a nationally recognised testing laboratory so they meet defined safety requirements.

The organisation recommended that people follow manufacturer instructions, use the charger supplied with the device, avoid modifying batteries or chargers and charge only in locations away from extreme temperatures, direct sunlight and flammable materials.

It added that devices should never be charged under pillows, blankets or inside bags and that users should unplug devices at home and check size limits set by transit providers before travelling.

UL Research Institutes stated that people should regularly inspect devices for swelling, punctures, unusual sounds such as hissing or popping, excess heat, unfamiliar odours or white or grey wispy smoke, which indicates immediate fire danger.

If these warning signs appear, the organisation said users should unplug the device immediately, stop using it and keep it in sight when travelling or charging.

It advised that lithium-ion battery-powered devices and gifts should not be placed in checked bags.

The organisation said that devices and batteries must not be placed in public rubbish bins or abandoned when travelling and that recycling routes should be used instead.

UL Research Institutes explained that if there is a fire, people at home should follow their escape plan, leave immediately, shut doors behind them and call 9-1-1.

It recommended that people create and practise a home escape plan and, in public spaces such as transit hubs, identify exits and escape routes so they can evacuate quickly and alert authorities if a device shows warning signs.

The organisation stated that people gifting battery-powered devices should share the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. guidance, encourage safe charging and travel practices and remind travel companions to keep devices in carry-on luggage rather than checked bags.

UL Research Institutes noted that the full Take C.H.A.R.G.E. guidance is presented as a set of linked steps which reinforce one another, and that following them can reduce risk in homes and workplaces, with further information available at batteryfiresafety.org.

Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire and the global lessons for high-rise safety

International Fire and Safety Journal examines how renovation materials, temporary works and oversight decisions combined in Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire, and what the incident means for high rise fire safety practice

When fire broke out at the Wang Fuk Court housing estate in Hong Kong’s Tai Po district on 26 November 2025, it quickly became the city’s deadliest blaze in decades.

Seven of the estate’s eight 31 storey residential towers were involved.

The buildings were already wrapped in scaffolding, plastic mesh and temporary window coverings for a major façade renovation project.

Across the available reporting and official statements, the death toll has risen through successive updates and currently stands at at least 159 people, with victims aged from one to 97.

Hundreds were injured and thousands displaced into temporary shelters, youth hostels, hotels and transitional housing, while search and identification work continued in severely damaged apartments.

This article draws on reporting from Reuters, the Associated Press, BBC News, The New York Times, Bloomberg and The Times of India, commentary from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and official information released by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The aim is to bring together the factual record and published analysis, focusing on renovation materials and site practices, the concerns raised by residents before the fire, the regulatory and political context, and the implications for fire and building safety professionals.

Wang Fuk Court: estate layout, residents and fire development

Wang Fuk Court is a private residential estate in the northern New Territories overlooking Tolo Harbour.

It comprises eight 31 storey towers built in the early 1980s, with around 4,600 residents.

A significant proportion of occupants are older adults who moved in when the estate opened.

In 2016 the estate became subject to a mandatory inspection and renovation order, under Hong Kong’s requirement that private buildings more than 30 years old undergo checks and repairs.

By 2024 a large scale renovation project was in progress.

Bamboo scaffolding had been erected around all eight towers and green protective netting was wrapped around the façades.

On the afternoon of 26 November 2025 the fire was reported at 2.51 pm local time.

It began in one of the towers and then spread upwards and horizontally.

Within hours seven of the eight buildings were affected.

The fire took more than 40 hours to fully extinguish.

Accounts from officials and residents indicate that flames first reached protective netting on a lower floor before running into foam screens installed over windows.

The arrangement of foam boards and mesh along the external wall is understood to have created intense vertical fire spread up the façade.

Tower spacing was also a factor.

Reports describe separation distances of around 7.5 metres between buildings, reduced further by scaffolding, which allowed the fire to move from tower to tower.

Conditions inside the estate deteriorated quickly.

Many residents were unable to escape their homes in time.

Police, the Fire Services Department and specialist disaster victim identification teams later described finding human remains in multiple apartments.

Some victims were burnt to the point where recovery of remains and identification presented significant challenges.

Government statements issued on 30 November and 2 December set out the scale of the response.

Hundreds of officers from the Disaster Victim Identification Unit, supported by firefighters, forced entry into flats, searched debris and coordinated with forensic pathologists to collect evidence and confirm identities.

Initial figures reported 146 deaths and 79 injuries by 30 November.

By 2 December the number of deceased had risen to 156.

Subsequent reports have put the confirmed death toll at 159, with some people still unaccounted for.

The victims include infants, older adults, at least ten foreign domestic workers from Indonesia and the Philippines, and a firefighter.

Thousands of residents were evacuated or displaced.

By early December more than 1,000 people had been accommodated in youth hostels, holiday camps or hotels, and around 1,600 had moved into transitional housing units.

Renovation, temporary works and materials under scrutiny

From the outset, investigators and officials highlighted the interaction between renovation works and fire development.

The renovation at Wang Fuk Court was triggered by the city’s mandatory building inspection regime.

A consultancy was appointed to survey the towers and prepare the project.

A contractor was then selected to carry out extensive external repairs and maintenance, including façade works.

Scaffolding and protective netting were erected around all eight towers and foam or styrofoam boards were used to cover windows while works were underway.

Reports from multiple outlets and official briefings point to three critical elements:

  • The quality and certification of protective mesh netting.
  • The use of foam boards to seal windows.
  • The status of fire detection and alarm systems during maintenance.

Protective netting is central to the current investigation.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has stated that, after a typhoon damaged scaffolding at Wang Fuk Court in July 2025, some of the original netting was replaced with cheaper material that did not meet fire safety standards.

Investigators say 2,300 rolls of non compliant netting were purchased at a significantly lower unit cost than material that met fire retardant requirements.

Later, as scrutiny of scaffolding fires grew elsewhere in the city, individuals involved bought a smaller quantity of compliant netting and installed it only at the base of scaffolding, where samples were usually taken.

Initial tests that drew from these locations suggested the netting complied with standards.

Subsequent sampling from higher, harder to reach areas produced different results.

Investigators have reported that seven of 20 samples taken from near windows and other less accessible points failed fire safety tests.

Officials have also highlighted the role of window coverings.

Foam boards were used to seal windows around the estate as part of the renovation.

Residents had questioned this decision long before the fire.

At a meeting in September 2024, witnesses recall a demonstration where a piece of styrofoam board ignited rapidly when exposed to a cigarette lighter, in front of a group of residents and project representatives.

After the fire, authorities identified these foam panels, in combination with non compliant netting and strong winds, as key factors in the rapid external spread.

The performance of fire alarms and detection is a further strand in the investigation.

Residents reported that some alarms did not sound when the fire started.

Police have arrested staff from a fire service installation contractor on suspicion that alarms were deactivated during maintenance works and that false statements were made to the Fire Services Department.

The overall picture is of an occupied high rise estate enveloped in temporary works, with protective systems partly impaired and combustible products used as external coverings.

For fire safety professionals, the reported sequence underlines how decisions about temporary materials, system impairments and construction phasing can shape fire behaviour as much as permanent design features.

Bamboo scaffolding and the risk of a single issue response

Public and professional debate has also focused on the role of bamboo scaffolding.

Bamboo has been used for high rise work in Hong Kong for decades.

Workers in the city have developed specific skills in erecting flexible, lightweight scaffolds around dense and irregular building forms, often in locations where metal systems would be harder to deploy.

Officials have questioned whether bamboo should continue to be used for such projects, particularly on occupied residential buildings.

Some have suggested that metal scaffolding should become the norm for safety reasons wherever practicable.

Specialists in bamboo architecture and scaffolding have urged caution.

Researchers quoted in coverage of the incident note that bamboo is a natural, potentially combustible material, but that it is not easily ignited under normal conditions and that its risk profile changes significantly when it is combined with well specified, certified fire retardant netting.

Their view is that concentrating on bamboo alone risks diverting attention from broader issues around materials specification, substitution, enforcement and site supervision.

Practical considerations also feature in their analysis.

Bamboo scaffolding is relatively light, quick to assemble, adaptable to irregular façades and dependent on a workforce with specific skills.

Metal systems offer non combustible components and greater durability, but they are heavier, slower to adapt to complex geometries and more expensive.

There are also questions about the affordability of such systems for residents in older estates where major external repairs are required.

For those working in fire and building safety, the discussion around bamboo is an example of a wider challenge.

Highly visible elements are often singled out for rapid change.

The reporting around Wang Fuk Court suggests that a more productive approach will need to address how temporary works are specified, tested and controlled in practice, regardless of whether bamboo or metal scaffolds are used.

Residents’ warnings, alleged corruption and missed opportunities

One of the most detailed strands of coverage concerns the warnings raised by residents and the checks carried out by regulators in the period before the fire.

Residents’ concerns initially focused on the procurement and cost of the renovation project.

The consultancy appointed to prepare the works identified issues with external walls and fire safety measures, and a competitive tender process was held for the construction contract.

The winning bid required each household to contribute a significant sum, with a first instalment due within a short period.

Some residents questioned whether the selected contractor had been transparent about its regulatory history.

It later emerged that the company had been subject to prosecution by the Labour Department during the period when it told residents it had no such record.

From early 2024 onwards, residents attempted to challenge both the project and specific aspects of its execution.

A group went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to file a complaint about the renovation.

Others wrote to the Labour Department and the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit about the safety of the netting and the proposed use of styrofoam window coverings.

A general meeting of homeowners in September 2024 voted to remove the original management committee that had overseen the tender.

However, by that time the contract had been signed and scaffolding was being erected, leaving the new committee with limited options to alter the project.

Inspection records show that the Labour Department visited Wang Fuk Court repeatedly.

Officials have stated that 16 inspections of the site took place between July 2024 and November 2025.

During these visits inspectors identified fire safety issues, issued improvement notices and imposed fines.

They also reviewed product certificates for the protective netting and accepted documents indicating compliance with fire retardant standards.

The Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit received test reports on the nets and carried out on site sampling in late 2024.

A public statement notes that inspectors observed the contractor burning net samples and did not identify combustible characteristics at that time.

In the weeks before the fire, the Labour Department issued a further fire safety warning during an inspection on 20 November 2025.

Despite this activity, the project continued.

Only after the fire did testing of netting samples from multiple points around the towers reveal failures against fire safety requirements.

Subsequent investigations have led to multiple arrests.

Engineering consultants, construction company directors, scaffolding subcontractors and fire services contractors have all been detained on suspicion of offences including manslaughter, corruption, fraud and provision of false documentation.

For professionals involved in regulation, enforcement and resident engagement, this timeline raises clear questions.

Residents carried out their own simple tests, repeatedly raised concerns, changed their estate governance structure, and approached multiple authorities.

Inspectors visited the site numerous times, and some non compliances were identified and penalised.

Yet the core issues around temporary materials and renovation phase fire safety remained unresolved until after a major fatal incident.

Relief, rehousing and political management

Alongside investigation and enforcement, the Hong Kong government has devoted significant resources to relief and rehousing.

Three task forces were established, covering investigation and regulation, emergency support and fund raising, and emergency accommodation.

Financial support has been substantial.

The Support Fund for Wang Fuk Court was set up with HK$300 million in public start up capital.

Donations from the public and organisations increased the total to around HK$1.2 billion by 30 November and approximately HK$2.3 billion by 2 December.

Payments from the fund include HK$200,000 to the family of each deceased victim as a gesture of solidarity, HK$50,000 to cover funeral and related expenses, and an additional HK$50,000 living allowance for each affected household.

An emergency cash subsidy of HK$10,000 per household was also made available within days of the fire.

Government figures show that by early December almost 2,000 households had registered for and received emergency subsidies, and that payments from the Support Fund were being processed for bereaved families and other affected residents.

Accommodation support has included placements in youth hostels, holiday camps and hotels, as well as access to transitional housing units.

The Government has emphasised that these units provide basic facilities such as private bathrooms and cooking areas, with shared amenities where available.

Two community shelters in Tai Po have remained open to residents who need them, although one has stopped accepting new arrivals to allow transition to more stable accommodation.

Social work and health services have been organised around a “one social worker per household” model.

Thousands of residents are registered for this support.

Clinical psychologists and medical staff have been deployed to temporary shelters and mortuary facilities to assist residents and bereaved families.

At the same time, the wider management of the incident has been politically sensitive.

Public grief and anger led to petitions and social media campaigns calling for a full investigation and for government accountability.

One petition, launched by university student Miles Kwan and framed around “four demands”, gathered more than 10,000 signatures before being taken down.

National security police later arrested Kwan on suspicion of sedition.

Other individuals, including a former district councillor, were also questioned or detained over online posts and calls for officials to accept responsibility.

Hong Kong’s national security office issued statements warning that “hostile forces” would be punished if they sought to use the fire to create instability.

Senior advisers to the Chief Executive argued that authorities were acting prudently to prevent a repeat of unrest seen in 2019, while critics questioned whether normal public expressions of concern were being treated as security threats.

In parallel, the Chief Executive announced that a judge led independent committee will examine the cause of the fire and related issues.

Commentary has noted that such a committee does not have the same statutory powers as a Commission of Inquiry, which can compel evidence and hold public hearings, and that this choice may influence perceptions of transparency and independence.

This combination of extensive practical support and tightly managed political space forms an important part of the context in which fire and building safety agencies are operating.

Viewing Wang Fuk Court through the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem

The NFPA commentary “From Hong Kong to Home: The Global Relevance of the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem” uses the Wang Fuk Court fire as a recent example of how multiple system weaknesses can align.

The Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem was originally developed after several large loss fires in the United States and Europe, including the Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland and the Grenfell Tower fire in London.

NFPA’s central argument is that catastrophic incidents are usually the end result of failures in several areas, often developing over many years, rather than the product of a single technical fault.

The Ecosystem is described as comprising eight interdependent elements:

  1. Government responsibility.
  2. Development and use of current codes.
  3. Referenced standards.
  4. Investment in safety.
  5. Skilled workforce.
  6. Code compliance.
  7. Preparedness and emergency response.
  8. Informed public.

NFPA notes that published reports indicate the Hong Kong fire started in a building that was undergoing renovation, and stresses that buildings under construction, alteration or demolition are among the most vulnerable environments to fire.

Life safety systems may be offline or incomplete, construction materials can be exposed to ignition sources, and normal emergency routes may be obstructed or modified.

NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, is highlighted as a key reference for managing these risks.

Applying this framework to the Wang Fuk Court case, without adding any new facts, suggests several points for attention.

Government responsibility, current codes and referenced standards are engaged where product certification, inspection regimes and the design of mandatory renovation schemes are in question.

Investment in safety is engaged where there are allegations that cheaper, non compliant materials were substituted for compliant products to reduce costs.

Skilled workforce and code compliance are relevant to the decisions made by contractors and fire services installation companies during renovation, including how alarms, coverings and scaffolds were installed, tested, maintained and, in some cases, allegedly manipulated.

Preparedness and emergency response are visible in both the immediate fire service actions during the 40 hour incident and the subsequent search and identification effort.

The informed public element is illustrated by residents’ actions at Wang Fuk Court: organising to demonstrate material behaviour, pressing for answers from multiple authorities, and continuing to raise concerns over many months.

NFPA’s conclusion is that prevention of similar incidents requires attention to all eight elements of the ecosystem.

Decisions about codes, enforcement, workforce skills, investment and public engagement have cumulative effects over time.

High rise vulnerabilities elsewhere: lessons from India’s NCR

The Times of India article “Why Hong Kong’s fire tragedy is a warning for NCR” examines how some of the themes raised by Wang Fuk Court resonate in the National Capital Region around Delhi, including Noida and Gurgaon.

The piece considers whether local firefighting systems have kept pace with rapid vertical development.

In Gurgaon, the city’s only government owned hydraulic ladder capable of reaching about 42 metres has been condemned and is no longer in service.

The local fire department relies on a 90 metre ladder owned by a private developer.

In Noida, four hydraulic platforms can reach approximately 42 metres and a 72 metre crane is expected to be delivered, but the region has towers approaching or exceeding 200 metres in height and one development around 300 metres.

This gap between building height and equipment reach is a central concern.

The article notes significant differences in construction practice.

Bamboo scaffolding is banned under Indian standards for high rise projects, which require iron or steel.

Developers quoted in the piece also state that flammable thermal insulation materials like styrofoam are not typical in their schemes.

Instead, many high rise buildings rely on fire rated glass, fire lifts, protected shafts, internal alarm and detection systems, sprinklers, refuge floors, sealed floor plates, wider staircases and facade designs intended to slow or compartment fire spread.

Residents and fire officers emphasise that internal systems cannot compensate for weaknesses in enforcement and access.

They call for more frequent fire safety audits, operational fire stations in new sectors, and regular evacuation drills.

They also point to practical issues such as narrow or obstructed roads around high rise clusters, informal settlements and waste sites that can increase fire risk and hinder response.

While the materials and scaffolding practices differ from those in Hong Kong, the Times of India article reaches a similar conclusion: as cities build taller, effective fire safety depends on the interaction between building design, internal systems, enforcement of standards, maintenance of equipment and the practical realities of access and response.

Strategic questions for fire and life safety professionals

The combined evidence from Wang Fuk Court and the parallel discussion in India raises a series of strategic questions for fire and life safety leaders.

These questions are derived from the incidents and commentary described above and are offered as prompts for local review rather than prescriptive answers.

Temporary works and materials control

At Wang Fuk Court, temporary materials installed for renovation appear to have strongly influenced fire spread.

Key questions include:

  • How are temporary materials for scaffolds, protective wraps and window coverings around occupied high rises specified and approved.
  • What controls exist to prevent or detect substitution of non compliant products after approval, particularly following events such as storms or damage.
  • Are sampling and testing regimes designed to capture risk at higher and less accessible locations, not only convenient areas at ground level.

Renovation phase fire safety strategies

The incident highlights the particular risks that arise when major works are carried out on occupied high rises.

Questions for organisations could include:

  • How are fire alarms, suppression systems and escape routes managed, documented and communicated during extensive façade or window works.
  • Under what conditions are certain temporary products prohibited or restricted, and how is this enforced in practice.
  • What additional measures are used to control ignition sources and external fire spread when scaffolding and coverings are in place.

Complaint handling and whistle blowing

Residents at Wang Fuk Court used multiple channels to raise safety concerns over an extended period.

Questions here include:

  • What formal pathways exist for residents, workers or contractors to report fire safety concerns, and how is feedback on those reports provided.
  • How are repeated or serious complaints about materials and site practices escalated for senior review.
  • Are protections in place for individuals who raise concerns about safety in construction and building maintenance projects.

Oversight of contractors and subcontracting chains

The renovation project at Wang Fuk Court involved consultants, main contractors and multiple layers of subcontractors.

Allegations of bid rigging, cost inflation and misuse of certificates have led to criminal investigations.

Potential questions for procuring authorities and regulators include:

  • How is fire and life safety competence assessed when selecting contractors and consultants for high rise projects.
  • How much visibility is there into subcontracting chains and the roles of different companies in specifying, installing and certifying fire related products.
  • Are enforcement powers and penalties calibrated to reflect the potential life safety consequences of non compliance.

Aligning governance and safety objectives

The political environment in Hong Kong has influenced how public debate about the fire has unfolded.

National security considerations have shaped the response to petitions and online commentary.

Without drawing comparisons between systems, fire safety professionals elsewhere may wish to consider:

  • What structures help ensure that major fire investigations are perceived as independent and credible.
  • How findings and lessons are communicated to residents, practitioners and the public, especially when those findings raise uncomfortable questions about policy or oversight.
  • How to maintain public trust in safety messaging when wider political issues are present.

Capabilities for high rise firefighting

Both Wang Fuk Court and the NCR discussion in India draw attention to the relationship between building height, internal systems and external firefighting capability.

Questions include:

  • How well understood are the practical limits of existing ladders, platforms and jets in local conditions.
  • Are building designs, renovation schemes and evacuation strategies aligned with those limits.
  • How are joint exercises and planning used to test responses to fires in high rise estates that are occupied but undergoing major works.

From incident to long term learning

The fire at Wang Fuk Court has resulted in high loss of life, extensive displacement and a far reaching investigation into renovation practices, regulatory oversight and political accountability.

Taken together, the reporting and official material describe an occupied high rise estate undergoing mandatory refurbishment.

Temporary works and coverings were installed around façades and windows.

Fire protection systems were partly impaired.

Residents and advocates raised concerns over materials, costs and contractor behaviour for more than a year.

Inspectors visited repeatedly, issued warnings and reviewed certificates, but did not disrupt the project in a way that prevented the eventual outcome.

When the fire occurred, it spread rapidly across external surfaces and between closely spaced towers.

Fire and rescue services mounted a prolonged response and an intensive search and identification operation.

The Government has provided substantial financial and welfare support and started a city wide review of scaffolding nets and related materials.

At the same time, the incident has generated tension between calls for full accountability and the authorities’ use of national security legislation to manage public expression.

NFPA’s Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem offers a way of viewing these developments not as separate stories, but as interacting elements of the same system.

Government responsibilities, codes and standards, enforcement, training, investment decisions and public engagement all appear in the record assembled around Wang Fuk Court.

The Times of India’s analysis of high rise firefighting in NCR shows that other regions face related challenges, even where materials and scaffolding methods differ.

For fire and building safety professionals, the detailed facts of the Hong Kong incident are particular to that city, its construction culture and its regulatory and political context.

The underlying questions about how temporary works are controlled, how renovation phase risks are managed, how concerns are heard, and how high rise capability is matched to modern building stock are not.

Reviewing those questions in local settings, against the evidence available from Wang Fuk Court and other major fires, is one of the practical ways in which the sector can respond.

Home Fire Safety quiz highlights fire risks in London homes during festive routines

Online checker targets Home Fire Safety risks

London Fire Brigade is asking residents to spend around two minutes completing its online Home Fire Safety Checker to identify risks in their homes.

The Brigade said the free tool is designed as a short online quiz that guides people around their property and highlights potential fire hazards.

Users answer questions about their home and who lives there, and the system then generates a tailored action plan setting out simple fire safety improvements.

The Brigade explained that the process is intended to be quick enough to complete during common daily pauses, such as commercial breaks or while waiting for the kettle to boil.

The organisation is encouraging Londoners to complete the check at the start of December before putting up Christmas decorations that could hide existing hazards.

Residents are also encouraged to repeat the check after decorating to see whether additional items, such as lights and candles, have introduced new risks.

London Fire Brigade stated that the checker enables it to focus resources on those at greatest risk, as identified through the responses.

If a household is assessed as very high risk, firefighters will attend the property within four hours to carry out further checks and provide support.

Residential fire trends and household behaviours

The Brigade reported that in the last four years nearly one third of all incidents attended involved residential properties.

So far in 2025, up to 25 November, firefighters have attended 4,554 residential fires, which is nearly 14 incidents every day.

Since the online checker was launched in July 2023, 31,285 people have used it to assess fire risks in their homes.

London Fire Brigade said 21,757 respondents admitted leaving cooking unattended, reflecting a pattern it has seen in recent incident data.

Since 2022, 34% of residential dwelling fires have been linked to cooking, with smoking and electrical causes also among the most frequent origins.

Assistant Commissioner for Prevention & Protection, Pamela Oparaocha, said: “Firefighters have attended nearly 14 residential fires each day this year.

“By completing the HFSC you could identify fire risks in your home and prevent a fire from starting.

“Homes have many hidden fire risks and our online checker allows you to quickly walk around your home and identify any that may have gone unnoticed.

“The action plan is tailored to each individual based on your responses, it offers guidance on simple steps you can take to better protect your home.

“One of the best ways of protecting your home is to ensure you have working smoke alarms and heat alarms.

“With cooking consistently being one of the top three causes of residential fires, fitting a heat alarm in your kitchen could save your life.

“Include the Home Fire Safety Checker on your Christmas ‘to-do’ list, it only takes two minutes – stretch your legs in the commercials and walk round your home.

“Spending two minutes checking you and your loved ones are safe is better than any gift you could give.”

The Brigade’s message links the checker to seasonal routines, highlighting that extra lighting, decorations and candles can increase the risk of overloading sockets or placing ignition sources close to flammable materials.

London Fire Brigade is also reminding people that many fire risks are not immediately obvious and that a structured walk-through can help to identify issues residents may otherwise miss.

Support for vulnerable residents and informal carers

The Home Fire Safety Checker asks targeted questions about the home and its occupants to identify where people may be more vulnerable to fire.

London Fire Brigade said the tool flags immediate risks and highlights where residents might need further support based on their circumstances.

If a user is identified as very high risk, the Brigade will arrange a home visit from firefighters within four hours to provide in-person advice and checks.

The Brigade is asking people to think beyond their own homes and use the checker when visiting elderly or vulnerable family members or neighbours.

It has also highlighted the role of informal carers, noting that between 2023 and 2024 an estimated 5.4 million people across the UK were providing unpaid care to another person.

The organisation is encouraging anyone who provides care to complete the Home Fire Safety Checker during everyday activities such as making a cup of tea to review basic fire safety measures in the property.

London Fire Brigade has stressed that carers can use the tool to identify hazards and follow the tailored action plans on behalf of the person they support.

How online home checks support prevention work

Fire and rescue chiefs and senior officers can use the Home Fire Safety Checker model as an example of how short online tools can channel limited prevention resources towards the homes most at risk.

The approach described by London Fire Brigade links digital self-assessment with rapid follow-up visits, as households assessed as very high risk receive a visit from firefighters within four hours.

Fire safety officers and community prevention teams can draw on the underlying messages about unattended cooking, smoking and electrical hazards when planning local awareness campaigns.

The data outlined by the Brigade, including that nearly a third of fires attended in the last four years were in residential properties and that 34% of recent dwelling fires were cooking related, provides context for focusing on domestic environments and everyday behaviours.

Risk assessors and those involved in designing home fire safety interventions can also note the emphasis on smoke alarms and heat alarms, particularly in kitchens, as a practical measure within the domestic setting described.

Informal carers are identified as a key group in the Brigade’s messaging, with 5.4 million people estimated to be providing unpaid care between 2023 and 2024, which gives additional context for services working at the interface between fire safety and social care.

By embedding the checker in routine activities, such as waiting for the kettle to boil or television advert breaks, the initiative illustrates how home fire safety checks can be built into daily life without requiring lengthy appointments or complex technology.

Workplace fires: The three sectors carrying most of the UK incident burden

Workplace fires concentrated in industrial, food and retail premises

System Building Services has analysed ten years of Home Office data and found that industrial premises, food and drink venues and retail buildings together account for more than 60% of workplace fires in the UK.

The company examined incident statistics for non-residential buildings between 2015/16 and 2024/25 using the Home Office FIRE0301 and FIRE0602 datasets.

Its analysis covers all recorded workplace fire incidents in non-residential buildings, including fatalities and non-fatal casualties, to map fire risk patterns in commercial settings.

Industrial premises recorded 1,656 fires in 2024/25, which System Building Services calculates as 24.85% of all workplace fires in that year.

Food and drink premises saw 1,275 fires, or 19.13% of the total, while retail premises recorded 1,177 fires, equivalent to 17.66%.

Combined, these three workplace types account for more than 60% of all 6,665 workplace fires recorded in 2024/25.

System Building Services links the higher industrial risk to flammable materials, high-temperature processes, heavy machinery and complex electrical systems operating under sustained load.

It notes that food and drink venues and retail premises couple public access with long operating hours, and in the case of hospitality, routine use of cooking and heating appliances.

Brian Michie, Managing Director at System Building Services, said: “Industrial environments carry inherent fire risks due to the nature of operations, but what many business owners overlook is how multiple risk factors can compound.

“A facility might have adequate fire doors, but if electrical systems aren’t regularly inspected or flammable materials aren’t properly stored, you’re still vulnerable.”

Hospitality settings such as hotels, boarding houses and hostels recorded 505 fires, equal to 7.58% of workplace incidents in 2024/25.

Entertainment, culture and sport venues saw 445 fires, or 6.68% of the total, while hospitals and medical care facilities recorded 433 fires, representing 6.50%.

Education premises accounted for 417 fires, or 6.26%, agricultural premises recorded 409 fires, or 6.14%, and offices and call centres saw 348 fires, equal to 5.22% of workplace incidents.

Electrical faults and smoking materials among leading causes

System Building Services reports that almost half of all workplace fires in the Home Office dataset – 49.89% – are recorded under unspecified or other causes.

Within the remaining category data, electrical distribution faults form the largest identifiable cause, with 2,126 fires, or 18.04% of workplace incidents.

These electrical distribution fires involve equipment such as fuse boxes, circuit breakers, wiring systems and distribution boards, often starting within walls or ceiling voids before detection.

Smoking-related materials form the next largest cause, with 1,505 fires, representing 12.77% of the total despite smoking bans in enclosed workplaces.

System Building Services notes that these incidents frequently occur in smoking shelters where cigarettes are not fully extinguished or in outdoor areas where embers reach combustible items.

Other domestic-style appliances are linked to 776 fires, or 6.58%, while space heating appliances are recorded as the cause in 433 fires, or 3.67%.

Matches and candles account for 366 fires, or 3.11%, showing that open flames remain a cause in workplaces during activities such as maintenance, religious observance or power outages.

Electric lighting is recorded as the cause in 362 fires, or 3.07%, often due to overheating luminaires, damaged wiring or lights installed close to combustible materials.

Blowlamps, welding and cutting equipment are linked to 182 fires, or 1.54%, mainly in industrial and construction environments carrying out hot work.

Cooking appliances are recorded as the cause in 108 fires, or 0.92%, while office equipment appears in 48 incidents, or 0.41% of workplace fires.

Michie said: “The electrical distribution figure is telling because these fires are largely preventable through regular inspection and maintenance.

“Businesses often focus on visible fire safety measures like extinguishers and alarms, but the hidden infrastructure poses just as much risk.”

Workplace fire trends from 2015 to 2025

System Building Services calculates that total workplace fires in non-residential buildings have fallen 29% over the ten-year period from 2015/16 to 2024/25.

The analysis shows that recorded workplace fires reduced from 9,347 in 2015/16 to 6,665 in 2024/25.

Between 2015/16 and 2019/20, yearly workplace fire totals fell steadily, with annual reductions ranging between 2.19% and 5.68%.

System Building Services notes that this pattern points to improved fire safety awareness and greater compliance with regulatory duties across many workplaces.

The sharpest drop occurred in 2020/21, when workplace fires fell 24.58% year-on-year to 6,134 incidents during the pandemic period.

Following the easing of restrictions, workplace fires rose 19.74% in 2021/22 to 7,345 incidents, though still below pre-pandemic levels.

The downward trend then resumed, with total workplace fires reducing by 5.46% in 2023/24 and by a further 5.23% in 2024/25.

Michie said: “The sustained reduction is positive, but we’re still seeing over 6,500 workplace fires annually.

“Each incident represents potential danger to employees and serious disruption to business operations.”

Wider non-residential fire picture and fatalities

The System Building Services analysis also examines fires across all non-residential buildings, including workplaces, communal housing and public-use buildings.

It finds that total non-residential fires decreased from 16,025 incidents in 2015/16 to 13,172 incidents in 2024/25, an 18% reduction over the ten-year period.

In the pre-pandemic years between 2015/16 and 2019/20, non-residential fires fell from 16,025 to 14,331, with year-on-year totals moving downward.

During 2020/21, the number of non-residential building fires dropped to 11,924, a reduction of 17% and the lowest level in the decade.

Unlike the specific workplace fire trend, non-residential building fires then increased for two successive years, reaching 12,952 in 2021/22 and 13,576 in 2022/23.

Figures then declined modestly to 13,297 in 2023/24 and 13,172 in 2024/25.

Fatalities in non-residential building fires varied between 11 and 23 deaths per year over the ten-year period.

The highest level occurred in 2015/16, with 23 deaths, while 2021/22 recorded the lowest level, with 11 deaths.

There were 12 fatalities recorded in non-residential building fires in 2024/25.

Michie noted: “The relatively stable fatality rate despite thousands of fires suggests detection and evacuation systems are effective when properly maintained.”

Financial and legal impact of workplace fires

System Building Services highlights that the costs of workplace fires extend beyond the initial damage to buildings and equipment.

It explains that businesses face direct expenses such as repairs, replacement of equipment and higher insurance premiums after a fire.

Indirect costs can include lost revenue during closures, failure to deliver contracts and customers moving to other suppliers.

The company notes that many businesses face long periods of interruption after an incident, ranging from months to several years depending on the damage caused.

Some businesses never reopen after a serious fire, especially where there is limited insurance coverage or few financial reserves.

Michie said: “A lot of business owners underestimate the full cost of a fire.

“Even a relatively minor incident can shut down operations for weeks while repairs are completed and safety inspections are carried out.

“For businesses operating on tight margins, that interruption alone can be fatal.”

System Building Services also draws attention to the legal duties set out in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005.

Under this framework, responsible persons must undertake regular fire risk assessments, implement appropriate fire safety measures, maintain fire safety equipment and provide staff training.

Breaches can lead to prosecution, with penalties including unlimited fines and up to two years’ imprisonment for serious offences.

Following a workplace fire, fire and rescue services typically investigate the incident and may identify failings in fire safety management.

System Building Services notes that where failings contribute to injuries or fatalities, responsible persons may face criminal charges.

It adds that insurance claims may be refused or reduced if proper fire safety measures were not in place when the fire occurred.

Michie commented: “The legal consequences can be severe, but more importantly, proper fire safety measures save lives.

“No business owner wants to face prosecution, but they should be even more concerned about protecting their employees and customers from harm.”

Practical steps businesses can take to reduce workplace fires

System Building Services uses the analysis to underline the role of day-to-day fire safety management on sites with elevated risk.

It stresses the importance of programmed inspection regimes that reach beyond obvious fire safety features such as extinguishers, alarms and fire doors.

The company advises closer focus on electrical infrastructure, storage of combustible materials and housekeeping in plant rooms, storage spaces and voids.

Michie said: “Businesses can identify hidden fire risks by conducting thorough inspections beyond the obvious.

“Check electrical systems regularly, particularly in older buildings where wiring may be deteriorating.

“Look for overloaded sockets, frayed cables, and equipment that feels warm to the touch when not in use.

“Pay attention to areas where combustible materials are stored.

“Are they kept away from heat sources?

“Are escape routes clear?

“Fires often start in overlooked spaces like storage rooms, plant rooms, or roof voids where maintenance work has been carried out but debris hasn’t been cleared.

“Don’t rely solely on annual inspections.

“Train staff to spot potential hazards during their daily routines.

“Someone working in a space every day will notice changes that an annual inspector might miss.

“Regular maintenance, proper housekeeping, and a culture where employees feel empowered to report concerns can prevent most workplace fires before they start.”

How UK workplace fire data can inform risk management

System Building Services’ analysis of Home Office data offers quantifiable evidence about where workplace fire risk is concentrated across UK business sectors.

Fire safety officers can use the sector breakdowns and cause data to prioritise inspections in industrial premises, food and drink venues and retail buildings.

Risk assessors can integrate the electrical distribution and smoking-related incident figures into assessments of older sites and premises with high electrical loads or external smoking shelters.

Facility managers in hospitals, education premises, agricultural buildings and offices can benchmark their fire incident exposure against national figures for similar property types.

Electrical contractors and fire-protection contractors can draw on the cause data to support maintenance schedules for distribution boards, fixed wiring and space heating equipment.

Fire and rescue chiefs and senior officers can reference the ten-year trends in workplace and non-residential fires when planning prevention campaigns and business engagement programmes.

Architects and building services engineers involved in new or refurbished industrial and hospitality facilities can consider the incident data when specifying passive fire protection and electrical infrastructure.