News

One of the biggest challenges in fire door safety today is not a lack of regulation or guidance. It is uncertainty. And in parts of the industry, that uncertainty has become increasingly difficult for the Responsible Person to navigate.

Since the regulatory changes that followed the Grenfell Tower disaster, the fire door sector has seen a significant increase in the number of companies delivering surveys, inspections and compliance-focused services. On the surface, this appears to be progress. In practice, it has introduced a level of complexity where interpretation varies widely, and clarity is not always easy to obtain.

This has resulted in buildings with perfectly serviceable but older, legacy fire doors, and components, being failed and replaced unnecessarily. These doors have existed unchanged for years, and yet are increasingly labelled non-compliant, with replacement or remedial works recommended at significant cost. 

Two types of fire doors, and two standards of Assessment

A key issue underpinning much of this confusion is a failure to clearly distinguish between two very different categories of fire doors. 

Legacy fire doors: fire doors installed before modern certification regimes existed. These doors must be assessed based on how they function, how they have been installed and maintained, and against the regulatory framework in place at the time the building was constructed or last materially altered. Their suitability is determined through competent inspection and professional judgement.

Certified fire doors: modern doorsets supplied with test evidence, manufacturer documentation and a defined field of application. These doors must be installed, maintained, and assessed strictly in accordance with that documentation. For certified doors, compliance depends on following the manufacturer's requirements to the letter.

Problems arise when these two categories are confused.

Applying the expectations of a modern certified doorset to a legacy fire door is neither appropriate nor required by regulation. Holding all fire doors to the same modern benchmark creates unnecessary failure, confusion and cost. This can result in perfectly serviceable legacy doors being condemned without evidence of compromised performance.

What the law requires

There is no requirement to replace an existing fire door simply because standards have evolved.

Fire Safety (England) Regulations reflect this by recognising that existing fire safety measures may remain acceptable where they are appropriate for the building and supported by evidence of performance.Replacement should therefore be a considered outcome of assessment, rather than a pre-conception. Failing a legacy fire door solely because a hinge lacks a CE or UKCA mark is simply wrong. The purpose of regular inspections is to maintain existing standards and to prevent damage or gradual deterioration which can compromise the performance of the door. The goal is not to upgrade every door and component to current standards.

What this means for the Responsible Person

If a programme recommends widespread replacement, the Responsible Person should ask the service provider the following: what was observed, what risks are present, what evidence supports the conclusion, and would repair restore performance? A competent inspection and assessment should stand up to those questions.

The Responsible Person is not responsible for making every door match today's standards.Their responsibility lies in ensuring that every fire door remains in working order, so it can contain fire and smoke, protect escape routes, and save lives.

Fire doors do fail. But, as we have seen, too often today they are failed by interpretation rather than performance. The Responsible Person must make sure that decisions are grounded in technical competence, independent judgement, and proportionate consideration of risk.