BS 9792:2025 provides recommendations and example documentation for undertaking and recording fire risk assessments in housing. Dr Peter Wilkinson CEng CFIFireE, Fire Engineering Adviser to the IFE, considers how the new British Standard succeeds PAS 79-2:2020 and supports a more consistent, proportionate and accountable approach to assessing fire risk in residential buildings.
The publication of BS 9792:2025, Fire risk assessment - Housing - Code of practice, represents an important development for those who undertake, commission or act upon housing fire risk assessments.
The standard succeeds PAS 79-2:2020, but it is more than a change of designation. It is a substantial reworking of the earlier document, providing a revised structure, clearer treatment of different types of fire risk assessment and updated example documentation for recording and communicating findings. It also places greater emphasis on the evacuation needs of residents, including those who may require assistance.
BS 9792 applies to fire risk assessments in:
- houses in multiple occupation;
- purpose-built and converted blocks of flats and maisonettes;
- specialised housing, including supported and sheltered housing;
- student accommodation falling within the relevant housing categories; and
- common areas in mixed-use buildings that provide access to residential premises.
It does not apply to private single-household dwellings, short-term lets, residential care homes or wholly non-domestic premises. Nor does it replace a specialist fire risk appraisal of external wall construction undertaken in accordance with PAS 9980.
More than a standard form
One of the most important aspects of BS 9792 is its support for a structured and consistent assessment without reducing the process to the completion of a checklist.
Checklists and standardised forms can provide useful prompts and help ensure that important matters are not overlooked. However, a competent fire risk assessment requires much more. The assessor must understand the building’s construction, occupancy, fire safety strategy and management arrangements, as well as the characteristics and evacuation needs of the people who live there.
Professional judgement is therefore central to the process. That judgement must be evidence-based, clearly explained and properly recorded. It must also be exercised within the assessor’s competence.
This is particularly important when deciding what remedial measures are reasonably required. Generic recommendations, applied without sufficient regard to the circumstances of the building, can divert attention and resources away from the matters presenting the greatest risk. A proportionate assessment should identify what is significant, explain why it is significant and recommend measures appropriate to the building and its residents.
BS 9792 provides a framework within which those judgements can be reached and communicated more consistently. It cannot, and should not, remove the need for competent interpretation.
Competence and professional judgement
BS 9792 is complemented by BS 8674:2025, Built environment - Framework for competence of individual fire risk assessors - Code of practice. The two standards perform different but related functions.
BS 9792 addresses how housing fire risk assessments should be undertaken and recorded. BS 8674 provides a framework for assessing whether an individual has the competence required to undertake general fire risk assessments of an appropriate level of complexity.
This distinction matters. Possessing a template or following a documented methodology does not, by itself, make someone competent to assess every type of residential building. Assessors must recognise the limits of their own capability and obtain specialist assistance where the building, its external walls, its fire safety systems or its occupants present issues beyond their competence.
Responding to a changing housing landscape
The need for informed professional judgement will only increase as residential buildings, construction methods and fire safety technologies continue to evolve. Existing buildings may also have been altered repeatedly, leaving incomplete records or creating uncertainty about the performance of compartmentation and other fire safety measures.
A fire risk assessment is generally non-invasive. The assessor must therefore distinguish between what has been observed, what documentary evidence demonstrates, what has reasonably been inferred and what remains uncertain. Where significant uncertainty cannot be resolved through the assessment, the appropriate response may be to recommend further investigation by a suitably competent specialist.
This is a more defensible approach than presenting assumptions as established facts or recommending extensive work simply because adequate information was not available.
Supporting accountability
The introduction of BS 9792 also forms part of the wider evolution of fire and building safety following the Grenfell Tower fire. In England and Wales, amendments to fire safety legislation have increased expectations around the recording and communication of fire safety information, while the Building Safety Act has introduced further duties for parts of the residential sector in England. Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under their own legislative frameworks.
BS 9792 does not replace these statutory duties, and following a British Standard does not automatically establish legal compliance. It does, however, offer a recognised framework for undertaking and recording assessments systematically, supporting better decision-making and helping duty holders demonstrate how significant findings and recommendations have been reached.
Ultimately, the value of BS 9792 lies not simply in its replacement of PAS 79-2. Its greater contribution is the encouragement of better-reasoned, better-recorded and more building-specific fire risk assessments.
Used by competent practitioners and supported by clients who understand that a meaningful assessment requires sufficient information, access and professional time, it should contribute to greater consistency and accountability. More importantly, it should help ensure that attention remains focused on the measures that genuinely improve the safety of residents.