FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Fire risk assessors
AI compliance platforms track FRA actions and chase clients for evidence, but they blur who decided that an action was complete. The responsible person keeps the legal duty, and the assessor's contract should make clear what role, if any, they play after issuing the report.
Part of: AI in fire risk assessment
In short
After the report, most fire risk assessments live on in a compliance platform. Actions are loaded as tasks, AI sends reminders, reads uploaded evidence and may suggest that an action is closed. Some assessors host the platform or are given access to sign off actions. That convenience creates a question: when an action is closed wrongly, who made the decision? Under the Fire Safety Order the responsible person keeps responsibility, but an assessor who verified or appeared to verify completion may be drawn into a claim. Clear contract terms on the assessor's role, and on AI-generated closures, are the main protection.
Platforms used by landlords, managing agents and multi-site businesses import the FRA action plan, assign each action to a person and deadline, and track progress. AI features can include automated reminders, reading photos or certificates uploaded as evidence, suggesting that an action is complete, and generating compliance dashboards for boards and lenders. Some fire risk assessment firms provide their own platform as part of the service; others are given logins to client systems to review evidence.
Either way, the platform becomes the place where the client sees the state of their fire safety, and where a green tick can be read as the assessor's confirmation.
The legal position is simple to state but easy to lose sight of in software. The FRA identifies what needs doing; the responsible person decides how and when to do it and must make sure it is done. An assessor who only wrote the report has not taken on the job of checking the works. An assessor who reviews evidence, signs off actions or runs the system that does so may have taken on more, whether or not the contract says it clearly.
Article 9 places the duty to assess and record the measures taken or to be taken on the responsible person. NFCC guidance states that duty holders "retain responsibility for ensuring that the assessment fulfils the requirements of the law". Article 5 extends duties to others with control of premises, including those with contractual repair or safety obligations, so a contract that gives the assessor an ongoing maintenance or verification role could, in principle, widen their exposure. Our guide to AI contract clauses and indemnities discusses drafting points.
Problems usually arise at the point of closure:
Illustrative scenario: an assessor provides a platform to a managing agent. The FRA recommended fire stopping in a service riser. The contractor uploads a photo, the platform's AI marks the action as evidenced, and the action closes with the assessor's firm shown as reviewer by default. The work had not been completed properly. After a fire, the managing agent says it relied on the assessor's sign-off; the assessor says it never reviewed the evidence.
Whether PI responds depends on whether the activity, such as verifying completion of works or providing a software platform, is within the professional services described in the policy. Advice and inspection are usually central to a fire risk assessor's cover; hosting or licensing software may not be, and a technology element could raise questions about which policy applies. Contractual liabilities beyond what the law would impose, such as broad indemnities, are commonly excluded or limited. See PI for fire risk assessors and AI exclusions and clauses.
Make the platform reflect who actually decided. In practice:
Related: AI risk ratings and action plans, AI reviews and updates and the fire risk assessment Aipedia hub.
Apex arranges PI for fire risk assessors. If you provide a compliance platform or verify actions, a broker can check that those services are described on your policy.
The responsible person keeps the legal duty under the Fire Safety Order. An assessor may also face a claim if they verified, or appeared to verify, the closure. Clear terms on your role and accurate records of who reviewed what are the main protection.
It is safer not to, or to label AI-suggested closures as unverified. A photo or certificate can look right but not prove that work was done properly, and a closure shown under your name may be treated as your sign-off.
Not by themselves. Reminders are administrative. The question is whether the assessor took on a role in verifying completion. If the platform sends reminders in your firm's name, make clear in your terms that the client remains responsible for completing and checking the work.
Possibly not. PI usually covers the professional services declared. Providing software is a different activity and may need to be declared or insured separately, depending on the wording. Check with your broker.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
