FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Fire risk assessors
AI can turn site notes, photos and voice memos into a draft fire risk assessment quickly, but every finding must be checked against what the assessor actually saw. A plausible report about the wrong building is the classic route to a negligence claim after a fire.
Part of: AI in fire risk assessment
In short
Report-writing tools take an assessor's notes, photos and dictation and produce a full fire risk assessment draft, often with findings, risk ratings and recommendations already filled in. The danger is fluency: AI can describe a fire alarm system, a protected route or a compartment breach that was never there, or carry hazards across from another job. Article 9 of the Fire Safety Order requires a suitable and sufficient assessment of the actual premises. If a fire exposes errors, the client or others who relied on the report may claim against the assessor, and PI will usually be tested on negligence and on any fire safety restrictions.
The typical workflow is simple. The assessor walks the building, takes photos, dictates observations and fills a few structured fields. A report writer then produces the narrative: a description of the premises and occupancy, sections on means of escape, detection and warning, emergency lighting, compartmentation and management, and an action plan. Some tools draft recommendations from a library; others generate free text from the notes using a generative AI chatbot built into the software.
For assessors who complete many reports a week, the time saving is real. The trade-off is that the assessor moves from author to editor, and editing a convincing draft is harder than it sounds. The site stage is covered in AI site survey apps, photos and dictation.
The legal duty under Article 9 of the Fire Safety Order sits with the responsible person, who must make a "suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks" and record the significant findings, including any group especially at risk. The assessor is engaged to deliver that assessment. The NFCC guidance tells duty holders to choose assessors on competence, experience and references, and notes that they keep responsibility whoever writes the report. An assessor's own duty is the ordinary duty of reasonable skill and care in civil law. No body has published guidance on AI-written reports, so that general standard is what will be applied.
The Hackitt review criticised FRAs that were "little more than a 'tick box' exercise". AI report writers can make that failure look thorough. The common errors are:
Illustrative scenario: an assessor dictates that a cupboard under the stairs in a converted building contains electrical equipment and has no fire-resisting door. The report writer, drawing on similar jobs, records the cupboard as "fire-resisting, self-closing" and omits the action. A fire starts in the cupboard. The fire and rescue authority investigates the responsible person, who in turn claims against the assessor, pointing to the report as the document they relied on.
PI for fire risk assessors is usually written to cover claims arising from negligence in the professional services described in the schedule. Using AI to draft the report does not normally change the nature of the work, so a negligent AI-assisted report is commonly treated like any other negligent report, subject to the wording. Two points need checking. First, fire safety restrictions are common in PI, and some apply to particular building types or exposures. Second, insurers may ask how reports are produced, and an inaccurate answer can cause problems later. Our guide on PI for fire engineers and fire risk assessors explains the cover, and does PI cover AI mistakes looks at the general position.
The aim is to show that the final report reflects the building and your own judgement. Useful controls include:
Our guide to documenting AI use for PI sets out records insurers find helpful. For the wider picture see the fire risk assessment Aipedia hub.
Apex arranges PI for fire risk assessors. We can check how your policy treats AI-drafted reports and help you describe your review process to insurers.
Yes, if you have checked it against what you inspected and it reflects your professional judgement. The report goes out in your name, so you answer for every finding, rating and action in it, whoever or whatever wrote the first draft.
There is no specific rule requiring it. Assessors may explain their method in the terms of engagement, and NFCC encourages duty holders to ask questions when appointing. Being clear about how reports are produced and reviewed can reduce disputes later.
Not usually on that ground alone, as PI commonly covers negligent professional work however it was produced. The answer depends on the wording, any fire safety restrictions and whether your proposal form answers about your methods were accurate.
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.
