FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Fire risk assessors
The March 2026 proposals would make fire risk assessor competence personal, tiered and enforceable, which leaves little room for AI to stand in for missing expertise. They do not mention AI, but certification is likely to shape how assessors use it and how insurers view them.
Part of: AI in fire risk assessment
In short
MHCLG's consultation, published on 26 March 2026 and closed on 18 June 2026, proposes mandatory certification for fire risk assessors in England, with BS 8674 competence tiers, a mandatory code of conduct, a central register and offences such as practising above certification level. Higher-risk premises would be restricted to certified assessors. The proposals do not mention AI, templates or remote assessments, and the Government has not set a date to legislate. Even so, the direction is clear: assessors will need to show their own competence for the premises they assess. Insurers may treat certification as a sign of a better-controlled risk, though PI is not mentioned.
The Fire risk assessors profession consultation responds to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendation, accepted by the Government, to "establish a system of mandatory accreditation to certify the competence of fire risk assessors". It notes that there is no statutory definition of a fire risk assessor today, and that only two UKAS-accredited bodies currently certify them. The main proposals are summarised below:
Regulation would sit within the integrated built environment system, and the Government will legislate "when parliamentary time allows". The rules and certification explainer covers the wider framework.
The consultation says nothing about AI, but its logic bears directly on it. Tiered competence means an assessor certified at one level could commit an offence by assessing premises above that level, whatever tools they used. AI cannot raise a certification tier. A code of conduct is likely to address honesty about experience, a theme the Grenfell Inquiry raised when it found the Grenfell assessor had misrepresented his experience and qualifications. If employers can be certified, firm-level processes, including how templates and AI drafting are controlled and reviewed, may come under scrutiny. And a public register gives clients, and potentially claimants, a way to check whether the person who signed the report was entitled to do that work.
The Hackitt review's description of FRAs as often "little more than a 'tick box' exercise", quoted in the consultation, explains the policy aim. Assessments generated from generic content are the kind of output certification is meant to drive out.
PI is not mentioned in the consultation, and there is no proposal for a statutory PI requirement. However, insurers assessing fire safety risks commonly look at qualifications, experience and controls, and certification at an appropriate tier may become one of the things they ask about. Assessors working on higher-risk residential buildings may find that certification, once in force, becomes a practical precondition for cover as well as for the work. Whether PI becomes a certification condition is an open question. See placing a fire safety and cladding PI risk and does PI cover AI errors in FRAs.
None of this is law yet, but preparation costs little. Sensible steps are:
See also AI and complex premises, the higher-risk building regime and the fire risk assessment Aipedia hub.
Apex arranges PI for fire risk assessors and follows the certification proposals. A broker can help you present your competence and AI controls to insurers in a way that reflects the direction of regulation. Read more on PI for fire risk assessors.
Not yet. MHCLG consulted from 26 March to 18 June 2026 on mandatory certification in England. The Government will legislate when parliamentary time allows and has not set a date.
No. It does not mention AI, software, templates, digital tools or remote assessments. Its focus on personal competence, tiers and offences for practising above certification level is still relevant to how assessors use AI.
The consultation does not mention PI. Existing certification schemes may require it, and NFCC already advises clients to ask for proof of sufficient PI. Whether a future statutory scheme makes PI a condition is an open question.
There is no need to stop. The proposals focus on competence, conduct and honesty, not on banning tools. Using AI within your competence, with documented review, fits the direction of travel better than relying on it to take on unfamiliar work.
Under the proposals, the offence would be practising above your certification level, not using AI. If AI led you to take on premises above your tier, that could be the problem. The proposals are not yet law.
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.
