Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 fire risk assessments: which one do you actually need?

Type 4: common parts and flats, with destructive investigation

The most comprehensive and intrusive assessment type, reserved for buildings with serious, unresolved concerns about compartmentation extending into individual flats — for example following cladding remediation investigations, a history of unauthorised works throughout the building, or where a Type 3 has identified issues that may extend into flats.

• Combines destructive investigation of common parts with destructive investigation inside flats, requiring individual leaseholder or tenant access and cooperation throughout the building.
• Considerably more expensive and time-consuming than the other types, given the access, disruption and reinstatement involved.
• Usually commissioned following specific findings elsewhere, rather than as a routine or first assessment.

How to decide which type your building needs

In practice, almost all buildings start with a Type 1 as the routine annual assessment. Escalation to Type 2, 3 or 4 is driven by specific triggers rather than being chosen upfront on a precautionary basis, because the disruption and cost rise sharply with each type. A competent assessor should be able to explain clearly, in plain language, why they are or are not recommending escalation, rather than defaulting to the most intrusive option out of caution alone.

• Known or suspected unauthorised alterations affecting fire-separating construction.
• A recent fire, near-miss, or fire and rescue service attendance that raised compartmentation questions.
• Findings from an EWS1 or wider external wall survey suggesting internal compartmentation may also be compromised.
• A previous Type 1 assessment recommending escalation because visual inspection alone could not resolve a specific concern.
• Insurer or lender requirements following a specific incident or portfolio-wide review.

What escalation actually involves for leaseholders and residents

Escalating from a Type 1 or 2 to a Type 3 or 4 is a significant undertaking for everyone living in the building, not just an administrative decision by the freeholder. Type 3 work generally means specialist contractors accessing risers and ceiling voids in common areas over a period of days or weeks, with some temporary disruption to communal spaces. Type 4 work goes further, requiring individual access arrangements with every leaseholder or tenant, which in practice means considerable coordination, notice periods, and often a phased programme rather than a single visit. Managing agents should communicate clearly and early with residents about what to expect, including realistic timescales, because uncertainty tends to generate far more complaints than the disruption itself.

Choosing the right assessor for the right type

Types 3 and 4 require additional specialist skills and often coordination with a separate opening-up and reinstatement contractor, so not every assessor who is well set up for Type 1 and Type 2 work is equipped to run a full destructive survey. When commissioning a higher-type assessment, it is worth asking directly about the assessor's specific experience with destructive investigation, how they manage access with leaseholders, and how the reinstatement of opened areas is coordinated once the survey is complete, since a survey that leaves damaged finishes unresolved for months creates its own set of problems.

How the classification interacts with EWS1 and cladding remediation

Buildings going through external wall cladding remediation, or that have undergone an EWS1 assessment, frequently find questions about internal compartmentation raised at the same time, since a building with historic external wall defects has often also had internal alterations carried out without proper regard to fire-stopping. Where a cladding remediation programme is under way or planned, it is worth coordinating the timing of any Type 3 or Type 4 internal investigation with the external works programme where practical, since scaffolding, access arrangements and resident disruption can sometimes be shared between the two rather than repeated separately months apart. Lenders and insurers assessing a building mid-remediation will often ask about both the external wall position and the internal compartmentation position together, so having a coherent, dated picture of both reduces the risk of delays at valuation or renewal.

What a Type 1 report actually looks like in practice

For a typical London block, a Type 1 assessment report will run to perhaps twenty or thirty pages once photographs and the action plan are included, structured broadly along PAS 79 lines: a description of the building, identification of hazards and people at risk, an evaluation section covering each common part in turn, a set of significant findings each tied to a photograph, an overall risk rating, and a prioritised action plan with realistic timescales. Reading one of these properly, rather than skimming the summary, is the best way for a managing agent or director of a Right to Manage company to understand exactly what condition their building is actually in, rather than relying on secondhand summary from whoever commissioned it.

• Building description: age, construction type, number of storeys and flats, occupancy profile.
• Fire hazards identified: sources of ignition, fuel and any specific concerns noted on the day.
• People at risk: general occupants and anyone requiring additional consideration, such as known mobility-impaired residents.
• Evaluation of existing precautions floor by floor, including alarm coverage, doors and escape routes.
• Significant findings with photographic evidence for each.
• Overall risk rating and a dated, prioritised action plan.

Cost drivers beyond the base assessment type

While the assessment type itself is the biggest single driver of price, several other factors shift the quote up or down within each band, and it is worth understanding these before comparing quotes from different providers on price alone. A building with restricted access, out-of-hours-only availability, or an unusually large number of storeys will generally cost more than the headline band suggests, and providers quoting a flat fee regardless of these factors are worth questioning rather than automatically favouring.

• Number of storeys and total floor area of common parts to be covered.
• Access arrangements, including whether specialist access equipment or out-of-hours visits are required.
• Number of previous findings or known issues that may extend the time needed on site.
• Whether a full write-up with extensive photography is included or charged separately.
• Travel and access across multiple sites for portfolio clients, which some providers price at a discount per building.