Leasehold Fire Risk Assessment Responsibility: Who Is Legally Accountable in Residential and Mixed-Use Blocks?

Few areas of property compliance generate as much confusion as leasehold fire risk assessment responsibility. Leaseholders often assume the freeholder handles everything. Freeholders sometimes assume the managing agent has it covered. Managing agents occasionally believe their instruction stops at routine maintenance. Meanwhile, the building sits with a fire risk assessment that may be out of date, incomplete, or simply missing for parts of the structure that the law expects to be assessed.

The short answer is that legal responsibility for the fire risk assessment in a leasehold residential or mixed-use block sits with the Responsible Person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, as amended by the Fire Safety Act 2021. In most blocks of flats, that is the freeholder, the head leaseholder, or a Resident Management Company that controls the common parts. Managing agents are usually appointed to discharge those duties on the Responsible Person’s behalf, but the legal accountability stays with the entity that has control of the premises.

This article works through how that responsibility is actually allocated in practice, where it shifts in mixed-use buildings, what the 2021 Act and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 changed, and where leaseholders themselves carry duties inside their own flats. It is written for the people who actually have to make the call: freeholders, RMC directors, managing agents, and leaseholders trying to understand what they can reasonably be held accountable for.

Why Responsibility for Fire Risk Assessments Causes So Much Confusion in Leasehold Buildings

Leasehold buildings sit at the intersection of property law, contract law, and fire safety law. The lease defines who owns what, who repairs what, and who pays for what. Fire safety legislation defines who must assess risk and act on it. These two frameworks do not always line up neatly, and that is where confusion takes hold.

A typical block of flats might have a freeholder who owns the structure and common parts, a head lessee who has taken a long lease of the whole building, a Resident Management Company set up to manage the building on behalf of the leaseholders, a managing agent appointed by the RMC, and individual leaseholders inside each flat. Add a commercial unit at ground level with its own tenant, and the picture becomes more complicated again.

The lease will usually say something about fire safety, but rarely in the precise terms the Fire Safety Order uses. It might oblige the freeholder to maintain the structure, the RMC to manage the common parts, and the leaseholder to keep their flat in good repair. None of that, on its own, tells you who is the Responsible Person under fire safety law.

The result is a recurring pattern of disputes. Leaseholders are presented with service charge demands for fire risk assessment work and ask why they are paying for the freeholder’s legal duty. Freeholders argue that the cost is recoverable through the lease. Managing agents are caught in the middle, often instructed without a clear scope and expected to handle whatever fire safety issues arise. The legal position is actually more settled than these disputes suggest, but it requires you to look at the building, the lease, and the legislation together rather than in isolation.

How the Law Defines Leasehold Fire Risk Assessment Responsibility

The starting point is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The Order applies to virtually all non-domestic premises in England and Wales, and to the common parts of buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises. That includes the common parts of every block of flats with more than one dwelling.

The Order places the duty to carry out and maintain a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment on the Responsible Person. Article 3 defines the Responsible Person as the employer where the premises are a workplace, or otherwise the person who has control of the premises in connection with the carrying on of a trade, business or other undertaking, or the owner where neither of those applies. In a residential block, where the common parts are not a workplace, the Responsible Person is usually the person or body that has control of those common parts.

Control is the operative concept. It is not always the freeholder, even though it often is. Where a head lessee or RMC has taken on the management of the building under the lease, control of the common parts may rest with them. Where a managing agent has been appointed, the agent acts on behalf of the entity in control rather than becoming the Responsible Person themselves, unless the contractual arrangement is unusual enough to give them genuine control.

The Fire Safety Act 2021 then clarified the scope of the Order in a way that resolved a long-running dispute. It made clear that, where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the Order applies to the building’s structure, external walls (including cladding, balconies, and anything attached to the external walls), and any common doors, including flat entrance doors that open onto common parts. Before the 2021 Act, there was genuine doubt about whether external walls and flat front doors fell within the assessment. That doubt has been removed.

The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 went further, imposing specific duties on Responsible Persons of multi-occupied residential buildings. These include requirements to provide information to residents, to inspect flat entrance doors and lifts, and, in higher-risk buildings, to share information with fire and rescue services and provide secure information boxes. The duties are detailed and operationally significant, and they all sit with the Responsible Person.

Who Is the Responsible Person in a Block of Flats?

Identifying the Responsible Person in a block of flats means looking at who actually controls the common parts. The lease structure is usually the best guide. In most blocks, you will find one of four arrangements.

The first is a straightforward freehold owner with no head lease. The freeholder retains the common parts, manages the building (often through an agent), and is the Responsible Person for those common parts. This is common in smaller purpose-built blocks held by an investor freeholder.

The second is a building with a Resident Management Company. The RMC is usually a company owned by the leaseholders, and it has either been granted a long lease of the common parts or is contractually obliged under the leases to manage them. Where the RMC has genuine control of the common parts, the RMC is the Responsible Person. Its directors, normally leaseholders themselves, carry the duty on behalf of the company.

The third is a Right to Manage company, set up by leaseholders under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. An RTM company takes over management functions from the freeholder and, in doing so, generally becomes the Responsible Person for the common parts because it now controls them.

The fourth is a head lessee structure, where a long head lease has been granted over the whole building. The head lessee then sub-lets to individual flat owners and typically retains and manages the common parts. In that case, the head lessee usually has control and is the Responsible Person.

In each scenario, the test is the same: who has control of the common parts in practice and under the lease. Where control is shared between two or more entities, both can be Responsible Persons under the Order, and they have a duty to cooperate and coordinate. The Fire Safety Act 2021 reinforced this by making clear that the structure and external walls fall within scope, which can pull in parties who control parts of the structure even where they do not manage the day-to-day common parts.

Where Freeholders, Managing Agents and Resident Management Companies Sit in the Chain

Once the Responsible Person is identified, the next question is how the duty is actually discharged. This is where freeholders, managing agents, and RMCs each play a different role, and where confusion most often takes hold.

The freeholder, where it is the Responsible Person, holds the legal duty. Appointing a managing agent does not transfer that duty. The freeholder remains accountable to the enforcing authority, usually the local fire and rescue service, for ensuring that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment exists, that significant findings are recorded, and that identified actions are completed within reasonable timescales.

An RMC sits in a similar position where it controls the common parts. The directors of the RMC carry personal exposure if duties are ignored. It is not unusual for RMC directors, often well-meaning leaseholders with no fire safety background, to underestimate this. The duty does not soften because the company is non-profit or made up of residents. The standard expected of the Responsible Person is the same.

The managing agent’s role is contractual. The agent is engaged to deliver management services, which usually include arranging the fire risk assessment, instructing remedial works, keeping records, and dealing with day-to-day fire safety operations. The agent’s responsibilities to the freeholder or RMC are defined by the management agreement and by professional standards such as RICS and ARMA. The agent is not normally the Responsible Person, but a poorly performing agent can create real legal exposure for the entity that is.

This is why the wording of the management agreement matters. A vague instruction to “arrange compliance” leaves both sides exposed. A clear scope identifying who commissions the assessment, who decides on the assessor’s competence, who signs off remedial actions, who funds the works, and who keeps the records, gives the Responsible Person a defensible audit trail. It also protects the agent against later allegations that they should have done more.

What the Fire Safety Act 2021 and Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 Changed for Leasehold Buildings

The Fire Safety Act 2021 was a clarifying piece of legislation rather than a wholesale rewrite. It confirmed that where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the Fire Safety Order applies to the structure, external walls, and flat entrance doors that open onto common parts. The practical effect for leasehold buildings has been significant.

Before the Act, many fire risk assessments in residential blocks focused on common parts only and stopped at the front door of each flat. External walls, balconies, and cladding systems were sometimes treated as outside the scope of the assessment, or addressed in separate cladding-focused inspections. After the Act, the Responsible Person must consider these elements as part of the fire risk assessment for the building.

For Responsible Persons in higher-rise or higher-risk buildings, this has meant commissioning external wall surveys, often referred to as PAS 9980 fire risk appraisals of external walls, to feed into the overall fire risk assessment. For lower-rise blocks, it has meant making sure that the assessor is genuinely competent to consider external wall construction, balcony arrangements, and the condition of flat entrance doors.

The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, which came into force in January 2023, then layered further specific duties on top. Responsible Persons of all multi-occupied residential buildings must provide fire safety information to residents, including instructions on what to do in the event of a fire and information about the fire safety arrangements for the building. In buildings over 11 metres in height, there are additional duties to undertake quarterly checks of fire doors in common parts and annual checks of flat entrance doors on a best-endeavours basis.

In higher-risk buildings, the duties go further again, including secure information boxes, wayfinding signage, lift inspections, and information sharing with fire and rescue services. The Building Safety Act 2022 then introduced the Accountable Person and Principal Accountable Person regime for higher-risk buildings of at least 18 metres or seven storeys with two or more residential units. This sits alongside the Fire Safety Order rather than replacing it, so a single building may have both a Responsible Person and an Accountable Person, often the same entity but with overlapping duties.

The combined effect for leasehold buildings is that the Responsible Person now has a longer, more specific list of fire safety duties than at any point since the 2005 Order came into force. The fire risk assessment is no longer the only document that matters, but it remains the central one, and it must now genuinely cover the building rather than just the corridors and stairs.

What a Fire Risk Assessment Must Cover in Common Parts and Structural Elements

A suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment for a leasehold block is not a tick-box document. It must identify the fire hazards present, identify people at risk, evaluate, remove or reduce the risks, record significant findings, prepare an emergency plan, and arrange for review.

In a residential block, the assessment must consider the common parts in detail. That includes:

• escape routes, including stairs, corridors, and final exits
• fire doors in common parts and their condition
• compartmentation between flats and between flats and common parts
• service risers, meter cupboards, and penetrations through fire-resisting construction
• fire detection and alarm arrangements where provided
• emergency lighting
• signage
• dry or wet risers, sprinklers, or other suppression systems where present
• storage in common parts and the management of combustible items
• arrangements for residents with mobility or sensory impairments

Following the Fire Safety Act 2021, the assessment must also consider the building’s structure and external walls. That includes the construction of external walls, attachments such as balconies, render systems, insulation, and any cladding. It also includes flat entrance doors that open onto common parts, even though the doors themselves are usually demised to the leaseholder. The Responsible Person must consider whether those doors meet the required fire resistance standard and whether self-closing devices are functioning.

The assessment must record significant findings and the action plan that follows from them. It should be reviewed regularly and whenever there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid, such as after a fire, a near miss, building works, or a material change in occupation. There is no statutory frequency for a full review, but a risk-based approach for most blocks would suggest a substantive review at least annually with a more detailed reassessment every one to three years depending on the building’s complexity and risk profile.

The depth of the assessment also matters. The PAS 79-2:2020 methodology for housing has become the standard reference for fire risk assessments in residential blocks. A Type 1 assessment, which is essentially non-destructive and limited to common parts, is the most common starting point but may not be sufficient for older buildings, buildings where compartmentation is in doubt, or buildings where intrusive inspection is needed to verify construction. Type 2, 3, and 4 assessments involve increasing levels of intrusion and access to flats, and the choice of type is itself a risk-based decision the Responsible Person must take.

Mixed-Use Buildings: How Responsibility Splits Between Commercial and Residential Areas

Mixed-use buildings, typically with retail, office, or food and beverage units at ground floor and residential flats above, add another layer to the responsibility analysis. The Fire Safety Order applies to both the residential common parts and the commercial premises, but the Responsible Person is not always the same for each.

In a typical mixed-use block, the freeholder or head lessee will be the Responsible Person for the residential common parts, the structure, and the external walls. The commercial occupier will be the Responsible Person for their own demised premises as the employer or person in control of those premises in connection with their business. Where the commercial unit is sublet, the position has to be worked through carefully because control may rest with the head tenant or with the sub-tenant depending on the lease.

This produces overlapping duties. Article 22 of the Fire Safety Order requires Responsible Persons who share or have duties in respect of the same premises to cooperate, coordinate fire safety measures, and share relevant information. In practice, this means the residential Responsible Person and the commercial occupier need to talk to each other about how their respective fire risk assessments interact.

The interaction matters because risk in one part of the building can affect the other. A restaurant kitchen at ground level changes the fire load and detection requirements for the building as a whole. A retail unit storing significant quantities of stock changes the compartmentation expectations. A first-floor commercial unit shares an escape route with residents above. The residential fire risk assessment cannot simply ignore what is happening in the commercial space, and the commercial fire risk assessment cannot ignore the residents above.

Common failures in mixed-use buildings include commercial fit-outs that breach compartmentation between the unit and the residential parts, extraction systems that compromise fire resistance, signage and means of escape that conflict between residential and commercial use, and shared service risers that have not been properly fire-stopped after works in either part of the building. Coordinating fire risk assessments between the residential Responsible Person and each commercial occupier is the only reliable way to manage these issues.

Where Leaseholders Do Carry Fire Safety Duties Inside Their Demise

It is sometimes assumed that leaseholders have no fire safety duties at all in a block of flats. That is not quite right. The Fire Safety Order does not generally apply inside a single private dwelling, so the leaseholder is not a Responsible Person for the inside of their flat under the Order. But there are still real obligations, both legal and contractual, that fall on the leaseholder.

The first is the lease itself. Most modern long leases require the leaseholder to keep their flat in good repair, to comply with statutory requirements, and not to do anything that would prejudice the building’s insurance or compromise the structure. Allowing the front door to fall below the required fire resistance standard, removing self-closing devices, or altering the flat in a way that breaches compartmentation can all be breaches of the lease.

The second is the flat entrance door. Although the door is usually within the leaseholder’s demise, it opens onto common parts and forms part of the compartmentation that protects the escape route. Following the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Responsible Person has a duty to assess these doors as part of the fire risk assessment for the building. The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 require Responsible Persons in buildings over 11 metres to make best endeavours to inspect flat entrance doors annually. Leaseholders have a practical obligation to allow access for those checks and not to obstruct or alter the door in a way that defeats its function.

The third is behaviour. Storing combustibles in common parts, propping fire doors open, wedging self-closers, and similar acts can be both lease breaches and matters that the Responsible Person must address through management measures. Leaseholders who repeatedly create fire safety hazards in common areas can find themselves on the receiving end of enforcement action through the lease, and in extreme cases through fire safety legislation if their behaviour amounts to control of the affected area.

The fourth is renting out the flat. A leaseholder who lets their flat to tenants becomes a landlord with their own duties under the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 and, where the let is a House in Multiple Occupation, under HMO licensing and management regulations. Where the flat is a short-term let, the position can shift further because the Fire Safety Order may apply to the flat itself as a non-domestic premises. This is an area where leaseholders frequently underestimate their exposure.

Common Failures, Disputes and Grey Areas Between Freeholders and Leaseholders

The disputes that surface most often in leasehold blocks tend to follow the same patterns. Recognising them early makes them easier to resolve.

The most common is the service charge dispute. The cost of the fire risk assessment, and the cost of any remedial works, is usually recoverable through the service charge if the lease permits and the costs are reasonable. The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced leaseholder protections that prevent qualifying leaseholders from being charged for certain remediation costs in higher-risk buildings, particularly in relation to historic cladding and certain non-cladding defects. These protections are detailed and have specific qualifying conditions, and they are an area where freeholders, RMCs, and leaseholders frequently take legal advice before invoicing or paying.

The second is the question of whether the assessment is actually any good. A Type 1 assessment that says “no significant findings” in a 1970s converted block with poor compartmentation history is, on its face, suspect. Leaseholders increasingly ask to see the assessment and challenge its scope. Responsible Persons are entitled to make risk-based decisions about scope, but those decisions need to be defensible. An assessment that does not match the building’s risk profile is a weak document regardless of who paid for it.

The third is the front door problem. Where a fire risk assessment recommends upgrading flat entrance doors, the question of who pays and who does the work depends on the lease. Usually the door is demised to the leaseholder, who is responsible for its repair, but some leases reserve work to the freeholder or allow the freeholder to enter and carry out works at the leaseholder’s cost. Disputes arise when the lease is unclear or when leaseholders refuse access. The Responsible Person still has to address the door as part of the assessment, and persistent refusal can become a legal matter.

The fourth is the assessor competence question. The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 introduced a duty for Responsible Persons in higher-risk buildings to record details of the assessor where they are not a Responsible Person themselves. More widely, the trend since Grenfell has been towards requiring demonstrably competent assessors, with third-party certification through schemes such as IFE, IFSM, or BAFE SP205. A cheap assessment from an under-qualified assessor is a false economy and a real source of dispute.

The fifth is the records dispute. Where the Responsible Person changes, perhaps because the freehold is sold or an RTM company takes over, the new Responsible Person needs the existing fire risk assessment, the action plan, and the records of completed works. Gaps in records create gaps in compliance. Managing agents who do not maintain proper records, or freeholders who do not pass records on at sale, leave the building exposed.

When to Appoint a Competent Fire Risk Assessor and What to Expect

The Responsible Person can carry out a fire risk assessment themselves, but in any building that is not very simple, that is rarely the right answer. The expectation set by the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, by enforcement practice, and by professional standards is that the assessor is competent. Competence in this context means relevant qualifications, demonstrable experience of similar buildings, ongoing professional development, and ideally third-party accreditation.

For most leasehold blocks, the right approach is to appoint an external fire risk assessor with experience of residential buildings of the relevant scale and construction type. The instruction should be clear about what is expected, including:

• the scope of the assessment, including whether external walls and flat entrance doors are in scope
• the type of assessment under PAS 79-2 and whether intrusive inspection is required
• access arrangements, particularly for any flat entrance doors or risers that need inspection
• the format of the report and the action plan
• timescales for delivery and for any reinspection
• the assessor’s qualifications, accreditation, and insurance

A good assessment will produce a written report identifying hazards, evaluating risk, recording significant findings, and setting out a prioritised action plan with realistic timescales. It will distinguish between matters that need immediate attention, matters that should be programmed, and matters that are recommendations for improvement. It will also flag any limitations in the assessment, such as areas that could not be accessed or construction details that could not be verified.

The Responsible Person then has to act on the findings. An assessment with a long action list and no progress is, in some ways, worse than no assessment at all. It evidences awareness of risks that have not been addressed. The right pattern is for the Responsible Person, supported by the managing agent where one is appointed, to track each action through to completion, to record evidence of completion, and to feed those records back into the next review of the assessment.

Reassessment should be both periodic and triggered by change. A material change to the building, a fire or near miss, new occupation patterns, the opening of a new commercial unit, or significant building works should prompt a fresh look. So should a change of Responsible Person, particularly where the new entity has not had sight of the existing assessment and its history.

For freeholders, RMCs, and managing agents looking to understand current expectations, the broader picture is set by the Health and Safety Executive’s residential building guidance, by the Home Office’s guidance on the Fire Safety Order, and by the wider body of post-Grenfell regulation. Keeping up with developments is part of the duty, and you can follow ongoing changes through our health and safety news updates and the underlying health and safety legislation we work to. Authoritative guidance on the Fire Safety Order itself is available through the relevant government guidance for business.

Frequently Asked Questions on Leasehold Fire Risk Assessment Responsibility

Can a Managing Agent Be Held Legally Responsible If a Fire Risk Assessment Is Inadequate?

The managing agent is not normally the Responsible Person under the Fire Safety Order, so the primary legal duty sits with the freeholder, RMC, or other entity in control. However, agents can carry contractual liability to their client and professional liability under their regulatory body’s rules. They can also be exposed where their actions or omissions amount to gross negligence, particularly after a fire. A managing agent who fails to commission an assessment, ignores significant findings, or misrepresents the building’s compliance position should not assume that being “only the agent” provides a defence.

Does Buying the Freehold Through a Right to Manage Change Who Carries Fire Safety Duties?

Acquiring the freehold collectively or setting up a Right to Manage company shifts control of the common parts to the leaseholder-owned entity, which usually then becomes the Responsible Person. Leaseholders who become directors of these companies take on real duties and personal exposure. It is essential that the company holds the existing fire risk assessment, understands the action plan, has appropriate insurance and indemnity arrangements in place, and engages a competent managing agent or consultant where the directors do not have fire safety expertise themselves.

How Often Should the Fire Risk Assessment for a Block of Flats Be Reviewed?

There is no fixed statutory frequency. The Order requires the assessment to be kept under review and revised where there is reason to believe it is no longer valid or there has been a significant change. For most residential blocks, a substantive review at least annually and a fuller reassessment every one to three years is reasonable, with shorter intervals for higher-risk or more complex buildings. Any fire, near miss, building works, change of use, or change of Responsible Person should also prompt a review regardless of the routine cycle.

Who Is Responsible for the Fire Door at the Entrance to a Flat?

The flat entrance door is usually within the leaseholder’s demise, which makes the leaseholder responsible for its repair under the lease. However, because the door opens onto common parts and forms part of the building’s compartmentation, it falls within the scope of the building’s fire risk assessment. The Responsible Person must assess the door and, in buildings over 11 metres, make best endeavours to inspect flat entrance doors annually. Where remedial work is needed, who pays and who carries out the work depends on the specific terms of the lease.

What Happens If the Freeholder Refuses to Commission a Fire Risk Assessment?

If the freeholder is the Responsible Person and refuses to commission an assessment, they are in breach of the Fire Safety Order. Leaseholders or other interested parties can raise concerns with the local fire and rescue service, which is the enforcing authority. The fire and rescue service has powers ranging from informal advice through to enforcement notices, prohibition notices, and prosecution. In practice, most issues are resolved without formal enforcement once the duty is made clear, but the legal route exists where engagement fails.

Acorn Safety Services supports freeholders, Resident Management Companies, managing agents, and mixed-use building owners with competent, PAS 79-2 aligned fire risk assessments, post-assessment action planning, and ongoing compliance support across residential and mixed-use leasehold portfolios. To discuss your building and get a clear, defensible position on your fire safety duties, contact us today.