The NFCC’s new Position Statement on ‘Water Supplies for Firefighting’ highlights increasing concerns about the reliability, affordability and resilience of the infrastructure firefighters depend on to protect communities.

A survey of UK Fire and Rescue Services, conducted by the NFCC in the middle of the year, found that 81% of respondents had changed their planned level of response in areas with known difficulties when it comes to accessing sufficient firefighting water. The findings also revealed that more than 50% of Fire and Rescue Services had introduced additional measures due to significant water supply outages.

The operational impact of these challenges was highlighted during this summer’s major wildfire in Stourbridge. The West Midlands Fire Service experienced ongoing issues with water pressure over several days. During the height of the incident, firefighters had to rely on a High-Volume Pumping Unit to help maintain water supplies, while replenishing a water carrier took almost 40 minutes at one stage due to reduced pressure.

Water company representatives were deployed to the scene and joined multi-agency briefings as firefighting crews continued to manage fluctuating supplies throughout the incident.

Fire and Rescue Services have reported concerns including inadequate water flow and pressure from hydrants, delays in the installation and repair of firefighting infrastructure, inconsistent engagement from water companiesVand rising costs associated with hydrant maintenance and replacement.

NFCC evidence shows that hydrant installation and maintenance charges increased by an average of 85% between 2014 and 2024, with Fire and Rescue Services reporting limited transparency over how those costs are calculated.

Critical public safety requirement

The NFCC is now calling for water for firefighting to be recognised as a critical public safety requirement and also for Fire and Rescue Services to be formally recognised as key stakeholders in the future regulation and planning of the water sector.

NFCC chair Phil Garrigan commented: “Firefighters cannot fight fires without water. That sounds obvious, yet our evidence shows four in every five Fire and Rescue Services have had to change response plans due to their concerns about firefighting water supplies.”

Garrigan continued: “We saw the impact of these challenges during the Stourbridge wildfires when issues with water pressure created additional operational difficulties for crews tackling a major incident.”

Further, Garrigan stated: “The demands placed on Fire and Rescue Services are growing, with larger wildfires, extreme weather and increasingly complex risks. As the task becomes more challenging, the very least firefighters should be able to rely on is access to the water they need to protect people and property.”

The NFCC’s Position Statement warns that growing pressures from climate change, drought, population growth, housing development and emerging infrastructure such as Data Centres and battery energy storage systems are increasing demand on what’s an already stretched water network. 

Clear national standards

The NFCC is calling for clear national standards for firefighting water provision, stronger accountability for water companies, greater transparency around hydrant charges, improved consideration of firefighting water needs in planning decisions and, what’s more, better access to water network information to support emergency response.

According to the NFCC, forthcoming water sector reforms provide an important opportunity to improve resilience and ensure that firefighting requirements are properly reflected in future infrastructure and investment decisions.

*Further information is available online at www.nfcc.org.uk

The Transitional Board has been established to provide expert support and advice to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) as work progresses to strengthen the fire engineering profession. Its work forms part of the UK Government’s response to recommendations arising from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, including proposals relating to professional recognition, regulation, competence and education.

Bringing together representatives from professional bodies, regulators and experienced fire engineering and academic experts, the Board will support the development of competency standards, education and training requirements, routes to registration and professional oversight.

Board members include Dr Barbara Lane, Professor Jose Torero, Professor Luke Bisby, Lynsey Seal, Ben Bradford, Simon Howard (primary representative for the Architects Registration Board), Charles-Elie Romeyer and Karen Holmes (primary representatives for the Building Safety Regulator), Paul Bailey (representing The Engineering Council), Natasha McCarthy (primary representative for the Royal Academy of Engineering and Richard Clark representing on behalf of the National Fire Chiefs Council.

Steve Hamm’s appointment provides an important opportunity for the IFE to contribute its specialist knowledge and represent the experience and perspectives of fire engineers as these reforms develop. Through its involvement, the IFE will contribute constructively to discussions that will help in shaping the future development of the profession.

Reform and public safety

The reform programme has wider implications for public safety. The Government has stated that its aim is to strengthen public safety through a highly-skilled and sustainable fire engineering profession with high standards of professional accountability. Future arrangements are intended to establish clearer expectations around competence and professional standards for those undertaking safety-critical fire engineering work.

The IFE’s involvement in the Transitional Board reflects the organisation’s long-standing commitment to supporting professional competence, education and standards across the fire engineering community.

The IFE will continue to engage with the MHCLG and fellow professional and industry stakeholders alike, duly contributing its knowledge and expertise to this significant programme of reform and actively supporting the ongoing development of a profession that’s properly equipped to meet the complexity of modern buildings and evolving fire safety demands.

*Further information is available online at www.ife.org.uk

Designed to strengthen engagement with those who live in high-rise residential buildings, ‘Principal Accountable Persons’ and professionals operating across the UK’s construction and built environment sectors, the Building Safety Regulator’s bulletins will be packed with valuable information and the latest updates.

Subscribers can expect important safety alerts, new and updated guidance, industry competency resources, practical toolkits and resources, training opportunities and ways in which to share feedback and help shape the ongoing work of the Building Safety Regulator.

Focusing on residents

As a subscriber, individual residents will receive alerts on resources alongside information about when and who to contact regarding building safety-related issues. Individuals can subscribe to the ‘Your Home, Your Safety’ bulletin if they’re a resident of a high-rise building in England.

They will then receive regular updates about how the Building Safety Regulator is working on their behalf to keep families safe in their homes. Residents can sign up online.

‘Principal Accountable Persons’ bulletin

If you’re a ‘Principal Accountable Person’ or an ‘Accountable Person’ with responsibilities for managing safety risks in a high-rise building, you can subscribe to the ‘Principal Accountable Person’-centred bulletin, which will be issued every two months.

Those who choose to sign up will receive critical regulatory updates, building safety alerts, competency resources and practical support from the managing building safety toolkit to help in meeting legal duties. Sign up online.

Industry bulletin

If you’re neither a resident nor a ‘Principal Accountable Person’, but work (or have an interest in) the built environment and building safety arena, you can subscribe to the Building Safety Regulator’s monthly industry bulletin.

This particular bulletin offers the latest news, regulatory alerts, industry guidance from the Building Safety Regulator and competency resources. It also contains vital information about how the Building Safety Regulator actually regulates higher-risk buildings and the overall work designed to raise safety standards for England’s buildings, while improving built environment competence across England and Wales. Sign up online.

Social media

Subsequent to the move to become a standalone organisation earlier this year, the Building Safety Regulator now has its own social media channels. The new channels allow the organisation to provide a direct and focused line of communication to everyone interested in building safety, competence and the Building Safety Regulator’s work.

The social channels share the latest building safety guidance, resources and news, competency updates and opportunities to join online webinars and events.

They complement the Building Safety Regulator’s GOV.UK page, campaign site and the aforementioned bulletins.

Follow the Building Safety Regulator on social media:

• LinkedIn 
• YouTube 
• Facebook 
• X (formerly Twitter) 
• Instagram
• Threads
• Linktree

Photograph: Ibis Hotel, Malaga (Pedro J Pacheco)

Back in May, the Ibis Hotel in central Malaga (pictured) was gutted by a fire that began in a ground floor restaurant and then ripped through all four storeys of the building. The blaze burned for four days having reignited three times. This was partly due to wooden flooring and combustible interior materials that kept feeding hidden ‘hotspots’ long after firefighters believed the blaze was out.

Upwards of 100 guests had to be evacuated from the premises in the middle of the night. The local Fire and Rescue Service used more than two million litres of water in 12 hours in a bid to dampen the flames. Enough water, in fact, to supply a town of 20,000 inhabitants for around 12 hours.

For their part, investigators continue to examine why the fire compartmentation arrangements between floors failed so completely. Fire safety consultants reviewing the incident have since voiced their considered opinion that a working fire suppression system could have contained the blaze to a single area.

What stands out from this particular episode is not the reaction of the tourists who had been sleeping in the building hours earlier. It was the reaction of local residents and business owners alike, alarmed by the reignitions and the smoke subsequently returning to their skyline, who began asking publicly whether the building had been properly inspected and whether or not the city was adequately prepared for a fire like this at all.

The president of the old town’s Residents Association has warned the local council that the historic centre carries a particularly high fire risk, citing timber-framed buildings, a dense cluster of nightlife venues and streets that are far too narrow to be able to accommodate fire engines.

Bar or hotel?

The Constellation Bar located in the Swiss ski resort of Crans-Montana in Valais isn’t a hotel, but the New Year fire that killed 41 people and injured over 100 in the basement of the premises on New Year’s Day most certainly belongs in the same conversation.

The venue was full of exactly the kind of individuals who populate hotels across Europe every season. The bar had not been inspected since 2019, despite annual checks being a legal requirement. Of 128 bars and restaurants in the resort, only 40 were inspected the previous year.

It has since emerged that a fire exit in the basement was locked and that members of staff had known for years the ceiling foam was a potential hazard.

A further fire on 12 July in a Bangkok bar is reported to have killed 36 people and left a further 70 injured. Local outcry has led to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration ordering inspections to be carried out at similar establishments. Officials have inspected 865 establishments to date and closed down 79 venues.¹

Locals – rather than the young skiers and tourists filling the bars of Crans-Montana in the early hours of the New Year – are the ones demanding to know why inspection procedures lapsed and who was supposed to be checking.

Pattern worth noticing

In both cases, the legislation existed. What’s far less clear is whether it was ever enforced and who was watching to make sure that was indeed the case. Whether it’s a hotel or a bar, guests simply assume someone has already asked these questions on their behalf. In reality, they rarely have.

Earlier this year, we wrote about a South Korean scheme making sprinkler status visible to guests before they book, precisely because nobody else was going to ask for them. Malaga and Crans-Montana are further evidence that the people who should be raising these questions – ie the travellers actually staying in or visiting these buildings – are the last to do so.

It’s only post-incident, when residents and owners alike are left staring at a gutted building on their own street, that anyone asks whether fire safety features were regularly updated and tested or sprinkler systems fitted and checked.

If fire safety regimes and the use of fire sprinkler systems are only ever interrogated in hindsight, then neither is really being checked at all.

Tom Roche is Secretary at the Business Sprinkler Alliance (www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org)

Reference

¹https://news.theonlinecitizen.com/2026/07/28/bangkok-orders-79-entertainment-venues-to-halt-operations-after-week-long-inspection

Fire Aware’s CEO Gavin Skelly firmly believes those practitioners who adopt the highest standards of Best Practice should be proud of their stance as opposed to those who still seek to cut corners.

“There’s a growing demand from the public and decision-makers in the supply chains to meet and exceed fire safety requirements,” stated Kelly. “The Building Safety Act 2022 references competence and what it means in terms of knowledge, qualifications and skills. However, members of the public don’t know what competence looks like technically and neither should they be expected to, but they do have a right to expect reassurance that they’re safe when moving around in our towns and cities.”

Further, Skelly commented: “Best Practice every time should be the norm, but that’s not the case. We will continue to demand the highest standards technically and morally to ensure that people and the buildings they inhabit are safe.”

According to Skelly, the public has a right to know they’re protected by the actions and behaviours of those duty holders responsible for putting fire safety measures in place (including those who procure products and services, install them and assess them).

Culture change

“If we are to change the cultural landscape in the fire sector,” observed Skelly, “we must shift the market to provide the public and the supply chains with an identity of that responsible provider. When lives are at stake, providing the consumer with a choice to make about their service provider’s behaviour is every bit as important as identifying their technical ability.”

Fire Aware’s members commit to a Code of Conduct and specific Charters, which take the safety process beyond legislation. The members abide by them. “This is a vocation, not a job, and we should not forget that,” affirmed Skelly.

“That means following the Codes of Practice and legislation and even exceeding them to ensure the public can sleep at night with peace of mind. We still come across instances where safety has been breached by cutting corners to save money. We need commitment and transparency in the way that companies and responsible people do business when safety is at risk.”

Skelly has also emphasised that the fire safety principles are relevant to any sector which relies on Best Practice including the retail industry, hospitality, stadiums, healthcare and the public infrastructure.

Moral and ethical behaviours

Dame Judith Hackitt has called for cultural change through moral and ethical behaviours. That ‘Call to Action’ has been supported by the Building Safety Regulator that was created to promote competence and higher standards.

The Building Safety Regulator, of course, sits at the heart of the Government’s mission to create safe communities, support economic growth and deliver 1.5 million high-quality homes for residents. Its role is part of the drive to advance building safety and restore confidence in the safety of people’s homes.

*Further information is available online at www.fireaware.org

Recent updates to Approved Document B and Technical Booklet E mean that, where a building is registered as a Care Home, fire sprinkler systems are now mandatory for new builds. On paper, this looks like progress. In practice, it only tells part of the story.

Extra care housing, the model under which the Beechmere Retirement Village in Crewe operated before the devastating fire that destroyed it back in 2019, simply doesn’t fall into this bracket. Despite housing elderly and often less mobile residents, many of whom require regular care and assistance, extra care schemes are typically classified in regulatory terms as something in a grey zone.

The end result is that a building can be functionally indistinguishable from the characteristics of a Care Home in terms of who lives there and what assistance they may need in a fire scenario, yet sit entirely in a ‘blind spot’ within the regulatory guidance when it comes to the use of sprinkler protection.

This isn’t a new observation. The Business Sprinkler Alliance has raised this issue before, while the recent proposed amendments to Approved Document B of the Building Regulations have done nothing to close it.

For extra care facilities, the proposal is for enhanced fire detection and a definition change. Outside of this, the guidance remains the same regardless of the realities of who actually lives in these buildings and how quickly they could evacuate in an emergency episode.

Activity versus action

The frustrating element of all this is that Government is not unaware of the gap. There has been activity, consultations, statements and research, but activity is not the same as action.

From where the Business Sprinkler Alliance sits, it increasingly looks like the cards are being shuffled rather than the underlying problem being addressed. Definitions are tweaked and guidance documents are amended at the margins, but the core inconsistency – ie that two buildings housing equally vulnerable people can be treated entirely differently depending on a classification on paper – remains untouched.

Regulator-commissioned research into this area has also left much to be desired. The Business Sprinkler Alliance finds it somewhat odd that, despite making so many observations, the research produced inconclusive and contradictory findings on fire alarms. It’s fair to say this has not given the sector the clarity or direction it needs.

In relation to the question of fire sprinklers, this was pushed into the future of some unknown ‘Phase 2’ which, again, is odd as this would have been one of the key tasks for the research in the first place.

Where there was an opportunity to properly interrogate the risks faced by extra care residents and recommend a proportionate regulatory response, what has emerged instead feels like a missed opportunity, falling some way short of giving policymakers the evidence base required to act decisively.

Growing population

This matters. The population living in extra care housing is growing. As the UK’s demographic profile shifts and more people choose – or are otherwise guided towards – these models of independent-but-supported living, the number of people potentially affected by this regulatory ‘blind spot’ will only increase.

Waiting for another Beechmere Retirement Village-scale incident in order to force change is not an acceptable approach. Slamming the stable door is a poor substitute for rational regulation.

The Business Sprinkler Alliance’s position remains consistent: classification should not be the determining factor in whether a building receives life-saving fire protection. The characteristics of the individuals living there, their age, mobility and reliance on assistance should be central to the conversation.

The Business Sprinkler Alliance urges Government to look again, thoroughly and rationally, at where extra care facilities sit in the fire safety landscape. Collectively, we need to ensure that future guidance reflects the needs of residents rather than the convenience of categorisation.

Iain Cox is Chair of the Business Sprinkler Alliance (www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org)

The two trade bodies have worked in parallel to provide practical advice covering both smaller batteries and larger traction batteries used to power warehouse equipment.

The guidance was launched at the UK Warehousing Association Member Connect event in Felixstowe, where Clare Bottle (CEO of the UK Warehousing Association) and David Goss (technical director at the UK Material Handling Association) discussed key highlights for warehouse operators.

Batteries are vital for decarbonising the economy, whether through mobility (ie e-bikes and e-scooters) or machinery (ie forklifts, which traditionally ran on gas). However, while rare, there’s a risk that unmonitored batteries can go into thermal runaway, in turn realising a fire.

The new guidance covers recommendations including storing batteries in cool, dry conditions, limiting long-term storage and separating battery types. There are also pointers on how to monitor stock, prepare emergency plans and train members of staff.

Positive impact

Clare Bottle explained: “Developments in battery technology are having a huge and positive impact, making our lives more convenient, changing the way in which we move around and assisting with the transition away from fossil fuels. All of these batteries move through the supply chain before ending up in businesses or people’s homes. On that basis, it’s vital we make sure the storage and handling of them is right.”

Bottle continued: “With proper precautions in place, there’s no reason wny batteries cannot be stored safely. Many warehouses are doing so already. This guidance will help others come to terms with the issue and understand how they can manage the risks. It’s a market that will only grow, so it’s important the UK has a wide range of warehouse operators equipped with the right knowledge.”

David Goss responded: “Lithium-ion batteries have been transformative, not only for consumers, but also for powering the equipment that’s essential for today’s fast and efficient logistics sector. As is the case with any technology, sensible precautions are necessary to minimise the risk of an incident.”

Goss added: “While lithium-ion batteries have proven to be safe and reliable, effective risk management requires an understanding of the potential for hazards due to the release of stored energy or chemicals. Through this collaboration, the Warehousing Association and the Material Handling Association have developed complementary guidance addressing the storage of both industrial truck traction batteries and the smaller batteries in warehouse environments.”

*Both guidance documents are available to download at https://www.ukwa.org.uk/li-ion-storage-guidance/

Practical baseline

The guidance is intended as a practical baseline for operators and is not a legal standard. It should be used alongside existing fire and Health and Safety duties, manufacturer instructions, the site fire risk assessment and any applicable insurer requirements.

Where there’s a difference between the guidance and specific manufacturer instructions, the manufacturer’s instructions always take precedence.

As an organisation, the UK Warehousing Association is the dedicated Trade Association for the vital warehousing sector, representing over 1,000 member businesses who, taken together, operate around 400 million square feet of warehousing and distribution space across thousands of locations.

The UK Material Handling Association is the UK’s Trade Association for manufacturers and suppliers of industrial and warehouse trucks, as well as associated equipment and services. Warehousing contributes over £28 billion to the UK’s economy (Gross Value Added) and employs 760,000 people across this vital sector.

The survey was issued to all large landlords (ie those owning 1,000 or more units of social stock), small landlords (those owning fewer than 1,000 units of social stock) who reported previously that they were responsible for relevant buildings and any landlord who had not responded to any previous surveys.

Of the 17,258 relevant buildings reported, 2,078 were identified as having a life-critical fire safety defect relating to the external wall system. Over 99.8% of all relevant reported buildings have had a fire risk assessment carried out on-site. 1,593 relevant buildings (ie 76.7%) are expected to be remediated within the next five years.

Remediation works are complete for a further 6.7% (139) of buildings that are awaiting confirmation from a building works assessment. Of the 2,889 buildings identified as having life-critical fire safety defects since June 2017, 811 (28.1%) have been remediated (or are now completed and awaiting a new building works assessment).

The Regulator of Social Housing will continue to monitor the performance of social landlords in remediating 11 metre-plus tall buildings and the progress they’re making against their plans.

Work “must continue at pace”

Will Perry, director of strategy at the Regulator of Social Housing, explained: “Tenants’ homes should be safe, secure and free from fire safety risks. While landlords are making progress in addressing dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects, this work must continue at pace.”

Perry continued: “We expect Boards and councillors to ensure that risks are effectively managed and remediation plans are delivered promptly. Through ongoing monitoring, inspections and engagement, we will continue to hold landlords to account and keep a strong focus on tenant safety.”

The data referred to in this publication were reported in the Q1 2026-2027 survey, which ran from 23 June to 21 July 2026, with data being reported as at 30 June 2026.

Most relevant buildings reported (ie 83.1%) have been assessed to have no outstanding or historic external wall system-related life-critical fire safety defects in any building works assessment since 14 June 2017.

Life-critical fire safety defects are defined as defects, shrinkages, faults or other failings in a building that give rise to fire safety risks identified by a fire risk appraisal of external wall construction or a fire risk assessment (or equivalent) undertaken to industry standards.

The Regulator of Social Housing advises caution in interpreting changes in data over time as they may be influenced by a change in the number of reported buildings and their assessment status at each quarter end.

Single source

The National Remediation System administered by Homes England is now the single source for building-level data for all relevant buildings over 11 metres, replacing the previous requirement for providers to submit the Building Level Survey alongside their fire risk assessment.

Collection of the Q1 2026-2027 Fire Remediation Survey figures coincided with the ongoing data collection at the building level into the National Remediation System. Landlords have been asked to input data into the National Remediation System, which may impact on figures in the fire remediation survey as data is subjected to increased review.

Following the Q2 2026-2027 survey, the Fire Remediation Survey will move to a six-monthly collection and publication. As such, the subsequent Fire Remediation Survey will be realised in Q4 2026-2027.

The new publication directly reflects the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS-containing firefighting foams and supports today’s organisations in adopting Best Practice throughout the disposal process.

The guidance has been developed for manufacturers, service companies, installers, maintenance providers, end users and waste management specialists involved in the handling of firefighting foams. It covers both fluorinated and fluorine-free foam media, including AFFF, FFFP, fluorine-free foams (F3), Class A and Class F foams as well as wetting agents and water additives.

As environmental legislation continues to tighten across Europe, the guidance explains the applicable standards and legislation governing foam disposal, including European fire protection standards, waste legislation and the latest restrictions on PFAS substances. It proceeds to outline practical measures for handling, storage, transport and disposal, thereby helping organisations to minimise environmental impact, while in parallel maintaining compliance.

A central message of the publication is that all firefighting foam should be regarded as potentially hazardous unless proven otherwise. The guidance emphasises that uncontrolled discharge to land, drains or watercourses must be avoided and that disposal should only be carried out through authorised hazardous waste routes.

Preferred disposal method

For PFAS-containing foams, high-temperature incineration at licensed facilities remains the preferred (and, in many cases, mandatory) disposal method.

The document provides practical recommendations for servicing and maintenance activities, including the containment of foam during testing, appropriate storage and transport arrangements and the recovery of waste foam from both portable extinguishers and fixed suppression systems.

Further, the new guidance encourages organisations to transition to fluorine-free foams where appropriate, remove legacy PFAS stocks and adopt closed-loop recovery systems in order to prevent environmental releases.

The guidance concludes with a simple, but important principle that underpins the entire document: all firefighting foam should be fully contained, treated as potentially hazardous and disposed of through authorised hazardous waste processes in accordance with European standards and environmental legislation.

*Euralarm’s ‘Guideline on Disposal of Firefighting Foam Media (UK and Europe)’ is available online

For most passive fire protection teams, proving it still means digging through text threads, paper sign-off sheets and undated photographs in a bid to reconstruct a timeline that should never have needed reconstructing. The install was compliant. The record just wasn’t built to answer the question on demand. As such, a routine ‘ask’ turns into hours of administration work or, worse still, a dispute.

Onetrace exists to close that gap and grew out of this exact trade. It was founded by a former fire protection company owner who lost a set of drawings on a live project and decided to digitise the process rather than risk such a scenario happening again.

That origin shows in the product: Onetrace isn’t a main contractor’s project system with fire stopping bolted on. It’s not a generic QA tool stretched to fit, either. It’s built around how passive fire teams actually evidence work.

The ‘mechanics’ are straightforward, which is precisely the point. Site teams work directly from the drawings, pinning photos, forms and approvals to the exact location as the job progresses: specification, penetration, seal type. That builds a time-stamped and connected record as the work happens, not after it.

There’s no separate reconciliation step and no reconstruction from memory. When a client, a Tier 1 or an assessor asks for evidence, one click turns that record into a branded and client-ready PDF or Excel report, sorted and ready rather than assembled under pressure.

It’s the same core record whether the job is fire protection, fire stopping, drylining, roofing, façade work, M&E, plumbing, electrical or specialist maintenance. Something that’s used by everyone: from single-site fire stopping specialists to multi-trade enterprises working across the UK.

Case Study: CLM Fireproofing

CLM Fireproofing – itself a £37 million passive fire protection specialist running simultaneous projects across commercial, residential, public sector, social housing, healthcare and defence projects – moved from carbon paper to digital years ago, but still found its systems slow, disconnected and manual, with management spending weekends building spreadsheets just to understand project productivity.

Subsequent to adopting Onetrace as its ‘single source of truth’, the business reported a 50% reduction in administration work and reporting time. As operations manager Heather Eldridge stated: “We have most definitely halved the amount of time we’re spending on discrepancy identification.”

An evidenced, structured record doesn’t just satisfy the compliance ‘ask’ when someone comes checking. It also gives back precious hours to management: hours that used to go into chasing, formatting and reconciling instead of running the business. One record, doing two jobs: proving compliance and cutting administration tasks.

For passive fire protection teams who live under audit pressure on a daily basis, that’s the shift worth making. Stop treating evidencing as a task you take on after the install and start treating it as something the install produces on its own.

*Further information is available online at www.onetrace.com

**Fire Protection Contractors: Digitising Compliance and Quality Assurance