Ian Bailey: Reporting to prevent tragedy
17 December 2025
 Across the built environment, one of the recurring themes that continues to emerge is the inconsistent or incorrect installation of passive fire protection. CROSS-UK, the confidential reporting scheme for fire and structural safety, has published many Reports demonstrating that these safety-critical components are frequently compromised in real life projects. The CROSS Expert Panel has called for stronger competence checks and quality assurance to address these issues. Recent CROSS Safety Reports have also highlighted wider concerns, such as terminology and guidance issues that can lead designers and contractors to misinterpret PFP requirements. The value of sharing what goes wrong CROSS operates as a unique safety reporting scheme for the built environment. It encourages professionals to confidentially submit reports of errors, poor practice, near misses and incidents so others can learn from their experience. creating an industry-wide knowledge pool. Every submission provides an opportunity to identify shortfalls, recognise precursors, and spot trends that might otherwise go unnoticed. Reports are anonymised, reviewed by a panel of experts, and published with key learning points for the wider industry. This not only helps raise competence but can also inform regulatory change and advance guidance. Lessons from recent CROSS Safety Reports: Incorrect firestopping despite certification CROSS Safety Report 1197 (published in February 2025) highlights improper firestopping in wall penetrations by a third-party certificated contractor. Although the company held certification, the anonymous reporter believed the operative lacked competence, creating the potential for fire to spread between compartments. The CROSS Expert Panel noted that poor firestopping is not uncommon and stressed the need for certification bodies to provide stronger oversight. Certification should never be a rubber stamp; companies must also ensure operatives are competent, supervised, and supported by robust documentation that maintains the golden thread. This case also exposed wider concerns about certification schemes: inadequate auditing, reluctance to sanction contractors, and a risk that certification could give false assurance. Regulatory changes, such as Gateway 3 under the Building Safety Act 2022 and amendments to the Building Regulations 2010, are expected to improve oversight. At the same time, the ASFP’s work on competency frameworks is setting vital benchmarks for the sector. Serious inconsistencies when installing passive fire protection CROSS Safety Report 1199 (published in November 2023) revealed serious inconsistencies in passive fire protection within a residential development. A fire engineer identified multiple inadequacies: unqualified contractors installing critical life safety systems, unsuitable products used in partitions and doors, and missing safety features such as smoke seals. While specialist accredited installers performed competently, much of the remaining work was defective. The engineer advised the client to delay handover until the issues were corrected. The CROSS Expert Panel stressed that such problems remain typical even after Grenfell, underlining the need for competence, accountability, and structured education. The Panel also said that third-party accreditation schemes remain valuable, but on the proviso that they were rigorously applied and backed by industry-wide competence building. Potential dangers in misusing fire safety terminology In early 2023, CROSS Safety Report 1130 drew attention to the risks caused by inconsistent or incorrect use of fire safety terminology. Terms like “higher-risk residential building (HRRB),” “tall building,” or “complex building” can mean different things to different stakeholders, creating ambiguity that threatens safe design and enforcement. The Expert Panel urged consistent use of clear definitions, referencing standards such as BS 4422:2005 and BS EN ISO 13943:2017. Confusion between terms like “fire door” and “smoke control,” or the misleading use of “fireproof,” can create misunderstandings that compromise projects. Moves toward harmonised terminology, such as the Building Safety Regulator’s adoption of “Higher Risk Building (HRB),” demonstrated steps in the right direction. A call to action to all those working in passive fire protection In July this year, CROSS-UK was appointed by the Building Safety Regulator as the official Voluntary Occurrence Reporting Scheme (VORS) for fire and structural safety under the Building Safety Act until at least 2028. Jointly funded by the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers, and supported by the Institution of Fire Engineers, CROSS’ mission remains to share knowledge that makes the built environment safer. Learning from mistakes, whether our own or from those of others, is essential to building competence, maintaining trust, and ultimately protecting lives, and reporting such mistakes may even be considered a duty in order to enable others to learn as well. Anonymous reports may feel like a small action, but their collective value is immense. Each one becomes part of a shared library of lessons learned, preventing recurring failures and shaping the future of regulation and guidance. The fire protection industry is only as strong as the knowledge it shares. By contributing experiences to CROSS, professionals can help close competence gaps, support accountability, and ensure that when the post-Grenfell culture change in fire safety is promised, it is delivered. Ian Bailey is a Fire Safety Consultant at CROSS. This article is featured in our latest issue of IGNITE.
|
Email to a Friend