Passive fire protection under threat from poor training
Iain Hoey
Share this content
Historical issues in passive fire protection
Thameside Fire Stopping has published an article reflecting on long-standing challenges in the passive fire protection industry.
According to Thameside Fire Stopping, when the company entered the industry in 1976, access to tested fire-stopping materials was extremely limited, with only a few suppliers active in the market.
The business explained that older BS 476 standards lacked specific frameworks for testing, leaving gaps in material application and system use.
It said this situation continued until the adoption of EN standards for penetration seals and linear gap seals.
Thameside Fire Stopping added that despite these updates, BS 476: Part 20 is still referenced in projects even though it contains no detailed protocols for testing fire-stopping systems.
Market conditions and changing awareness
The organisation reported that during the 1970s to mid-1990s, passive fire protection was often misunderstood and poorly applied.
It said that many contractors avoided installations due to low awareness and that some suppliers exploited this knowledge gap.
Thameside Fire Stopping noted that awareness began to shift in the 1990s following major fires and bombings in London, including incidents at Broadgate and Bishopsgate.
The company explained that these events raised concerns over smoke control and material performance in real-world conditions.
It added that intumescent paints and board systems also became more widely used to protect structural elements, though these technologies were often misunderstood.
Impact of high-profile incidents
Thameside Fire Stopping stated that events such as the fires at Windsor Castle, Stuttgart Airport, and King’s Cross pushed passive fire protection higher on the industry agenda.
It explained that despite this, many developers continued to neglect fire-stopping installations due to cost and inexperience.
The company reported that from the late 2000s, specialist contractors began to emerge, but progress remained slow and client demand often prioritised appearance over fire safety.
It said this created conditions where untested and low-cost materials were installed by unqualified operatives, leaving buildings at risk.
Grenfell and regulatory change
Thameside Fire Stopping said that these issues were evident in the Grenfell Tower fire, where materials were substituted, incorrectly installed, and poorly overseen.
It added that the disaster resulted in a surge of contractors entering the sector with little or no background in fire safety.
The company explained that inspections since Grenfell show that very few projects pass full review by qualified inspectors, even where third-party certification is claimed.
Thameside Fire Stopping noted that this reflects ongoing weaknesses in oversight, training, and system specification.
It highlighted that the Building Safety Act 2022 introduced new responsibilities for managing fire safety and designated accountable persons for building compliance.
Ongoing industry challenges
The organisation reported that certification schemes and training courses are often inadequate, sometimes completed in as little as one week.
It said that many firms with little relevant experience now offer fire-stopping as an additional service without full knowledge of tested products.
Thameside Fire Stopping added that this practice has undermined long-established specialists and reduced overall standards.
It explained that inspectors frequently encounter systems installed incorrectly, requiring full removal and reinstallation to meet manufacturers’ specifications.
The company emphasised that third-party certification does not replace correct installation in line with tested details.
Relevance for fire and safety professionals
The article is relevant to fire and safety professionals because it highlights ongoing risks in the specification and installation of passive fire protection systems.
It demonstrates how regulatory changes, including the Building Safety Act, place new accountability measures on those managing and overseeing construction projects.
For professionals, the findings underline the importance of competence, training, and adherence to tested system details when inspecting or approving passive fire protection work.
The report also reinforces the need for continued scrutiny of third-party certification and the necessity of thorough site inspections.
Passive fire protection concerns raised by Thameside Fire Stopping: Summary
Thameside Fire Stopping has reported that access to passive fire protection materials was limited in the 1970s.
It said BS 476 standards lacked protocols for testing fire-stopping products.
The company noted that EN standards introduced clearer frameworks for penetration seals and linear gap seals.
It explained that major fires and bombings in the 1990s raised awareness of passive fire protection.
Thameside Fire Stopping stated that misuse and poor installation continued into the 2000s.
It said the Grenfell Tower fire exposed serious failures in specification and oversight.
The company reported that many contractors entered the fire-stopping market without adequate knowledge.
It added that few projects pass inspections even with certification.
The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced accountability for fire safety management.
Thameside Fire Stopping said inadequate training and low-cost installations continue to undermine safety.
It explained that certification does not replace correct installation practices.
The company highlighted widespread failures across care homes, hospitals, and infrastructure projects.
It stated that inspections often require complete reinstallation of systems.
It concluded that ongoing issues demand further investigation and greater industry competence.