Fire Safety Order 2005 Explained – Article 17 PPM Duties UK

Turning Article 17 into a workable PPM regime

If you are the responsible person, landlord or managing agent, Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order can feel vague until an inspector asks to see your records. The duty is simple in principle but easy to fall short on in practice.

By breaking Article 17 into clear steps, you can map every fire precaution you rely on, place it on a planned maintenance regime and show who is responsible for what. This gives you a structure you can explain to enforcing authorities without needing to quote legislation.

• Understand what Article 17 actually expects in practice
• Map systems, responsibilities and records into a coherent regime
• Prepare to answer enforcement questions with confidence and clarity

---

---

---

What does Article 17 actually mean for your maintenance duties?

Article 17 means you must keep every fire‑safety measure you rely on routinely maintained, working and supported by competent people, with records to prove it. It is the clause that turns fire safety from a one‑off project into an ongoing duty: it sits inside the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, applying to almost all non‑domestic premises in England and Wales and, through later reforms, to common parts and certain elements of multi‑occupied residential buildings. Rather than giving you a fixed checklist or timetable, it creates a general maintenance duty that you must interpret using recognised standards, government guidance and your fire risk assessment, and then turn into a suitable maintenance regime so all fire‑safety facilities, equipment and devices remain in efficient working order and good repair, backed by clear responsibilities and evidence.

Most enforcement pain does not come from exotic legal points, but from very ordinary jobs not being done or proved.

In practice, Article 17 requires you to do four things.

1. Identify all fire precautions you depend on – alarms, detectors, emergency lighting, fire doors, smoke control, risers, evacuation lifts, extinguishers, signage, compartmentation and, in many residential buildings, flat entrance doors and relevant parts of the external wall.

2. Put them on a planned maintenance regime – documented inspection, testing, servicing and repair, not ad‑hoc fixes, aligned with British Standards, manufacturer instructions and the level of risk.

3. Use competent people for inspections and servicing – simple visual checks can be done by trained staff, but life‑safety system servicing must be carried out by people with appropriate training, experience and technical support.

4. Keep robust evidence of what you do – dates, findings and remedials captured in a logbook or digital system, backed by service reports, certificates and, where helpful, photos.

Taken together, these steps turn a vague legal duty into a concrete, auditable PPM regime that you can explain system by system.

If you can describe, for each system, what is done, how often, by whom and where the records live, you are on the right track for Article 17. That explanation should be consistent with your fire risk assessment and any fire strategy or design information for the building.

This information is general and does not constitute legal advice. For building‑ or organisation‑specific decisions you should speak to a competent fire safety professional and, where appropriate, your own legal advisers.

How Article 17 fits into the wider Fire Safety Order

Article 17 is the maintenance arm of your wider Fire Safety Order duties, making sure that precautions identified in your risk assessment remain effective for as long as you rely on them. It fits into a wider framework that requires you to assess fire risk, implement precautions and then keep those precautions effective for as long as the risk exists: under the Order you must identify hazards and people at risk through a fire risk assessment, implement general fire precautions such as detection and warning, escape routes and emergency plans, and then ensure these measures are not “fit and forget” but maintained for as long as you rely on them. When enforcing authorities review a building, they look at both the risk assessment and the maintenance regime as two sides of the same obligation.

What enforcing authorities look for in practice

Enforcing authorities want to see that your maintenance approach is proportionate, organised and backed by real records, not just policies on paper. They focus less on legal wording and more on whether your systems are clearly managed, competently serviced and kept in good repair.

Enforcing authorities will usually look for evidence that your written duties are being delivered in reality, not just good intentions. They will not expect you to quote legislation, but they will expect you to show that your approach to maintenance is proportionate, organised and supported by records.

In practice, that often means they will:

• Look at your fire risk assessment and fire strategy to see which measures you rely on.
• Ask who the responsible person is and how maintenance responsibilities are allocated.
• Sample test and service records for key systems, including how defects are tracked and closed.
• Walk the building to check whether physical conditions match the paperwork.

If your team can confidently show who is responsible, what is being done and how issues are managed, you are far better placed to satisfy an inspection and avoid formal enforcement action.

---

Who is the “responsible person”, and how does that differ from a landlord or managing agent?

The responsible person is the party the law makes answerable for maintaining fire precautions, and that is not always the same as the landlord or the managing agent. Before you redesign or outsource a PPM regime, you need clarity on who actually carries the legal obligation for each building and each area.

How the law defines the responsible person

The responsible person is whoever has overall control of the premises and its fire safety measures, usually the employer in a workplace or the person in control of the premises for business or similar purposes elsewhere. If nobody else fits, the owner is treated as the responsible person.

In summary, the Order defines the responsible person as:

• In a workplace: – the employer, if the workplace is to any extent under their control.
• In other premises: – the person who has control of the premises in connection with a trade, business or other undertaking, or the owner where no such person can be identified.

There can also be more than one responsible person in a building. For example, a freeholder or head landlord might be responsible for common parts, while each commercial tenant is responsible for its own demised areas. In higher‑risk residential buildings, a duty‑holder under newer building safety legislation may also have overlapping responsibilities. When there is doubt, enforcing authorities tend to look at who actually controls safety arrangements and spending on fire precautions day to day.

How landlords and owners fit in

Landlords and owners usually retain responsibility for the structure and common parts of a building, and therefore for many of the shared fire precautions that Article 17 expects you to maintain. Even where a landlord appoints managing agents or contractors, they remain closely connected to the legal duty and to the financial and reputational risk if things go wrong.

In practical terms, a landlord will often:

• Be the responsible person for stairs, lobbies, plant rooms and other communal areas.
• Own and control major fire systems such as alarms, emergency lighting, smoke control and risers.
• Recover the cost of maintenance through service charges or rent, while still carrying the legal risk if the regime is inadequate.

Leases and contracts may allocate costs and tasks, but they do not remove the landlord’s obligation to ensure that competent people are instructed, works are done to appropriate standards and defects are not left unresolved. That is why many landlords now want clearer scopes, standards and evidence requirements in their PPM contracts.

How managing agents and contractors fit in

Managing agents and contractors are commonly engaged to deliver the PPM regime on behalf of the responsible person, even if they are not themselves the primary duty‑holder. Their performance directly affects compliance and how Article 17 is judged by regulators, insurers and residents.

A managing agent typically:

• Arranges PPM visits, responds to defects and keeps records under a management agreement.
• Exercises operational control over building systems, including access and instructions to contractors.
• Advises landlords or boards on priorities, budgets and risk.

Contractors and service providers:

• Carry out inspections, tests, servicing and remedial works.
• Provide certificates, reports and recommendations.
• May hold specialist design or installation responsibilities for particular systems.

Together, these roles shape how Article 17 is delivered day to day, even if they are not always named as the responsible person in formal documents. Fire and rescue services, insurers and regulators will examine contracts, scopes of work, competence evidence and correspondence to see who actually shaped and delivered the maintenance regime. If you act as a managing agent or contractor, you need written clarity on your PPM responsibilities and must still ensure that work follows appropriate standards and is well documented.

Shared duties and cooperation in multi‑occupied buildings

In multi‑occupied buildings there are often several responsible persons and a number of organisations with maintenance roles, all of whom must cooperate. The law expects these parties to co‑operate and co‑ordinate so that Article 17 is met in a joined‑up way rather than piecemeal.

In maintenance terms that usually means:

• Agreeing who is responsible for which systems, areas and costs.
• Sharing information about tests, defects, impairments and remedials.
• Ensuring there are no gaps that leave equipment unmaintained or unchecked.

All Services 4U regularly finds that one of the most effective early interventions is to create a simple responsibility map that names the responsible person, landlord, managing agent and key contractors for each building, and sets out exactly who is accountable for each fire system and its records. Once that is in place, improving the PPM regime becomes much more manageable.

---

Which systems and measures must your PPM regime actually cover?

Your PPM regime under Article 17 must cover every facility, piece of equipment and building feature you rely on in your fire risk assessment and fire strategy, not just the obvious alarms and extinguishers. If a measure is part of your plan to prevent fire, detect it, warn people or support safe evacuation, it needs a defined inspection and maintenance approach.

Active fire safety systems you must maintain

Active fire safety systems are the obvious starting point because they move, sense or act when a fire occurs, and their failure is immediately visible in an incident. They are usually high‑priority for enforcing authorities because lives may depend on their performance in the first few minutes.

Active systems typically include:

• Fire detection and alarm systems: – panels, call points, detectors, sounders, interfaces and voice alarm where installed.
• Emergency lighting: – escape route fittings, exit signs and standby lighting needed for safe evacuation.
• Fire‑fighting equipment: – portable extinguishers, hose reels and any fixed suppression such as gas or kitchen systems.
• Sprinklers and suppression systems: – pipework, pumps, tanks, valves and control equipment.
• Dry and wet risers: – inlets, outlets and associated pipework for fire and rescue service use.
• Smoke control and AOV systems: – vents, smoke shafts, fans, dampers, control panels and local detectors.
• Evacuation or fire‑fighting lifts: – lift cars, controls, power supplies and interfaces with alarms and smoke control.

After listing the active systems, check that each one appears in your PPM schedule with a clear inspection and service regime and an agreed place to store records. Gaps here are one of the quickest ways to run into enforcement or insurer problems.

Passive measures and building fabric in scope

Passive fire precautions are just as important for Article 17 because they control how fire and smoke spread and whether escape routes remain usable. They are often overlooked unless you plan formal inspections, because they are built into the fabric of the building and may only be checked when something goes wrong.

Passive measures typically include:

• Fire doors and shutters: – doors to stairs and corridors, flat entrance doors, lobby doors, shutters and their closers, hinges, seals and glazing.
• Compartmentation and fire‑stopping: – walls, floors, ceilings and service penetrations that provide fire‑resisting separation.
• Escape routes and exits: – stairs, corridors, ramps, final exit doors, locks, panic hardware, handrails and floor finishes.
• Signage: – fire exit signs, directional arrows, fire action notices and equipment location signs.
• External walls and balconies: – construction and materials where these affect fire spread and safe evacuation.

If your fire risk assessment or fire strategy relies on a passive measure, Article 17 expects you to have thought about how often it should be inspected, how defects will be recorded and how quickly they will be repaired. That might mean formal surveys at set intervals, combined with day‑to‑day checks by caretakers or concierges.

How this links back to your fire risk assessment

Your fire risk assessment should drive your PPM decisions by identifying which measures are critical, where vulnerabilities lie and how failure would affect life safety. A strong Article 17 regime looks like the maintenance arm of your risk assessment, not a generic list of tests copied from a standard.

In practice, that means:

• High‑risk systems (for example, alarms, smoke control or doors to single stairs) may justify more frequent checks.
• Lower‑risk measures may be inspected less often but still kept under periodic review.
• Any significant changes in the building, occupation or fire strategy should trigger a review of both the risk assessment and the PPM regime.

Aligning your PPM schedule explicitly with your fire risk assessment also makes it much easier to explain and defend your approach to enforcing authorities, insurers and boards. They can see that maintenance decisions are risk‑based rather than arbitrary.

---

What does a “suitable” PPM schedule look like under Article 17?

A “suitable” PPM schedule under Article 17 is one that is risk‑based, aligned with relevant standards, realistic for your resources and actually delivered in practice. It should clearly describe what is checked, how often, by whom and how defects are handled, so that you can show regulators, insurers and boards that your maintenance regime is controlled rather than ad‑hoc.

Typical frequencies for common systems

Most buildings follow a pattern of weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual and event‑driven checks, with roles split between in‑house staff and specialist contractors. The outline below is illustrative only: you must still align with specific standards, manufacturer instructions and your own fire risk assessment.

Weekly or routine checks (often by on‑site staff):

• Fire alarm: – operate at least one call point in rotation and confirm the panel and sounders respond.
• Escape routes: – confirm routes are clear, fire doors close effectively and final exits open easily.
• Obvious faults: – note and report visible damage to fire doors, call points, signage or other fire precautions.

These simple weekly checks catch obvious problems before they compromise life‑safety systems.

Monthly checks (often by trained staff):

• Emergency lighting: – carry out a short functional test and check fittings operate and are not damaged.
• Fire‑fighting equipment: – confirm extinguishers are present, accessible and free from obvious damage or low pressure.
• Smoke control and AOVs: – where permitted, run simple functional tests in line with manufacturer guidance.

Monthly tasks deepen this assurance and support the formal servicing carried out by competent contractors.

Quarterly and six‑monthly checks (usually by competent contractors):

• Fire alarm systems: – inspect and test devices, panels and interfaces to the relevant British Standard.
• Emergency lighting: – extend testing duration and coverage as specified in the standard.
• Smoke control systems: – test components and whole‑system operation against design and risk.

Quarterly and six‑monthly visits are where most technical testing, adjustment and fault‑finding take place.

Annual and longer‑interval checks (competent contractors):

• Fire‑fighting equipment: – service extinguishers and hose reels in line with applicable standards.
• Dry and wet risers: – test and inspect at intervals set out in guidance for your building type.
• Sprinklers and fixed systems: – complete annual services and any required flow or pressure tests.
• Fire doors and compartmentation: – complete detailed inspections and remedials at risk‑based intervals.
• Lifts, including evacuation lifts: – carry out statutory and manufacturer‑recommended inspections and record findings.

Annual and longer‑interval checks provide formal confirmation that systems still meet design intent and legal expectations.

Event‑driven actions:

• After incidents or near misses: – review whether systems performed as intended and adjust maintenance if needed.
• After alterations or refurbishments: – verify new works have not compromised alarms, doors, compartmentation or escape routes.
• After severe weather or damage: – inspect roofs, external walls and plant rooms for issues affecting fire precautions.

A schedule is only “suitable” if it is deliverable with your staff and providers, understood by those doing the work and backed by a simple process for raising, prioritising and closing defects.

Using British Standards and your FRA to refine frequencies

British Standards and manufacturer instructions give you a strong baseline for test and service intervals, but Article 17 still expects you to apply judgement based on your risk assessment. A tailored schedule shows regulators and insurers that you have thought about your particular buildings and occupants rather than applying a generic table.

A sensible approach is to:

• Start with the test and service intervals from relevant British Standards and manufacturer instructions.
• Use your risk assessment to decide whether local factors justify shorter or, occasionally, longer intervals.
• Document why you have chosen particular frequencies, especially where you deviate from typical benchmarks.
• Review your schedule whenever there is a material change in building use, systems or occupancy.

This helps you avoid under‑maintenance, which increases life‑safety risk, and over‑maintenance, which consumes budget without a clear benefit. Enforcing authorities usually react well when they can see that your choices are explicitly risk‑based and documented.

Recording tests, defects and remedial works

A well‑designed PPM schedule is only as strong as the records that show it is being delivered and that defects are addressed. Regulators, insurers and boards all place great weight on how you capture and close out work, not just whether invoices have been paid.

Good practice typically includes:

• A fire logbook or digital system recording all routine checks, tests, services and call‑outs.
• Clear fields for date, person, system, test carried out, results, defects and follow‑up actions.
• A mechanism to track open defects, assign responsibility and record completion with evidence such as photos or certificates.
• Periodic management reviews of outstanding actions, trends and recurring issues.

All Services 4U often helps clients move from scattered paper records and email trails to structured digital evidence that can be exported quickly into board packs, insurer dossiers or regulator responses when needed. That kind of visibility is one of the most practical ways to show Article 17 is being met.

How enforcing authorities check whether your schedule is working

Enforcing authorities usually check Article 17 compliance by testing whether your schedule is realistic, delivered and supported by the state of the building. They look at both the paper trail and the physical conditions on site, rather than relying on one or the other.

In a typical visit they may:

• Confirm who the responsible person is and how duties are delegated.
• Review your fire risk assessment and any fire strategy or design information.
• Sample recent test and service records for alarms, lighting, fire doors and smoke control.
• Check that serious defects are tracked and rectified within reasonable times.
• Compare your records against what they see on the walk‑through.

If they find serious weaknesses, they can move from advice to formal notices and, in the worst cases, prosecutions. Keeping a realistic schedule and a clean evidence trail is therefore both a safety measure and a protection against enforcement and insurance disputes.

---

---

What goes wrong with PPM in practice (and how can you avoid common failure modes)?

PPM under Article 17 usually fails not because organisations do not care about fire safety, but because responsibilities, standards and evidence are not joined up. The same failure patterns appear repeatedly when regulators, insurers or boards look closely, and recognising them early gives you a chance to fix them before they lead to enforcement or claims issues.

Common failure modes with contractors and regimes

Many of the issues enforcement bodies encounter have less to do with individual engineers and more to do with how contracts and governance are set up. Where no one owns the overall regime, Article 17 quickly unravels and maintenance becomes reactive, inconsistent and hard to defend.

Common failure modes include:

• Scope gaps: – key systems such as smoke control, risers or flat entrance doors are omitted from all contracts.
• Paper‑only compliance: – visits occur and invoices are paid, but reports lack detail on tests and findings.
• No defect closure process: – the same critical issues appear on multiple reports without authorised remedials.
• Price‑driven selection: – providers are appointed on day rate alone with little scrutiny of competence or track record.
• Diffuse accountability: – landlords, agents and contractors all assume someone else is responsible for a system.

You can avoid many of these traps by treating Article 17 as a governed process, with clear scopes, standards, KPIs and named owners, rather than a loose collection of jobs given to the cheapest available contractor.

Red flags in your own records and buildings

Your own records often reveal problems before an enforcing authority does, if you are willing to look at them critically. Simple sense‑checks can highlight where your PPM regime is not working as intended and where you may need to change provider, scope or governance.

Red flags to watch for include:

• Service reports describing systems as “unsatisfactory” without clear follow‑up actions or completion dates.
• Long‑running temporary measures or impairments that never appear in a closure log.
• Missing or illegible records for key systems when you try to produce them for insurers, lenders or board members.
• Buildings where tenants, residents or staff raise repeated concerns about alarms, doors, smoke vents or escape routes.

When All Services 4U first reviews a building, we often start by asking you to pull a small sample of real records – for example, the last year of alarm, emergency lighting and fire door reports for one or two higher‑risk properties. That snapshot usually makes it obvious whether your current Article 17 regime is genuinely robust or mostly theoretical, and has helped many organisations resolve issues informally before they escalate into formal notices.

---

How can you make Article 17 PPM manageable across your portfolio?

Article 17 can feel overwhelming if you look at every clause and every building separately, but it becomes manageable when you treat it as a portfolio‑wide framework. Clear responsibilities, standardised schedules by asset type, competent providers and a common evidence model across sites make it much easier to control and explain your position.

Start with a clear PPM matrix by building and system

A practical way to bring order to Article 17 is to turn your obligations into a simple matrix: assets down one side, buildings across the top, with frequencies, owners and record locations in the cells. This gives you and your board a single view of where you stand and where the gaps are.

For each building you can:

• List core systems such as alarms, emergency lighting, smoke control, risers, fire doors, compartmentation and external walls.
• Note who is responsible (landlord, RTM/RMC, managing agent, in‑house team, contractor) and under which agreement.
• Record test and service frequencies, aligned with standards and your fire risk assessment.
• Identify gaps or overlaps where no provider is named or several are touching the same system.

Once you have that picture, you can standardise contracts, track performance and brief new providers efficiently when you change. The same matrix also becomes a powerful assurance tool for boards, accountable persons and insurers.

Governance, contracts and competence

Even the best PPM matrix fails if contracts and governance do not support it, so your Article 17 framework should give providers the clarity and authority they need. It should also set expectations about competence and evidence from day one, so you are not relying on vague assumptions when enforcement pressure arrives.

Helpful steps typically include:

• Building contract scopes that explicitly reference relevant British Standards and required evidence outputs.
• Requiring providers to demonstrate competence, for example through third‑party certification, training records or references.
• Setting simple KPIs such as on‑time attendance, percentage of reports with clear defect coding and time to close critical actions.
• Agreeing who can authorise remedial works at different values and how exceptions are escalated to landlords, boards or accountable persons.

From All Services 4U’s experience, organisations that treat fire safety PPM as part of their overall risk and governance framework, rather than just another maintenance cost, find it much easier to justify spend and demonstrate compliance to auditors and regulators.

Digital records and an “evidence culture”

A manageable Article 17 regime depends on an evidence culture, where staff understand that doing the work and proving it are equally important. Paper logbooks can work at small scale, but portfolios quickly benefit from digital tools and simple dashboards that make gaps and trends visible.

Whatever platform you use, the aim is to:

• Capture routine checks, tests, services and remedials in a consistent, searchable format.
• Attach supporting evidence such as photos, certificates and drawings to each job or asset.
• Enable quick reporting by building, system, provider or risk type for boards, insurers and regulators.
• Make it clear who is responsible for data quality and for chasing missing or late records.

A modest investment in structure here pays off when you need to respond quickly to an inspection, defend a claim or reassure a resident group that fire precautions are not just installed but actively maintained. All Services 4U often works with clients’ existing CAFM or document systems so you can improve evidence without having to replace every tool you already use.

---

How can a competent provider help you meet Article 17 duties in practice?

Even with clear responsibilities and a good plan, you still need providers who can translate Article 17 into day‑to‑day work on site. A competent partner should help you design, deliver and evidence your PPM regime rather than simply selling a bundle of visits at the lowest price.

What “good” looks like from a maintenance provider

A strong provider will focus on the whole Article 17 picture, not just the next job, and should be as interested in closing risk as in closing work orders. They need to understand how their work fits into your fire strategy, fire risk assessment and wider governance.

In practice, that means they will:

• Help you map which systems they are responsible for and how their scope fits with other providers.
• Align testing and servicing with relevant British Standards, manufacturer instructions and your fire risk assessment.
• Provide clear, structured reports that distinguish routine findings from safety‑critical defects.
• Offer practical options and priorities for remedial works, not simply present red‑amber‑green lists.
• Support governance by attending review meetings and helping explain trends to boards, landlords or residents.

All Services 4U’s teams, for example, are used to working with RTM/RMC boards, landlords, managing agents and housing providers who want both strong technical delivery and clear, board‑safe communication about Article 17 risk.

How All Services 4U typically structures support

A typical engagement to strengthen Article 17 maintenance across one or more buildings is structured, so you can see how your organisation will move from discovery to delivery and assurance without losing control. The aim is to improve compliance while making your workload more manageable.

Step 1 – Discover your current position

We review existing contracts, fire risk assessments and a small sample of service records to understand what you already do and where evidence is thin. This often involves focusing first on one or two higher‑risk buildings.

Step 2 – Map gaps against duties and risk

We compare your current PPM regime against legal duties, current standards and your own risk appetite. This highlights missing systems, unclear scopes, competence concerns or weak evidence trails.

Step 3 – Propose a practical PPM matrix

We design a draught PPM matrix by building and system, suggesting realistic frequencies, clear responsibilities and evidence outputs. Where needed, we phase changes to respect your budgets and operational constraints.

Step 4 – Deliver and evidence agreed regimes

We then take on agreed test and service regimes, providing structured reports, clear defect coding and support for remedial decisions. Evidence is captured in a way that supports insurers, lenders and boards as well as regulators.

Step 5 – Review, refine and respond to change

Finally, we build in periodic reviews so that schedules, scopes and records stay aligned with changes in law, guidance, buildings and occupants. That keeps your Article 17 regime live rather than static.

This kind of structured support helps you move from reactive, contractor‑led maintenance to a planned, risk‑based Article 17 regime that is easier to defend and easier to run across a portfolio.

---

---

Book Your Free Consultation With All Services 4U Today

All Services 4U can help your organisation turn Article 17 from a vague legal risk into a clear, workable maintenance and evidence regime across your buildings. A short, focused consultation is often enough to highlight gaps, clarify responsibilities and recommend practical next steps that fit your risk appetite and resources.

What you can expect from an Article 17 PPM review

A free consultation is designed to be low‑friction and high‑value, giving you a clear picture of your current strengths and weaknesses. It lets you, whether you are a landlord, RTM/RMC board, managing agent, accountable person or compliance lead, test our approach against your real pressures before you commit to any wider programme.

In that conversation you can expect us to:

• Ask for a small sample of documents – typically your latest fire risk assessment, PPM schedule and one or two recent service reports.
• Talk through your current responsibilities and pain points, including any regulator, insurer, lender or resident pressures.
• Highlight any obvious gaps or inconsistencies in your existing Article 17 arrangements.
• Outline practical options – from tightening scopes and records with current providers to switching or consolidating services.

By the end of that review you should have a clearer view of your maintenance risk and evidence position, plus a realistic sense of the effort required to reach a more defensible state.

Low‑friction next steps

If you decide to go further, you remain in control of the pace and scope, and you can choose the starting point that best suits your risk and budget. Some organisations start with a single higher‑risk building; others prefer a portfolio‑wide PPM review with phased changes to contracts and governance.

Common next steps include:

• Commissioning a structured Article 17 / PPM health‑check for a sample of properties.
• Asking All Services 4U to take on specific systems – for example, alarms, emergency lighting or fire doors – where current provision is weakest.
• Working with us to design a standardised PPM and evidence model that you can use across all providers.

Whatever route you choose, the aim is the same: clear responsibilities, competent maintenance and strong evidence so that landlords, boards, residents, insurers and regulators can see that your fire precautions are being maintained as the law intends.

This page is for general information only and is not legal advice. If you are unsure how the Fire Safety Order and Article 17 apply to your buildings, you should consult a competent fire safety professional and, where necessary, your own legal advisers.

If you want to understand quickly where you stand and how to reduce your Article 17 risk, the simplest step is to book a free consultation with All Services 4U and let us walk through your current maintenance and evidence position with you in detail.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Explore our FAQs to find answers to planned preventative maintenance questions you may have.