The Growing Pressure of Compliance: How Electrical Safety and Passive Fire Protection Are Affecting Building Managers

Across the UK, facilities managers, landlords, and compliance professionals are experiencing increasing pressure from insurers and auditors to demonstrate that buildings are safe, compliant, and properly maintained. What was once an annual exercise has become an ongoing requirement for clear evidence, accurate records, and timely remedial action.

Electrical compliance and passive fire protection sit at the centre of this scrutiny. When either area falls short, the consequences can be immediate and stressful, ranging from insurance conditions and audit failures to enforcement action and reputational risk.

This pressure reflects a wider shift in how compliance is assessed and enforced across the built environment.

Why insurers and auditors are demanding more evidence

Insurers and auditors are responding to persistent evidence that electrical faults and failures in passive fire protection continue to contribute to serious incidents. As a result, expectations around compliance documentation, inspection frequency, and remedial action have increased significantly.

Organisations are now expected to prove that compliance is actively managed, not reviewed retrospectively.

This includes robust evidence of:

• In-date Electrical Installation Condition Reports

• Completion of required EICR remedial works

• Routine electrical equipment testing

• Fire door inspection and maintenance records

• Fire stopping and compartmentation integrity

• Emergency lighting testing and certification

Where gaps exist, insurers may impose conditions or exclusions, while auditors may escalate concerns to senior leadership or regulators.

Electrical compliance under sustained scrutiny

Electrical safety remains one of the most common areas of audit failure. Ageing installations, undocumented changes, and delayed remedial works are frequently identified during insurer reviews.

An in-date report alone is no longer sufficient. Insurers increasingly expect to see evidence that defects identified through Electrical Installation Condition Reports have been assessed, prioritised, and resolved within appropriate timescales.

Common sources of pressure include unsatisfactory EICR outcomes, incomplete electrical remedial repairs, inconsistent testing across estates, and difficulty locating historic certification during audits.

Without a structured electrical compliance programme, organisations often find themselves responding reactively to insurer demands rather than managing risk proactively.

Passive fire protection now firmly in focus

Passive fire protection has become a key audit priority, particularly in complex or higher-risk buildings. Fire doors, fire stopping, and compartmentation are increasingly scrutinised because defects in these systems directly impact life safety.

Auditors regularly identify issues such as missing fire door inspection records, damaged seals, and fire stopping compromised by refurbishment works. In many cases, these defects are only uncovered when an audit is already underway.

Routine fire door inspections, supported by timely fire door remedial works, play a critical role in reducing this risk.

Similarly, targeted reviews of fire stopping and fire compartmentation help identify hidden failures before they are flagged by insurers or enforcing authorities.

The real impact on facilities and compliance teams

The pressure to remain compliant does not exist in isolation. It has a real operational and personal impact on those responsible for managing buildings.

Facilities managers and compliance leads are often balancing limited budgets, competing priorities, and complex estates. When insurers or auditors request evidence at short notice, the responsibility to respond quickly can become overwhelming.

Stress is commonly driven by short audit deadlines, uncertainty around historic compliance, restricted access to occupied buildings, and limited availability of competent contractors.

In many cases, the pressure is not caused by the presence of defects, but by the absence of a clear compliance framework.

Why reactive compliance increases risk

Reactive compliance nearly always increases both risk and stress.

When inspections and testing are delayed until an audit or insurance renewal is imminent, timelines become compressed. Remedial works must be delivered urgently, access becomes harder to coordinate, and costs rise.

Electrical compliance and passive fire protection both benefit from forward planning. Scheduling emergency lighting testing, electrical inspections, and passive fire protection surveys well in advance allows issues to be addressed methodically rather than under pressure.

How structured planning reduces audit pressure

Organisations that experience fewer audit issues tend to manage compliance as an ongoing process rather than a periodic task.

A lower-stress compliance approach typically includes forward planning of EICRs, routine fire door inspections, regular reviews of fire stopping following building works, and centralised storage of certificates and reports.

Supporting compliance with an up-to-date fire risk assessment also helps demonstrate that risks are understood and actively managed.

When insurers or auditors request evidence, it is readily available and clearly documented.

A joined-up approach to electrical and fire safety

Insurers and auditors increasingly assess electrical compliance and passive fire protection together as part of a wider life safety strategy.

Electrical faults are a common source of ignition. Passive fire protection systems limit the spread of fire and smoke if ignition occurs. Weakness in either area increases overall risk.

A coordinated approach that links electrical testing, remedial works, fire doors, fire stopping, and compartmentation provides stronger assurance and reduces compliance gaps.

At Protest ES Ltd, we support organisations by delivering integrated electrical compliance and passive fire protection services under a single, coordinated framework. This simplifies reporting, improves audit readiness, and reduces unnecessary pressure on internal teams.

Regaining control of compliance moving forward

The pressure from insurers and auditors is unlikely to ease. Expectations around documentation, frequency, and competence continue to rise across all sectors.

However, compliance does not need to be a constant source of stress.

By planning inspections early, addressing defects promptly, and working with competent specialists, organisations can meet insurer and auditor expectations with confidence.

Electrical compliance and passive fire protection are not simply regulatory obligations. When managed proactively, they provide assurance, protect occupants, and support long-term operational resilience.

If increasing compliance pressure is affecting your organisation, now is the time to move from reactive responses to structured planning.

You can begin by speaking to Protest ES Ltd about a coordinated compliance strategy through our Get a Quote page.