Context
A managing agent was responsible for fire safety across one of the UK's largest managed residential and mixed-use portfolios — acting for multiple freeholders and for blocks owned by resident management companies (RMCs) — spanning buildings that mixed residential and commercial use. That mix is harder than it looks: a single mixed-use building can sit under different regimes for its residential and commercial parts, with different duties, different evidence, and different leaseholders watching the service charge.
The brief
The agent needed a consistent compliance position they could stand behind — to freeholders, to leaseholders, and to a regulator — across buildings of different types and ages. They needed to know which buildings carried the most risk, what was genuinely required versus optional, and how to phase the work so that costs recharged through the service charge were defensible and proportionate. Independence mattered: leaseholders are quick to question spending, and advice from a consultant with no remediation arm is far easier to justify.
Our approach
Apex worked through the portfolio building by building, matching the assessment to the use and construction of each. Residential blocks and the residential parts of mixed-use buildings were assessed under the PAS 79 methodology — now BS 9792:2025 for housing — and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Apex focused on the things that most often fail in managed blocks, carrying out fire door surveys and compartmentation surveys of communal areas and separating construction. Where external walls raised questions, fire risk appraisals of the external wall (FRAEW) under PAS 9980:2022 appraised them on actual risk, applying the standard's proportionality so the agent wasn't pushed toward unnecessary remediation.
Findings were consolidated into a single prioritised schedule across the portfolio, phased so the highest-risk items came first and the spend could be explained line by line. Because Apex holds no installation or remediation arm, the recommendations reflected risk and regulation — not a follow-on contract. For a managing agent answering to leaseholders, that independence is part of the deliverable.
Outcome
The agent moved from building-by-building uncertainty to one portfolio-wide view of risk, requirement and sequence — the position they needed to manage freeholder, leaseholder and regulator expectations at once. A phased works schedule meant spending could be recharged to the service charge on a defensible, documented basis.
What a duty holder can take from this
In managed and leasehold buildings, the hard part is rarely the assessment itself — it's proportionality and defensibility. Leaseholders fund the work, so every recommendation has to be justifiable as required, not just available. A consistent methodology across the portfolio, a risk-ranked and phased schedule, and independent advice with no remediation interest are what let a managing agent act with confidence and explain the spend.