Overview
Most compliance programmes don’t fail because the work wasn’t done - they fail because the evidence isn’t consistent.
If a new stakeholder inherits the building, they should be able to answer:
- What doors were inspected?
- What was found?
- What was fixed?
- What’s still outstanding?
The goal of an evidence pack (in plain English)
An evidence pack should let you answer, door-by-door:
- what was inspected
- what defects were found
- what was done about them
- what remains open
It doesn’t need to be massive. It needs to be consistent and searchable.
Minimum viable evidence pack (what most teams actually need)
If you’re starting from scratch, aim for a minimum pack that includes:
- a door register with stable IDs
- inspection outputs linked to those IDs
- a remedial tracker (open/closed)
- close-out notes/photos for key defects
A practical evidence pack checklist
Depending on scope, your pack may include:
- door register / asset list (IDs + locations)
- dated inspection outputs
- defect photos (where helpful)
- prioritised remedial schedule
- close-out log (what was fixed, when)
- exceptions list (items out of scope / no access)
Door register: fields that help in real audits
| Field | Example | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Door ID | FD-3-12 | Makes everything traceable |
| Location | Block A / Level 3 / Corridor | Stops “door near lift” ambiguity |
| Door type | Flat entrance / corridor / stair | Helps risk prioritisation |
| Inspection date | 2026-05-01 | Shows programme cadence |
| Status | defects / closed out | Shows what remains open |
What to keep after inspections
For each inspected door (or group), retain:
- the inspection template/output
- defect notes linked to door IDs
- photos where a defect is identified
- a clear priority rating and recommended action
What to keep after repairs
Repairs are where audits get messy if records are vague.
Capture:
- what was repaired (e.g. closer replaced, seals replaced, leaf/frame repaired)
- the reason (defect reference)
- the date and who carried it out
- re-check outcome (closes and latches in normal use)
Repair evidence table (simple and defensible)
| Item | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Door ID and location | Traceability |
| Defect reference | Links repair to the issue |
| Work completed | Shows what changed |
| Date + operative/company | Governance |
| Re-check result | Proves day-to-day performance |
What to keep after replacements
If a door set is replaced, your evidence pack should clearly show:
- which door ID was replaced (and how the new door is identified)
- installation date
- any handover information needed for ongoing inspection and maintenance
Replacement evidence table
| Item | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Old door ID → new ID mapping | Stops “lost doors” after replacement |
| Handover info | Supports future inspection/maintenance |
| Exceptions list | Shows what wasn’t addressed |
Exceptions and constraints (don’t hide them)
Exceptions lists are part of good governance. Record:
- no access attempts (dates)
- areas deferred due to asbestos/access constraints
- items needing design decisions
Common mistakes that weaken evidence packs
| Mistake | Why it causes problems |
|---|---|
| Photos with no door ID/location | Nobody can prove what the photo relates to |
| Defects logged without a close-out status | Programmes drift and risk remains unclear |
| One-off reports with inconsistent language | Hard to compare sites or track progress |
| No record of no-access attempts | Creates compliance risk without proof of “best endeavours” |
Photo evidence: keep it usable
Photos are most helpful when they are:
- linked to a door ID
- taken as a wide shot (context) and a close shot (detail)
- labelled or stored so you can find them later
If photos live in someone’s phone gallery, they won’t survive an audit or a staff handover.
A simple close-out table (good for handover)
| Door ID | Defect | Action taken | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FD-A-01 | Won’t latch | Closer replaced and aligned | 2026-05-10 | Closed |
| FD-A-07 | Seal missing | Seal replaced | 2026-05-10 | Closed |
| FD-B-12 | No access | 2 attempts | 2026-05-10 | Open |
Storage and naming (so you can find things later)
If you’re not using a platform, you can still keep this tidy by:
- using folders per site/block
- naming files with date + site + door ID range
- keeping one “master register” and one “master defects tracker” per site
Simple naming examples
| Type | Example filename |
|---|---|
| Inspection export | 2026-05-01_block-a_doors_fd-a-01-to-fd-a-20.csv |
| Close-out photos | 2026-05-10_fd-a-07_seal-replaced_before-after.jpg |
| Defects tracker | block-a_defects_master.xlsx |
Platforms vs folders (either can work)
Platforms can help with consistency, but the same principles apply:
- stable IDs
- consistent fields
- clear close-out
If you use a platform, make sure outputs are still exportable for governance and handover.
For repairs and replacements
Where repairs/replacements are carried out, record:
- what was changed (e.g., closer, seals, ironmongery)
- why it was changed (defect note)
- any relevant certification/product references
FAQs
Do we need photos for every door?
Not necessarily. Photos are most valuable for defects, exceptions, and higher-risk doors.
How do we keep this manageable across multiple sites?
Use consistent door IDs and templates. Many portfolios use compliance platforms (e.g., BORIS) to keep data structured and searchable.
Related pages
- Fire door inspection
- Fire door repair
- What documentation to expect after fire safety works
- Contact us
Note
This article is general information. Always align your documentation approach to stakeholder needs and competent guidance.