Overview
There’s no one-size-fits-all inspection frequency that suits every portfolio.
What does work reliably is a risk-based programme that answers three questions:
- Which doors are in scope?
- How often are they checked?
- How are defects tracked to close-out?
Step 1: Define scope
Start with:
- common parts doors (corridors, stair cores, risers)
- higher-risk doors (protected routes, higher-traffic)
- any door sets highlighted by your fire risk assessment
If you run mixed portfolios, a useful starting point is to group doors into tiers:
- Tier A (highest priority): protected routes (stair cores, lobbies), doors with known repeat defects, high-traffic doors
- Tier B: general common parts doors
- Tier C: internal doors where the strategy requires them to be fire doors (often in care settings, plant areas, or specific risk zones)
Step 2: Set a sensible frequency
A practical way to think about it:
- higher-risk / higher-traffic doors → more frequent checks
- lower-risk / low-traffic doors → less frequent checks
The goal is defensible, not arbitrary.
Example frequency bands (table)
| Door tier / context | Typical check frequency | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Tier A (protected routes / high traffic) | monthly to quarterly | Most likely to be damaged and most critical for escape |
| Tier B (general common parts) | quarterly to 6‑monthly | Keeps visibility without overloading resources |
| Tier C (lower traffic / stable areas) | 6‑monthly to annually | Still inspected, but risk is lower |
| Flat entrance doors (where in scope) | annual attempt + managed access | Access is the constraint; records matter |
If you’re unsure where to start, pick a conservative baseline (e.g. quarterly for key routes), then adjust using real defect data.
Step 2b: Decide whether you inspect 100% or sample (and be explicit)
In smaller buildings, you may be able to inspect every in-scope door each cycle.
In larger portfolios, sampling can work, but only if:
- the sampling method is documented (what gets sampled and why)
- high-risk doors are still 100% covered
- you track what was and wasn’t inspected
If you use sampling, keep a simple rule: you can’t “sample away” protected routes.
Step 2a: Decide who inspects (and what “competent” means)
You don’t necessarily need a specialist for every quick visual check, but you do need:
- consistent training
- a standard checklist
- a clear escalation route when defects are identified
In many portfolios, a hybrid model works:
- Routine checks by trained site staff (condition, damage, obvious issues)
- Periodic competent inspections by a specialist to assess door set performance and certification considerations
Step 3: Standardise records
At minimum:
- door register with IDs and locations
- inspection dates and areas covered
- defects logged with priorities
- close-out notes once remedials are completed
If you use a platform such as BORIS, structure outputs so they can be uploaded and tracked consistently.
Door register fields you should have (table)
| Field | Example | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Door ID | FD-A-07 | Makes defects trackable |
| Location | Block A, 2F corridor | Stops ambiguity |
| Door type/role | corridor / stair / riser | Helps risk-tiering |
| Last inspection date | 2026‑06‑15 | Proves coverage |
| Status | pass / defects / out of service | Portfolio overview |
| Notes | access issues / constraints | Avoids “unknown” gaps |
Step 4: Make defects close-out inevitable
The difference between an inspection programme and “paper compliance” is whether defects are:
- prioritised
- assigned
- completed
- evidenced
Practical priority guide (table)
| Priority | Example defect | Target timescale |
|---|---|---|
| P1 (urgent) | door won’t latch; held open by wedge; severe damage | same day to 7 days |
| P2 (high) | closer failing; significant seal damage; glazing defects | 14–28 days |
| P3 (routine) | minor adjustment; cosmetic damage not affecting performance | planned / next visit |
A simple monthly dashboard (table)
| Metric | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Doors inspected vs planned | Whether the programme is actually happening |
| P1/P2 defects open | Immediate risk exposure |
| Close-out within target % | Whether the loop closes |
| No-access doors (flats) | Where access planning needs work |
| Repeat defects by location | Root-cause and quality issues |
Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)
- Changing checklists between inspectors → use one baseline checklist and train to it.
- IDs that change every visit → keep stable door IDs and location references.
- Defects logged but not owned → assign owners and target dates at the point of triage.
- No evidence of close-out → require a simple “done” record (date + note + photo where helpful).
FAQs
Should we inspect every door the same way?
Use a consistent baseline checklist, then add risk-based checks where needed (e.g., high-traffic doors, doors with known recurring defects).
What’s the fastest way to improve outcomes?
Add a close-out loop: defects should have owners, target dates, and a clear “done” record.
What should we do when access to flat entrance doors fails?
Record the attempt: date/time, contact method, and next planned attempt. Consistent “best endeavours” records are often the difference between a defensible programme and one that can’t prove effort.
Do we need photos for every defect?
Not always, but photos make triage faster and reduce disputes. At a minimum, require photos for P1/P2 defects and anything likely to affect scope/pricing.
Related pages
Note
This article is general information. Align inspection frequency and scope to your building’s fire risk assessment and competent guidance.