Only a quarter of social housing providers are confident that their blocks have a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment in place.

The figures were unveiled last month by Andy Cloke of the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) at a Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) conference. He told delegates that some fire risk assessments were not “worth the paper they are written on”, according to Inside Housing magazine.

“We are still finding buildings with significant problems,” Mr Cloke told delegates. “It wasn’t until Lakanal that we got a bit of a jolt in the arm and we started to uncover the sort of problems we are now aware of.”

Interestingly, delegates were asked the same questions before the start of each seminar and then at its conclusion.

Just 40% of respondents said they were confident that they had undertaken a suitable and sufficient risk assessment on all their stock, but this figure dropped to 25% when asked again at the end of the sessions.

Meanwhile, 45% at the start of the sessions thought their housing stock was ‘fit for purpose’, but this figure dropped to 27% at the end of the sessions.

The figures were collated from responses to four seminars held in the first half of 2010. A further three have been held since then, with plans for another four during the rest of 2011.

Nearly half of all respondents at the end of the seminars said they were not confident that the person undertaking their fire risk assessments was wholly competent.

93% said they were not confident that all their tenants fully understood their and their landlord’s fire safety responsibilities.

According to a CFOA report, feedback from the seminars included confusion about what is considered to be a ‘suitable and sufficient’ risk assessment; the relationships between tenant and landlord; tenants not at the forefront of the landlords’ minds; and minimal understanding of the physical structure of the building.

The report went on: “The [seminars] highlighted that although there was guidance on fire safety available it was lacking in practical details of how deliver an appropriate level of fire safety, and took little account of the needs of residents as opposed to the physical structure of the buildings.”