Why two fire reports on the same building disagree

A building gets inspected. The report lists a handful of minor items. The next year a different company inspects the same building and returns a defect schedule several times longer, with a quote to match.

Nothing physical has changed. So what has?

There are four explanations. Two are entirely legitimate, one is a genuine structural incentive problem, and one is about who holds the paperwork. Being able to tell them apart is most of what an owner needs.

1. The two practitioners were endorsed for different measures

The most common explanation, the most legitimate, and the one almost nobody considers.

Accreditation to assess fire safety measures in NSW is granted measure by measure, across 36 endorsement categories. A practitioner may assess only the measures they hold, and coverage across the register varies enormously — from about 70% of practitioners for exit signs and emergency lighting down to about 27% for level 2 hydrant and level 2 suppression systems.

So two practitioners can inspect the same building and lawfully produce different reports, because they were assessing different subsets of it.

If last year's report was silent on smoke dampers and this year's is not, the first question is not "who is right" — it is "was last year's practitioner endorsed for smoke dampers at all?" If they were not, the two reports are not in conflict. One of them simply did not cover that measure.

How to check which measures a practitioner is endorsed for.

2. The standard changed

On 13 February 2026, maintaining essential fire safety measures in accordance with AS 1851-2012 became mandatory for Class 1b to 9 buildings in NSW. The requirement had been deferred once, from February 2025.

A building assessed before that date and again after it is being measured against a stepped-up baseline. Items that were previously acceptable, or assessed under a house standard, are now assessed against a published one. A longer defect list after February 2026 may be exactly what a correct assessment looks like.

A related point: a new mandatory Fire Safety Schedule template took effect on 28 July 2025. If your schedule was reissued in the new format, the measures listed on it — and therefore the measures that must be assessed — may be described differently than before.

3. The company that finds the defect is the company that quotes to fix it

This is the structural problem, and it is worth stating plainly because the industry generally does not.

In most of the market, the same business inspects the building and rectifies what the inspection finds. Inspection and testing is comparatively low-value work with high margins; rectification is where the money is. The NSW Government's own 2022 Regulatory Impact Statement put fire safety defect rectification at A$4,000 to A$14,000 per unit for substantially affected apartment buildings — which on a 30-unit block is A$120,000 to A$420,000 of work, against a statement that costs a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

An inspector who also quotes the repairs has a reason to find more of them. That is not an allegation against any particular business. It is a description of how the incentive is arranged, and it applies to honest operators and dishonest ones alike — which is precisely why it is a structural problem rather than a conduct problem.

One published account, from an interested-party source and offered here as a single reported case rather than as evidence of a pattern: a Sydney scheme changed inspection companies; the new company issued a defect scope of about A$36,000, with a 30-day threat to report the building to council and a re-inspection fee if outside contractors did the work. A resident who read the regulations and worked with the strata manager had the scope revised to about A$11,000.

Treat that as one story, not a statistic. What makes it worth repeating is not the saving; it is that the scope was revised at all, and that it was revised by someone asking which standard each item was assessed against.

4. The incumbent holds the history, and a newcomer does not

The existing contractor holds the asset register, the defect history and the baseline test results. A second opinion commissioned without those starts from nothing.

The result is that a second report often reads not as a tiebreaker but as a third position — a different list, differently organised, impossible to reconcile with the first. That is a strong reason to obtain the asset register and prior test records before commissioning a second opinion, not after.

What to do when two reports disagree

In order, because the order saves money:

1. Check the endorsements on both. If one practitioner was not endorsed for a measure, their silence on it is not a finding. This costs nothing and resolves a surprising share of apparent disagreements.
2. Ask which standard each item was assessed against. A defect is a departure from a standard. AS 1851-2012 has been mandatory since February 2026, so "which clause" is a fair and answerable question for every line on a defect schedule.
3. Separate what is required from what is recommended. Rectifying a non-compliance and upgrading a system are different purchases. A defect schedule that does not distinguish them should be asked to.
4. Get the asset register and the baseline results before commissioning anyone else.
5. Ask whether the party assessing is the party quoting. If it is, that is not a reason to distrust the report — it is a reason to get the scope reviewed by someone with no interest in its size.
6. Do this with your manager, not around them. In the reported case above, that was the thing that worked. A manager who is brought in early can hold a contractor to a standard; one who finds out later cannot.

What this page is not saying

• It is not saying any fire protection business inflates defect scopes. The point is about how the incentive is arranged, not about anyone's conduct.
• It is not saying a longer defect list is wrong. Since February 2026 it may be the correct one.
• It is not advice about your building. Nothing here is a view on whether any particular defect should be rectified, or at what price.

Sources

• NSW Government Regulatory Impact Statement, August 2022 — annual maintenance costs and defect rectification at A$4,000 to A$14,000 per unit.
• Building Commission NSW — the AS 1851-2012 maintenance mandate commencing 13 February 2026, and the mandatory Fire Safety Schedule template of 28 July 2025.
• FPA Australia, Fire Safety Assessment Practitioners Register — endorsement coverage across 36 categories, read 14 September 2026.
• The A$36,000 to A$11,000 account is a single published case from an interested-party source, described as such above.

This page is general information. It is not legal advice, not a certification, and not an assessment of any building, any person or any business. No practitioner and no business is named.

Written by Nigell Lee, Director, Reg Mon Aus Pty Ltd. Last verified 14 September 2026.