Skip to content
FRA Flow
Menu
SoftwareBS 9792AppPricingAssessorsToolsDocs
Try FRA Flow freeTalk to usLog in

PAS 79 vs BS 9792

How BS 9792:2025 differs from PAS 79, and what to do when a landlord client still asks for a PAS 79-style report.

By Richard Pryce·Last updated

PAS 79 was the workhorse fire risk assessment standard for over a decade. BS 9792:2025 supersedes it for housing, with a more explicit structure, stronger evidence requirements, and a sharper "competent person" framing for sign-off. Some landlord clients still request PAS 79 reports; this page covers the differences and the practical handling.

Where they overlap

Both standards expect:

  • A property profile (type, storeys, units, occupancy).
  • A risk-rated finding list.
  • An action plan tied back to findings.
  • A "competent person" sign-off.

Most assessors who can write a defensible PAS 79 can write a defensible BS 9792 with very little retraining. The thinking is the same; the structure and the evidence depth are tighter.

What BS 9792 adds

Three concrete differences:

  • Section structure is explicit. PAS 79 had a flexible template; BS 9792 expects a specific section layout that maps to the BS 9792 numbering. FRA Flow seeds this template automatically when you create an assessment.
  • Evidence depth is mandatory. BS 9792 requires every finding to be tied to specific evidence (photo, observation, or reference). PAS 79 was more tolerant of summary judgements without underlying photos.
  • Competent-person framing is sharper. BS 9792 is explicit that a named individual takes responsibility for the assessment, not the assessor's organisation. The reviewer sign-off pattern in FRA Flow reflects this.

BS 9792:2025 alignment covers the positive side of the standard in detail.

What FRA Flow does NOT do

  • A PAS-79-shaped report template. The product is built around BS 9792 and outputs reports in that structure. If a client insists on PAS 79 formatting, FRA Flow is not the right tool for that report.
  • Backwards compatibility with PAS 79 numbering. The section numbering in the report follows BS 9792.

When a landlord client asks for PAS 79

Three patterns we have seen at design partner conversations:

  1. They asked for PAS 79 because that is what they always ask for. A short conversation about BS 9792 superseding it usually closes this in your favour. The BS 9792 report covers everything they wanted and is the current standard.
  2. They have a procurement spec that names PAS 79. Procurement specs lag standards updates by months or years. Most are happy with a BS 9792 report once you flag the substitution; some need their compliance lead to sign off on the swap.
  3. Their insurer asked for PAS 79 specifically. Less common; usually the insurer is repeating an outdated request. The reviewer can include a covering note that maps the BS 9792 report sections to the PAS 79 sections they expect to see.

If none of those resolve and the client really insists on a PAS 79-shaped output, FRA Flow is not the right tool for that specific job. Use it for everything else.

Carrying findings forward

Tier 2 (carry-forward annual reviews of an existing FRA) is on the M3 roadmap. When it ships, an existing PAS 79 report already on file for the property will be readable as a reference; you can run a fresh BS 9792 assessment against the same property without losing the historical context.

Where to go next

Next

FSO 2005 evidence trail →