EWS1 forms and allegations of fraud – the difficult case of Adam Kiziak and Tri Fire

The recently reported case of Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire has added yet another layer of complexity for leaseholders looking to exit flats (and purchasers looking to buy flats). For those that missed it, Mr Kiziak has been accused of fraudulently signing off fire safety forms by using the credentials of another engineer without permission, and has been suspended by the Institution of Fire Engineers for failing to maintain professional competence and appropriate PI insurance.

For any mortgage application to buy a flat, the lender will require that the flat and/or property has an External Wall System (EWS1) form confirming the property has been assessed for safety is deemed to have a low fire risk. Without an EWS1, lenders will not provide a mortgage. Any party looking to sell a flat will not be able to if there is no EWS1 because there will be no realistic buyer.

But what if there is an EWS1 form in place – but there are allegations it is not valid? This is the situation with Mr Kiziak and Tri Fire. Whether Tri Fire and/or Mr Kiziak have been guilty of any wrongdoing – there are allegations of fraud – is not for us to speculate, and Mr Kiziac denies those allegations.

In the meantime, whether the allegations of malpractice and falsification are true or not, the BBC has reported multiple mortgage lenders have said that they will not lend on a property where the EWS1 has been provided by Mr Kiziak or Tri Fire. That is perhaps unsurprising given concerns around fire safety and mortgage companies’ cautious approach.

So in this instance, what is the solution? Most likely, there will need to be a retrospective EWS1 form provided by a reputable company.

For most properties built pre-2017, cladding was not compliant with Building Regulations and needs to be replaced. So it is likely that the majority of buildings Mr Kiziak has been providing EWS1s have undergone remedial works to fix previously defective cladding issues. If this is the case, these remedial works have been completed and covered up. The only solution would appear to be to open up the works and check the remedial works are compliant.

But who pays for this? It will likely depend on who appointed the fire assessor and who had the obligation to procure an EWS1. We see in some contracts that this obligation is placed on the contractor. In these circumstances, it will be difficult for the contractor to argue it has provided an EWS1 form that is valid if it has come from Tri Fire, so the allegation will be that the contractor was in breach and should foot the bill. Where trade contractors are appointed, often the obligation is only to provide all relevant information to the fire assessor, who is appointed by the Employer (or Management Company as the case may be). In this instance it would presumably be for the Employer to pay to open up the works and arrange for a new EWS1 form to be provided.

What is clear is that this case is a further mess blighting flats and causing stress for their owners, as well as complications for remedial processes. Contractors and developers who have completed remedial works should check to see who provided EWS1s on their projects, and that those that signed them off are valid signatories. If this cannot be confirmed, actions will need to be taken quickly to work out what needs to be done – particularly bearing in mind that getting hold of a fire engineer to be in a position to provide an urgent EWS1 form is like finding unicorn meat.