Adam Kiziak Update: Expelled Fire Risk Assessor
This Adam Kiziak Update sets out what has happened, what expulsion from the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) actually means, how it affects EWS1 and FRAEW reports, and what practical steps you should take if your building is affected. Property owners, buyers, managing agents and lenders have spent the past year trying to work out what to do when fire safety paperwork bears a name that has since become a lightning rod: Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire. This article uses confirmed, on-the-record sources and avoids the rumour mill.
Quick summary - Adam Kiziak Update
- The IFE investigated complaints about Mr Kiziak through its disciplinary process. It first imposed sanctions in 2024, then suspended his membership, and in March 2025 confirmed his expulsion.
- The IFE has published an outcome page stating the case ultimately concluded in Mr Kiziak’s expulsion.
- Earlier statements and trade press reported breaches related to professional competence and professional indemnity insurance during the period leading up to expulsion.
- Multiple professional and industry bodies issued member advisories and timelines as the case progressed.
If you only need one takeaway from this Adam Kiziak Update: where EWS1 or FRAEW documents carry his name, expect enhanced scrutiny. Plan for verification or replacement by a demonstrably competent professional, and manage lender communications early.
Adam Kiziak Update: the timeline that matters
August 2024: The IFE suspended Mr Kiziak following disciplinary findings. This initial suspension was publicly referenced by housing and industry press.
January 2025: Industry briefings noted the sanction’s extension while further complaints were assessed, heightening uncertainty for buildings that relied on his outputs.
March 5, 2025: The IFE published an updated statement confirming that the matter had progressed from suspension to expulsion after its formal process concluded. The IFE’s member sanctions page states that the investigation ultimately concluded in expulsion.
Spring 2025: Further reporting explored impacts on affected buildings and mortgages, as owners and buyers tried to understand whether their documents would still be accepted.
Throughout, the IFE emphasised that it followed its complaints and disciplinary procedures, investigating new information as it arose, and taking proportionate action culminating in expulsion.
Adam Kiziak Update: what “expelled from the IFE” actually means
The IFE is a leading professional body for fire engineers. Membership signals adherence to its Code of Conduct and, for many practitioners, coincides with Engineering Council registration via IFE. Expulsion is the end point of a disciplinary process where the member loses membership status. Two points matter for clients and lenders:
- Competence and acceptability: Many organisations use professional membership and registration as a proxy for competence. If the named signatory has been expelled, that underpinning assurance is no longer available, and stakeholders may look for alternative evidence.
- Individual vs company: Sanctions apply to the individual, not directly to the company. That distinction doesn’t automatically save a document if its credibility rests on the expelled individual’s signature and judgement. Expect case-by-case scrutiny by lenders and managing agents.
EWS1 and FRAEW: what’s at stake
EWS1 forms
- What they are: EWS1 is a lender-facing form introduced by RICS, UK Finance and the Building Societies Association to help valuers and lenders assess external wall risk as it affects mortgage security. It is not a statutory certificate and not a building-wide “pass/fail” safety endorsement.
- Why it’s tricky now: Where an EWS1 bears the name of an individual later expelled from the IFE, lenders may question the reliability of the original assessment. Some have withdrawn offers in cases where confidence in signatories collapsed. That does not mean every EWS1 by that person is automatically invalid, but it does mean acceptance cannot be assumed.
- Common lender response: Request a fresh EWS1 or a formal technical review by a demonstrably competent fire engineer, especially for higher-risk façades or where the original evidence base is thin. Trade coverage and professional advisories flagged heightened caution across the market after the suspension and expulsion.
FRAEW (Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls)
- What it is: A structured, evidence-driven appraisal under PAS 9980 methodology, typically instructing an experienced fire engineer and, for higher-risk or complex buildings, often someone with IEng or CEng registration.
- Why it matters more: The FRAEW is the analysis that should underpin EWS1 conclusions. If your FRAEW was signed or led by a now-expelled individual, expect risk managers, insurers and lenders to ask for a peer review or replacement to ensure the appraisal meets competency and evidence standards. This is especially likely where intrusive investigation, photographic records or design details are missing or inconclusive.
Practical steps if your paperwork is affected
- Assemble the evidence pack. Collate the original EWS1, any FRAEW or fire engineer’s reports, intrusive investigation photos, cladding specifications, façade drawings and fire strategy notes. Thin files trigger rework. Thick, auditable files get lenders comfortable faster.
- Map the scope of reliance. Identify who relied on these documents: leaseholders, freeholder, managing agent, insurers, current buyer, mortgage lender. Knowing the dependency chain helps you prioritise replacements or reviews in the right order.
- Commission a competence-led review. Instruct a suitably qualified fire engineer to review the file and advise whether a re-issue or full re-appraisal is warranted. For complex or higher-risk buildings, expect a Chartered or Incorporated Engineer to lead or sign off.
- Manage lender communication early. Do not wait for underwriters to notice a name. Share your remediation plan and timescales. Lenders and valuers have already been briefed by trade bodies and press coverage; surprise is not your friend.
- Confirm PI insurance for the replacement team. Lenders and freeholders will want to know the firm carrying the risk for any new opinion holds adequate PI cover. Issues around PI adequacy were part of the wider industry concern.
- Record decisions and rationale. Keep a simple audit trail: what was wrong with the original basis, what you did to fix it, and who signed the replacement. This shortens future conveyancing and valuation queries.
- If you are midway through a sale: Discuss with your conveyancer and broker whether a lender switch or a conditional offer extension makes sense while the review completes, rather than letting a chain topple.
How lenders and the market have reacted
In late 2024 and early 2025, coverage across housing and fire-safety press highlighted that lenders were taking a harder line where confidence in signatories and their competence collapsed. Reports referenced mortgage offers being pulled pending fresh assurance. Professional bodies and insurers warned members about the implications for EWS1 validity in practice, even if the form itself is not a statutory instrument. The IFE, for its part, stressed its process and the ultimate expulsion outcome, making clear that when credible complaints arise, it investigates and, if justified, imposes and escalates sanctions. That clarity reset lender risk stance.
What this means for different stakeholders
Leaseholders and buyers
- Expect extra diligence on any building documents bearing the name of an expelled assessor. If your buyer’s lender will not accept them, you will likely need a replacement EWS1 and possibly a fresh or peer-reviewed FRAEW. Budget time and cost accordingly.
Freeholders and managing agents
- Take the initiative: identify affected buildings, instruct competent reviews, and issue clear resident communications. Uncertainty kills transactions; clarity, even when inconvenient, stabilises value.
Lenders and valuers
- Ensure instructions specify competence and PI coverage, especially for higher-risk façades. Use a standardised checklist for evidence sufficiency and intrusive investigation, so you are not stuck reassessing again in six months.
Insurers
- Align underwriting requirements with PAS 9980 competence expectations. Where earlier reports are retained, consider endorsing policies conditional on a time-bound peer review by a suitably qualified engineer.
Frequently asked questions
Is my EWS1 invalid if it is signed by someone later expelled from the IFE?
EWS1 is not a statutory certificate; it is a lender risk tool. Whether a lender accepts it depends on confidence in the signatory and the underlying evidence. In practice, many lenders have asked for a fresh EWS1 or a technical review where the signatory later faced discipline or expulsion. Expect challenge and plan for replacement or review, especially for medium- and high-risk façades.
Does expulsion automatically mean all their work is wrong?
No. Expulsion concerns the member’s standing with the professional body, not an automatic nullification of every opinion they ever gave. That said, lenders, valuers and insurers reasonably reassess reliance when a signatory loses professional status.
If sanctions apply to the individual, can Tri Fire’s documents still stand?
Sanctions apply to the individual, not the company. But if an EWS1 or FRAEW relies on the expelled individual’s signature and judgement, stakeholders will often insist on a new signatory or a full re-appraisal before relying on it.
What were the issues leading up to expulsion?
Industry and professional reports referenced breaches tied to competence and professional indemnity insurance, followed by suspension in 2024 and expulsion confirmed by the IFE in March 2025. For precise wording and process, rely on the IFE’s published statements.
We have a sale stuck because the lender will not accept our EWS1. What now?
Commission a replacement EWS1 supported by a robust, PAS 9980-led FRAEW or obtain a peer review from a demonstrably competent engineer. Share the plan with the lender immediately, with target dates, to preserve the chain.
Who counts as competent for replacement work?
For higher-risk residential buildings, many stakeholders expect a Chartered or Incorporated Engineer with a fire-engineering background to lead or sign. Competence is about knowledge, experience and PI cover as well as letters after a name.
How to communicate with residents and buyers without causing chaos
- Use one version of the truth. Publish a factual note: what documents are affected, what the IFE has confirmed, and what you are doing now. Link your audience to the IFE’s own statements to avoid misinformation.
- Give a realistic plan. Name the replacement engineer, outline scope, confirm whether intrusive checks will be repeated, and give a target date.
- Explain the why. Buying confidence rests on process integrity. When residents understand that a robust FRAEW underpins the new EWS1, they stay patient.
- Share costs and options. If the freeholder will fund the replacement, say so; if costs will hit the service charge, explain why and when.
Adam Kiziak Update - Note on sources and scope
This Adam Kiziak Update relies on the IFE’s published statements confirming expulsion, plus widely reported industry coverage that documented the suspension, sanction extension and market reaction. It does not repeat unproven allegations. If you are a freeholder, managing agent or lender making decisions on reliance, always check the primary IFE statements first.
Key Takeaways - Adam Kiziak Update
- Identify buildings with documentation signed by Mr Kiziak.
- Commission a competence-led review or replacement FRAEW/EWS1, prioritising the sales pipeline.
- Confirm PI cover and competence for any replacement signatory.
- Engage lenders early with a clear plan and dates.
- Keep an audit trail to prevent repeat queries at the next sale.
Conclusion - Adam Kiziak Update
Adam Kiziak, the Tri Fire Engineer expelled by the IFE highlights serious failures in fire safety assessments that could have widespread consequences for property owners.
Our team of accredited fire engineers can review any EWS1 form or FRAEW report that may be of concern. We ensure assessments are completed to the highest professional standards, offering transparency and reliability.
If you suspect your building’s fire safety assessment may be compromised, we provide a thorough re-evaluation. This includes a detailed report confirming compliance with current fire safety regulations and identifying any deficiencies.
We specialize in FRAEW surveys and EWS1 certificates, ensuring compliance with PAS9980 and fire safety regulations.
With offices in London, Birmingham , Manchester, Bristol, Norwich & Plymouth we provide FRAEW surveys and EWS1 certificates for sites all around the UK.
If you have any issues with invalid EWS1 forms contact us for expert guidance and reliable fire risk assessments
For detail on the issues found with Adam Kiziak's work, see our previous article. For more information on all aspects of EWS1 Surveys, see the collection of articles in our blog and our FAQs on the EWS1 process.
For further information on the expulsion of Tri Fire by the IFE, or for help with an FRAEW or EWS1 survey please call our Enquiry line on 020 4534 3130.
To book a call back from a member of the team, please fill in our Contact Us form.
For further help or advice please contact :
Sarah Taylor
Business Support Manager
Building Surveying
London