Ask most people what third-party certification gives them, and they'll describe a document: a logo, a certificate number, maybe a PDF they can download and file away. That's understandable. It's the part everyone sees but it's the least useful part of the story. A certificate is a summary. The value sits behind it, in the evidence, controls and ongoing assessment that justify the claim being made. The real question isn't "does this product have third-party certification?" It's "what evidence, controls and ongoing assessment sit behind that certification?" That question is about to get a lot more attention. The Government's 2026 Construction Products Reform White Paper proposes minimum transparency requirements for third-party certification schemes, stating that certificates should contain sufficient information to evidence product performance claims, including test results. The White Paper sets out the Government's proposed direction, providing a clear indication of how construction product certification is expected to develop. In this blog, we take a look at what should sit behind a third-party certification scheme that meets the proposals of the Construction Products Reform White Paper. What is third-party certification? Third-party certification, sometimes referred to as construction product certification, is independent verification that a product meets defined requirements. For construction products, this can combine assessment of test evidence with factory production control, surveillance and periodic review to provide continuing assurance of performance. The certificate is the end result, not the evidence A certificate exists because a wider process has taken place: testing, assessment, factory checks, ongoing surveillance. The certificate is the conclusion of that process, not a substitute for it. That distinction matters because certification can easily slide into a "certificate equals compliant" mentality. It's a convenient shorthand, but it isn't the same as understanding what has actually been demonstrated. Anyone specifying, purchasing or approving a certified product should be able to see the reasoning behind the claim, not just take the outcome on trust. The fire testing evidence behind the certificate Fire resistance or reaction to fire test reports, classification reports, Direct Field of Application rules and Extended Field of Application reports can form part of the evidence base that certification draws on and interprets. Certification draws on suitable technical evidence alongside assessment of the manufacturer's production controls and management systems. Together, these provide the basis on which certification can be awarded and maintained. Certification isn't a replacement for suitable test evidence; it's a framework for applying that evidence correctly and consistently. Anyone relying on a certificate should be able to trace it back to the reports that support it. Factory production control Testing a carefully prepared specimen tells you what's possible under controlled conditions. It doesn't tell you what leaves the factory every day. That's where factory production control comes in: the manufacturer's own quality systems, documented processes and material or component controls that keep everyday production in line with the certified specification. Certification bodies assess these controls because consistency, not just a one-off test result, is what makes a certificate meaningful over time. It's a distinction the White Paper itself draws: it defines product certification as a broader process than testing alone, describing it as ongoing assurance of compliance built on testing, factory production control and evaluation together - not any one of those in isolation. Ongoing surveillance Ongoing surveillance supported by periodic audits and reassessment is what keeps certification current. A certificate issued several years ago and never revisited isn't much of an assurance. This is one of the clearest differences between certification and a one-off test report: certification is meant to provide continuing assurance, not a snapshot frozen at the point of issue. This is why so many specifiers and contractors demand third-party certification from their supply chains. What happens when the product changes? Manufacturing rarely stands still. A new hardware supplier, a different core material, a changed adhesive, an altered manufacturing process, larger dimensions, a new glazing system - any of these can affect whether the original evidence still applies. Product changes need to be controlled because even relatively small variations can affect whether existing evidence and certification remain applicable. Depending on the change, it may already be covered by the product's Direct Field of Application or an existing EXAP. Where it falls outside that scope, additional testing or assessment may be required. This is why manufacturers need a clear process for notifying their certification body whenever a certified product changes. The certification body can then determine whether the existing evidence remains suitable or whether further testing or assessment is required. Without this process, certification can gradually move outside the scope of the evidence that originally supported it. What exactly has been certified? A meaningful certificate should let someone identify, at minimum: The product and how it's identified The manufacturer The product's construction or specification The performance characteristics covered The standards and scheme requirements applied The scope and limitations of the certification Its current validity status This matters more for some products than others. Let’s look at fire doors as an example; relatively small changes to construction, hardware or dimensions can undermine the evidence that originally supported a claimed performance. A certificate that doesn't make the specifics clear leaves too much for assumption. Another crucial element when verifying a certificated product is that when a certificate lookup returns a single word - valid - it tells you very little. Specifiers need to understand the scope of what's covered, the performance claims being made, and the limitations attached to them, not just whether a certificate is currently active. The 2026 White Paper's proposed minimum transparency requirements are aimed squarely at this gap, so that users can more easily understand what different certification schemes actually do and don't provide. UKTC ensure schemes provide publicly accessible certification information, with certificates linked to the scheme rules under which they were issued. This information is held digitally in the UKTC ensure vault, providing stakeholders with a single source of truth. Through the product label or certificate, stakeholders can access the UKTC ensure vault to check the current certification status and view the information supporting it. Certification and the golden thread Certification information connects to product identification and traceability, and increasingly to the golden thread. The White Paper's direction of travel points toward greater use of digital product information, identifiers and records to support accountability over a building's lifecycle. This is the direction UKTC ensure was built around: Accessible certification information with publicly available scheme rules and clear revision numbers to allow stakeholders to align certification with the applicable rules. Traceable product certification through labelling that features a QR code to access a single source of truth that holds the certificate and relevant evidence. Clear labelling that identifies the manufacturer, expected product performance and year of manufacture. Annual surveillance and factory production control audits that provide ongoing assurance that applicable management and production requirements continue to be met. These key features all link back to the golden thread of building safety information. These features support the wider move towards accessible, traceable product information and help manufacturers contribute to the golden thread of building safety information. So, next time you’re looking at your own third-party certification, or if you’re reviewing your supply chain, can you answer these questions… Are you confident that the third-party certification will hold up to public scrutiny? Is the third-party certification scheme ready for regulatory reform? Because in today’s market, the question that matters isn't whether a product carries third-party certification. It's what stands behind it. See what sits behind UKTC ensure Explore UKTC ensure's approach to transparent, traceable third-party certification and see how certification information can be accessed by manufacturers, specifiers and contractors.

Fire testing of products has two distinct disciplines, reaction to fire testing and fire resistance testing, and they answer two entirely different questions. As a UKAS-accredited fire testing laboratory, this is one of the most common points we help manufacturers at the start of their test journey work through. So, here's the distinction, explained through the lens of the fire itself. The dividing line: flashover Every compartment fire follows a broadly similar journey: ignition, growth, and, if not controlled, flashover, the point at which the fire transitions from a localised, growing event into a fully developed fire engulfing the entire compartment. After flashover, temperatures rise dramatically and survivability inside that space significantly drops. That single moment is the cleanest way to separate the two test regimes. Reaction to fire testing sits before the point of flashover. It's concerned with how a material behaves during the early growth of a fire – how easily it ignites, how much heat it releases, how quickly flame spreads across its surface, and how much smoke it produces. These characteristics directly affect how fast a fire can grow and whether it reaches flashover in the first place. Fire resistance testing sits after flashover. It assumes a fire is fully developed and asks whether a building element can contain it for a defined period. This can include walls, doors, floors and penetration seals. If you’re new to manufacturing, or developing a new product, understanding which side of flashover your product sits on is usually the fastest way to identify which test route applies. This will help you get your product ready to test and ultimately get your product to market faster. Reaction to fire testing: how a material behaves as a fire grows Reaction to fire testing examines the combustibility characteristics of a material and its contribution to fire growth and spread. In the UK and Europe, the results feed into a BS EN 13501-1 (Euroclass) classification - the A1 to F scale. You can read more about reaction to fire classifications here. Since BS 476 reaction to fire testing was withdrawn in the UK in March 2025, BS EN 13501-1 classification is the only available and compliant route for manufacturers. The specific test method depends on the classification being targeted, but typically includes a combination of the tests listed below: Single Burning Item (SBI) test (BS EN 13823): exposes a product to thermal attack from a single burning item to assess flame spread, heat release, and smoke production Small flame test (BS EN ISO 11925-2): assesses ignitability under direct flame contact Non-combustibility test (BS EN ISO 1182): identifies products that produce negligible heat or flame at high temperature, relevant to the highest Euroclasses Gross heat of combustion / calorific value test (BS EN ISO 1716): determines the maximum potential contribution a product could make to a fire Reaction to fire testing is the route for surface materials and products whose primary fire risk is contributing to growth and spread - external cladding, insulation, roofing materials, membranes, and wall linings etc. Fire resistance testing: how a building element performs once fire takes hold Fire resistance testing measures whether a building element can maintain its function under intense thermal attack for a defined period usually expressed in minutes, from 30 up to 240. Performance is assessed against three criteria, often seen together as an R E I rating: R — Load-bearing capacity: does the element continue to carry structural load E — Integrity: does it prevent flames and hot gases passing through I — Insulation: does it limit temperature rise on the unexposed face, so the next compartment doesn't ignite. Products undergoing a fire resistant passive fire protection, the first line of defence protecting escape routes, compartmentation, and structural integrity during a fire. It applies to elements like doorsets and hardware, walls and partitions, glazing systems, penetration seals, and linear joint seals. These are the components that can ensure life safety in an event of a developed fire. So which test does your product need? In practice, the question to ask is: what job does this product do in the building, and at what point in the event of a fire does that job matter? If your product is a surface, lining, or material whose main fire risk is how it ignites, burns, or contributes to a growing fire, you're almost certainly looking at reaction to fire testing and a BS EN 13501-1 classification. If your product is a building element expected to hold a line, physically separating one space from another, while a fire is fully developed, you're looking at fire resistance testing against the relevant BS EN standard for that element type. Here’s a side-by-side comparison. Reaction to Fire Testing Fire Resistance Testing Before flashover After flashover How does the product contribute to fire? Can the element contain the fire? Ignition, flame spread, heat and smoke Integrity, insulation and load-bearing capacity Materials and surfaces Building elements Ensuring Life Safety United Kingdom Testing & Certification (UKTC) is a UKAS-accredited fire testing laboratory offering reaction to fire and fire resistance testing for construction & building products. Our testing allows manufacturers to evaluate performance and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. If you’re ready to start your next test program, or even if you’re unsure where to start, contact our team by clicking here.

Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, Dame Judith Hackitt has a warning for the built environment: the industry has made real progress, but part of the system is still catching up. Presenting as the keynote speaker at the opening ceremony of UKTC’s new fire resistance laboratory, the architect of the Building Safety Act reflected on the journey since her 2017 independent review and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Her message was clear - regulatory reform is underway, culture is shifting, and competence is finally being taken seriously as a major factor. Here are some of the key takeaways… The single regulator and its three pillars Dame Judith used her speech to map out how England and Wales' new single construction regulatory system is taking shape. Rather than one flat rulebook, it rests on three interdependent pillars: Design and construction of buildings Construction products and their testing Professions and competence of all the people involved Dame Judith said “Let’s be clear when we talk about these as pillars, they are not independent. Far from it. They are very interdependent and we have to now plot a course through this series of changes we’re making.” None of these pillars stands alone. A competent designer specifying a non-compliant product is still a failure. A well-tested product installed by someone who doesn't understand how it performs as part of a system is still a risk. Hackitt was explicit that consistency is what the new system has to achieve; and testing sits at the physical centre of that picture, because it's where a claim about a product either holds up or doesn't. Beyond compliance, not around it One of the more nuanced points in Hackitt's talk was her distinction between compliance and competence. Compliance, she argued, is the bare minimum; a demonstration that you've met the guidance. However, guidance can't anticipate every scenario, and a tick-box mentality has historically been part of the problem, not the solution. What Dame Judith is calling for instead is a sector where competent people use test evidence and sound judgement to ask a harder question: are we confident this is genuinely safe, not just technically defensible? That shift doesn't remove the need for guidance and standards - if anything, it raises the bar on how rigorously products need to be tested and how transparently that evidence needs to be shared, because judgement without solid data is just guesswork with confidence. Andrew Hutchison, UKTC Operations Director, reflected on Dame Judith’s comments, “This shift in attitude reframes what testing is for. It’s not a hurdle to clear before launch, but the evidence base that lets designers, specifiers, and building owners exercise genuine judgement about the products they're putting into buildings, new or already occupied. This is exactly why we have invested to increase our capacity and services as well as developing a certification scheme that gets verifiable information into the hands of those who need it, when they need it. Manufacturers are already looking at testing differently, and those that don’t could be left behind.” The proposed General Safety Requirement Hackitt also brought attention to the direction of travel in the white paper on construction products: a proposed General Safety Requirement that would extend responsibility for using the right products beyond manufacturers alone, to procurers and specifiers too. In practice, it means test evidence is no longer something a manufacturer produces once and files away. It becomes something the whole supply chain - architects, contractors, building owners, responsible persons - needs to be able to see, understand, and rely on. Accessible, credible, third-party test data isn't a nice-to-have in that model; it's the mechanism that makes the whole requirement workable. UKTC ensure enables exactly that, a UKAS accredited third-party certification scheme that bridges the gap between the physical product and the evidence hosted within a single, verifiable source of truth. The takeaway for anyone specifying, procuring, or manufacturing Hackitt closed her speech by returning to why all of this matters, a built environment that people can have confidence in, and a legacy owed to the 72 people who died at Grenfell Tower. Nine years into this journey, the message from one of its most influential architects is that the industry has come a long way on regulation and culture. Testing and product assurance is the pillar that now needs to catch up and every accredited test carried out today is part of closing that gap. The role of test laboratories in the built environment. As a UKAS-accredited fire test laboratory, our role isn't to advise on whether to use a product, it's to provide the independent, rigorous evidence that lets manufacturers, specifiers, and building owners make that judgement with real confidence, not assumption. UKTC deliver fire resistance, reaction to fire, and smoke leakage testing from its UKAS accredited laboratory to both British (BS) and European (EN) standards. Alongside a suite of testing, UKTC also offer Extended Field of Application (EXAP) and Classification reports to enable manufacturers to transition from BS to EN before the 2029 removal of BS 476. In response to the demand for clearer labelling and verifiable traceable evidence, UKTC established UKTC ensure. The first UKAS accredited third-party certification scheme to be aligned with the golden thread by providing an accessible, traceable and verifiable chain of product safety information from clear product labelling. UKTC ensure has certification schemes for both fire doors and security doors whilst offering dual scope certification for compliant products. Click here to talk to our team about your test requirements and discover how UKTC can help you prove compliance and meet regulatory demand. About Dame Judith Hackitt Dame Judith Hackitt is a distinguished chemical engineer and former Chair of the UK Health and Safety Executive, and led the landmark Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, fundamentally reshaping building safety standards across the United Kingdom

Meet the United Kingdom Testing & Certification team behind the industry-leading fire resistance and reaction to fire test experiences. Our Team Meet the individuals dedicated to ensuring life safety through compliance and service. Abby Gray Technical Officer Read Bio Alice Brown Business Development Associate Read Bio Andrew McGhee Marketing Manager Read Bio Charlie Dobson Technical Surveyor Read Bio Eddie Wilson Technical Surveyor Read Bio Jago Steven Sales Executive Read Bio Matthew Dale Reaction to Fire Manager Read Bio Rob Grant Technical Officer Read Bio Adam Campbell Technical Officer Read Bio Andrew Hutchison Operations Director Read Bio Barry Steven Laboratory Manager Read Bio Dan Fitzsimmons Head of Testing Read Bio Ellen Johnson Compliance Officer Read Bio Mark Garfield National Sales Director Read Bio Murray Ker Business Development Read Bio Tom Smith Technical Services Officer Read Bio Aditi Bapte Associate Technical Services Officer Read Bio Andrew Jeffrey Brand & Marketing Officer Read Bio Cameron Leckie Technical Surveyor Read Bio David Brown Business Unit Director Read Bio Ian Laithwaite Certification Manager Read Bio Mark Shaw Reaction to Fire Technical Officer Read Bio Nathan Small Senior Development & Implementation Lead Read Bio Join our team If you're interested in a career at United Kingdom Testing & Certification, click below to learn more. UKTC Careers

Learn more about Nathan Small and the team behind delivering fire resistance and reaction to fire testing for passive fire protection product manufacturers. Our Team Nathan Small Senior Development & Implementation Lead We welcomed Nathan to UKTC in November of 2021 following 8 years in the timber doorset manufacturing industry. Following a role in the testing team that led him to Senior Technical Officer, Nathan has now moved into the role of Senior Development & Implementation Lead. Nathan's new role will strengthen how UKTC supports the construction market through expanding our capacity and service provision. Meet the team Learn more about the team dedicated to delivering leading fire testing and certification services. Our Team

UKTC offer floor & ceiling fire resistance testing to both BS EN 1365-2:2014 (load-bearing) & BS EN 1364-2:2018 (non load-bearing) with its new combination furnace. Floor & Ceiling Fire Testing Horizontal floor & ceiling fire testing services from a UK-based laboratory. Floor & Ceiling Fire Testing UKTC's combination furnace is equipped for provide floor & ceiling fire resistance testing to BS EN 1365-2:2014 (load-bearing) & BS EN 1364-2:2018 (non load-bearing). Floors and suspended ceilings are classified as passive fire protection (PFP) products, meaning they are permanently integrated into the structural fabric of a building rather than activated in response to a fire event. Unlike active systems such as sprinklers or fire alarms, passive fire protection works continuously — forming the backbone of a building's fire safety strategy by containing and slowing the spread of fire, heat, and toxic smoke. Combination Furnace UKTC's new fire resistance combination furnace opens up a new chapter for manufacturers testing in the UK. The new furnace allows manufacturers to test specimens 3m wide and up to 5m wide in its vertical configuration and 4x3m in its horizontal set-up. What does a floor and ceiling fire test cost? Prices for fire resistance tests to both BS EN 1365-2:2014 & BS EN 1364-2:2018 start from approximately £15,000. Prices will vary depending on project complexity and the length of test. For a tailored quote suited to your requirements, contact us by clicking the button below. Contact Us