The intention of the Building Safety Act was to end ambiguity. The Golden Thread of Information is central to that. It is meant to be a defensible, audited chain of evidence demonstrating that those undertaking safety-critical tasks are competent, qualified and verifiably assessed.

However, an inconsistency in the use of terminology has emerged. A growing number of training providers in the fire safety training space and in fire door training are describing courses as ‘Third Party Accredited’. When in reality the course is just ‘recognised’ by an awarding body.

This is not a semantic issue. This is a safety issue.

Let me be very clear. Some training providers may believe they are contributing to the solution when in fact certain practices are contributing to ongoing confusion in the sector.

Third-Party Accreditation Has a Specific Meaning

“Third-Party Accreditation” is not a marketing adjective. In the UK compliance environment, the term is associated with independent, government-recognised oversight, frequently linked to UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service).

Yet across the sector, we see “Third-Party Accreditation” used to describe:

• courses merely reviewed by an awarding body
• “approval” by a membership organisation
• manufacturer-produced courses

These are recognised courses, not ‘third-party accredited’. They’re not even regulated qualifications.

The potential risk is simple:
Housing providers, learners, responsible persons, accountable persons, compliance staff may inadvertently misinterpret the level of independent oversight provided, mistaking recognition or endorsement for accreditation.

In a Coroner’s Court, public inquiry, or regulatory investigation, that difference is not academic it is forensic.

Every day we get calls at UK Fire Door Training asking ‘Is this course Accredited?’. The answer unequivocally is a no, we know that would be misleading, we know that would be unfair to the market and on organisations and individuals operating in the market. We always explain something along the lines of: “This course is a FireQual Recognised Programme; it is not an accredited qualification. Accreditation in this sector refers to independent UKAS-accredited third-party certification schemes, such as the BM TRADA Q-Mark Fire Door Scheme or FIRAS.”

The Growing Inconsistency in Terminology

Some providers go further by marketing fire door courses as “Third-Party Accredited” when they are merely “custom accredited” by an awarding body. Under UKAS guidance, only certification bodies themselves can refer to being “accredited”, and only organisations audited by an accredited certification body can claim “accredited certification”. The term should therefore apply to schemes such as BM TRADA Q-Mark or FIRAS, where a UKAS-accredited body audits an organisation. It is not correctly applied to individual commercial training courses. Using “third-party accredited” to describe unregulated or internally assessed training blurs this distinction and risks misleading buyers into assuming UKAS-level oversight where none exists.

In the worst cases, online modules are:

• unproctored,
• assessed only by multiple-choice questions,
• completed in the learner’s own time,
• awarded instant certificates,
• and presented as evidence of competence.

But simply moving the learner into a training centre does not automatically solve the issue. If assessment remains internally controlled, unregulated, or unverified, an in-person course can be just as weak as an online module—especially where the provider designs, delivers and certificates its own training without independent oversight.

We must be clear:
no unproctored online module, and no internally assessed practical training, can be described as ‘Accredited’.

The use of ‘accredited’ in this context risks creating a misleading impression of independent assurance.

This does not improve safety.
It actively undermines it.

The Terminology Divide: Recognition vs. Accreditation

Some awarding organisations, including GQA, offer services described as accredited training or custom accreditation. These schemes provide a useful level of quality assurance over training materials and delivery, and there is nothing improper about this when it is presented clearly within the context of awarding-body recognition. However, accredited training of this type is not the same as UKAS-accredited third-party certification.

In this context, an accredited course means the awarding organisation has reviewed and approved the content and structure of the learning. It does not mean the learner has undergone external assessment under UKAS-accredited certification standards. It follows that referring to such provision as third-party accredited would not be accurate.

GQA’s own literature makes the distinction clear by noting that accredited training applies where a formal qualification may not be appropriate and that these accredited programmes do not form part of the Regulated Qualifications Framework. That clarification should be taken at face value and helps everyone understand the intent of this type of provision. It is also important to note that GQA rightly do not refer to the courses approved this way as ‘third-party accredited’.

The key point is straightforward. There is nothing wrong with a provider describing a course as accredited within the meaning defined by the awarding organisation. The issue arises only when this language is interpreted or presented as third-party accredited in the UKAS sense, which suggests a level of independent certification and competence assurance that does not apply in this context.

Why This Matters for the Accountable Person

The Building Safety Act places responsibility squarely on the Accountable Person to demonstrate both individual and organisational competence. If a major incident occurs, prosecutors and inquiry teams will not look at the logo on a certificate. They will examine whether the organisation can evidence competence, how it was assessed, and whether the training route was correctly understood and described.

A course described as third party accredited can potentially give the impression that the training itself has produced competent people, when in reality no such assurance exists. Purchasing a recognised or endorsed course believing it confers third-party accreditation status creates a potential liability gap and leaves the duty holder exposed.

How to Assess Provider Claims Against the UKAS Standard

When procuring fire door training, it is essential to understand the difference between recognition, accreditation and competence. Under the SKEB principles, Skills, Knowledge, Experience and Behaviours are separate elements that contribute to overall competence. No single course covers all four and no course should claim to.

Ask the provider the following:

1. Is the course recognised, regulated or neither?
If it is a regulated qualification or a recognised programme, it can improve Knowledge and may develop Skills, which is valuable. However, recognition and regulation are not the same as accreditation. A regulated qualification does not automatically make a learner competent and a recognised programme is still not accreditation. Both are valid learning pathways, but they must be described correctly.

2. Is there a UKAS accredited route attached to what you are doing?
If a provider claims that their course is accredited or “third party accredited”, ask precisely which UKAS accredited certification body is involved. If there is no UKAS connection, then the use of the word accredited is incorrect and potentially misleading. In fire safety, accreditation refers to UKAS accredited certification schemes such as BM TRADA Q Mark or FIRAS, not to standalone commercial courses.

3. Will this course make me accredited and will it make me competent?
The answer to both questions should be no. Courses can provide Knowledge and in some cases may support the development of Skills, but competence also requires Experience and Behaviours, and accreditation refers to the status awarded by a UKAS accredited certification body, not by a training provider.

Any provider claiming that their course makes someone accredited, or that a single programme makes a person competent, is stretching the language too far. Under SKEB, competence is built over time through the combination of Skills, Knowledge, Experience and Behaviours, and accreditation is a separate process carried out by UKAS accredited certification bodies.

If a training provider cannot clearly explain this distinction and uses the word accredited when referring to courses, then the terminology is being misused and you should take great care.

Some providers are already using the correct language

It is important to recognise that not everyone is misusing the word accredited. Fire Doors Complete publish their organisational accreditations and quality approvals and make it clear that their courses are recognised programmes rather than describing them as accredited.

The Fire Door Inspection Scheme takes the same approach. Their own FAQ states: “The FDIS Diploma is not an accredited course.” This kind of clarity is helpful because it keeps terminology accurate and prevents unnecessary confusion in the marketplace.

---

About UK Fire Door Training

UK Fire Door Training is the UK’s dedicated national fire door training provider. Our programmes include FireQual Recognised Programmes and regulated qualifications, and nationally delivered hands-on training supported by trained instructors. Our mission is to raise competence, integrity, and clarity across the UK fire door sector through rigorous, transparent and professional development.