Home / Duct Cleaning / Guide
Duct cleaning - landlord duties
Letting premises to a catering tenant does not hand off all the fire-safety responsibility - a landlord usually retains duties, particularly over the structure and shared parts, and the tenant's kitchen grease is a fire risk that reaches the whole building. Understanding where the landlord's duties lie, and how the lease and the law divide them, matters for any landlord of catering premises. Here is what those duties involve.
The short answer
A landlord of catering premises usually retains fire-safety duties, rather than passing all responsibility to the tenant - and the tenant's kitchen fire risk is one the landlord has a real stake in. Under fire-safety law, the 'responsible person' has duties over the premises, and in let premises this can include the landlord as well as the tenant - the landlord typically being responsible for the structure, the common or shared parts, and often the building's systems, while the tenant is responsible for their own kitchen and its operation. Exactly how the duties divide depends on the lease and the degree of control each has. What matters is that the landlord usually cannot disclaim all fire-safety responsibility, especially where they retain control of the structure and shared parts - and the tenant's kitchen extract grease, a serious fire risk, runs through the building's structure the landlord is responsible for, and threatens the whole building. So a landlord has a genuine interest in the tenant's kitchen fire safety - including the extract cleaning - both through their retained duties and through the risk to their building. Understanding this shared responsibility, and ensuring the arrangements (lease terms, and the actual maintenance) address it, is part of a catering-premises landlord's proper management.
Letting does not hand off all duty
A common misconception is that letting premises to a tenant hands off all the fire-safety responsibility to that tenant - but for a landlord of catering premises, that is usually not the case. Fire-safety law places duties on the 'responsible person' for premises, and in let premises the responsibility is often shared: the landlord retains duties, particularly over the parts and aspects they keep control of, alongside the tenant's duties for their own operation. So a landlord generally cannot simply let the premises and walk away from fire safety - they usually remain a responsible person for at least part of the premises, with duties accordingly.
This is because fire-safety responsibility tends to follow control: whoever has control over a part of the premises or an aspect of its safety has duties for it. A landlord who retains control of the structure, the common parts, or the building's systems retains fire-safety duties for those, even with a tenant in occupation. So the responsibility is divided according to who controls what, rather than falling entirely on the tenant. For a landlord, this means understanding that letting to a catering tenant does not extinguish their fire-safety duties - it divides them, with the landlord usually retaining significant responsibility for the parts they control. Recognising this is the starting point: a catering-premises landlord has real fire-safety duties, not a clean handoff to the tenant, and needs to understand and meet them.
How the duties usually divide
The way fire-safety duties usually divide between a landlord and a catering tenant follows the division of control, and typically runs along these lines. The landlord is usually responsible for the structure of the building, the common or shared parts (shared corridors, escape routes, plant areas), and often the building's systems and services - the parts they retain control of and that serve the building as a whole. The tenant is usually responsible for their own demised premises - their kitchen and its operation, the equipment they use, the day-to-day running - the parts within their control. So broadly, the landlord looks after the building fabric and shared elements, and the tenant looks after their own kitchen.
But the exact division depends on the lease and the actual arrangements - the lease terms allocate responsibilities, and the degree of control each party has in practice shapes the duties. So there is no single fixed division; it depends on the specific lease and situation, which is why a landlord needs to understand what their particular lease and arrangements make them responsible for. The key point is that the landlord usually retains real responsibility, especially for the structure and shared parts, and often for the building systems - which, as we will see, includes elements directly relevant to the kitchen's fire risk. So while the tenant runs and is responsible for the kitchen, the landlord is not thereby freed of fire-safety duty; they retain responsibility for the building around it, which the kitchen's fire risk very much affects. Understanding how the duties divide, for their particular premises, is essential for a landlord to know what they must attend to.
The kitchen grease reaches the building
A crucial reason a landlord has a genuine stake in the tenant's kitchen fire safety - beyond the formal division of duties - is that the kitchen's fire risk reaches the whole building, including the parts the landlord is responsible for. The tenant's kitchen extract grease is a serious fire risk, and the extract ductwork carrying that grease runs through the building's structure - up through ceilings, voids and risers that are part of the building fabric the landlord typically controls. So the grease fire risk is not confined to the tenant's kitchen; it runs through the landlord's building, and a fire in the grease-laden ductwork could spread through the structure, threatening the whole building and its occupants.
This means the landlord has a real interest in the tenant's kitchen extract being kept clean, because the fire risk it controls is a risk to the landlord's building. A landlord responsible for the structure has a stake in ensuring the extract ductwork running through that structure is not a fire hazard - which depends on it being cleaned. So the tenant's kitchen fire safety, particularly the extract cleaning, is not solely the tenant's concern from the landlord's point of view: it directly affects the building the landlord owns and is responsible for. This is why a landlord cannot be indifferent to whether the tenant maintains the extract - a neglected, grease-laden extract in the tenant's kitchen is a fire risk running through the landlord's building. So the landlord has both a formal duty (for the structure and systems the extract runs through) and a practical stake (the risk to their building) in the tenant's kitchen fire safety. The kitchen grease reaching the building is what makes the tenant's fire risk the landlord's concern too.
Managing the shared responsibility
Given this shared responsibility and the landlord's stake, a catering-premises landlord needs to manage the fire safety through both the lease terms and attention to the actual maintenance. Through the lease: the landlord can and usually should place clear obligations on the tenant to maintain the kitchen extract and manage its fire risk - requiring the tenant to keep the extract cleaned to a standard, with records - so that the tenant's responsibility for their kitchen fire safety is clearly set out and enforceable. This protects the landlord's building by ensuring the tenant maintains the extract that runs through it, and gives the landlord a basis to require it. So the lease terms are one tool for managing the shared responsibility.
But the landlord's interest goes beyond just imposing the obligation, to caring whether it is actually met - because the risk to their building is real whether or not the lease is enforced. So a prudent landlord takes an interest in the actual maintenance: whether the tenant is in fact keeping the extract cleaned, which the landlord can seek evidence of, since a neglected extract is a risk to the landlord's building regardless of the lease terms. And the landlord attends to their own retained responsibilities - the structure, shared parts and systems - including any fire protection of the ductwork (fire dampers, fire-rated construction) that is part of the building fabric. So managing the shared responsibility means the landlord using the lease to place the kitchen obligations clearly on the tenant, taking a real interest in whether they are met (because the building risk is the landlord's), and attending to their own retained duties for the structure and systems. This is how a catering-premises landlord properly manages the fire safety they share with the tenant - recognising that the tenant's kitchen fire risk, particularly the extract grease, is one the landlord has both a duty and a strong practical reason to care about.
The takeaway
A landlord of catering premises usually retains fire-safety duties rather than passing all responsibility to the tenant. Fire-safety law places duties on the responsible person, and in let premises this is often shared - the landlord typically responsible for the structure, common or shared parts, and often the building's systems, while the tenant is responsible for their own kitchen and its operation, with the exact division depending on the lease and the degree of control each has. So letting to a catering tenant divides the fire-safety duties, with the landlord usually retaining real responsibility, rather than handing it all off.
And the landlord has a genuine stake beyond the formal duties, because the tenant's kitchen fire risk reaches the whole building: the extract grease is a serious fire risk, and the ductwork carrying it runs through the building's structure the landlord controls, so a fire in it could spread through the landlord's building. This means the landlord cares - and should - whether the tenant keeps the extract cleaned. So a catering-premises landlord manages the shared responsibility through both the lease (placing clear extract-maintenance obligations on the tenant) and attention to the actual maintenance (taking a real interest in whether the extract is kept clean, because the building risk is theirs), while attending to their own retained duties for the structure and systems. The tenant's kitchen fire safety, particularly the extract cleaning, is one the landlord has both a duty and a strong practical reason to care about - a shared duty and a real stake.
Questions
Usually not. Fire-safety law places duties on the responsible person, and in let premises the responsibility is often shared - the landlord retains duties for the parts they control (structure, common parts, building systems), alongside the tenant's duties for their own operation. Responsibility tends to follow control, so a landlord who keeps control of the structure and shared parts keeps fire-safety duties for them.
Typically along the division of control: the landlord is usually responsible for the structure, common or shared parts, and often the building's systems; the tenant for their own kitchen and its operation. But the exact division depends on the lease terms and the degree of control each party has in practice, so there is no single fixed division - a landlord needs to understand what their particular lease and arrangements make them responsible for.
Because it reaches the whole building. The tenant's kitchen extract grease is a serious fire risk, and the extract ductwork carrying it runs through the building's structure - the ceilings, voids and risers the landlord typically controls. So a fire in the grease-laden ductwork could spread through the landlord's building, making the tenant's kitchen fire risk a risk to the building the landlord owns and is responsible for.
Usually yes - a landlord can and often should place clear obligations on the tenant to maintain the kitchen extract and manage its fire risk, requiring it to be cleaned to a standard with records. This sets out the tenant's responsibility clearly and enforceably, protecting the landlord's building by ensuring the extract running through it is maintained, and giving the landlord a basis to require it.
Not entirely - a prudent landlord also takes an interest in whether the obligation is actually met, because the risk to their building is real whether or not the lease is enforced. So the landlord can seek evidence that the tenant is keeping the extract cleaned, since a neglected extract is a fire risk to the landlord's building regardless of the lease terms. The landlord cares about the actual maintenance, not just the obligation on paper.
Typically the structure, common or shared parts, escape routes, and often the building's systems - the parts they keep control of. This includes any fire protection of the extract ductwork that is part of the building fabric, such as fire dampers or fire-rated construction where the ducts pass through fire-separating elements. So the landlord attends to these directly, alongside ensuring the tenant maintains their kitchen and its extract.
A tenant's kitchen extract grease is a fire risk running through the landlord's building - so a landlord has a real stake in it being cleaned. Our extraction cleaning controls that risk, protecting the whole building.
