Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Extraction cleaning - shared buildings
In a shared building, a kitchen's extract ductwork rarely stays within the kitchen's four walls - it runs through the structure past other tenants. That raises a question single-occupancy premises never face: whose job is the cleaning?
The short answer
In a multi-tenant building, kitchen extract ductwork often runs from a tenant's kitchen through risers and voids shared with, or owned by, the landlord, to a communal discharge. TR19 Grease still requires the whole system cleaned, but responsibility for it can be split between the kitchen operator, the landlord and the building's arrangements. Where that split is unclear, sections of ductwork fall between duties and go uncleaned - which is exactly where the fire risk sits.
The complication
In a single-occupancy building, kitchen extract cleaning is simple in principle: the operator owns the system and the duty. In a multi-tenant building it is not, because the ductwork does not stay within the tenancy. A kitchen on a lower floor typically discharges up through vertical risers and voids that pass through, or belong to, the shared structure of the building, emerging at a communal roof discharge.
So the extract system spans more than the kitchen's demise. Part of it is clearly the operator's; part of it runs through space controlled by the landlord or shared with other tenants. TR19 Grease still expects the whole run cleaned and verified, but the question of who is responsible for which part is exactly what a shared building complicates.
Where responsibility sits
Responsibility usually splits along control and ownership. The kitchen operator is the responsible person for the fire risk their cooking creates and typically holds the duty for the parts of the system within their control. The landlord often controls or owns the shared risers, voids and communal discharge that the ductwork passes through, and may hold duties for those. The precise split is generally shaped by the lease and the building's arrangements.
The problem is that these arrangements are frequently unclear or unaddressed. Leases do not always spell out who cleans the extract ductwork in the shared parts, and neither party may realise the other is not doing it. That ambiguity is the root of most multi-tenant compliance failures - not that nobody could do it, but that nobody is sure whose job it is.
Why gaps are dangerous
The danger of a split with gaps is that grease and fire do not respect tenancy lines. A section of ductwork in a shared riser that nobody takes responsibility for still fills with grease, still carries fire risk, and still lets a fire travel through the building - potentially into other tenancies with nothing to do with the kitchen. An unowned section is an uncleaned section, and an uncleaned section is exactly where the building-level fire risk concentrates.
So a compliance gap in a multi-tenant building is not a paperwork technicality - it is a length of grease-laden ductwork running through the structure that no one is cleaning. For the other occupiers, it is a fire risk imposed on them by an arrangement they may know nothing about. For the operator and landlord, it is a shared exposure that a clear allocation of duty would remove.
Getting it right
The way to make a multi-tenant building compliant is to clarify who is responsible for which part of the extract system, and make sure every part is covered. That means reading the lease and the building arrangements, agreeing between operator and landlord who cleans the shared sections, and ensuring the whole run - from the kitchen through the shared risers to the communal discharge - is cleaned and verified to TR19 Grease, not just the easily-attributed parts.
Practically, it is often most sensible for the whole system to be cleaned together by one contractor on one visit, with the cost apportioned by the agreed responsibilities, rather than trying to clean it in disconnected pieces across different duties. A system cleaned as a whole, with a single verification covering it, closes the gaps that a fragmented approach leaves - which is what actually controls the fire risk the building carries.
The takeaway
The core message for a multi-tenant building is that TR19 Grease compliance depends on clarity about responsibility. The standard's requirement does not change - the whole system must be cleaned and verified - but in a shared building the duty to achieve that is split, and unless the split is clear and complete, sections fall through the cracks and the fire risk is left in place.
So operators and landlords in shared buildings should establish, in writing where possible, who is responsible for cleaning which part of the extract system, and confirm that the whole run is actually being cleaned on a proper cycle. That clarity protects everyone in the building - the kitchen, the landlord and the other tenants - from a fire risk that a confused or incomplete allocation of duty would otherwise leave uncontrolled.
Questions
Responsibility usually splits along control and ownership - the kitchen operator for the parts they control, the landlord for shared risers, voids and communal discharge - with the precise split shaped by the lease and the building's arrangements.
Because the extract ductwork does not stay within the tenancy - it runs through shared risers and voids to a communal discharge. TR19 Grease still requires the whole system cleaned, but responsibility for the shared parts can be unclear.
Ambiguity about who cleans the shared sections. Leases do not always spell it out, and neither party may realise the other is not doing it, so sections of ductwork fall between duties and go uncleaned - where the fire risk concentrates.
Grease and fire do not respect tenancy lines. An unowned section still fills with grease and still lets a fire travel through the building into other tenancies - a fire risk imposed on occupiers who may know nothing about it.
Clarify who is responsible for which part, read the lease and building arrangements, and ensure the whole run is cleaned and verified - often most sensibly by one contractor on one visit, with cost apportioned by the agreed duties.
Yes, and it usually should be. Cleaning the whole run as one, with a single verification, closes the gaps a fragmented approach leaves and is generally more practical than cleaning it in disconnected pieces across different duties.
We clean shared-building extract systems as a whole, with one verification covering the lot - so no section falls between duties.
