A kitchen extract clean happens out of sight: above the ceiling, behind the canopy, on the roof. Once the panels are back on, the only proof it happened - and happened properly - is the paperwork. That makes the post-clean report the most important thing a cleaning firm hands over, and the first thing a fire officer or insurer asks to see.
Who reads it
- Fire safety officers. The London Fire Brigade's guidance note on catering extract systems (GN86) says auditing officers will ask for records showing the system has been cleaned effectively, and that missing or poor cleaning raises the fire risk.
- Insurers. The same note warns that a lack of effective cleaning could affect cover. Aviva's loss prevention standard expects every report to recommend a cleaning frequency based on the pre-clean readings.
- The operator's fire risk assessor, who needs the extract system covered under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
If any of them cannot follow the report, the clean is hard to prove - however good the work was.
What a good post-clean report shows
Drawing on LFB GN86 and Aviva's standard (both linked below), a complete report covers seven things:
- What was cleaned. Each system and its parts - canopy, filters, ductwork, fan, discharge - named so a stranger could find them.
- Readings before and after. Grease thickness measured at test points, so the improvement is shown in numbers, not just words.
- Photographs. Before and after, taken at the same points, dated and tied to the system they show.
- A schematic. A simple drawing of the system with access panels and test points marked, so the next clean - by any firm - starts in the right place.
- What could not be cleaned, and why. No access, a sealed section, a locked roof. GN86 is clear these areas must be flagged with reasons. A report that leaves them out implies the whole system is clean when it is not.
- Chemicals used, with their data.
- A recommended next clean. Based on the readings, not a habit. Aviva also says reports should be compared with earlier ones to spot trends.
Most firms then add a certificate summarising the work - the one-page document the operator files. The certificate is the summary; the report is the evidence behind it.
The gaps that cause trouble
From the fire service and insurer guidance, the weak spots are predictable:
- "Areas not cleaned" left blank when panels were missing or a section was unreachable.
- Photos with no place or date, which prove a duct was clean somewhere, not this one.
- No schematic, so nobody can tell which test point a reading came from.
- A report that arrives weeks later. By then the operator has forgotten the problem the engineer raised on the day, and any access panel that needs fitting has slipped down the list.
- No link to the last report, so a rising reading goes unnoticed until the next interval is already too long.
Why the same-day report matters
A report sent the day of the clean is read while the job is fresh. If the engineer found a missing access panel, the operator hears about it while they still remember the visit, and the fix can be booked before the next clean. If a reading is high, the shorter interval can be agreed straight away.
How SMART handles it
SMART - TR19 Grease reporting is built for firms working to TR19 Grease. The engineer records readings and before-and-after photos on a phone, against each system and test point. Areas that could not be reached can be recorded with a reason. The office reviews the job and sends a locked post-clean report and certificate the same day, with the next clean set from the readings and earlier reports for the same system kept alongside.
Sources (read 15 October 2026)
- London Fire Commissioner, Fire Safety Guidance Note GN86: Catering kitchen extract systems, revision 3, 1 May 2022
- Aviva Risk Solutions, Loss Prevention Standard: Commercial Kitchens - Extract Systems and Cooking Ranges, version 1.4, 10 October 2024
- Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
TR19® is a registered trade mark of the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA). Smart Solutions Bristol Ltd is not affiliated with or endorsed by BESA.
Written by Edward Bristow, an engineer of more than 15 years. Published 15 October 2026.