This guide describes a review method. It does not claim that TM44.uk has conducted a particular building study or measured an industry-wide failure rate.
What you need to know
- Define the review population and assessment method.
- Use traceable site documents and genuine observations.
- Separate legal status, document gaps and efficiency findings.
- Publish limitations alongside the results.
Describe the study population and method
State whether the review concerns all buildings in a defined estate or a selected sample. Describe the selection method, jurisdictions and review dates. Specify whether the unit of analysis is a building, a system, a report or an organisation; those counts are not interchangeable.
Check TM44 eligibility and requirementsUse actual report or site evidence only
Keep a private evidence index linking each finding to the report, site observation or technical record supporting it. Establish permission and lawful access before collecting documents. Do not fill a missing record with an assumed inspection result to complete a neat table.
Avoid invented inspector quotes and failure rates
Use only quotations actually supplied and approved for their intended use. Keep the original wording and context. Where no permissioned interview or verified site result exists, describe the process neutrally instead of inventing an assessor, customer or illustrative testimonial.
Separate compliance questions from efficiency advice
Classify findings separately: eligibility unresolved, report not obtained, report scope queried and efficiency recommendation recorded. An opportunity to improve a timer does not itself demonstrate a statutory inspection failure. Define the test used for every category before comparing buildings.
Document unknowns and data limitations
Record missing information, access restrictions and changes since assessment. Explain how unresolved cases were counted or excluded. A published summary should make these limitations visible rather than present incomplete files as definitive outcomes for the whole reviewed population.
Design a credible audit-ready sample
Choose a sample suited to the stated question and obtain appropriate technical and research advice for broader inference. Maintain consistent review fields and a second check of disputed findings. Release only aggregate or permissioned material with enough method detail to make the conclusions assessable.
Request an accredited TM44 inspection quotationCheck the governing guidance
This article does not authenticate a government register entry or establish the status of an individual building. Confirm the applicable national framework and the actual installed equipment before relying on a compliance conclusion.
The official sources explain the inspection framework. They do not verify a national compliance rate, a TM44.uk building study or a customer savings outcome; this article describes how such claims should be evaluated.