Fire restoration and contents recovery after an arson attack at Autoglass, Manchester

The building and the contents needed different answers

The fire restoration covered Units 43 - 45, where smoke and soot contamination had affected retained building surfaces across the industrial units. The existing project imagery shows the severity of the fire and smoke damage, while the accepted restoration scope called for HEPA vacuuming, soot sponges, fogging agents and scaffold-tower access.

Inside Units 43 and 44, Autoglass also had stock, furniture, racking and other contents that could not simply be treated as part of the building clean. Each item needed a condition decision: could it be restoratively cleaned and retained, or was it beyond economic repair and destined for disposal?

Splitting those workstreams created a clearer recovery path. The loss adjuster could progress the building restoration while Autoglass had a separate audit trail for its affected contents.

Restoration first, then proof through snagging

The restoration was delivered as a staged programme: assess and test, remove non-salvageable material, clean soot-affected surfaces and contents, then use snagging visits to identify and resolve remaining contamination before handover.

The main restoration phase ran through repeated crew visits from late November 2023 into January 2024, typically using teams of around five to seven. The cleaning sequence combined HEPA extraction of loose soot with soot-sponging and further restorative treatment of retained surfaces.

The programme did not end when the bulk clean was finished. The visit history records a dedicated snagging stage for missed areas, followed by a final return to finish the snagging before the main job was closed. That final quality-control loop is an important part of a commercial fire clean: contamination can sit on high-level, recessed and easily overlooked surfaces long after the most obvious damage has been addressed.

The contents package gave Autoglass a structured way to separate salvageable assets from losses. Assessment and documentation came first, followed by movement or restorative cleaning where appropriate. Contents deemed beyond economic repair were then prepared for disposal, with the agreed scope allowing for four 20-yard RoRo skips and separate weight-based disposal charges.

That distinction matters after a commercial fire. Automatically disposing of everything can create unnecessary loss, while attempting to clean unsuitable items can waste time and money. Documenting the decision provides a clearer basis for the occupier and insurer.

Contents recovery was a decision process, not just a removal exercise

The main fabric-restoration job was closed after snagging in January 2024, but the incident continued to generate work. A later restoration package for Unit 45 ran from February into April, followed by further accepted works.

More importantly, the work shows how a substantial commercial fire loss can evolve. Building restoration, contents decisions, snagging and later phases do not always happen in one neat sequence. Keeping each scope clear allowed the recovery to progress without blurring responsibility between the building, the occupier's assets and subsequent additional works.

A recovery that continued in phases

Why fire restoration is a series of salvage decisions