Certsure and BAFE SP205 discussion- please read the full thread

[kurnal]

The CBs running SP 205 are non profit making, so you are just paying for the true cost of the service, not for the profits of shareholders. 

Colin I suggest that this statement may not represent the full picture. True you are not paying for shareholders dividends but most not for profit organisations seek to generate a surplus that they use to support their "Good Works".

The FPA, for example, who are used by UKAS as advisors when they audit the CBs, are fairly clear that they use income streams as "Cash Cows" to fund their other activities. Those words were used by one of their directors in explaining their business model to me. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and none of it makes the service a rip off,  but for the end user there is little difference in terms of value for money between a not for profit organisation and an independent company.

Indeed in some such organisations overheads may be way above the norm of private industry. I receive a tangible reminder of this whenever I buy a new British Standard.

[Golden]

Colin, I never said it was a rip off - its just not cost effective for me based on the time and financial cost of jumping through the hoops for registration. I'm only trying to give, in my opinion and experience, is a balanced view of the scheme to those that may be considering applying particularly those who don't bid for the bigger contracts but want some accreditation to demonstrate their competence which was my reason for signing up originally.

What really got under my skin was the re-registration after 6 months as a small company this was quite ridiculous as an individual that I'd have to jump through the very same hoops when I'd not even had a phone call from the register and none of my clients were interested in receiving a bit of paper to certify that their building had been risk assessed by a registered assessor. These bits of paper were particularly annoying as according to the rules of the scheme I'd have to send one  of these out for each FRA - I was assessing lots of social housing and they only issued 10 individual certificate numbers at a time when I was assessing up to 20 properties a week this was becoming a pain in the backside - a larger company could afford to pay somebody minimum wage to process all this but for me it was a couple of hours unnecessary paperwork a week.

[colin todd]

Kurnal, with all due respect you are waffling again with an irrelevant analogy.  The FPA are only sub contractors to a CB.  It is not the FPA who are levelling the charges to the certificated firm and using profit to fund other things; their position is no different from that of Mick Clifford to whom you referred in a posting.

With regard to surpluses, private industry need those AS WELL AS HAND OUTS TO SHAREHOLDERS.  There are strict limits to the surpluses of non profit making CBs. They are not used  to fund all sorts of other activities for the alleged benefits of mankind.  In the past, when one particular non profit making CB made too much money they handed it back to the certificated firms.  Not something a commercial body CB would do.  Moreover, the good thing about BAFE schemes is that they promote competition amongst CBs to keep the cost down. You would be paid much less by a CB as a sub contract auditor than you charge clients to fund your skyscraper office block at Bathmat Lock and your trips to the Bathmat gentlemen's club.

[colin todd]

Silver, on a point of accuracy, there is no re registration going through the same hoops.  There is surveillance after 6 months, which is an entirely different thing and is a necessity otherwise there is no guarantee to the public of your continuing standard. Moreover, the frequency would have gone down to annual if you had stuck with it. It is only through TPC that the public can be protected against con men.

Happily this is becoming widely recognised.  FRAs for care homes in Northern Ireland are required by the RQIA to be carried out by those on a register or preferably TPC COMPANIES.  The FIA are about to delist, from their published list of members who carry out FRAs, any companies that have not now applied for TPC.

[Golden]

Colon, my surveillance visit would have consisted of "one day with the morning being a office visit and the afternoon spent on site. The cost of a surveillance visit is ?xxx+ Vat " ( as per the email from the certifying body) - exactly the same as my initial assessment so I was thinking this was jumping through the same hoops and not "an entirely different thing".


On a similar point of accuracy it is not "only through TPC" that the public can be protected from con men; I can assure you that TPC is not the holy grail having carried out FRAs on a number of new buildings that have been constructed by companies with a wealth of TPC - who in turn sub out to other companies with similar certification who are equally as incompetent. The public can be protected against con men by a variety of other methods of they could be bothered to check (like checking whether you  have insurance cover which most don't) - I've known of TPC companies using unqualified assessors and in many cases companies advertise on websites such as LinkedIn when they need additional assessors without quoting the requisite qualifications for the tasks.

I have already stated that I'm not anti TPC but that my point is I believe they're not suited to small companies and organisations that refuse to recognise other accreditation are doing so to protect the business interests of their most influential members and not necessarily in the best interests of the public.

[Tom Sutton]

Am I right in believing when a company is assessed under SP205 not all FR assessors employed by them are assessed, therefore if I use that company, I could get a FR assessor who competence has not been tested by a third party and then should I have to check that he/she is on one of the approved registers?

[Kelsall]

The margins for all CBs on fire risk assessors schemes are minimal they are very time orientated and if you calculate the input from the CB it's easy to work out who is charging the highest day rate and just like fire risk assessment the headline figure isn't always an indication of value for money. It actually is the non for profit CBs who are charging the highest day rate (I know I have done the calculations)
There is plenty of competition for the certification of companies however there is little to suggest that the buy in is increasing, indeed the FIA have just lost a shed full of members as they have not taken up UKAS accredited certification despite much effort and encouragement from their fire risk assessment council. The IFSM are due to go through the same process at the end of this year too and will lose around 100 assessors off their register.  I dare say IFPO may get inundated with applications as their assessment process will be the least onerous and cheapest option available and that in reality is the issue.
Which is why I have set up the RSCFRA register, just bung me 50 pounds along with your CV and a promise on a scrap piece of paper, to always work within your capabilities and never make a mistake, and you are on the list. 5 working days from application (sorry cheque clearing) to certification; guaranteed! (50 pounds annual subscription there after, no additional fees, no monthly payment plan; your fire risk assessment career is not in jeopardy if you do not maintain certification)
Kelsall CEO of Rubber Stamp Certification Limited  

[Golden]

Kelsall what is your point? The debate around TPC is serious and the issues should be aired and as you point out many of the trade associations are making a stand and losing membership as a consequence; why have you chosen to dumb down the discussion?

[Golden]

Tom the scheme rules that I signed up to included a condition that assessors employed by the company should fulfill the competency council criteria with sufficient qualifications, skills or knowledge to carry out the risk assessments. Unfortunately there are a few companies out there who employ the cheapest options - particularly if they have a heavy workload.

[AnthonyB]

We weren't allowed to claim accreditation until all our staff had been assessed, I don't know what others may have experienced from their CBs

[Kelsall]

Sorry Golden but when you have seen what I have seen, listened to what I have listened to and crashed up against the old guard as many times as I have for as many years as I have on this subject, you would feel like I do; a little bit sad, a little bit cynical and sadly a little bit smug.  To make a real difference things needed to be done differently at the time but I was a lone voice in a big room. I would suggest that third party certification for fire risk assessors was hamstrung at the start and has not been well supported during its infancy; the result is we are still having the same debate years later.
Without some serious remedial actions by all concerned it is never going to be the assurance it was intended to be and it won?t be taken up in sufficient numbers to make a difference; yes the big clients may specify it but the landscape of fire risk assessment is changing and the big clients are starting to bring things in house. I would suggest that is because of some significant let downs from external providers in several instances.  I think certification is at times useful to have but commercially it won?t be worth it for many; because those without certification are not being marginalised they are still working and indeed the good the bad and the ugly fire risk assessors are all still making a living for now.
What is the answer?  Is there even a problem? Does it just need more time? 

[kurnal]

Time wont do it Kelsall. It needs driving - forces for change would include legislation, education and enforcement. We need more prosecutions taken against the cowboys- trouble is none of us ever thinks they are a cowboy because none of us ever know what we dont know.

I am one of those who is to be expelled  (on next years renewal) as a member of the FIA because I am not taking up TPC at this time. I admire and respect the FIA and have no complaint against this- the membership criteria have always been transparent. But I am very sad about it.

I am also sad that the argument is so polarised, between those who support TPC warts and all and those who are wrong. When the schemes are not taking off then there must be a reason, is it the scheme, the timing, the economic, legal or political environment that is the problem? Or is it just that all who have not joined are too lazy, too frightened, too avaricious, too ignorant, too mercenary to care.     

[kurnal]

In answer to Tom Sutton here are extracts from the SP205 document relative to your enquiry

At the time of developing this scheme there were no nationally recognised and accepted qualifications for fire risk assessors. This Scheme (BAFE SP205)  therefore requires that Certificated Organizations have systems in place to ensure that the competency of their fire risk assessor(s) knowledge and skill is appropriate to the work being undertaken.

The Certificated Organization should identify the competency requirements of their fire risk assessor(s) and be able to demonstrate that it has individually assessed all fire risk assessors against these requirements. A  competent fire risk assessor will demonstrate an enthusiasm for the subject and endeavour to make regular advancement in their professional vocation.

The fire risk assessor should have obtained specialist training where appropriate, receive ongoing refresher training and engage in suitable continual professional development. The Certificated Organization should be supporting such training and development needs.

TPCB Note: The TPCB should confirm that the Certificated Organization has identified the competency requirements of fire risk assessors, the competency requirements of the Validators and that the Certificated Organization carries out suitable assessments of the competency of their fire risk assessors.

5.1 The Certificated Organization shall demonstrate that it employs fire risk assessors who are competent to operate within the framework of national fire safety legislation of the country in question.
5.2 The fire risk assessor shall be competent and shall understand the requirements of the Specification. The responsibility for the effectiveness of the fire risk assessor rests with the Certificated Organization.

The Certificated Organization shall establish a person specification for the fire risk assessor that identifies the knowledge and skills required. The person specification shall identify the minimum competency requirements and any additional competency  requirements appropriate to the fire risk assessments being undertaken.


The Certificated Organization shall establish a person specification for the fire risk assessor that identifies the knowledge and skills required. The person specification shall identify the minimum competency requirements and any additional competency  requirements appropriate to the fire risk assessments being undertaken.


The guidance to the above goes on to say that it would be expected that a competent risk assessor would be on one of the registers, but this is not mandatory.

[Mike Buckley]

The argument goes round in circles again.

The major point is always is there any advantage to having TPC? Until there is a positive advantage and not just a warm cosy feeling it will struggle.

There are a number of drivers.

Legislation to make it compulsory to have TPC to carry out FRAs, the government with its drive to reduce regulation won't take this path.

The insurers requiring FRAs to be carried out by TPC bodies?

The Fire Authorities challenging FRAs which is another old argument.

The crunch is that in general it is the finance people who make the decision on who to use and usually TPC is well down their list, (if on it at all)

[Golden]

Kelsall I can understand your frustrations but you have to understand that many of us are frustrated too; as Kurnal has pointed out he's about to be thrown out of the FIA and that must be a little frustrating for him too. Unfortunately I personally believe the bar has been set too low - the questioning and tests for the 205 registration were quite simple and there was no real checking of prior learning and experience apart from a few selected (by me) examples of the work I had been carrying out. A further flaw was that the meeting was at my office, whereas most of my work is carried out in London and an hour or so away - the criteria for work examples was that it had to be within 30 minutes from the office which left me with a choice of six blocks of low rise purpose built flats or a garden centre!! This hardly reflected the work that would be expected of a 'competent' fire risk assessor in my opinion.

Kurnal also points to the 'polarisation' and I too find this a bit sad - SP205 is one size fits all - but it doesn't and you agree that its not always cost beneficial. You have pointed out that many organisations have taken fire risk assessments in house and that this is due to being let down; I'd partially agree but mainly its based on cost - but how many of these in house assessors have any TPC as individuals they are probably chosen by application/interview processes based on their knowledge and experience. The environment changes constantly and a good assessor/company will look outwards to the business environment and adapt as necessary - my belief is that there is a need for better regulation/control of the fire safety sector but trying to marginalise good assessors just because they don't have TPC is the wrong path to tread.