Fire risk Assessment

[PhilB]

PhilB,

Yes, I have read guidance note 1.  Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance?  That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47.  And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?

I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of  the CLG guides.  I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.

The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned.  This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence.  What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation.  I ask again, read Article 47.

As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied.  However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed.  This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.

No, I don't enforce this legislation.  Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.

Peanut I have read, understood the meaning of and taught fire safety law for many years. Incuding article 47.

May I recommend that next time, rather than stating what you think the Statute says, you read all of the Order and try and understand what it means.
For example 26(2) says "In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it."

The Secretary of State issued Guidance Note No.1, in which he points out that the ACOP to the MHSW  Regs  provides appropriate guidance on what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Yet you think my reference to the ACOP is bizarre.

What is bizarre is the fact that the authors of the CLG Guides chose to ignore that document when producing their guides and opted for a different definition of significant findings.

Of course the MHSW Regs are disapplied if the Order applies but the requirement for a suitable and sufficient risk assessment remains the same.
The Safety Signs & Signal Regs like most relevant statutory provisions only require measures to be provided if a risk assessment determines they are necessary. Why on earth do you consider that to be prescriptive?

If not an enforcer are you a consultant?, and If so I wonder if you advertise your competence on any other forums?

[nearlythere]

PhilB,

Yes, I have read guidance note 1.  Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance?  That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47.  And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?

I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of  the CLG guides.  I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.

The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned.  This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence.  What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation.  I ask again, read Article 47.

As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied.  However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed.  This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.

No, I don't enforce this legislation.  Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.

Peanut I have read, understood the meaning of and taught fire safety law for many years. Incuding article 47.

May I recommend that next time, rather than stating what you think the Statute says, you read all of the Order and try and understand what it means.
For example 26(2) says "In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it."

The Secretary of State issued Guidance Note No.1, in which he points out that the ACOP to the MHSW  Regs  provides appropriate guidance on what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Yet you think my reference to the ACOP is bizarre.

What is bizarre is the fact that the authors of the CLG Guides chose to ignore that document when producing their guides and opted for a different definition of significant findings.

Of course the MHSW Regs are disapplied if the Order applies but the requirement for a suitable and sufficient risk assessment remains the same.
The Safety Signs & Signal Regs like most relevant statutory provisions only require measures to be provided if a risk assessment determines they are necessary. Why on earth do you consider that to be prescriptive?

If not an enforcer are you a consultant?, and If so I wonder if you advertise your competence on any other forums?

Time out Guys. Lets all get back into the nest again and do what we all do best. Debate.

[Midland Retty]

I think "debating" is what they are doing Nearlythere

Withiout this healthy debate we wouldnt learn anything.

[peanut]

PhilB,

I didn't think that YOUR reference to the MHSW was bizarre, and I apologise for the misunderstanding.  One of the points I am trying to make is that the reference to it in Guidance Note 1 is bizarre, as is the reference in the CLG guides to the Signals Regs.  You agree that the MHSW regs don't apply if the Order applies, yet don't think it odd that Guidance Note 1 refers to an ACOP for those very regs?

Schedule 1 of the Signals Regs does set down some prescriptive requirements about the type of sign and their locations.  Although the overarching requirement of the Signals Regs is for signs to be provided where required by a risk assessment, the presence of this prescriptive information at all is in contrast with the requirments of the Order.

I too have read all the Order, and like yourself would claim to have a degree of understanding in its meaning.  I am only trying to stress that whilst, as Thatcher said "guidance is guidance, it is not the law", Courts have interpreted guidance in a more prescriptive manner.  Although the guidance notes are issued by the SoS, they are not issued in pursuant of his duties under the Order, as this only requires him to provide guidance to assist responsible persons.  The CLG guides are thus the only ones issued under the Order, as they are intended for responsible persons.

I think we are in agreement on one thing - the content of the CLG guides.

Thanks for umpiring nearlythere, but as Midland Retty says a bit of debate must be a good thing.  Attend any legal conference and you will hear completely different opinions about legislation.

[PhilB]

PhilB,

I didn't think that YOUR reference to the MHSW was bizarre, and I apologise for the misunderstanding.  One of the points I am trying to make is that the reference to it in Guidance Note 1 is bizarre, as is the reference in the CLG guides to the Signals Regs.  You agree that the MHSW regs don't apply if the Order applies, yet don't think it odd that Guidance Note 1 refers to an ACOP for those very regs?

Schedule 1 of the Signals Regs does set down some prescriptive requirements about the type of sign and their locations.  Although the overarching requirement of the Signals Regs is for signs to be provided where required by a risk assessment, the presence of this prescriptive information at all is in contrast with the requirments of the Order.

I too have read all the Order, and like yourself would claim to have a degree of understanding in its meaning.  I am only trying to stress that whilst, as Thatcher said "guidance is guidance, it is not the law", Courts have interpreted guidance in a more prescriptive manner.  Although the guidance notes are issued by the SoS, they are not issued in pursuant of his duties under the Order, as this only requires him to provide guidance to assist responsible persons.  The CLG guides are thus the only ones issued under the Order, as they are intended for responsible persons.

I think we are in agreement on one thing - the content of the CLG guides.

Thanks for umpiring nearlythere, but as Midland Retty says a bit of debate must be a good thing.  Attend any legal conference and you will hear completely different opinions about legislation.

No Peanut I honestly don’t believe that the reference to the ACOP in the guidance note is bizarre. The ACOP explains, very well in my opinion, what constitutes a suitable & sufficient risk assessment. It did so before the WP Regs or Fire Safety Order were made and it continues to do so today, so to refer to it is entirely appropriate.

Yes  Schedule 1 of the signals Regs may appear prescriptive as does article 14 of the Order which says, amongst other things, that exit doors must open in the direction of escape. But the requirement for the measures under both are subject to a risk assessment. i.e. if the FRA does not require exits to open in the direction of escape, they don’t have to, the same applies to the signal regs....in my opinion only of course.

Guidance is guidance, no more and no less and the case law you refer to was pre the days of enforcement appropriate to the risk.

Yes I concur that the SoS is not obliged to issue guidance for enforcers under article 26 in the same way as he must issue guidance under article 50, but the fact is that he has issued such guidance and enforcing authorities must have regard to that guidance. (come on you fellow anorak wearers, read the articles.)

At least we can agree that the CLG guidance is pants and that Nearlythere worries too much.

Debate is good, long may it continue, and although I often do, I never really mean to offend.

[Davo]

Gents

Lets not forget previous threads about what was deemed to be suitable and sufficient. The Guidance Note One at least clarifies this even if one does not entirely agree. (Some of the fire definitions differ to those in H & S)
(it would have been better to quote the ACOP and publicise the GN rather than sneak it out)

Peanut, whilst technically you are correct, common sense dictates that clarity is required in a vast number of areas of fire safety. Just think of it as Service Pack One! All it requires now is some of the FRSs to get out there and enforce it as more enlightened FRSs are doing eg Lancs

davo

davo

[Tom Sutton]

PhilB I have looked closely at your template and it is a very professional and compared with other similar templates I have seen, it would rate very high. It provides a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment record for your client and indicates any actions he needs to implement.

The way I see it template shows the written aspect of the FRA it does not show how you arrived at your conclusions therefore in my opinion you still need a procedure on collecting the information and evaluating it. The various step plans do provide this guidance and a good FRA template would form part of the later procedures.

In your template you use a drawing which is something I would favour but what are the expense implications.

[PhilB]

The reasoning is contained in the narrative, you don't in my opinion need a scoring system or matrix, you can justify why or why not the existing measures are adequate in writing.

Yes I do favour a plan as I think it the easiest way to record the precribed information, which includes the findings of the assessment including the measures that have been or will be taken = the preventive & protective measures = the general fire precautions.

Most clients can supply plans, if not they can usually be easily produced.

[Tom Sutton]

For an inexperience person I do not think the narrative would be sufficient I think s/he would need a clear set of instructions, step 1, and step 2, so on. My understanding of scoring systems or matrixes is about reaching conclusions on your findings and I am not concerned at the moment with that aspect.

I am with you on plans but does the inclusion add very much to the cost of a FRA.

[PhilB]

For an inexperience person I do not think the narrative would be sufficient I think s/he would need a clear set of instructions, step 1, and step 2, so on. My understanding of scoring systems or matrixes is about reaching conclusions on your findings and I am not concerned at the moment with that aspect.

I am with you on plans but does the inclusion add very much to the cost of a FRA.

Quite agree TW, but I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system.

Plans can often be suppied by the client and scanned, or a simple line drawing can show layout and most measures that need to be recorded. Of course you don't have to use a plan but a picture paints quite a few words, and I hate typing.

[Midland Retty]

Blimey the way you ramble on the forums Mr Barry anyone would think you love typing :-) (just kidding ... you never ramble - you enlighten)

But plans are useful and its easy for all concerned (RPs, Assessors, Inspecting officers) to get a good grasp of what they're dealing with when a plan is available.

Complex buildings can be a nightmare to memorise in the mind's eye without a plan. Whilst you shouldnt rely on them things can be missed if you dont have one to hand.

They dont need to be too expensive - using most Microsoft software (Word, Powerpoint, Publisher) you can knock up a simple line plan.  

Failing that whats wrong with getting those antiquated pencil and rulers thingies out and doing it manually?

Eitherway to me the inclusion of a plan provides a quick reference point for the installed precautions to accompany the risk assessment  (rather like a fire cert plan) .

Furthermore in larger buildings they serve as a reminder of the layout of the building, reminds you of all those nooks and crannies that need to be looked at or may have been missed.

[PhilB]

Blimey the way you ramble on the forums Mr Barry anyone would think you love typing .

Well just remember Young Retty that as I type (or ramble) at approximately 3 words a minute, I don't get out much.

It's just that I can't resist the cheery banter that goes on in here, where's that pleasant Clevelandfire chappy?, off for a new type-writer ribbon I'll wager.

[jokar]

TW I have sent you an e mail.

[Tom Sutton]

Phil you say "I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system." The RR(FS)O puts the RP in the driving seat and he is on most occasions,  an inexperienced person, at least in fire safety, what does s/he use?

Sorry to be a pain in the a**e but although I have issued many fire certificates I have never done a FRA so I consider myself in a position to understand the problems of the responsible persons with regards to the FRA. There is plenty of conflicting guidance out there but which do they use? Please do not say use a fire consultant which in some circumstances could be the right answer, but another minefield.

I await your email jokar

[PhilB]

Phil you say "I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system." The RR(FS)O puts the RP in the driving seat and he is on most occasions,  an inexperienced person, at least in fire safety, what does s/he use?

Sorry to be a pain in the a**e but although I have issued many fire certificates I have never done a FRA so I consider myself in a position to understand the problems of the responsible persons with regards to the FRA. There is plenty of conflicting guidance out there but which do they use? Please do not say use a fire consultant which in some circumstances could be the right answer, but another minefield.

I await your email jokar

Sorry TW but I do have to say use a consultant or alternatively they cound send an employee on a course or attend a course themselves.

Fire risk assessment is specialist subject that can only be carried out by someone who knows what their doing.

In the past a fire officer who hopefully had done quite a bit of training would inspect the workplace, issue a notice of steps and then issue a fire cerificate and then reinspect from time to time to make sure all was ok. That has now gone and has been replaced in many organisations by the local manager who knows chuff all.

Yes for small simple buildings Mrs Prendergast can assess her own shop but for more complex premises there should be suitably qualified assessors.

Also what is really worrying is that there have recently emerged many "fire consultants" who clearly do not know what they are doing.