FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: nearlythere on February 06, 2011, 08:01:23 AM
-
I have just been informed by a very relilable source that an architect from here is getting someone to carry out Fire Risk Assessments for him, putting his own name to them and submitting them so that he can get registered.
I had to help this person with a building design issue to enable compliance with B Regs (not a FRA) and now it would seem he is soon to become an assessor.
I also had to explain the principle of double door protection to him which I thought was strange that an architect would not already understand.
Does the IFE's scrutiny procedure, or lack of it, allow this to happen?
-
If what you say is correct and you have adequate evidence then you should let the IFE know so that it can go through any scrutiny procedure and fully investigate the matter. It may be worth their while using some form of ID procedure (photo) so that when they contact those that have had assessments undertaken by this person that they are sure it is the same one.
If you have clear information I believe that you should make your feelings known as at some point this person may give advice that could endanger others.
-
An issue is that if I do not raise this matter he may very well get registered anyway on the basis of the work he claims is his own.
Does it discredit the IFE's registration process and subsequently the Register of Assessors when there is the potential to get registered using other's work anyway?
-
This is very interesting sometimes its difficult to conceive of the level of deceit around!
-
Heres a link to the IFE guidance document.
http://www.ife.org.uk/frr/Assessor_guidance_notes_v3.pdf
By comparison FRACS Warrington make all applicants attend an interview and exam so their register is likely to be secure against the type of fraudulent application you describe. With the IFE register it appears that the professional review interview is not carried out for all applicants.
On the other hand there are 4 recognised registers and all have very different application procedures. Some have far less onerous checks of competence than others.
-
If not already in place the IFE must build in some means of suitably identifying that the applicant is the same person that undertakes the risk assessments that have been submitted for accreditation. The level of deceit is disgusting, and if the application is confirmed it will make a complete mockery of the IFE register as word will soon get around that it is not worth anything and will tar others on the register with the same brush.
Is it not also a legal offence as they are making a false instrument with intent to deceive (allegedly).
-
Nearly, is this just street gossip, or is there definitive information to this respect. If there is proper info, then it can be addressed. If it is just rumour, then it is not worth much, other than a hypothetical could be maybe.
-
I will be meeting the person in a couple of weeks and will try to get more info from him. He did tell me in strictist confidence and I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Whether true or not the registration procedure would seem to lend itself to being open to abuse.
The person had contacted me as he is attending one of your courses soon and wanted some background info. We talked about Assessments, and how you like fish and chips at 11:30pm in Shaftsbury Sq, as he wants me to do some for organisations he is involved in. It was then he gave me the info.
-
Hi every decent fire safety practitioner should know that most architect know very little about fire engineering ( this is not personal) . I am reliably informed that for the full length of a 5 year degree course guess how much is spent on fire engineering topics ? 3-4 days I am informed and I can believe it to as I inspect public buildings all day long and have been involved in some new build PFI projects and they do not have a clue. As regards the IFE register well its like any other scheme open to abuse.
-
Nearlythere
He needs to be shopped
>:(
simples
davo
-
Until someone offers definitve evidence of abuse, the shopping I will do is at the fish and chip shop to which Nearly refers, though it just shows how gossip can distort the truth, since it is 1am I go there not 11.30.
I have just been informed by a very reliable source that I will be there or nearlythere tomorrow night (and for most nights for the rest of the week.
-
Heres a link to the IFE guidance document.
http://www.ife.org.uk/frr/Assessor_guidance_notes_v3.pdf
By comparison FRACS Warrington make all applicants attend an interview and exam so their register is likely to be secure against the type of fraudulent application you describe. With the IFE register it appears that the professional review interview is not carried out for all applicants.
On the other hand there are 4 recognised registers and all have very different application procedures. Some have far less onerous checks of competence than others.
The FRACS Application process has a double check on evidence submitted. The applicant has to ask permission from the owners of the reports submitted and provide contact details for the owners. Warrington then seeks confirmation from the owner that the submitted report matches the one they have and via a photo ID ask if the individual applicant was the person who turned up on site. They do this for 50% of the submitted reports.
The IFE has long had this loop hole and it does need addressing. It was even worse in the early days when I think that 40 reports had to be submitted unless you attended an approved IFE course that is; in which case it was reduced to 10. I haven’t looked for a while but I think it is ten for everyone now, but as the reports have all identification marks/names and addresses taken off them; they could be anyone’s reports.
Who ran the approved courses? That’s another issue altogether, and perhaps not for this forum.
I believe the IFE knows this is an issue and will be tightening up their application and assessment procedure in the near future, I think all applicants have to attend interview now. The other registers Kurnal refers to are either CV based assessments or a simple sign up to a code of conduct.
-
I have been watching and waiting for leadership from the politicians to create some kind of impetus for the industry sufficient to tip the scales and make it really worthwhile to become a registered assessor on a UKAS accredited register. Whilst ever the powers that be are not be seen to be driving the industry onwards and upwards is my investment in cost, time and trouble in registering simply another burden on my business? Every day I see more Toms, Dicks and Harrys fancying a go at the fire risk assessment business.
Will things change once the Competency Council publish their report and competence standard?
So far the only leading light I can see is the FIA because they say I MUST have applied for one of the registers by the end of march or terminate my membership. Hats off to them for doing their bit but they dont mind which register I join and we all know the 4 registers are chalk and cheese.
We are fortunately as busy as it is possible to be simply by word of mouth recommendation. So the fact that there is no apparent marketing benefit in joining a register does not worry me unduly.
However it strikes me that we are probably wasting our time looking for leadership from the top and wondering whether that leadership should actually come from the grass roots. If those of us who are in the job for reasons other than making an easy buck were all to join a UKAS accredited scheme and if in our publicity and marketing we were to push the benefits of our registration of competence the message may start to get through to the Public out there. And if in joining say the FRACS schemes in some numbers this made the scheme more financially self supportive and stronger then they could invest more in marketing the benefits of using members services. And we start a self sustaining cycle.
Or am I dreaming again?
-
Speyside. How does Warrington know that the person who submitted the Assessments is the person who carried them out?
I now understand that the architect who submitted his application for Registration was with the "Assessor" who undertook the FRAs.
Seems to me to be a system full holes and big ones at that. I just wonder how many "Registered" assessors are competent to carry out assessments?
-
Kurnal a National register would do the job; the way to get on it would be with a UKAS accredited certificate. PI insurance, and a published code of conduct.
If those who can demonstrate competence don’t want to then those that can’t don’t have to. Kurnal is right those who believe they are doing a good job need to take a stance and start to sell their competence and not just sell fire risk assessments. He is also right in that the RP needs educating; insist on competence first then compare prices.
Nearly Warrington sends a picture of the applicant to the RP and asks the RP if this person did the assessment.
-
Perhaps a different approach is for enforcing authorities to challenge the responsible person on the issue of competences of the assessor. and how suitable and sufficient the fire risk assessment is.
I don`t have a problem with people having a go in a simple building new build, ground floor only or ground and first floor only, low occupancy, persons awake and familiar with the building. With a little bit of assistance they can get it right.
Where I do have a problem is people thinking the can do a fire risk assessment of large complex buildings. I have come across joe public carrying out FRA of office blocks with 10 floors. They have missing the significance of dry risers, firefighting lifts, ill fitting fire resistant doors etc.
I don`t really understand why they get upset when I tell them they don`t have the competencies to do the assessment.
-
DD
Not been on your subtleness course then ::)
davo
-
DD
Not been on your subtleness course then ::)
davo
Davo I am a little more subtle face to face and believe me I do try to help people in the first group.