The Fire Risk Assesment and Self Regulation...is it working?

[Midland Retty]

What are your opinions on fire risk assessment and self regulation . Is it working so far?

Discuss>

(Ps we know those very nice people at CLG can't get it right, but forget about them for now, what about the real world?)

[colin todd]

No, it isn't.  Did anyone expect otherwise?

[Mike Buckley]

I agree it isn't working. The usual method of working, here's the solution, now what's the problem?

Too much spin, not enough investigation.

[Midland Retty]

I think I would have to agree with you both.

What would we want to see in place instead of self regulation - what would work? And who is to blame for self regulation not working in the first place?  (I realise that may sound like a silly question)?

[BLEVE]

Self assessment is fine with me but it has to be carried out by competent individuals and there has to be a better method of critical review.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree self assessment would be fine if it was set up in the first place. The problem is, it wasn't and there has been little effort put in to correct this.

Reminds me of the tale of the genius who had the idea during WW2, that to find all the submarines in the Atlantic all you had to do was remove the water!

[BLEVE]

As I posted on the other thread, I reckon its down to the perception that fire safety is a simple matter of controling a "triangle of fire" this coupled with the CLG guides has resulted in many below par risk assessments.

[Phoenix]

Those who say, no, it isn't working, I'm not going to disagree with you, but could I ask against what benchmark you are making your judgements?  And how have you assessed the effectiveness of the legislation and the new protocols against your benchmark?

Have you considered that, depending upon the benchmarks that you are judging against, there may not have been sufficient time for significant sample sizes to have developed?

Have you considered that the legislation is still new and employers and enforcers are still finding their feet to a certain extent?

Stu

[Clevelandfire 3]

Stu

The Order has been in existence for four years now. So in theory everyone should be converse with it. Previous to that we had the workplace regs which required a risk assessment to be carried out. So its not exactly a new concept. Or atleast it shouldnt be.

BUT thanks to the previous government neither responsible persons consultants nor enforcers really know whats happening.

Yet another example of cart before horse idealogy, yet another example of the previous government trying to slope its shoulders, telling everyone they must do x y and z , but not guiding them on how to do it, then blaming them and prosecuting them when it all went wrong.

Whta an absolute mess. Then we have us fire risk assessors. no recognised benchmark for competence levels, wooley poorly written guidance, non commital fire authorities

Benchmarks you ask Stu. Simples. Ive not come across one RP yet who fully understands their obligations under the fire safety order.  And theyre just the ones who took the trouble to realise that they need assistance. So many RPs out there have never bothered about complying or ever  heard of fire risk assessment. Why? cos theyre already over regulated and the fire safety order was never well publicised any way.

To putit right? Keep with risk assessment as a good idea, but givepeople half a chance, end non commital government departments like the department for Complete Lies and Guff, CLG.

 

[CivvyFSO]

As has been mentioned in a couple of articles, the RRFSO will only work with robust enforcement. We (enforcing authorities) need to be taking a much harder line against non-compliance where that leads to a potential offence, but the attention this gets regarding the extreme fines given is a bit of a double edged sword. It can make the system look unfair.

[Tom Sutton]

Benchmarks you ask Stu. Simples. I've not come across one RP yet who fully understands their obligations under the fire safety order.  And there just the ones who took the trouble to realise that they need assistance. So many RPs out there have never bothered about complying or ever  heard of fire risk assessment. Why? cos there already over regulated and the fire safety order was never well publicised any way.

C3 I agree with what you say but IMO they are not benchmarks they are subjective views.

My idea of a benchmark is to identify the aims of the RR(FS)O for example, reduce or eliminate the risk of a fire starting however if one starts ensure everybody gets out safely. My benchmark would be is the number of fires in non  domestic premises increasing or decreasing or is the number of injuries and fatalities increasing or decreasing and I would accept that he order would only be consideration in these statistics.

I would also say it would take sometime before statistics would be available to give a meaningful result.

[Phoenix]

That's the way I was thinking too, Tom.

The issues of fairness or inconsistency, RP awareness or ignorance, consultants' competence or incompetence, guidance or prosecution, prescription or self regulation, confusion or clarity, etc, are just side shows on the way towards the original objectives of the legislation: safer premises and less burden.

Another objective of the RR(FS)O was to reduce unnecssary burden on commerce.  A very subjective issue.

For me, it's a bit early to be able to make absolute judgements about the success (or otherwise) of the legislation.  But the discussions about the implementation, above, are no less valid for that.

Stu

[AnthonyB]

Almost everyone I have spoken to from the smallest one man office or shop unit to the agents controlling hundreds of large multi occupancy offices and shopping centres thinks that the 'reducing burden on business' is a load of rubbish and a smoke screen for 'reduce fire service budgets by taking a job off them'

Most existing premises that have adequate fire precautions only have them because a fire certificate or buliding regulation required it and in areas of premises I've seen precautions reduced by changes not because a reasoned risk assessment put the case for it but that the people involved just hadn't a clue what they were doing.

Most FRAs we audit in tenancies are little more than expanded versions of the old FPA Fire Safety Checklists and are OK for checking off that your exits are clear, your fire alarm works, etc but not that the number & distribution and ironmongery of the exits routes and doors is satisfactory for the layout, usage and risk; or that the fire alarm system coverage is adequate for the risk, correctly sited and maintained, suitably zoned, has back ups, etc........

The FRA regime is useful in some respects - it's allowed us to design precautions and compensations for flaws in premises that are flexible and more financially realistic for the client, whereas in the same situation in the old Blue Book days we'd be stuck with one solution, on pain of prosecution, regardless of the cost/practicality.

The biggest worry I have is in our main client base the multiple occupancy, where without the fire certificate to bind everything together, everyone is doing their own thing with no regard to the risks across the premises as a whole leading to a fragmented and flawed approach to fire safety - although in this situation there is supposed to be coordination & cooperation it's a total joke and an area being overlooked

On paper it's a good idea and can be in practice - it just isn't working as it ought to.

[Jim Creak]

I agree entirely with Tom, there is no objective data to test the effectiveness of the legislation. I have said consistently that you have to have valid statistics to monitor and determine. We have all known for years how useless historical data is about cause, incidence and effect as recorded by FR1. Whatever happened to the improvements promised in this system.

The latest statistic is that 95% of incidence is unrecorded because these fires are extinguished by portable extinguishers. Where is the objective information and evidence to support this declaration? So we must be doing something right even if it is only extinguisher familiarisation and training...thats if we can believe this number.?

We are all working on assumption, based on the sum of knowledge,information and training. As an industry and because the consequence of fire is so horrific historically there is a tendancy to knee jerk over single incidence, jump to conclusion based on subjective information. Seek headline and go hunting for someone to blame. As with Rosepark, Kings Cross, Isle of Man, Buncefield, etc etc etc the inquest always show a combination of system failure some criminal some negligent, some just coincidence but all, with the exception of arson caused by basic human error based on an incorrect assumption. However the loss of life even with arson is normally associated with a combination of system failure which conspire to change it from an incident to a tragedy.

Just to come to the defence of CLG, the competent employees may well declare that they had done there own risk assessment, declared the strategy, building components, fire safety arrangements and management totally suitable and sufficient to meet the risk matrix....The only thing they didn't do was document this and substantiate the view. This is an offence but all the objectives of the legislation have been met. No fire and no loss of life.

I have an impression , I can make the assumption,that recently it seems that fires in HMO's is on the increase. Why would I jump to this conclusion? If it is true what are the causes? Where can I go for consolidated current detailed information?

I have no evidence other than my own current knowledge which would suggest arson is the major risk and that managers of organisations require training. The law is fine and working.

Essex Fire Service Safety Partnership at  Essex Fire Authority Service Headquarters made over £500,000 offering gudance and assistance in these matters so implementation is strong in Essex.

[kurnal]

Jim I belive their work is not confined to Essex, and have come across their fairly aggressive marketing all over the country, for example in Leeds.

http://www.thefssp.co.uk/fssp_news.asp?fssp_newsitemid=86

So I am not sure you can draw conclusions about implementation within Essex.

It remains beyond me how they can be both gamekeeper and poacher at the same time.
Their marketing states they use serving fire officers to carry out their consultancy services, who is paying their wages? Is it a fair and realistic business model?

If one of the premises they serve burns down, if someone should be injured in a fire how could they investigate and implement any legal enforcement action?