Misleading FRA's

[Fraudley]

I recently inspected a premises (I wont go into detail but it is one of over a thousand owned by the parent company) that had been risk assessed by a reputable company that employs over 40 consultants and is connected to, or endorsed by the industries largest health and safety organisations. As well as fire risk assessments, this same consultancy manage the health and safety for this company. I was disgusted at the FRA. It was full of innacuracies and untruths, and painted a completely false picture of the building and the management. Sadly, as a consequence of this incompetence, the manager has been ignorant to the many hazards, and was blissfully unaware that he was infact responsible for a potential death trap.

I spend most of my time speaking to RP's on inspections about the poor quality of their risk assessments and the knock on effect it may have had. So many reputable risk assessment companies still believe that providing a check list is the same thing as an assessment. How can the RP learn if they are simply ticking boxes?

If I didn't act professionally on the station or on a job, my 'Guv' soon pulled me in to the watch room and hauled me over the coals. If I'm unsure on an inspection, I have more guidance to refer to and a great team to ask advice. I am accountable. Yet I have no powers to act when I come across such poor practice and ultimately the wrong person ends up suffering the consequences. I'm not interested in a them and us on this, but I would like to know what the 'real' RA experts on here think about these self proclaimed experts and what could be done to knock them into shape?

[kurnal]

Third Party Certification would help- the use of companies registered under the BAFE SP205, FRACS or equivalent schemes?
But in an industry driven by cost and RPs always looking to save a few bob the lowest common denominator will prevail. I do sympathise and come across similar situations all the time including one last week that sounds exactly as you describe conducted by an IOSH register member. Like yours there were dangerous conditions in respect of means of escape, compartmentation, fire alarm, fire emergency plans. The consultant had approved the removal of a gaseous suppression system in a plant room and its replacement by two 100lb dry powder extinguishers that were to be applied through holes that had been knocked in what should have been a two hour compartment wall!

The enforcers and Government are leaving it to the industry itself to push the TPC schemes. The enforcers and Government agencies need to be much more proactive in creating a demand for these schemes. I have just failed to win a tender for a local authority where the contract was awarded purely on cost without regard to competence. Companies offering £75 per assessment - The RP will get what they pay for.

I just take issue with two of your comments. These are NOT reputable companies if they are not giving a competent service. They probably show the badges  and probably are not even members. Was the "industries largest Health and Safety Organisation" in the fire sector or the general H&S sector? Could you or the RP not make a complaint to them?

And I assume you are an enforcer- if you don't act when you come across poor practice then who do you think will? I would suggest that the cards are in your hands to do something about it. If the assessment was not S&S then only those responsible for enforcement are in a position to do something about it!

Sorry if this response reads a little harsh Fraudley I did not mean it to read as a condemnation,   your points are very valid and worthy of discussion at length!

[Golden]

Whats really scary Kurnal is that the £75 FRA will possibly be even be subcontracted; what do they think they are getting for that sort of money? I'm assuming its a tick box assessment with no explanatory text - possibly even the 'drive-by' FRA where the assessor carries out the work from Google maps!! I know I've mentioned it before but the reminder for SP 205 is still on my desk and at the moment I'm really not inclined to spend £750 and waste another day on renewing/maintaining the registration.

[The Colonel]

I not sure if you are an inspecting officer or not but if you are then you must do something about such a poor FRA. A former colleague of mine who is an enforcer viewed a FRA on a care home that was so poor that he took the company to task by writing to the company to inform them that they were considering prosecution of the company and the consequences. Shortly after receiving the letter a director of the company was dispatched to meet the enforcing authority, as a result of the meeting and after due consideration the company gave up getting their health and safety consultants to do FRAs. The health and safety company put the lives of residents of a care home at great risk due to their lack of knowledge.

These companies must not be allowed to carry on with such poor work that puts people at risk and without being told how poor they are they will just carry on regardless. I know its difficult but they must know when they are in the wrong and you have a right and duty to tell them so.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with the Colonel. The whole system must work on checks and balances. The only people who have the power to drive out the poor companies are the enforcing authorities, and they to have to do it by enforcing against poor FRAs.

The problem to a large extent is the system is driven by market forces and the accountants will tend to go for the lowest quote and they will get the FRA they disserve. If the enforcing authority then comes in, finds a poor FRA and does nothing about it, they are condoning the FRA.

If they enforce against the RP on the grounds of the FRA not being suitable and sufficient, then the RP will have to have the FRA redone and will have to make sure the new FRA is suitable. The lesson will be pushed across that if the RPs go for the cheapest quote and not for a proper outfit then at the least they will have to spend more money getting a proper FRA done, either that or chase up the person who did the FRA to come back and do the job they were paid for.

The government is not going to do anything, so it has to be up to the enforcing authorities to act. Don't feel sorry for the RPs they ar the ones who made the decision to go for the cheapest in the first place.

I am afraid the only worry I have is the quality of some of the enforcing officers and the attitudes of the brigades. There is some very good work going on out there but there is also some which is terrible.

[nearlythere]

It is common to find FRA companies flying all sorts of flags and banners but produce very poor work and I think they source contracts by giving an impression of excellence. I too have come across an outfit which had a contract to carry out assessments for a national care home provider. I was approached to provide the employee training in a number of locations. I had obtained a copy of the FRA and their evacuation strategy from each manager. On scrutinising each I could only conclude that these were all a cut and paste of a master assessment and strategy as it gave no information on the specifics needs of each site and indeed made mention of sprinkler systems of which there were none in any of the relevant locations.
In another case a FRA carried out by a chartered surveyor working for an insurance company produced an Assessment which was not short of 50 pages of waffle, twaddle and bovine excrement which was more a condensed version of the guidance to PPAs rather than a specific assessment of fire risk for the premises.
This assessment posed questions for the client rather identifying and assessing issues and why would you need to mention the standards in a factory in an "assessment" for a PPA?

I don't necessarily agree that any kind of accreditaton will resolve the issue but enforcement authorities should be more critical of poor assessments. Until proper enforcement is carried out we will continue to have cowboys, be they competent or accredited, producing inadequate assessments. They can be dangerous and a complete waste of money.

[Steven N]

Interesting thread , I read lots on here about rubbish fire officers, but there are lots of poor assessors etc out there as well. However rather than go down that route of yah boo sucks you are worse than us I would like to pose a question, if a FRA is not in itself s&s what in reality can be done about it?

[nearlythere]

Interesting thread , I read lots on here about rubbish fire officers, but there are lots of poor assessors etc out there as well. However rather than go down that route of yah boo sucks you are worse than us I would like to pose a question, if a FRA is not in itself s&s what in reality can be done about it?

If a fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient the EA can include it in an action plan or serve a notice on the employer or AP/RP to have one carried out. The requirement on the AP/RP is to provide a suitable and sufficient FRA. If it isn't then a FRA has not been carried out.

[Steven N]

I fully understand what it says NT I deal with this on a daily basis , what I am asking is in reality what can be done about a FRA that is not in my opinion S&S but the person who carried it out states that it is? The person who paid for it is stuck in the middle, says i paid for it in good faith & just wants to carry on there business. Would you suggest that a court case could be won on this basis?

[AnthonyB]

I would have thought it depends on how far the RP went to establish the competency of the competent person they used - having chosen a  third party accredited firm would presumably aid a due diligence defence more than if they had chosen some random joe who has a connection to fire but not necessarily risk assessment (such as a certain extinguisher service man who will have been released from prison along with the RP who employed him by now)

[kurnal]

Enforcement Officers need sufficient training experience and managerial backup to recognise when action needs to be taken and the confidence and courage of their convictions  to take the appropriate  steps when  necessary. The Industry is doing its best to play its part by getting behind the work of the competency council and TPC. The enforcers need to back us up.
Its simple and all in the Order. Is the risk assessment suitable and sufficient and if not are relevant persons put at serious risk as a consequence? If they are then enforcement action needs to be taken. Serve an enforcement notice to identifiy the shortcomings and steps that need to be taken.  This will help create the necessary impetus to improve standards.

[Mike Buckley]

'The person who paid for it is stuck in the middle, says i paid for it in good faith & just wants to carry on there business.'

I am afraid it is a case of "caveat emptor" let the buyer beware. In all seriousness if I am approached in a pub and offered a watch valued at £1000 for £50, there are two possible scenarios either it is a fake or it is stolen.

In the same manner if a business wants quotes for an FRA and one quote is for £750 and  another is for £75, someone should be asking the question why? what am I getting? and who is doing it? As it is, the accountant or financial director, will say go for the cheapest quote.

If the EA then says 'there, there we know the FRA is c**p but we understand you paid for it in good faith, so it is alright' what is going to happen. Businessman A who paid £75 for his FRA turns to businessman B who paid £750 for his and says 'you idiot, I got mine for a tenth the price of yours and the Fire Brigade says its OK.'

On the other hand if the EA says 'the FRA is c**p, get a proper one done' the business either has to get hold of the person who did the FRA and get them to do a satisfactory one (if they can) or get someone else in. As in the scenario above Businessman A now has to pay out £75 for the rubbish and then £750 for the competent one plus a lot of time and worry getting it sorted, next time Businessman A will go for the better FRA.

What happens then is the business community starts to ask how can we tell who is competent and who is not? The answer is, the various registers.

In the natural world a herd of grazing animals needs predators to kill off the weak and sick members of the herd and promote a health herd.

In our case we need the EAs to penalise the bad FRAs to encourage the good ones and drive the standard up. If they don't all that will happen is businesses tend to go for the cheapest and the standard will fall.

[Golden]

Mike I fully agree with what you say but would also like to add some other cost to employing the wrong assessor. I have seen many examples of additional signage, extinguishers, unnecessary fire detection, fire stopping, replaced fire doors and even luminous stair nosings etc. installed as part of fire risk assessments that are carried out by incompetent assessors. Looking at other whole life costings for these items with respect to maintenance and servicing then the RP has soon paid out more than the cost of a good/competent assessor. I was recently approached by an agency to do FRA for a London housing association at £100 a day (2 assessments and reports) and when I told them it wasn't enough they stroppily said they have plenty of firemen coming down from the north of the country who will do it for that!

I often wonder if these guys actually know what they are letting themselves in for and the implications of a poor assessment?

[nearlythere]

How many assessors have had phone calls from clients with the words "Hey you, this fire risk assessment you did for me is crap. The fire officer said I had to do a proper one." (or words to that effect). If not is that not a fairly good measure of your competence?

[Fraudley]

I just take issue with two of your comments. These are NOT reputable companies if they are not giving a competent service. They probably show the badges  and probably are not even members. Was the "industries largest Health and Safety Organisation" in the fire sector or the general H&S sector? Could you or the RP not make a complaint to them?

And I assume you are an enforcer- if you don't act when you come across poor practice then who do you think will? I would suggest that the cards are in your hands to do something about it. If the assessment was not S&S then only those responsible for enforcement are in a position to do something about it!

Sorry if this response reads a little harsh Fraudley I did not mean it to read as a condemnation,   your points are very valid and worthy of discussion at length!

Thank you kurnal. It is indeed worthy of a debate. I'm an inspecting officer, and on the incident I referred to, I did just that. And more. My frustration is that this is not an isolated case. As an IO, all I am able to do is reject the RA as being S&S, instruct the RP to get another one done, but on occasion, the same company is used, but this time it's slightly improved. But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient. And to take the point to another level, I believe it's an industry issue that the industry should be combatting. I was just hoping for ideas outside the box. Being a member of a body, as is the case of health and safety bodies, in many cases means nothing in the way of competence, it simply means they have paid their subscription fees. A fact that is being proven every day. Isn't it about time there was an association that had the powers to scrutinise and assess the RA's being provided, and take the necessary action against these fraudsters? In todays economic climate, I'm not sure tax payers would appreciate their money being spent on FRS departments specifically set up to police the fire safety consultants.