FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Bluefire1 on March 28, 2006, 02:23:59 PM

Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on March 28, 2006, 02:23:59 PM
In some ways I have been fortunate in serving during the period I did. I joined just as the FPA was coming in and saw the transition from the old FA and OSRA formats to the FPA certificates and the inclusion of new premises. I saw the transition from the FSO drawing the red lines on a plan to handing it over to building control, and after 30+ years in the job, I had made my way up through inspecting officer to a Section Head in policy and development. Even as I left 2 years ago to take up as a Fire Risk Consultant, we were still finding premises that after 30 years of FPA didn't have fire certificates (never applied), that almost 70% of premises hadn't carried out a risk assessment either under MHSW Regs or the FP(W) Regs and Section 10 notices were being issued more frequently. In most cases the Authority was unable or unwilling to take legal action against them.

With the introduction of the RR(FS)O and the abandonment of inspections/certificates as we know then, how many 'reponsible persons' will carry out a full fire risk audit and risk assessment and how many will/can understand the principles of means of esacpe etc (even with the guides) that will keep standards where they are under FPA. ODPM whilst saying "you should seek expert help in complex circumstances" seem convinced that the majority of FRA's can be carried out by the occupier with the help of the guides. My personal opinion is that standards will drop and the number of non-complient premises will increase.

Any one agree or disagree
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on March 28, 2006, 02:41:24 PM
You have hit it right on the nail Bluefire1.
The key is how will the order be enforced. It appears this will also be low key. it will be led by the blame and claim culture rather than proactive enforcement
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Nearlybaldandgrey on March 28, 2006, 09:00:17 PM
There are many premises that are non-compliant with the WP regs so they definately won't be compliant with the RRO.

Can I ask what evidence supports the claim that enforcement will be low key?

As far as I'm aware, the order will be enforced, in line with the enforcement concordat of course.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: stevew on March 28, 2006, 09:21:35 PM
I totally agree.

If we can see it why cant those who advise the ODPM.  

Interesting how the 'softly softly' approach of the FPWKP Regs appears to have found its way into the build up to the introduction of the RRO.  Pressure from industry and commerce perhaps?

Occupants beware I see things getting worse before  they get better.  How I would like to be proved wrong.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on March 28, 2006, 09:24:04 PM
The order gives fire authorities the duty to enforce, not the duty to inspect. Each Authority is free to devise its own inspection regime and  enforcement policy which should be based upon both the available resources and the perceived risk level.

The inspection regime will encompass many issues by which risk will be assessed,  in addition to fire safety enforcement- including risk to firefighters, environment, heritage and society. These one stop shop inspections will be carried out by a wide spectrum of officers, with operational crews playing a major role in most brigades.

As far as I am aware there are currently no OMPIS or targets  by which brigades  can be assessed as there were in the past- for example the number of enforcement visits, notices, prohibitions, premises by risk level etc.  

But most of all look at the size and make up of your fire safety enforcement teams. In my opinion numbers, ranks and qualifications have been decimated in the last two years since the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Just look at the number of staff engaged on enforcement duties in most brigades and the type of work they are involved in.
Surely less staff + lower qualifications+ wider range of duties+less National targets and indicators+freedom to make your own enforcement policy= low key enforcement?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: David Rooney on March 28, 2006, 11:43:09 PM
As a "maintainer" of fire alarm systems I would say 5% of our customers don't have a current fire certificate even though they need one.

Probably 30% have never carried out a fire risk assessment basically because there is no one to make them.

Despite our encouragement, if it costs money, the average "small business" isn't going to do it unless there is not just a stiff penalty - these already exist for failing to meet the Workplace Regs - but a real chance of them being caught.

Is there going to be that dramatic an increase in inspections and enough publicity to worry anybody?? And if all these people do their RA's, wilthey be worht the paper they're written on?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: wee brian on March 29, 2006, 09:29:48 AM
The key as you are all saying is the way that the order is enforced. Fire Safety Officers need to visit lots of premises. The trick here will be to take a pragmatic approach to the level of detail.

Walk in the building look around a bit, ask if they have a risk assessment. If they seem to have their act together walk out - 30 minutes max.

Do this all day until you find a "death trap" spend the rest of the day there giving them a hard time.

Alternativeley you can spend a fortnight arguing with somebody about whether their risk assessment is "suitable and sufficient" and that their emergency lighting isnt quite right and that the arrow on the exit sign should be up and not down etc.

Avoid pedantry and things may actually get better.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Reg on March 29, 2006, 10:08:00 AM
We do seem to take too much time enforcing the compliant.  We should be out looking for the scallies out there.  And you don't have to look too hard - just in the right places.  

WB's suggestion is great - but why not use the ops staff to do the 30min "have you got a risk assessment " visit and use the specilast IOs to deal with the problems.  Guidance will of course be necessary but they will cover alot more ground
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: messy on March 29, 2006, 10:53:05 AM
Just like compliance with the WP regs + MHSW regs, I can foresee three distinct categories of premises:

Large muliti-nationals - most will employ consultants and, by-and-large,(away from the food and beverage area) will comply

Small 'corner shop' premises - Most won't have a clue but will pose little risk

Then the middle range: This is the nightmare. Many of these would have had fire certs, will employ many, and have the public within the building. Some will have high risk premises and perhaps sleeping risks. They will know (or have an idea) about RRO but ignore it because of the expense

Meanwhile the FRS FS departments, strapped for cash and anxious on blowing those few resources on long legal cases, will resort to ambulance chasing and tend to prosecute after a fire where the evidence can be recorded and collected more easily. (along with the bodies perhaps)
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: jayjay on March 29, 2006, 12:42:31 PM
The points made are all very valid and without enforcement the regulations are ineffective.
What must also be considered is, even with the best and most comprehensive fire risk assessment completed, the important part is taking note of any significant findings and then introducing control measures or upgrading fire precautions to reduce fire risks.
Telling someone whats wrong is only part of the procedure. Fire Authorities will need to determine if measures are being implemented in a satisfactory and timely manner.
Having an upto date fire risk assessment is only part of compliance with the regulations.
With certification some time constraints  were imposed with a "steps notice" will fire authorities be issuing improvement notices with  completion dates?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Martin Burford on March 29, 2006, 12:50:26 PM
Bluefire

I too was an FPO under the FPA  era.... and that piece of legislation has served this country so well in providing satisfactory MofE from most occupancies.  With the introduction of EU Self-Compliance legislation, [ and we all know what self-compliance means]... standards with fall....and as a consequence fire related deaths and injuries will rise.. I have absolutely know doubt about this.  EU influence is wanting... in fact who want's EU influence anyway ?.....so I feel very gloomy about the future of fire safety in this country ........and i;m so glad i'm not an FB FPO now.. as I doubt if I could contain myself!!!!!!

Conqueror.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on March 29, 2006, 01:56:33 PM
Quote from: Conqueror
Bluefire
.and i'm so glad i'm not an FB FPO now.. as I doubt if I ould contain myself!!!!!!
Having turned to the other side so to speak, I now find what people really think of FSO's. Most people don't know my background when I turn up to do some consultancy work so speak freely and to be honest I find the comments shocking. People have told me that once RR(FS)O comes in they will be over the moon, no more this and more that. When I explain the legal position, I get answers like.... they have to catch me first... why bother to call me as a consultant then if they have no intention of complying .... maybe just get some paperwork in place that will 'fool' the FSO... why knows !

As far as I can see and one or two have touched it here.... this softly softly approach.... the intention from what I have been told up to ODPM level, that either pro-active or full inspection regimes are not on the agenda.. is the main failing in the maintanance of the standards we have now. The idea that the FSO will look at RA's and follow up if there is reason to believe that something is wrong is no way to enforce.. there is a big difference between the' rotweiler' approach and the 'assist in complying' route but if it is law, then whichever way, it needs to be enforced....ideally somewhere between the two approaches, but it cannot be enforced by pulling the teeth of the enforcing authority.

I don't think that the EU legislation in itself is the problem, I have done work in France and Germany and find their pro-active system and heavy penalty scales a boost to the compliance under RA. It to me is simply the way the Gov here has implemented it... the usual token gesture. This applies not only to FS legislation but environmental, health and general H&S among others.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: val on March 29, 2006, 06:04:05 PM
The Fire Policy Division, which drafted the RRO is keen for the Order to be enforced and have dropped fairly heavy hints to FRS that inspection is key. What they cannot, or will not do is force FRS hands by stipulating appropriate levels of enforcement.
FRS on the other hand are expected to make %'age savings year on year  (Gershon, Brown, 'double speak Tony B') and are reluctant to cut shiny red fire engines any more.
Work out where they are looking. It's not rocket science. We may have a nice new piece of legislation (well almost) but pressure to reduce costs may render it ineffective.
Top slicing the most risky premises is the answer...question is, how thin is that top slice?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on March 29, 2006, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: val
The Fire Policy Division....  have dropped fairly heavy hints to FRS that inspection is key.
Val,

I don't disagree with your statement in itself, I was told much the same BUT and the big but.... is, what is an inspection, you mentioned it yourself.... not stipulating appropriate levels. I got the distinct impression that yes FRS's would continue to go to premises (targetting life risk as priority), however the inspection would not be a full walk round as now... no certificate to go off in the future but would consist of an inspection of the FRA, with maybe a look at one or two things. I can't imagine that an FSO will have the time to start to inspect old style a large building possibly multi occ with no certificate standard plans but more outlines to satisfy RA. I have already seen what some people are producing as plans and I would hazard a guess that a 6 year old could do better.  My ex-FRS was in the process of working out points for each premise based on contraventions, size, processes, special risk, life risk etc. and putting suggested re-inspection times to them, some upto every 10 years. It was obvious that it was going down the road of targetting rather than blanket as now, I suppose with limited and getting more so resources, that this is the way most FRS's will go.... in other words.. yes inspections carried out as per orders Sir.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: messy on March 29, 2006, 09:33:50 PM
Val

Why have the Fire Policy Division felt the need to "drop fairly heavy hints" to FRS re inspections? Should this not have been included within the RRO?

It doesn't exactly give me confidence if, as you say, a dept of the ODPM are giving unofficial briefings (aka heavy hints) before thse regs are introduced.

In fact surely this infers that they (Those who drafted the RRO) already believe that the RRO inspection procedures are flawed

Please tell me that I have got the wrong end of the stick!!!
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: AnthonyB on March 29, 2006, 11:17:33 PM
All good comments and probably reflect what will happen.

The RRO extends the principles of the FP(W)Regs, but to greater numbers of premises. With many brigades seeming to be slashing their FSO departments staff numbers & drafting in civilian inspectors (not bad in itself) on pay that is far less than their uniformed predecessors, in some areas to a pittance of a wage (bad for quality & performance), there is little point in extending the refit of fire regulations as these newly covered premises (which are likly to be abysmal)aren't going to be checked, unless there are injuries or deaths, which is a bit too late for casualties.

1-There will be the hard core companies that will carry on as present and embrace fire safety and have excellent controls

2-There will be the large middle ground that have a go, but don't quite understand it & through ignorance accompanied by an unwillingess to do much more than lip service, have flaws in precautions some trivial, some far more serious.

3-And there will be those who just don't give a damn and present a big risk.

Size & nature of premises does not determine who will be in which group - I've inspected small busineses with excellent awareness & compliance, yet inspected larger premises of big companies that are waiting for total loss & death to happen.

As businesses see the spectre of fire Regs in effect diminish & the nearest they get to FSO's being watching Keith Lard on re-runs of 'That Peter Kay Thing' & 'Phoenix Nights' the number4 in the latter two categories above increase.

In the sector I work I am carrying out vastly greater amounts of inspection and enfocrement than the FRS are - most occupiers I inspect have never had FSO visits and have a culture shock to get annual compliance visits. In most cases a firm word and education, coupled with re-inspections, brings improvements, but in some cases enforcement is required - but without those powers our hands are tied, so because the FRS don't visit nothing happens.

Sadly you need an enforcing regime for fire safety to work - it doesn't need to be fining people left, right & centre, but needs to be out there, pointing them in the right direction, reminding people it exists & can bite if provoked.

Can you imagine if all criminal law was removed and replaced with self regulation and the police disbanded and replaced by a smaller nunber of Community Support Officers? It's a silly idea to suggest as there would be anarchy, crime rocketing and lives ruined. But if it's so silly why is it alright with fire - it involves criminal law and ruins lives.....
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: shaunmckeever on March 30, 2006, 09:53:59 PM
Quote from: wee brian
The key as you are all saying is the way that the order is enforced. Fire Safety Officers need to visit lots of premises. The trick here will be to take a pragmatic approach to the level of detail.

Walk in the building look around a bit, ask if they have a risk assessment. If they seem to have their act together walk out - 30 minutes max.

Do this all day until you find a "death trap" spend the rest of the day there giving them a hard time.

Alternativeley you can spend a fortnight arguing with somebody about whether their risk assessment is "suitable and sufficient" and that their emergency lighting isnt quite right and that the arrow on the exit sign should be up and not down etc.

Avoid pedantry and things may actually get better.
Brian, I visited a 'low risk' building the other day. It was the sort of building you would have spent 30 mins in and walked out. I checked a fire exit and found it totally jammed. No obvious fault until the door was checked. Other than that the place was in superb order. It seems the door had been severely damaged by an attempted break in several months ago. It was assumed that the previous building manager had the problem sorted before he moved on. Tenants risk assessments, one of which had only been carried out last week, indicated that all exit routes were available. Good fire officers will most likely check the exit routes but because of the otherwise superb order of the place I can see some fire officers assuming that everything is ok and walking out without checking exit routes. This also highlighted that tenants are not carrying out suitable and sfficient risk assessments. They just stopped at the door to their demise.

Sometimes it pays to be pedantic
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: AnthonyB on March 30, 2006, 11:09:04 PM
Quote from: shaunmckeever
Brian, I visited a 'low risk' building the other day. ....................................... It was assumed that the previous building manager had the problem sorted before he moved on. Tenants risk assessments, one of which had only been carried out last week, indicated that all exit routes were available. .............................. This also highlighted that tenants are not carrying out suitable and sfficient risk assessments. They just stopped at the door to their demise.

Sometimes it pays to be pedantic
All very true - multi occupancies will potentially be a nightmare. We almost exclusively work in this sector for landlords.  It is very rare for tenants to properly consider areas outside their door assuming the landlord will look after it and that all is OK. Yet these areas contain their MoE, their fire alarm system, etc.

The Co-operation & co-ordination required under the existing FP(W)Regs & no doubt the RRO does not happen in most multi-ocupancies.

I started our firm going into fire work in the days when the FPAct was supreme in certified premises. There we inspected the tenants as well as the landlord areas to highlight certificate breaches as a due diligence defence for the landlord (based on the Southend Property Management case). When FP(W) was extended in '99 & we went over to FRAs we continued to inspect tenancies (not FRA them) citing the FPAct and the coordination aspect of the FP(W), but mainly because most risks to a buliding emerged in these areas.

We seem to be in the minority and many multi-occupancies, even those crawling with consultants and FRAs, have no overall responsibilities and each tenant & landlord look after themselves (or not) with no regard to each other and eventually a disaster will occur.

If you want self regulation & have virtually no FSO visits then make landlords self regulate within their properties - FRA their areas & systems under their control, but also to show due diligence in inspecting tenants to advise them of their responsibilities and to coordinate FRAs.

By talking to tenants you can often find out useful information and evidence of faults in systems & procedures that you would miss if you just walked up & down 2 stairwells & stuck your head in the meter cupboard......
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: wee brian on March 31, 2006, 01:20:46 PM
Messy

Its because Fire Authorities are local authorities who have autonomy to set their own policies.

Do you thinkit would be better if we had a National Fire Service?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on March 31, 2006, 02:24:38 PM
Quote from: AnthonyB
We seem to be in the minority and many multi-occupancies, even those crawling with consultants and FRAs, have no overall responsibilities and each tenant & landlord look after themselves (or not) with no regard to each other and eventually a disaster will occur.
This is one of the problems I have come across in multi-occs, the 'employer responsible person' tells me that they have done what is required in their premise and the responsible person beyond their exit door is the landlord/agent based in outer Mongolia. It is hard to convince people that their reponsibility for safe egress lies not only in their premise but beyond to final exit.

With RR(FS)O I can only see this problem becoming more of a problem.... with no FSO to inspect the common areas and landlord managed facilities such as final exits doors, signing and emergency lighting etc. Each 'responsible person' will become isolated and as I mentioned not look beyond their back door.

There is an option of sorts but I am not sure how it lies within the framework.. that is can the FSO insist that the FRA done by the owner for the common areas [8(1)(b)] be included in the FRA done by the employer.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Big A on March 31, 2006, 02:51:29 PM
Can the FSO  deem the RA of an occupier who's not looking past his/her front door to be not suitable and sufficient, though?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Reg on March 31, 2006, 03:28:35 PM
Yes they can.  There is also a legal requirement to co-ordinate and co-operate.  Therefore if the end of an occupiers demise is into a common area that is needed for their means of escape and there is an issue, they cannot ignore it.  At the very least it needs to be recorded in their FRA and bought to the attention of the responsible person for them to action.  The primary responsibility still lies with the employer. to say "well I got them out of my bit" is simply not good enough.  Due dilligence is the order of the day.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: steve walker on March 31, 2006, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: wee brian
Messy

Its because Fire Authorities are local authorities who have autonomy to set their own policies.

Do you thinkit would be better if we had a National Fire Service?
Yes
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Nearlybaldandgrey on April 02, 2006, 01:21:12 PM
The enforcement of the Order will, to some extent be "softly softly", in line with the Enforcement Concordat.

I find it suprising how many premises, covered by Fire certificates, do not comply with current legislation, both FPA and WPR.

As inspecting officers go to premises, they should be looking round aswell as examining the risk assessment. This coupled with the attitude of management should give some idea of how bigger risk the premises present.
I have inspected premises where the Responsible Person talks a good talk, but in reality following the inspection, hasn't got a clue. I've also met responsible persons that have used existing guidance to produce a very good risk assessment. It depends on how serious the person is and their approach. I also find that premises where compliance is expected and shouldn't cause a problem are the ones that pay "lip service" to fire prevention and inevitably pose the higher risks.

I have seen some new audit forms which use a scoring system to give a total compliance level, which in turn gives the appropriate level of enforcement. This could range from a "verbal warning" to full prohibition and prosecution. I've also spoken to officers who use this type of form already and they say it's very good and consistent.

Guidance will be given to both the audit procedures and enforcement of the Order.......... and that forms the basis of 2 days training in June for me.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: jokar on April 03, 2006, 08:01:35 PM
All very good comments other than the fact that the Fire and Rescue service is just one enforcing authority and that none of the 5 involved are responsible.  The Government have quite clearly stated that accountability and responsibility lies with one of three groups and it will for those to decide on the Fire Safety Duties for a particular premises.  There is no onus of responsibility on FSO's and no duty of care.  How can a fire authority inspection as a snapshot of a particular premises be important when a controlling mind is there every day.  As regards the inspection protocols, ODPM decided at scrutiny committee in 2005 that the fact that Article 26 states that an enforcing authority may appoint inspectors is a tenuous enough link to say that one exists.  Other than that, the National Framework document to go with the 2004 Act have one paragraph about IRMP that makes authorities have an inspection process audited by the Audit Commission. FPA will go, forget it and embrace change, its what the stakeholders want.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on April 04, 2006, 01:59:24 PM
Quote from: jokar
FPA will go, forget it and embrace change, its what the stakeholders want.
What who wants ?... it seems to me that all the stakeholders want is shed the burden of responsibility (well most). As an FSO I was accused of being jack booted and throwing my weight around when I carried out visits to monitor compliance, now on the other side they pay me to tell them how little they can get away with. If I try to maintain a standard that I would have expected as an FSO, I am told that I am not being employed to spend their money, just to make things look good on paper. From either side the FRS FSO or the safety consultant it's a lose lose situation. I am seriously wondering if this job is worthwhile because I am sick of being the piggy in the middle between the FRS's and the companies I work for and wondering what the consequences will be if I walk away from somewhere knowing that there are problems, other than report it to the FSO there is nothing I can do and that will give me a good name in the business.... employ him.... he'll have the FRS down on you within the day. At least with the certificate there is something that both sides can use for ensuring that a premises complies, with RA... I hate to think what wil happen.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Big A on April 04, 2006, 02:14:19 PM
Quote from: steve walker
Quote from: wee brian
Messy

Its because Fire Authorities are local authorities who have autonomy to set their own policies.

Do you thinkit would be better if we had a National Fire Service?
Yes
I'm sure it won't be too long before we do. Does anybody not think that regional controls will open the way to regional (and then national) FRSs. It's already happening in the police service.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: wee brian on April 04, 2006, 04:23:14 PM
We can only hope so.

The only point of having regional police forces and fire brigades is so that central government can spread the blame when things are not going so well.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Davo on April 04, 2006, 04:47:27 PM
wee brian
Speaking as the Fire person for a large force about to become merged with three others, some of my new premises will be 80 miles away so popping round to see what our Estates people have been up to won't be so easy. Also how good are their FRAs?
Each force has its own way of doing things and no doubt FRAs will be one of them.
Seems like change for the sake of it. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: val on April 04, 2006, 07:08:55 PM
I'm sure it won't be too long before we do. Does anybody not think that regional controls will open the way to regional (and then national) FRSs. It's already happening in the police service

As a fully paid-up conspiricy theorist, this so-called labour government scare the hell out of me. Unable to persuade people that their arguments are right they are hell bent on controlling every detail of our lives.
We will not regionalise unless the regions vote for it??? Tell that to the North East who voted massively against it. We'll set up regional controls which can only work with standard operating procedures...right, why do we need individual management teams, lets have super regions and a few tame super CFO's.

Tony Blair is more of a dictator than some third world despots.

Once the national police computer has all our DNA and biometric details you will not be able to say boo to a goose before having £100 automatically deducted from your meagre salary.

Sorry, off topic.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on April 04, 2006, 07:15:46 PM
geese have rights too and its time somebody looked after this  important minority group for they may not know how to look after their own best interests. The money thus collected could then be loaned to support the political parties.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: David Rooney on April 04, 2006, 07:23:57 PM
Quote from: val
Tony Blair is more of a dictator than some third world despots.

Once the national police computer has all our DNA and biometric details you will not be able to say boo to a goose before having £100 automatically deducted from your meagre salary.

Sorry, off topic.
John Spartan you are hereby fined 100 credits for mentioning our lord's name in vane.

So if you get caught saying "boo" does that mean you've been goosed ??
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: AnthonyB on April 04, 2006, 11:18:23 PM
Quote from: Bluefire1
Quote from: jokar
FPA will go, forget it and embrace change, its what the stakeholders want.
What who wants ?... it seems to me that all the stakeholders want is shed the burden of responsibility (well most). As an FSO I was accused of being jack booted and throwing my weight around when I carried out visits to monitor compliance, now on the other side they pay me to tell them how little they can get away with. If I try to maintain a standard that I would have expected as an FSO, I am told that I am not being employed to spend their money, just to make things look good on paper. From either side the FRS FSO or the safety consultant it's a lose lose situation. I am seriously wondering if this job is worthwhile because I am sick of being the piggy in the middle between the FRS's and the companies I work for and wondering what the consequences will be if I walk away from somewhere knowing that there are problems, other than report it to the FSO there is nothing I can do and that will give me a good name in the business.... employ him.... he'll have the FRS down on you within the day. At least with the certificate there is something that both sides can use for ensuring that a premises complies, with RA... I hate to think what wil happen.
Totally with you there - it does seem to be a pointless excercise some days. I refuse to cut corners in reports - the requirement suits the risk, yet often it can be ignored - go back to a buliding 5 years in a row with no change, almost a matter of changing the date & re-issuing the orignal assessment & significant findings. Tenants who bury their head in the sand, FRS who aren't interested as it's not a house, CBRN/resilience issue or an RTA.......

What gets me are the people who say we can relax fire precuations as there have been virtually no workplace deaths for years so ther regs are not required - duh!!! - it's the fact that there have been stringent regs in place for 30 years that workplace deaths have declined so!

It's true that the home is an area of concern and should be resourced, but do we really want another Rose & Crown, Hendersons, Woolworth's, Summerland, Keighly Mill????

National Fire Service? Perhaps. or even Private Fire Service (GSL Falck anyone?). But another idea - the FRS aren't bothered about workplace fire safety, so why not remove it from them - have a Fire Safety Agency instead. After all Health & Safety has the HSE, you don't see the Police carrying out workplace safety inspections.....
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on April 04, 2006, 11:56:12 PM
Anthony
I believe the average  FSO compares very favourably with the average factory inspector. In my experience I have found the HSE to be a waste of space- overly prescriptive, inexperienced and unhelpful. Try asking them for advice- you wont get them to offer any opinion or practical help. Just meaningless jargon.

The EHOs, who enforce in general commercial premises have a much more user friendly approach in terms of advice and helpfulness and aren't frightened to throw the book at someone when necessary.  They would be the better role model in my opinion, as would trading standards.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on April 05, 2006, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: AnthonyB
National Fire Service? Perhaps. or even Private Fire Service (GSL Falck anyone?). But another idea - the FRS aren't bothered about workplace fire safety, so why not remove it from them - have a Fire Safety Agency instead. After all Health & Safety has the HSE, you don't see the Police carrying out workplace safety inspections.....
Having studied how Falck work in Denmark, there is some merit in a mixed private and LA service as they have there, but it is done with the Gov backing which we don't have in the UK. Many countries have independant fire inspection departments, so no reason why it can't work, the down side is of course that it will attack the fire service and that is something nobody wants. But if that is the way to go and RA is to work (which it can do) they need to be trained and have teeth not some lip service Quango.

Without Gov backing to the hilt, none of this new legislation will work..... when I was involved in the drafting of the DSEAR, I attended a meeting where a Ministers secretary said that the removal of the Petroleum Regs and combining them within DSEAR was as a result of there not having been an accident involving petrol since 1928... doh... when were the Pet Regs brought out.... and since licences were issued, no more Bristol incidents, am I alone in tying those two facts together or the reduction in deaths via FA, OSRA and finally the FPA.

The RR(FS)O has the same taint... no big life losses (or so they seem to think.....) so there is no need for prescritive legislation. The HSE are grossly overworked and can never acheive an enforcement inspection level that the FRS does and we can see how H&S standards are today, watering down standards as I said before can only lead to a return to the days of Hendersons, Eastwood Mill, Woolworths etc.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: steve walker on April 05, 2006, 06:39:25 PM
Quote from: wee brian
We can only hope so.

The only point of having regional police forces and fire brigades is so that central government can spread the blame when things are not going so well.
I agree with you wee brian. The last dispute showed the nonsense of the FBU negociating with the "employers" only for the real employers (the government) to step in at the last moment to scupper the deal. We all know who the real employer is.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on April 05, 2006, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Bluefire 1
I am seriously wondering if this job is worthwhile because I am sick of being the piggy in the middle between the FRS's and the companies I work for and wondering what the consequences will be if I walk away from somewhere knowing that there are problems, other than report it to the FSO there is nothing I can do and that will give me a good name in the business.... employ him.... he'll have the FRS down on you within the day.
An interesting argument- I dont think the consultant should ever report their client to the enforcing authority. If the Authority have not visited and taken enforcement through their own vigilance why should I do their job for them? The client pays me for my advice and service, I offer my best advice, guidance and persuasion. But then I walk away and take my fee- in extreme cases I may clearly set out my concerns in writing, pointing out the possible consequences of a fire or enforcement visit. But compliance is their responsibility and choice. My duty of care does not extend to instigating enforcement action. Or have I got it wrong?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: wee brian on April 05, 2006, 10:33:09 PM
MMM

I think you could possibly be liable but only a little bit.

On construction sites, if a professional ignores a dangerous practice then he can be liable for prosecution.

I doubt this would be an issue for a fire consultant unless it was something really nasty. perhaps knowing that all the exits from a premiership football club were locked during a game - and then a few hundred fans bite the dust. They will nick everybody in sight.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Reg on April 06, 2006, 08:22:31 AM
But surely if the consultant has identified the issue, informed his client of the possible outcomes and highlighted the statutory liabilities he has done all within his power.  Once he has walked away it is down to the responsible person to take the appropriate action.  As a IO I would not go after the consultant unless the issue was not identified when it was reasonable to do so or the advice given was flawed.  In the worst case scenario, the consultant has the defence of due dilligence.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on April 06, 2006, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: kurnal
My duty of care does not extend to instigating enforcement action. Or have I got it wrong?
I agree with what you are saying and will agree that in most cases having identified a problem and given the client advice then you have discharged your duty of responsibility. But take the case... you are given the job of preparing a RA report for the owner of a premises and you turn up to find it is a sweatshop. The numbers are well in excess and the MoE is locked. The employer doesn't give a toss even after you tell him and give him a written report, they are happy to say, they have your RA and the problem will be attended to.. you know as well as I do that it will not be rectified. Do you walk away and say you have done your job as the consultant or report to the FRS so that a Section 10 can be taken out.

Having seen first hand at the China Lane incident what can happen, that senario gives me the creeps.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on April 06, 2006, 05:27:05 PM
Bluefire
The bit that doesn't stack up is that if the employer has called me in off his own back then he must care to some extent. If he has called me in following contact with the fire service then they should have taken action if its as bad as you say.

If he is so foolish as to pay for my advice, receive written confirmation of the level of risk and still do nothing about it than that is his problem- and his risk- and  not mine.
I would feel I had failed in persuading him to reduce the level of risk but I would not report him.
Perhaps its a bit  like fire service managers  who dont report their drivers to the police when they fail to  stop and check before passing a red light.
Or the insurance company who observe high hazard levels during their inspections?
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: Bluefire1 on April 06, 2006, 06:02:04 PM
Kurnal

I understand what you are saying and seeing where you are I'm not sure what dealings you have had with multi-occ ex-mills. My upbringing was the back streets of Manchester City Centre and areas like Bolton and Oldham. A lot of these sweat-shop owners will ask for things to be done so they have the paperwork to be checked at the appropriate time hoping to save any hassle and to be viewed from some 1st floor office rather than in the 4th floor sweatshop. To use the old cliche.. if I had got a pound for every time I was told "here is my paperwork - all in order", I would have retired a lot early and a lot richer. I always found it amazing how their grapevine worked.. as soon as an FSO or EHO or even TSO came near you could hear the padlocks coming off or the dangerous chemicals or dodgey labels being locked out of sight.

This is one of the downs I have previously mentioned.. if the RR(FS)O does result in paper checks only, then the meat of the issue will be missed. Some cowboy consultant will give them a report saying all is well and unless the FSO has the mandate to inspect, these things will go unchecked until something happens. To some extent any rants and raves on here are falling on ears that know the problems and on people who are responsible in their duties either FRS or private, but I know out there in the real world, there are some who will sign anything if it means money in their pockets.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: kurnal on April 06, 2006, 06:19:39 PM
Bluefire
I do see where you are coming from and my first job was working in a cotton mill on a dodgy machine which had the guard removed due to a snatching clutch- it did sprain my wrist once when I got caught up in a hank of cotton. And you're right- as soon as the factory inspector knocked on the door the machine was isolated and covered in a sheet time and time again.

And we agree on the importance of proper, robust enforcement. When WE mean robust we mean a thorough  examination of the workplace or an aspect of it. When the ODPM mean robust they mean that the inspector will not look for problems but when someone dies in a fire the law will come down on the responsible person like a ton of bricks. From our point of view thats a life too late.

But the cutbacks and changes in the enforcement of fire safety and the reduction in dedicated FSOs makes me determined not to fill the gap by working as their safety net at my clients expense.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: jokar on April 06, 2006, 07:55:27 PM
Doesn't exeperience make us mean spirited.  Let us not tar all with the same brush, having sat on both sides of the fence and now sitting on the spike I believe that I understand a number of viewpoints.  Firstly, the RR(FS)O is almost a H&S document where FRS and others could just wait until the happening and then enforce as a HSE officer does.  The difficulty with that is that someone could be dead by then.  Alternatively, they use the inspecting powers from the Order and from the National Framework document and enforce by audit.  The difficulty with this is, not enough FSO's and too many premises.  Therefore a risk approach has to be made and some premises will be missed.  But, and it is a big but FSO's will inspect and enforce, maybe they will not always get it right but they will be out there and attempt to make a difference.

The Responsible Person has the duty, but maybe no knowledege.  Still, they can look afetr their workforce and others but hey may choose to do this with the assistance of a competent consultant.  The consultant role, other than to make money, is to assist the RP to look afetr the workforce and others by bringing to the attention of the RP the rights and wrongs of the workplace.  Recommend, communicate findings and work on behalf but, you can not make them do what they do not want or consider.  The role of all parties is to get risk to the as low as reasonably practicable bit as defined by Edwards versus the National Coal Board.  However, cost, time trouble and inconvenience will always play a pert and unscrupulous individuals will always be ther and push the boundaries to the limit.  That, is where the Judiciary step in, the real enforcers.  The only thing is, all parties having done their respective jobs within their respective roles, it could take multiple deaths of innocent people to bring the real price to the attention of everyone and then perhaps a scapegoat will be looked for.  Having said all that let us consider the positive and believe that the HASAW Act has made us all safer and that RR(FS)O could do the same.
Title: RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply
Post by: AnthonyB on April 06, 2006, 09:45:00 PM
There is a great difference between legal requirement & moral requirement. You may feel morally obliged to act further on an issue of great risk, even thought you have no obligation to do so & this is where the dilema can occur.
Fortunately the poor workplaces I inspect are not my clients, their landlord is, so in rare & extreme cases resorting to enforcement presents no problems - I'm protecting the people and also the client (bad fire safety usually goes hand in hand with a greater risk of fire occuring and a loss of income for the landlord as their investment goes up in smoke). My only dilema is that the FRS are reluctant to act due to resource & political constraints (not the I/Os fault)