FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on December 01, 2006, 11:38:49 AM
-
There seems to be a lot of confused Responsible Persons out there. I retired before fire risk assessment got into full swing and I consider myself among the confused. (Must have a word with the matron :))
In the simplest of practical terms is the procedure,
1. Under article 8 conduct a survey on the general fire precautions that involves,
a) Conducting a fire prevention inspection identify any fire risks and reduce or eliminate them.
b)Produce a MOE scheme ensuring the MOE, emergency lighting, FFE, Fire alarm and Fire Procedure/Training are to a satisfactory
standard, if not correct it.
2. Under article 9 conduct a Risk Assessment to ensure the safety of all relevant persons from any potential fire risk processes/hazards and
other hazardous substances.
Para 1 is not recorded. Para 2 is recorded if 5 or more is employed.
I know this is very simplistic but if I was a Responsible Person and did the above to a satisfactory standard and had all the necessary comissioning certificates would this keep the FRS off my back?
-
Article 8 sets out your duty to take general fire precautions. You determine what is necessary by carrying out a suitable & sufficient FRA. If you employ 5 or more or have a license you must record your findings.
Will the FRS keep of your back if you do all the things you mention...yes, I would think so.
In my opinion only of course, most inspecting officers do not really understand what constitutes a suitable sufficient risk assessment. Yet they have to tick a box saying whether it complies or not.
I've seen many assessments, some good, some very poor. At the end of the day it is only a tool for achieving the objectives....a few sheets of paper.
-
Article 8 sets out your duty to take general fire precautions. You determine what is necessary by carrying out a suitable & sufficient FRA. If you employ 5 or more or have a license you must record your findings.
Will the FRS keep of your back if you do all the things you mention...yes, I would think so.
In my opinion only of course, most inspecting officers do not really understand what constitutes a suitable sufficient risk assessment. Yet they have to tick a box saying whether it complies or not.
I've seen many assessments, some good, some very poor. At the end of the day it is only a tool for achieving the objectives....a few sheets of paper.
only that it appears to comply-we never say that it does when we send a letter to the reponsible person after an audit
-
I would say you need to have a reasonably good look at articles 8 to 22. All of these are on the audit form which we tick off as compliant/non-compliant/partially compliant.
You could only be letting yourself down in small areas, but for the purpose of the audit form and compliance levels, the duty to pass information on to staff is as important as MOE and fire warning arrangements. (Daft but true) Too many failures even in small areas and I would be having to fight your case to my line manager as to why we don't need to issue an enforcement notice.
-
Hasnt your line manager heard of the Enforcement management Model? Should he not recognise that the RP has made a genuine effort to comply and therefore offer advice rather than enforcement?
-
Thanks PhilB I have read Article 8 and 9 again and see it as you stated.
Pip nothing changes in the FRS, its called covering your back :) we did it in the dinosaur days.
-
Thanks PhilB I have read Article 8 and 9 again and see it as you stated.
Pip nothing changes in the FRS, its called covering your back :) we did it in the dinosaur days.
Well maybe a subtle difference-we only sample audit under the FSO-not like the old certificate days when we did a top to toe, and if we did say'it does comply' isn't that almost like issueing a certificate?The current wording ensures that the onus remains on the 'responsible person' to get it right, not the fire service.Same thought process as the M.O.T. really-your certificate does not guarentee the vehicle complies with the law, or is even safe to drive.
-
Hasnt your line manager heard of the Enforcement management Model? Should he not recognise that the RP has made a genuine effort to comply and therefore offer advice rather than enforcement?
The EMM is blind to effort. The whole 'partially complaint' option means that someone making an effort but maybe not getting it 100% right could quite easily end up with compliance level 3 which would mean enforcement or notification of deficiencies.
Compliant = 1
Partially-compliant = 3
Non-complaint = 5 points
Average the result, round it to the nearest, and you have a compliance level. Therefore mostly "partially" would be quite likely to score a 3.
I can't say I agree with how it is working at the moment. "Partially complaint" is far too onerous. It seems like theres 3 types of people, the ones that are doing it 100% correct, then theres people doing nothing at all, and in the middle of that is everyone else. Someone needs to do some better maths IMO.
-
I thought there was a table in the original guidance to the EMM (table 5?) that analysed the responsible person factors and was to be used to determine the appropiate level of enforcement? Something about history, intent and attitude of the RP?
Memory getting a little hazy though- did this never see its way through to the final national guidance?
-
Yes, there is indeed a flowchart. The responsible persons flowchart could lower an enforcement notice to an action plan or notification of deficiencies if the selected criteria is met. (RP attitude being the final area) It doesn't ever lower it to verbal advice or a "let them get on with it". :)
-
Where is this 'Enforcement Management Model' published?
-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/emm.pdf
Look for table 6 and the flowcharts following it. They are very similar apart from certain differences in the wording. i.e. Replace "improvement notice" with "enforcement notice".
-
Thanks, but why are we discussing this HSE model in relation to the Fire Safety Order?
-
Because IIRC the fire service now have to follow a very similar model during enforcement now, no running around throwing notices left right and centre at the whim of the IO
-
The Enforcement management Model has been adopted as it is a recognised method.
More importantly in this age of accountability, if a fire authority is to prosecute, they have to evidence that a process has been undertaken and it isn't just a whim. The EMM is auditable and robust and can be used to show that the process has been caried out, hence the little tick box on the audit form that says "EMM applied?"
-
The Enforcement management Model has been adopted as it is a recognised method.
More importantly in this age of accountability, if a fire authority is to prosecute, they have to evidence that a process has been undertaken and it isn't just a whim. The EMM is auditable and robust and can be used to show that the process has been caried out, hence the little tick box on the audit form that says "EMM applied?"
Who says so?
-
[The Enforcement management Model has been adopted as it is a recognised method.]
Several FRS in the NW have 'improved' the HSE Enforcement management model, which was only partially adopted anyway. THe model posted on the CFOA web site didn't go the whole hog with gap analysis and so can appear unduly presecriptive in its approach.
The model developed by the NW gives an element of discretion back to those 'bad old' FSO's so that they can avoid taking everyone to Court for daft trangressions and chucking enforcement notices around like confetti.
If the HSE want to pickup on the better model ... they are most welcome!
-
So the NW say so?
-
Is it that relevant "who says so"?
For once, the inspecting officers are demonstrating that a process has been followed which is recognised within the legal system. It's robust and auditable which I feel is important, and if required I would be able to justify my level of enforcement when it may be considered too harsh.
If it's CFOA guidance, then the answer must be CFOA say so?
-
Yes I think it is relevant.
-
If I recall the EMM was devised by the "Better Regulation task force " which was later to become the "Better Regulation Executive" an official National Government body -part of the Cabinet Office.
The EMM was one of their earlier initiatives and I recollect that all government enforcement agencies were "encouraged" to adopt its principles- but I dont think this was ever a dictat. Certainly the HSE were the first organisations to embody its principles and many brigades therefore base their systems on the HSE version. But they did not invent the idea so far as I recall
-
Thanks Kurnal.
My view of this EMM is that it may be fine for most H&S risk assessment work; however, fire risk assessments are something different. Clearly though, some fire authorities have decided to make use of it (with DCLG/HMIFS support? I wonder...) and we shall therefore have to see how this works out.
It is relevant because fire risk assessors might well take a relaxed view about a premises, advising accordingly, only for the client to be hit with an enforcement notice because of a less than satisfactory sytem being applied in a few areas of the UK.
I'm less than impressed with any of the correspondance I see being sent out by brigades at the moment!
-
Yes and I am less than impressed than the guidance currently being sent out by DCLG etc!
-
Pip,
You are ahead of me. What guidance from the DCLG?
Still took thirty years of circulars to get the FP Act right and then it was repealed. I get sooooooo depressed.
-
For those Officers who inspect petrol stations is the EMM the correct document?
The EMM refers to RRO. Petroleum comes under DSEAR.
-
For those Officers who inspect petrol stations is the EMM the correct document?
The EMM refers to RRO. Petroleum comes under DSEAR.
The EMM is not just for RRO it is used by many Enforcement agencies and the Fire bit of DSEAR was added to workplace Regs sometime ago