FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jayjay on March 09, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
-
Has any one had experience of their assessments being audited by the FRS?
I have had a couple of enquiries regarding some of my assessments from the FRS and they have asked when I am going to review the assessment, suggesting I should do it annually. One of the premises in question was a very low risk building used for classical music practice.
As there is no defined period for a review, particularly where no changes have occurred I was wondering if the FRS has any guidance on audits regarding the type of premises to target and the frequencies of reviews?
I have over 800 premises on my property list and although I have prioritised them and carry out annual reviews on high-risk premises such as care homes and large public entertainment venues it would be impossible to carry out even three yearly reviews on all premises.
These enquiries have also raised concerns on the experience of the auditors. The person in question was until recently a civilian employee of the FRS and is now a watch commander who has no fire safety training or qualifications, engaged on auditing assessments based on 30 years of experience and college training.
I would be intersted in knowing how other FRS are enforcing the RRO.
-
I suppose it depends whether you are the responsible person, a competent advisor in the employ of the RP or an outside consultant brought in to advise.
Only the RP has a duty to review the risk assessment and should create his policy for managing this. The review procedure should be risk based, prioritised and reasonable, there should be a number of monitoring triggers set within the policy - to catch changes to the risk profile, persons at risk, processes or substance, near misses or fire incidents. there are no compulsory time frames for review, but a routine review based on risk over a cycle is appropriate. Why not plan say a 1, 2, 3 and 5 year cycle based on risk? Then as an audit you could put in some thematic reviews of the higher risk issues cutting across the risk based cycle- eg maintenance of fire alarms where you sample from high, medium and low risk premises just to keep them on their toes. All the enforcing authorities do this- HSE, Local Authorities, fire brigades.
-
Ask them what they think a review is? The answer will probably stagger you. As pointed out above the RP is the person set to review the FRA as and when it is required. Most FRS will like to see a 12 month review period set and dated on the FRA. When you consider it is a live document used to manage the life safety of the premises on a daily basis, it seems very strange that FSO cannot understand it.
-
Ask them what they think a review is? The answer will probably stagger you. As pointed out above the RP is the person set to review the FRA as and when it is required. Most FRS will like to see a 12 month review period set and dated on the FRA. When you consider it is a live document used to manage the life safety of the premises on a daily basis, it seems very strange that FSO cannot understand it.
That is in the perfect world of well-managed buildings. Not in the general case of people who do a minimal risk assessment then stick it on a shelf and forget about it.
-
A 12 month review date will then do little to assist in this scenario.
-
It has to be said that if FRS's were given any meaningful guidance on enforcing the Fire Safety Order it might achieve a degree of consistency in enforcement action across the country. The guidance to enforcement they have been given is not far short of a summary of the actual FSO. The terms 'ashtray' and 'motor bike' spring to mind.
Without it, inspecting Fire Officers will just do what they feel comfortable with - the good ones will be good and the bad ones .......... It is inevitable that some will fall back to the bluff and persuasion mode if they don't know something that perhaps they should - it's where they feel safest. Not many RP's will challenge them - perhaps they should.
-
For a low risk environment like an office, I would expect any employer to review the fire safety annualy. This doesn't mean they need to bring in a consultant or start with a blank sheet, but to look at the previous assessment and see what has changed since then.
I would expect the same for all health and safety risks.
-
On my Brigade's audit form that I have to complete, it asks 'Is there a review programmed?'
I ignore this because, as far as I can see, as long as the RP knows the triggers for a review and that the FRA document should be treated as live/dynamic - that's good enough for me.
All this nonsense about 12 or 6 months - it's simply not in the FS(RR)O, therefore I can't ask for it, so I don't expect it.
But this is the source of why so many IOs get confused. If their audit questioniare infers that a review should be programmed, then they expect it (despite what the Order says!!)
-
Firstly, there is more to good risk management than simply complying with the law.
Secondly, the law is non prescriptive, so naturally it does not say that one can wait 6 months or a year between reviews.
In most apects of health and safety in low risk environments, the formal review of risk is undertaken annually, quite why the risk of fire cannot be reviewed at least annually amazes me. I could not accept any argument that a reputable employer would not even consider the fire safety risks to his employees for 3, 4 or 5 years - to me it is inconcievable.
-
Firstly, there is more to good risk management than simply complying with the law.
Secondly, the law is non prescriptive, so naturally it does not say that one can wait 6 months or a year between reviews.
In most apects of health and safety in low risk environments, the formal review of risk is undertaken annually, quite why the risk of fire cannot be reviewed at least annually amazes me. I could not accept any argument that a reputable employer would not even consider the fire safety risks to his employees for 3, 4 or 5 years - to me it is inconcievable.
As well as the usual resons for reviewing an FRA the guides also state "You may want to re-examine the fire prevention and protection measures at the same time as your health and safety assessment."
Is that really the best they can come up with?
-
The Fire Safety (Sotland) Regulations 2006
3. —(1) A review of an assessment under section 53 or 54 must be carried out regularly so as to keep it up to date.
(2) A review of an assessment under section 53 or 54 must be carried out if–
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the relevant premises, special, technical and organisational measures or organisation of the work undergo significant changes.
So, all that needs to be clarified is the 'regularly'. Halley's Comet is regular, so is Christmas. Is there as legal definition of 'regular'?
-
Are we all being slightly pedantic here? Do we really need definitions for every word in the legislation?
Surely some common sense comes into it? For the people not treating the RA as a live document is a 1 year review of provisions too much to ask? It can then nicely tie in with extinguisher servicing, 12 month inspection of fire alarm, main test of emergency lighting......
Would everyone be more up in arms if there was an actual review period in the legislation?
Regardless of when a fire authority suggests you review it, it is up to you to review it as needed. The only time it should really be an issue is if we inspect/audit a premises and the risk assessment does not cover the risks present. Then the problem is with the RA, not the review date. The review date is simply something that would have helped the RP keep his RA up to date.
-
I think the old H&S standby of "reasonably practicable" comes in here. You could argue that in a workplace things are always changing and it is not practical to keep the FRA up to the minute otherwise it is a non stop job. If the workplace is not changing and it is regularly audited then you could argue that a review every couple of years is in order. Conversely if the workplace undergoes a major change round then it would be necessary to review the FRA again even if it was only done a couple of months before.
I don't think the Fire Authority can or should insist on a set timetable, not unless they are going to inspect on a similar tiemtable.
-
12 month inspection of fire alarm
At risk of being called pedantic.......It should be inspected every day, activated every week and the subject of inspection and testing by contractors 6 monthly (or as per the fire safety risk assessment, but 6 months is the timescale suggested by BS 5839).
-
You are correct but many FRS seemed happy with annual only fire alarm services & similar with EL & many occupiers are happy to stick with this as its cheaper. I suppose the arguement is that the BS isn't law...
-
It has not been that long since it recommended quarterly testing!
Again, good risk management is not just about complying with the law. I hope they all warn their insurers that they have decided they are better at judging this than the authors of the British Standard.......I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......
-
At risk of being called pedantic.......It should be inspected every day, activated every week and the subject of inspection and testing by contractors 6 monthly (or as per the fire safety risk assessment, but 6 months is the timescale suggested by BS 5839).
Yes, I was talking about the main test that would generally involve full testing of the whole system. (45.4 of BS5839 Pt 1.)
-
I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......
We can't win. One minute we are being insulted for sticking to guides, the next we are being insulted for not sticking to guides.... ;)
-
But it is not your decision, you are an enforcer. The RP has an absolute duty, the must to comply with Part 2 the Fire safety Duties not the FRS. The RP has to go down the route of ALARP as in Article 34 the Onus is solely on them.
-
At risk of being called pedantic.......It should be inspected every day, activated every week and the subject of inspection and testing by contractors 6 monthly (or as per the fire safety risk assessment, but 6 months is the timescale suggested by BS 5839).
Yes, I was talking about the main test that would generally involve full testing of the whole system. (45.4 of BS5839 Pt 1.)
45.4 is in addition to 45.3 which recommends 6 monthly.
-
I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......
We can't win. One minute we are being insulted for sticking to guides, the next we are being insulted for not sticking to guides.... ;)
It's a difficult job, but I think things would be clearer for people if we all stuck to the British Standards...........
-
It's a difficult job, but I think things would be clearer for people if we all stuck to the British Standards...........
I don't see how you can do that - it flies in the face of assessing risk.
I grant that by meeting a British Standard you are likely to achieve compliance with the RRO, but it doesn't work the other way round. You can achieve compliance with the RRO without necessarily meeting a British Standard.
-
We clearly have a difference of opinion. Mine is that when you consider how often your fire detection and alarm system requires contractor's servicing, the starting point is the relevant British Standard. It states that 6 monthly inspections are the recommended maximum period between inspections. So I would consider it wise for higher risk premises to consider inspections more frequently, but lower ones to stick to the maximim interval. But I can't see how the enforcing authority would endorse something more lax than the British Standard. Risk Assessments should take account of British Standards.
-
I will advise any responsible person to have the fire alarm, emergency lighting and extinguishers tested and maintained in accordance with the British standard.
While it is not enforceable as such, they do set a benchmark.
I also appreciate that it is down to the responsible preson to manage risk and the genaral fire precautions, but part of the risk assessment should address the control, monitoring and review and I would be reluctant to accept that someone only has the fire alarm tested once per year for example. I would question if this is acceptable, particularly if the system conforms to the British Standard.
-
Surely the whole thing is a benchmark. If the RP has a system which conforms to the British Standard then that should be enough, everyone can go home and relax. If the RP has a system that does not conform to the British Standard then the onus must be on the RP to prove that the system is suitable and adequate, particularly if things go pearshaped.
At the end of the day if a fire spreads through a building and the RP is prosecuted, the defense can be that the fire doors were to British Standard and the RP had taken reasonably practical measures to prevent the spread of fire. If the doors were not to British Standard then the onus would have to be on the RP to prove that the alternative measures that had been taken were adequate which would be a much more difficult job.
-
We should probably try and get things right before the fire.
I know most of the people on here are mostly worried about what is legal and what is illegal, but some of us are paid to establish what is necessary to protect property and life and can make additional recommendations that are either less stringent or more stringent than the law requires.
-
I have explained to someone before now that they can choose to use different test procedures etc, but should something happen and someone comes to harm due to the failure of the system being tested, they will probably have to stand in court and explain why they think their system is better that the one designed by a certain Mr Todd and pals, who tend to have more letters after their name than the actual letters in their names.
Those people tend to happily adopt the BS test procedures. :)
Would another fair way of looking at it be: If you have had to install a part 1 alarm system, that includes the part 1 test procedure. As soon as you alter the test procedure it is technically not a part 1 system? (though you still probably meet the legislation by having a 'means of giving warning'?) How would you think someone stood on that if for instance a Part 1 L1 system was installed as a trade off for other deficiencies?
-
British Standarsd are recommendation only and cynics would say written by the industry for further advancement of the industry. Also, the wording of Article 17 is quite clear, no records needed just "subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair". The BS says very little on thes elines.
-
Cynics might say such things. Those who have a balanced view would say that British Standards are written by BSi, not by individuals or business. British Standards are respected throughout the world.
Perhaps a little more credit is due to those people who help draft and produce these standards.
-
Is that why PAS 79 isavailable on payment only? Those of us who have sat on or sit on BSi committees have listened very carefully to carefully constructed arguments about how or why certain items are good for business. The arguments for and against are guaranteed to sow doubts in the minds of the sane as to why in certain cases they should be included or excluded. But, you are right numbers of us have given our time freely to ensure that their is a consistent standrad out there for people to consider and that is the appropriate word. Balance is a term rightly left to the court in their definition of ALARP and that, in the eyes of the fire legislation in place at this moment in time, is solely with the RP, not enforcers, not British Standards and not consultants. We all have our opinions and we all like to contribute but sometimes people attempt to direct others with their choice of words.
-
I've not been part of a BSi comittee, so have not had the experience of this, but I'm not clear on what you are saying - are you implying that something underhand is going on - please be clearer....... :/
-
Nothing underhand at all, just people from different backgrounds having different perspectives, after all, BS are the consensus of those who are part of a committee.
-
To fully understand the status of the BS and other guidance documents we need to be clear as to their status in Law. And personally I am a little confused on this.
The Fire Safety Order is clear- it requires fire precautions to be put in place where necessary and to the extent that is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances of the case.
Next comes a bit of a problem as I see it. The secretary of state has published 11 guidance documents but it is not clear to me whether these guidance documents have any legal status. I think they do not.
Does the guidance have the status of an approved code of practice? Normally in other H&S areas these are published by the HSC and give more guidance on the the requirements and the level of compliance necassary to satisfy the regulations. Approved document B is another such example. A person is never prosecuted for contravening the approved document B but can be prosecuted for contravening the building regulations. If the court shows the person has not followed the guidance in the ACOP it can find them at fault unless the person can prove to the court they have satisfied the regulation in a different way.
I dont think the 11 guides have the status of an approved code of practice. At least they dont appear to say they do.
So are they best practice guidance rather than an approved code of practice? Or are they not even best practice guidance on a status of the HSG notes published by the HSE?
British standards are just advice on good practice. They bring together expertise from across industry, employees, enforcers and it is right that all the diverse interest groups have input into a process the outcome of which must be a recommended standard that is safe and workable for the employer, employee and deliverable and sustainable for the industry.
The risk of non compliance is more likely to be a civil claim for damages rather than any criminal procedings.
-
I quite agree Kurnal it would be good to have some ACOPS. Dont forget that the ACOP to the management regs is still out there and clearly explains what significant findings are, and what constitutes a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
Unfortunately the authors of the new guides apparently didn't read that decided to use an alternative definition of significant findings!!!!! It becomes increasingly obvious on this forum that confusion reigns for those of us who have some knowledge, what chance does the poor RP have with such poor guidance?
-
Next comes a bit of a problem as I see it. The secretary of state has published 11 guidance documents but it is not clear to me whether these guidance documents have any legal status. I think they do not.
Interestingly at a recent hearing in a Magistrates Court where a hotel (but not in Devon) appealed against the requirements of an enforcement notice (requiring AFD in hotel bedrooms), a District Judge made a specific reference to page 55 of the Sleeping Accommodation Guide where it suggests an L2 system for a hotel. He then rejected the appeal and gave them 6 months in which to comply.
I'd rather not share the actual details until I'm sure it can be circulated - but it could be groundbreaking stuff.
-
The Guides: It would seem to me that these can be compared with the 'Highway Code' - it's not a legal document but if you don't heed its recommendations that can be taken into account if you are before the courts. The Guides are like the 'Fire Safety - an employer's guide' and compliance with that, to quote page ii: "you will normally be doing enough to comply with the law".
Re BSI Committees: I sat on one for a few years in the 1990s. Very broad spectrum of representation - Government, manufacturers, testers and users. So while current best practice is a large part of the equation, many parties also have financial considerations. These affect the final Standard in many ways. Equipment cannot be too expensive or complicated to make; it needs to be reasonably easy to test for compliance; it should not be too expensive to buy or maintain. So a balance has to be struck between what is desirable and what is practicable. And in addition we have to take account of the European and other International standards. So BSs tend to be pragmatic in nature and may not always represent the limit of current 'Best Practice', particularly if several years old.
-
Fred,
my understanding of this case is the same as your own. In which case the guides will become an ACOP and FRA can be thrown away. The guides will became a 2007 version of a fire certification process and what is written in an enforcement notice will become all that more important.
-
Yes - not a bad thing in many respects - and that's my understanding of how HASAW is enforced. The inspector identifies the area of non-compliance - tells them why it doesn't comply, and the relevant section, and tells them to conform to the appropriate ACOP. Bingo - job done. I guess we'll eventually re-invent the same wheel.
-
Steady on chaps!
An ACOP is only enforcible IF an improvement notice is issued that specifies compliance as one of the steps to be taken. And the existing guides are so woolly that in their current form they would not be fit for this purpose. You would need something much more specific like ADB or BS5588.
Since an improvement notice is only used in serious cases, and in the scheme of things are the exception rather than the rule, for most premises- and even for most improvement notices Risk Assessment is alive and well and going from strength to stength.
-
To All
The Guides Do Not Have Any Legal Standing As They Did Not Under The Fire Precautions Act... They Are As It Is Said " Guides"...............of Course There Are Always Other Options Other Than The " Guides"........but Thats What Fire Engineering And Its Solutions Is All About. However Deviating To Far From The " Guides" May Cause Problems If Other Solutions Cannot Be Substantiated Under Examination.
Conqueror.
-
Unless of course as written above a District Judge decides that something written in the guides now becomes case law. Then FRS will serve enforcement notices stating that the RP will comply with statements made on Page whatever of a guidance document applicable to their particular premises type. Some FRS are already pushing the boundaries of the RR(FS)O by inspecting all parts of HMO's including that part behind entrance door to an individuals private accommodation. The judgement in the case specifies that the RP has to comply with Page 55 of Guide no 3 where an L2 system is in the words of the DJ "prescribed" by the guide. He found that "as a matter of fact" that an L2 standard should be complied with and gave 6 months for the work to be done.
-
I do not know any more details of the 'Devon Case', (folklore already)! But if the RP did not put forward any reasonable argument as to why they shouldn't comply with the 'accepted' guidance, then the judge would have had no option to throw out the appeal. Remember, almost by sleight of hand, the legislation has shifted the burden of proof onto the RP.
-
Val- I think you should refer to it as the "not in devon" case.
Although I am not aware of any of the details of the interesting case you refer to I would speculate that it is most unlikely that an individual case in a magistrates court is likely to set a legal precedent.
As I understand it, usually the arguments in these enforcement cases will be considered on their individual merits and the role of the district judge will be to decide whether the RP has met the level of compliance- ie as far as is reasonably practicable- and where the judge finds he has not, to direct the remedy applicable in that particular case. Or have I got this wrong?
-
But that is the point. A fire certifucated premises, left alone under WFPL by the FRs and now bounced under RR(FS)O. The owner can quite rightly state that he has complied with all the Brigade requirements but now has to upgrade because of a change in attitude from the FRS, who had the same powers under WFPL but did not bother to use them.
-
Thanks Jokar. I see where you are coming from now (at last!)
-
I know that at this level case law is not made...even by a district judge. But the case, in Lancashire actually, (god knows why we thought it was in Devon [doesn't even exist having been swallowed by Somerset!!!]), but the onus of proving something is sufficient now lies with the RP.
I have read the judgement and the appeal was indeed thrown out on virtually every point, the judge said past standards/enforcement activity had no bearing on what was a duty now to comply. He did cite the 'sleeping guide' and the appellant didn't appear to put up much of a fight.
Big chain hotels might be planning rather more of a struggle as the cost implications are rather large.
I also know that there are many experienced professionals who argue that AFD in bedrooms are unnecessary/cause false alarms/reduce overall safety. Now there is an opportunity for them to earn money/reputation in arguing that case in Court.
-
Ref your last comment jokar.
The FA did not have the same powers under the FPWKP Regs as these regs were for the protection of employees only. It is therefore not a change of attitude by the FA but a change of emphasis through the introduction of the Fire Safety Order that now requires the responsible person to set standards for the protection of ALL persons on the premises.
The new broom is not the FA but the Fire Safety Order.
-
Ahh, in that case the employees were all safe then from a fire in the premises as although they were there, Lancs were not bothered\as the existing Fire Certificate gave them and the clients sufficient protection. It is not only guests that are protected by the provision of AFD in bedrooms but staff as well who work in all the premises. As a by the by, the last people who died in a fire in a hotel were guests who obeyed the fire instructions and died in the protected corridor where the fire was.
The point of the post is to bring news to all and express an opinion, most FRS left hotels well alone as they were certified and it was thought that it was sufficient cover to protect. Most IO's would love to go back to the cert process but as you quite rightly point out there is a new brave world out there and the government made it quite clear that this Order would minimise the burden on business which this case quite clearly does not as it involves an owner carrying out improvements at considerable expense that could have been done under the WFPL but the FRs did not bother then. Perhaps some of us feel that double standards are being used.
-
I honestly do not understand the debate here have I missed something?
Does hotel, guest house or refuge for the homeless require AFD to cover sleeping risk? YES or NO
In our professional judgement is the risk significant enough for us to consider seriously the use of very effective technology to give us early warning of fire and to alert intervention from management and fire fighter.. YES or NO
Why do we have to look at guidance document to decide?
Under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 the RP has a legal obligation to consider all techniques necessary for collective protection. How strongly would you recommend he consider this technique?
I don't understand the debate?
-
Under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 the RP has a legal obligation to consider all techniques necessary for collective protection. How strongly would you recommend he consider this technique?
I don't understand the debate?
Jim
The legislation you quote is out of date , has been amended and the HSAW Act is also dissapplied if you can deal with the matter using the fire safety order.
The arguement as I see it is whether the new guidance can have any legal status and whether there may be case law resulting from the "Not Devon" case.
I don't think there can be such case law in the world of risk based solutions but there will be benchmarks that enforcers and magistrates will consider when deciding what is or is not appropriate.
I think Jokar raises a valid point regarding premises that were inspected for years under the 71 Act, the FPWP Regs and found to be "satisfactory".
-
The Management of Health and Safety at work Regs 1999 do not apply in respect of the duty to provide basic fire precautions under the RRO. Article 48 if I recall disapplies them (and HASAWA 1974). The fire safety order stands on its own- it is self sufficient.
The issue is this - that the hotel, guest house or refuge does need afd to cover a sleeping risk and yes L2 is the appropriate standard. But if it is the appropriate standard post October because the guides say so what was the appropriate standard Pre October? The risk was the same, yet many hotels with fire certificates under the FP Act with fire certificates have coverage to what is now an L4 standard- and some- a few- have no AFD at all.
So the point is why did the fire authorities not require these premises to upgrade their alarms before now? Many of us feel they had the power to do so despite the limitations of the Fire Precautions Act / Workplace Regs. But all of a sudden responsible persons are being taken to court to achieve improvement, under the fire safety Order 2005.
-
So the point is why did the fire authorities not require these premises to upgrade their alarms before now?
Contentious point that I raised on a previous post Kurnal but I honestly beleive the answer is incompetent inspectors.
I have dealt with many hotels that have been inspected for years under FP Act and WP Regs by both fire officers and so called consultants and the inadequate fire warning system has not previously been mentioned.
If not incomptence please someone explain why this has happened.
-
PhilB Could you enlighten me what section of the FPA allowed an IO to require an upgrade of warnings systems were no material alteration had taken place. If then you suggest a goodwill letter, how many years later would accept it was urinating into the wind.
There may have been a chance under the WP regs but that is outside my experience and it did appear to be a very confused period.
-
You are correct TW that FRS could not require upgrades under FP Act unless material alterations had been made. Also they were on dodgy groung using WP Regs because as you know, they were only concerned with the safety of employees, no-one else.
But surely goodwill advice should have been given. If the advice was ignored at least you would of acted professionally and done all that you could do.
I have come across several recently that have been regularly inspected and letters were sent ouy saying that all was well. I can understand why some RPs are asking why it was never menyioned before.
Please don't think I am personally attacking inspecting officers I am not. The fact that they may not have given best advice is most probably due to lack of understanding due to lack of training.
-
Inspecting under the WP regs I think it would have been hard to warrant AFD in most hotels. You could say that to protect employees all you need is MCP's, as cleaners will be spread out through the floors, and would be capable of raising the alarm manually to protect each other.
Maybe go to single staircase hotels and you would maybe have a good chance of warranting AFD in a workplace on a risk based approach under the WP regs.
Now, as someone mentioned, the whole "relevant persons" makes it a clear cut case. Don't forget that some hotels got a certificate before AFD existed and, due to limitations set by the FP act, we COULDN'T ask them for an upgrade unless material alterations had taken place. (AS twsutton said)
Maybe some IO's were confused and missed chances to get AFD in some hotels, thinking too much about the FP act and not concentrating on the WP regs? If this is the case then I have to almost agree with "the others" regarding "why change now if they didn't require it then?".
The main answer I think is in the legislation. "Relevant persons". I know alot of it is almost cut and paste from previous legislation, but regardless of that it is NEW legislation. No point making reference to what went on before. Times have changed. (Hopefully.)
-
Good timing PhilB. Must have been typing at the same time as me. :)
Where I am based it was standard practice to issue a letter and advice explaining current standards etc, but also to include in that advice the fact that we can not 'require' an upgrade.
-
I reckon it's a little harsh slagging off IOs as being incompetent for not acting under the FPA and WP Regs to upgrade outdated AFD.
As a FRS IO, I have to work not only within the law of the land, but I am also restricted by my FRS policies. My particular FRS's Policy was that we couldn't ask for AFD to be upgraded cert premises where no material change was made. In addition, we only used FPA for cert premises and WP Regs for non cert premises.
So it's all very easy for some here (perhaps without the constraints of the policies of large organisation) to criticise IOs, but as they say in all the best war films, " vee vere only obeying orders"!
-
I think that is where some of the issues seem to lie messy. Our policy here was really to inspect under WP regs regardless of there being a certificate issued. (while still taking into account contents of certificate and looking for contraventions there etc.) Policy is policy. No getting away from it, but like you say, don't blame the IO. There's many things at the moment the IO's here disagree with, but policy from up top is what we have to follow.
-
I reckon it's a little harsh slagging off IOs as being incompetent for not acting under the FPA and WP Regs to upgrade outdated AFD.
As a FRS IO, I have to work not only within the law of the land, but I am also restricted by my FRS policies. My particular FRS's Policy was that we couldn't ask for AFD to be upgraded cert premises where no material change was made. In addition, we only used FPA for cert premises and WP Regs for non cert premises.
So it's all very easy for some here (perhaps without the constraints of the policies of large organisation) to criticise IOs, but as they say in all the best war films, " vee vere only obeying orders"!
So did your brigade policy prevent you from giving goodwill advice when you noticed inadequate provisions?
-
Hey Im hoppin mad. Been at a handover of a new warehouse today. My risk assessment had pointed out unacceptable gaps between the door leaves and gaps round the frames.
The approved inspector (no vested interest of course) sided with the builders that the doors were satisfactory because there was only a 3mm gap between the SMOKE SEAL and the frame. grrr.
-
kurnal get him to put it in writing and keep it on file.
-
I have come across several recently that have been regularly inspected and letters were sent out saying that all was well. I can understand why some RPs are asking why it was never mentioned before.
I agree, however two letters would have to be sent one headed “FPA” stating the premises was satisfactory, providing the fire alarm was the only problem. A second letter headed “Goodwill Advice” recommending an upgrade of the fire alarm. Amazing how the second letter would go missing when it did not support the employer's case.
If it came to the crunch, in most cases, I am sure the FA would be able to produce that letter from their files.
-
No there were no other letters, inspected under FPA and WP Regs, both satisfactory and no goodwill advice. The RP understandably is not impressed.
-
Offering goodwill advice whilst inspecting under the FPA was a tricky issue.
Some punters would get confused and think we were 'telling' them to do it, whilst others would know their legal position that as long as they maintained their cert, they were in the clear and would adopt a "Am I bovvered?" approach..
There was a case where a hotelier (I think) acted on godwill advice believing it to be a requirement, made expensive AFD improvements which they later found was above the requirements in the fire cert and thereby unenforceable. This went to court and cost the FRS in compensation.
As a result, it was policy for IOs to always offer goodwill advice when requested during FPA visits, but to be very careful when offering unsolicited advice in case this confusion arose again.
-
On the other hand I am aware of a couple of other situations where a FRS has paid out compensation to owners of care homes as a result of an inspector for many years accepting low standards, for many years issuing satisfactory reports when he should not have done. Eventually an audit and review led to improvement notices and the FRS was advised by its legal team to pay compensation in a couple of cases - equivalent to the cost of the work.
-
I think the problem was with the legislation and the concept of the "one bite of the cherry" attitude of the legislators which meant FRS had to find ways of getting around it to maintain a satisfactory standard (Bluff and Persuasion Act widely used :)).
They appear not to have realised that standards would change over the years hopefully the RR(FS)O will resolve this.