FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: Sunny on February 07, 2008, 11:25:40 AM
-
Hi All,
I posted on this forum two weeks ago regarding me taking up the role as Admin Assistant at a Primary School and having been given the task to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment.
I have discussed my concerns with the Head Teacher as to the level of competency/skills required in order for a person to carry out a FRA for a large school - she has asked if i can get some sort of clarification (written) to confirm what the difference is between the Assessor and Responsible Person's job - she has also asked if i can find out if there has to be the two ppl who carry out the FRA and questioned if i could play the role of both Assessor/Responsible Person?
I'm very confused and havent been able to find anything on the net to clarify the importance and differences between the two roles - the Head has advised that i can be provided the relevant training to act up for both roles - but we need to clarify how this all works - anyone able to help with this plz?
Much appreciated,
Sunny
-
Hi Sunny
The responsible person is defined in the fire safety order in article 3.
If there is an employer, which there is in your case, the employer is the responsible person. In your case probably the head of the education authority.
Article 9 states that the responsible person must carry out a risk assessment.
There has been a guidance note recently issued to fire authorities that explains that although the duty is placed entirely on the responsible person to carry out the risk assessment, there is no problem with the responsible person appointing someone else to do it on their behalf.
Article 18 places a duty on the responsible person to appoint comptent persons to assist them in implementing the necessary fire safety measures.
So in simple terms the responsible person never changes...they are defined in law. They must carry out a risk assessment themselves...or appoint an assessor to do it for them.
They must also appoint competent persons to assist them in the day to day running of the premises ......and that is probably you.
If you require further clarification contact me by e-mail and I will arrange to explain this over the phone.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm links to Fire Safety Order
-
A competent person has to have the necessary knowledge, experience. training and other qualities which allow them to undertake the role of a fire risk assessor. This is a definition in law and whilst it is stated that for small low risk premises the level of competence can be low for higher life risk premises that level has to be higher. many fire risk assessors have qualifications in fire safety, health and safety and general experience around both industries over multiples of years. In short you have to know what you are doing, I for one would not rewire a house even though I am practically minded as I am not competent to do so. Your posts on this subject lead me to believe that you are not sure whether you have the underpinning skills and knowldeg to do an FRA. Therefore do not do it and expose yourself to the risk of getting it horribly wrong.
-
The Head Teacher will probably be viewed as the responsible person by the enforcing authority due to the amount of control they are given over the premises. If we were asking for something that the head teacher cannot approve, then we would end up working our way up the chain towards the local authority or the board of governers etc.
-
Good points Jokar.
The order does not say that the responsible person or the assessor must be competent, however the Order does say that the assessment must be suitable & sufficient. How could anyone possibly carry out a suitable & sufficient assessment if they do not have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience etc?? They can't, but unfortunately many persons like yourself Sunny are put in this position by their employers.
Civvy The Headteacher will not be viewed as the responsible person by competent enforcing autthorities...the degree of control is irrelevant. They will most probably be considered as the person mentioned in article 5(3) who has to some extent control of the premises...sorry to pedantic...but RP is defined in Statute regardless of how FRS or CFOA view the situation.
-
PhilB I don't completely agree with you over the headmaster, I think this is going to be another of those grey areas dependent on how much control the headmaster has over the premises. Although some schools are maintained by the local authority others have a greater amount of independance and the headmaster and govenors have a greater amount of control.
This is assuming that the school is a local authority school and not a private or church school.
It looks like another gravy train for the legal profession!
-
Sunny,
If you are an LEA school, please bear in mind that every other school has the same issue and that there may be someone at local authority level who can help - for example the health and safety department.
-
PhilB I don't completely agree with you over the headmaster, I think this is going to be another of those grey areas dependent on how much control the headmaster has over the premises.
It looks like another gravy train for the legal profession!
Don't agree with me Mike?????!!!!!! whatever next!!!
If the headteacher is the employer...yes they are the responsible person but are they always employers??
Without a doubt they will have to some extent control so notices can be served on them and further action taken against them if necessary.
But if a FRS serve a notice on them as the Responsible Person, and they appeal...I think they would win.
-
I think we often confuse "responsible person" with a person who is responsible for something.
The RP is defined in the order, very often it will be the employer who will often take the form of a body corporate (the education authority for instance).
This doesnt mean that the Head teacher doesn't have responsibilities and duties, they clearly do. But they are not (necessarily) the RP.
Anybody who has contributed to a contravention can be prosecuted. From the RP down to an individual employee who flouts the safety rules set down by the RP etc.
The simple advice to Sunny therefore is - dont worry about the definitions, the key task is that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is carried out and that the necessary fire precautions are put in place.
If you feel competent to do this then that's fine. If you don't then get some training or get somebody to help you.
-
Tottaly agree with Phil here, have recently audited a LA large primary school under the Fire (Scotland) Act, the headteacher in my scenario, most certainly did have control over the day to day running of the school, but is only issued an annual budget like all other heads in LA schools in my area, for repairs and maintenance purposes, when asked if that also refered to repairs and maintenance to fire safety measures, I was told it doesn't
So for me this head is most certainly a RP (dutyholder) in Scotland, but as he is not the employer, his Employer is the primary dutyholder, for the safety of all employees and other relevent persons, and responsible for conducting the FSRA.
The headteacher has fire safety responsibilities in my case, but only to the extent of matters within his control,
So unless its different south of the border, thats how it is here, anyone who has control to any extent of premises will have some responsibilities for ensuring that those occupying the premises are safe from harm caused by fire.
The greater the degree of control, the greater the responsibilities.
-
I go along with Phil B and others- the Employer is the Responsible person in any workplace. There may be other responsible persons- such as the landlord in a multi occupied building- but the employer is ALWAYS the main if not the only one.
Its most unlikely that the head teacher will be the employer- because they themselves are usually an employee of whoever is actally running the school- it my in some cases be governors, the local education authority or a joint committee.
-
Like I said - a person with responsibility but not the responsible person - simple really.
-
Ahh Wee Brian....it's never simple t'would spoil the fun!!!
-
I agree that the responsible person is ultimately the employer. Along the way you will have other people with varying degrees of responsibility too of course, but that has to be weighed up when taking enforcement action.
Thanks
Jim
-
Dear Sunny,
I am almost sure that the head teacher has asked you to start the process of risk assessment which is extremely simple. Please do not be put off by the competence, experience or qualification type debate. The only complicated part of a fire risk assessment is the building component and construction elements for which you may have to employ the services of a surveyor, however with a local authority you can seek assurance from the Education Department that the school has been properly maintained to a document named BB 100. You do not need to know what is in BB 100 just seek assurance that the construction elements and fire safety arrangements satisfy BB 100. Its like taking your car in for an MOT just get the certificate. If you do not get the certificate then you have a significant finding.
Next.....Audit the Fire Safety Management System...Root (Procedures) Trunk (Practice) and Branch (Training and Instruction)...This again is not rocket science just a series of questions to all members of staff that can be deemed to be in control to any extent of any specific assessment area.
If they do not know about the fire safety arrangements then this is a significant finding. All this is just good Management you do not have to have formal qulification to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment.
Now I never said it was easy only simple, it requires time, methodical audit and persistence as well as good administrative and man management skills. If you want further help there is plenty of free advice here and at www.meansofescape.com
-
. The only complicated part of a fire risk assessment is the building component and construction elements for which you may have to employ the services of a surveyor, however with a local authority you can seek assurance from the Education Department that the school has been properly maintained to a document named BB 100. You do not need to know what is in BB 100 just seek assurance that the construction elements and fire safety arrangements satisfy BB 100. Its like taking your car in for an MOT just get the certificate. If you do not get the certificate then you have a significant finding.
Jim you are describing utopia. It is most unlikely that there will be any certificate or assurances available from the local authority. Pre 1950s with traditional methods of construction are easy to assess I grant you. If the school was built from the 1950s onwards they were thrown up to cheap local authority designs (CLASP) that maximised the potential for cost saving and speed of erection blatantly exploiting their exemption from the building Regulations, with no thought to the fire stopping of voids or cavities, or compartmentation. They often used system design fire resisting partitions to protect escape routes many of which never went near a fire test, just mimicked typical design standards of the day.
This was then followed by years of neglect in terms of maintenance when local authorities were unable or unwilling to invest in basic maintenance let alone realisically assess or improve known design weaknesses. For about 20 years of my career the local education authority successfully used political influence to prevent the fire service from carrying out inspections in schools because we found too many problems that they did not have the resources to rectify and they preferred to bury their heads in the sand.
Dont forget also that bb100 is hot off the press and represents significant fundamental design changes. It would not be useful to assess any existing building against it. BB7 was the previous version of the guidance. However condition of the fabric and original design weaknesses are likely to be the moost significant factors in the risk assessment.
I do agree that there are some excellent people working for the local authority but I bet you my last fiver they will not be able to give out any certificates or even assurances. They have a huge list of priorities and the smallest of budgets- they have more immediate crisis than they can deal with and dont like to go looking for new ones.
In my opinion of course.
-
Jim, I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
You cannot carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment unless you have the relevant skills knowledge training etc.
For example, an assessor needs to know about fire ...causes....growth rates..likely smoke generation......time to flashover...etc..etc.........building performance...human behaviour.....means of escape ....fire warning systems....emergency lighting.....fire-fighting equipment.......when you have an indepth knowledge of these matters you have to assess what you have against some benchmark.........a guide perhaps. To do that you must surely understand what the guide says and why it says it.
Of course the level of competence will vary with the size and complexity of the building being assessed, I would consider a school quite a specialist area considering the history of fire safety legislation and enforcement in educational establishments.
To suggest all of the above is "extremely simple" is somewhat misleading.
Yes many incompetent persons are out there doing just as you suggest.
On a daily basis I deal with shop managers, office managers, care home managers etc. etc. that have received little training if any and yet have been tasked with carrying out the fire risk assessment. Usually they are not suitable & sufficient and this often leads to enforcement action being taken.
It can only be a matter of time before this incompetence results in serious injury or loss of life...maybe then we will see a decline in the number unscrupulous employers and incompetent consultants out there.
-
The basis of all this is to look for and ask the right questions. To do that you need to know what the questions are and quite frankly most people that are notompetent have littl or no idea of what the questions are or what if any are the right answers. As a classic example of this which is very healthy debate, see the thread about the night club and all over the UK numbers of individuals are assisting CarlyD with their own interpretation and they are all correct.
-
Many thanks to all who posted on this thread - really appreciate your comments and advice - but one thing is still not clear - is it necessary to have the two ppl to carry out a FRA? (RP and Assessor)?
-
Sunny, a Fire Risk Assessor is exactly that, a person who carries out an assessment of risks from fire. To do that they need to understand the dynamics of fire, issues about fire safety strategies and have information on fire alarms, emergency escape lighting, exit widths, travel distances and many other bits dependent on the layout and construction of the built premises. They also need the know what is required from the evacuation startegy and how the warning system supports that.
A Responsible Person, who may not be a person but a Company or Organisation, in law has responsibilty to ensure that fire law is complied with, and part of that fire law is to ensure that a FRA is completed and that it is suitable and sufficient ( this term is defined and is over 2 pages long in the mnagement of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 Approved Code of Prcatice).
A Competent Person is someone that can be employed by the Responsible Person to assist them in undertaking the measures laid out in Fire law.
The answer to your question then is that an FRA takes as long as it takes and can be completed by as many people as it takes. As an example, International Fire Consulatants use the specialism of their staff for different elements of the process, a specialist in fire alarms, a specialist in doors and glazing as examples.
-
Hi Sunny
No. The Responsible Person is the legal term for that person or organisation who is held responsible for compliance with the Law, who would be held ultimately responsible for any breaches- the person who would be prosecuted in the event of a failure. In a school it is the employer.
The Responsible Person has the duty to carry out a risk assessment. They may delegate this task to a competent member of their staff on their behalf but they cant delegate their own duty to carry it out or their responsibility and accountability for its findings.
The Responsible Person ( the Employer ) may say in court "Here is the risk assessment I have carried out. I delegated the task to my administration assistant"
The Judge then would say " How did you satisfy yourself that the admin assistant was competent to do it?"
If the judge is not satisfied with the answer and the risk assessment is poor, he will find the Responsible Person guilty of a failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. The admin assistant has nothing to fear as long as they did their best and were as diligent as their training and experience allowed them to be.
If on the other hand the Responsible Person decides that the admin assistant does not have the necessary experience, training and/ or qualification to be competent he could seek specialist advice. This could be as Jim suggests for part of the assessment or for all of it- ie a consultant. The consultant is expected to be competent and if the risk assessment is poor he would be in the Dock along side the Responsible person and also held personally accountable.
-
It all comes back to who is the responsible person. The one thing that is clear is that Sunny is not the responsible person.
I remember chatting to a HSE Inspector who served a Prohibition Notice on the Chief Exec of a County Council due to a HS infringement in a number of schools. (Boy was she popular!)
So if we follow this, then for a LA school the responsible person should be the County Chief Exec. who will also be the responsible person for all council properties.
This could be fun!
-
It has already happened, the CE of the LB Redbridge has been served with Notices with regard to the schools under the auspices of the Local Education Authority.
-
Hi Sunny
What part of the country are you from?
Some county councils have drafted in a local authority fire safety officer to the council offices to assist in a whole range of different fire strategies. If your county council has this option the officer maybe able to asist you with the process not the actual completion.
I note others have clearly defined the risk assessor and the responsible person and very articulate they have done it too!
Davio1960
-
Any Risk Assessor would need to seek assurance from the person in CONTROL to any extent of maintenance of the safety arrangement to a required standard. Therefore if maintenance of the school has been neglected then this obviously alters the risk matrix. I say yet again this is not rocket science. You do not have to appreciate the science or development of fire for a school, the profession has done all of this and concluded, with recommendation what is required. The Responsible Person just has to ensure the requirements are met and maintained. BB 100 is the current requirement taking all the current knowledge and understanding into consideration.
It is not the Risk Assessors role to cure the significant findings it is to report significant findings. To accept risk is clearly for the responsible person only. That person ultimately is the CE of the local authority. All the head teacher needs to do is to report formally the significant findings, quite clearly if the school does not meet the requirements of BB 100 which has been put together using all the qualification, expertise, experience, and technology then this must be a significant finding and possible increase in the risk matrix.
Again it will have to be the CE responsibility to accept this increase in risk above recommendation. In my opinion, if the Risk Assessor starts to take the role of the RP and accepts deviation from best practice then that is fire engineering not risk assessment. This is where most of the confusion occurs, there is no onus within the formal risk assessment process to find ways to reduce the risk only to formally record the risk.
When the Risk Assessor reports the significant findings to the RP the formal fire risk assessment process is finished. If the RP expects solutions it maybe necessary to call in a number of competent experts or professionals but it does not have to be the Risk Assessor. A Risk Assessor does not offer absolution, a Risk Assessor checks, collects and collates the significant findings.
-
" It is not the Risk Assessors role to cure the significant findings it is to report significant findings."
Jim your post makes me question what you consider to be 'significant findings'. It appears you consider them to be just defects, am I mistaken in that assumption?
Significant findings should include:
1) A record of the preventitive & protective measures (defined in the order and includes all the general fire precautions, which are also defined);
2) An action plan for remedial works;
3) Proof of due process i.e. reasoning to support your conclusions & any recommendations that have been made.
So clearly the assessor must do more than just report how a building differs from BB100.
Also it is not just the significant findings that must be recorded...it is the precribed information. This includes all the measures that have been, and wil be taken. Persons considered to be especially at risk must also be recorded.
Furthermore article 11 requires all the management systems to be recorded....and I would also consider those systems to be significant findings anyway.
How can the asessor report on risk if they don't appreciate the science or development of fire for a school???? How will the headteacher know if the building meets the requirements of BB100 .........how many schools do you know of that do???
If we follow your logic, any person who can read can simply follow a guide to carry out a fire risk assessment with no understanding of why the guide says what it says. Do you really believe that?
If fire risk assessment was as simple as you suggest there would be all sorts of numpties out there doing it for a living!!!!!!!!!! Let's hope they have good insurance.
-
there is no onus within the formal risk assessment process to find ways to reduce the risk only to formally record the risk.
Does the formal risk assessment process requires certain info to be recorded? Does that info include the significant findings of the assessment including the measures that have been and will be taken?
Would those measures include the preventive & protective measures?
“preventive and protective measures” means the measures which have been identified by the
responsible person in consequence of a risk assessment as the general fire precautions he
needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under
this Order;
So do the preventive & protective measures include the general fire precautions?
Meaning of “general fire precautions”
4.—(1) In this Order “general fire precautions” in relation to premises means, subject to
paragraph (2)—
(a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the
premises;
No further questions M'Lud.
-
" If we follow your logic, any person who can read can simply follow a guide to carry out a fire risk assessment with no understanding of why the guide says what it says. Do you really believe that?
If fire risk assessment was as simple as you suggest there would be all sorts of numpties out there doing it for a living!!!!!!!!!! Let's hope they have good insurance.
That made me laugh, Phil you are so funny sometimes.
-
The 'responsible person' as defined in Article 3 would be not the Education Authority but the full Local Authority. (Or chair of Governers in voluntary aided schools).
If a subsequent breach of the Order takes place then, depending on investigations the person standing in the dock will be the Local Authority + any others (probably the Headteacher) who have exercised some control over the situation.
The HSE has excellent guidance on identifying the defendant. I know their law is slightly different but we nearly always follow their advice
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/identifying/defendants.htm
The responsible person and those you subsequently ask judges to send down for offences are different beasts.
-
Thanks Val.
Now I should know the answer to this one but cant bring it to mind or find the answer at the moment-
If the Responsible Person for the school is the local authority as you point out above , and the local authority also happens to be the fire and rescue authority, who will decide the appropriate enforcement action to take in respect of a school and in the event of a court case who will prosecute?
-
Hi Kurnal,
This sort of scenario has been exercising us for some time, it equates to the FRS policing its own premises. We have asked our solicitors for an opinion but not much has come forward.
It boils down to the need to be whiter than white to avoid such an embarrassing situation. We peer review our neighbouring fire and rescue services' assessments to add a further layer of 'defence'.
In theory the FRA can prosecute its own Local Authority as they are statutorily (??) different.
Greater Manchester FRA prosecuted Salford Local Authority following a fire in a school even though Salford had a member on the Fire Authority.
-
Exactly, it is the job of the risk assessor to record the significant findings that alter the risk matrix. The Risk Assessor reports to the RP and the RP must decide if the risk matrix is acceptable, appropriate and or reasonable. A risk assessor must seek assurances from any one that can be deemed to have control of any assessment area or indeed any contract associated with the maintenance of any safety equipment that best practice is maintained. Obviously if anyone that can be deemed to be in CONTROL has difficulty in providing the necessary assurance then the risk matrix changes, regardless of whether it is building component, building management or fire safety management. The RP must be advised, if the RP asks for recommendations this may require the services of a number of suitably qualified people but not necessarily the risk assessor.
-
Exactly, it is the job of the risk assessor to record the significant findings that alter the risk matrix. The Risk Assessor reports to the RP and the RP must decide if the risk matrix is acceptable, appropriate and or reasonable. A risk assessor must seek assurances from any one that can be deemed to have control of any assessment area or indeed any contract associated with the maintenance of any safety equipment that best practice is maintained. Obviously if anyone that can be deemed to be in CONTROL has difficulty in providing the necessary assurance then the risk matrix changes, regardless of whether it is building component, building management or fire safety management. The RP must be advised, if the RP asks for recommendations this may require the services of a number of suitably qualified people but not necessarily the risk assessor.
Unfortunately Jim you do not appear to understand the meaning of significant findings, quite an important definition in my opinion only of course.
I think a RP would be unwise to appoint a fire consultant who is only capable of pointing out deficiencies.......the RP has a duty to record the "prescribed information"....he may of course appoint a consultant to record that on his behalf.
Hopefully that consultant will understand what must be recorded and advise accordingly.
-
Significant is defined as having importance,this can mean positive and negative things that alter the risk matrix. This is where we can accomodate compensatory features. Again in my opinion the process of collecting this data is not necessarily the job of a professional fire engineer. The job of the professional fire engineer is to set the datum lines (For schools the datum must be BB 100) so that when audited exceptions which are of significance can be recorded. Again in my experience after looking at over many 100's of risk assessments the majority of the significant findings that are really dangerous could be found by any office supervisor given the right questions to ask.
What I do concur with is that the office supervisor would have to seek professional advice on the best way, most effective, economical and least disruptive to the organisations to reduce the risk associated with the significant findings.
-
Perhaps it may be better to use the definition of significant findings given in the ACOP to the management Regs, as advised in Guidance Note No.1. Also prescribed information is adequately explained in the Order.
Spookily enough there is no mention of 'risk matrix'. Presumably this refers to the methodology you use Jim.
I would advise all consultants to read Guidance Note 1, the ACOP to the MHSW Regs and the Fire Safety Order to make sure your assessments are suitable and sufficient, and record all the precribed information. I have seen 100's of assessments that don't do that.
-
Again in my opinion the process of collecting this data is not necessarily the job of a professional fire engineer. The job of the professional fire engineer is to set the datum lines (For schools the datum must be BB 100) so that when audited exceptions which are of significance can be recorded. Again in my experience after looking at over many 100's of risk assessments the majority of the significant findings that are really dangerous could be found by any office supervisor given the right questions to ask.
My wife and can read a book....so can my children...and my mates down the pub!!! This is marvellous I'll send them all out risk assessing...should be millionaires by Christmas!
-
BB100is a design guide for new schools. You can not make it apply retrospectively to existing builidngs, that is what the educational guide is for. It is the reason that the guides were issued as although many of us wanted to risk assess from ADB or BB5588 it was thought it is too prescritive to be of use.
I agree with PhilB you have to understand what has been written and to understand what suitable and sufficient means by reading the correct documentation. Again, I have seen many average FRA's and many average enforcement notices which do not do either side justice.
-
It would appear to me then that the fire professionals cannot agree with what is or is not relevant. Why is current requirements only good for new schools? What are the significant requirements that are not required for old schools and why? I think this is where we differ in view because one expert or competent person is using a different set of criteria. That cannot be correct. It is for the Risk Assessor to bring the significant findings to the RP and for him to make the judgement of what is reasonable acceptable and appropriate.
In my opinion any risk assessor that ignores current upto date knowledge,code,best practice and does not record that as significant does so at his liability. European legislation requires the RP to consider new technology and implement where necessary new provision for the collective protection this is why Fire Certification that maintained the status quo was required to be changed.
New guidance, New Technology has to be embraced in health and safety management...the cost obligation is a fact of life... Remember the furore about the decision not to have Automatic Train Protection on the railways, when it was found out that cost was put on a life?
-
Simple, cost. The order places the onus of responsibilty on the RP and to that extent they have to use ALARP. Therefore, if something is overtly expensive then the RP does not have to apply it. However, as in your example above, if it is a cost effective startegy then they would. The true test will be in a court of law where the witnesses for Regina will given factual evidnce and the Rp will explain why something was omitted or not done.
E & W did not go for retrofitting sprinklers in care homes afetr the Rosepark disaster but Scotland has, the same for schools. Whilst BB100 discusses the sprinkler issue for new schools, the RP does not have to retrofit. Financial resources are a commodity as well and they can only be spent in a small number of ways.
-
Absolutely - If we upgraded the building stock every time the building regs changed then the cost would be so high that we wouldnt be able to raise our standards for new buildings.
You should consider where an exisitng building varies from the latest standards and consider what the implications are.
-
I agree entirely but that is not the job of the Risk Assessor that is a decision for the Responsible Person. the Risk Assessor has an obligation to identify significant findings. a Significant Finding may be a deviation from current guidance, not old guidance. A Risk Assessor must seek assurances from any contractor who has to any extent responsibility for the maintenance of any fire safety arrangement that the system meets current best practice. If it does not this is significant as it may change the risk matrix.
If the Risk Assessor cannot receive adequate assurance, documentation ,conformance certification or accreditation from the Responsible Person or nominated Person within the organisation then that finding has to have significance. A competent person is then required to inspect,test and report this is not the role of a risk assessor, simply because this is a requirement of other parts of the Regulatory Reform Order on an ongoing basis and not simply as part of the formal Risk Assessment.
In my opinion the RP must first decide on an objective for Fire Safety and create a vision that includes Business Continuity, Environmental Impact and Legislation Compliance. The RP must then allocate, seek and secure the proper resources to do the Job.
As for Sunny, he has an important role to participate, to record,to get informed and to campaign for the very best protection for the school, early detection, instant suppression, excellent security, best of integrity to protect the resources,intellectual property and important work place for our future. Sunny must participate and his collegues must be trained, educated, informed and carry out their obligations to cooperate with the employer to deliver the Fire Safety Strategy.
It is not just for the bloke who came round with a clip board.
-
But Jim you seem to be advocating just checking a building against the latest guide.
You may remember that FRS used to do that and it was called prescriptive enforcement. Thankfully that has changed and anyone assessing a building should not stick rigidly to a guide.
There will often be occassions when the recommendations in the guide are not relevant, not required in a particular circumstance or wholly inadequate in another circumstance.
The job of the competent assessor must be to interpret the guide and apply common sense to achieve a safe building.
Your suggestion that anyone can do that with the current book and a checklist is quite frankly frightening!
I hope Sunny seeks further guidance before following your advice.
-
Any deviation from Building Regulations are still recorded, any fire engineered solution is still recorded and requires maintenance. If the reasoning is still sound and the alternative remedy maintained it is a significant finding but does not change the risk matrix. This is just a question to be asked and assurance given. All this information is readily available from the old Certification process. It is not that complicated, it is just a logical management process.
It maybe that you feel you are doing a better job by knowing everything about building construction, fire modelling,fire engineering and I would not ever deny that the more knowledge you have makes you more valuable. However for the majority of buildings Risk Assessment as required by the RRO is a logical uncomplicated process of audit.
As far as a school is concerned BB 100 is the latest recommendations to meet current risk data and would be the reference document for deviation in my opinion.
The only reason behind this opinion is that for the process to be successful in achieving good fire safety we have to get everyone that is in control involved in the process. Otherwise we would still be needing our parents or a crossing person to help us cross the street. As in pure risk assessment terms we are more likely to die this way than in a fire in the work place.
-
mmmmmmm ok Jim let's agree to differ.
If only it was as simple as you make out, unfortunately it is not.....and most of us understand that.
Unfortunately many out there also think that their employees can assess with little or no training....and they are usually mistaken.
-
Lets agree on one thing, and you sound good at it...There are many people out there that require teaching, I believe the fire safety profession has a real job to do to educate, inform and instruct about the process of fire risk assessment not for the Reglatory Reform Order but for when these employees get home. Thats really why I want Sunny to get involved and he or she can.