FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on May 02, 2008, 10:47:38 AM
-
Are the five steps you need to take to carry out a fire risk assessment, as detailed in the DCLG Guides Part 1, an acceptable procedure to conduct a fire risk assessment or are there any flaws.
-
Always flaws, but it is the basis of things than can be done. That nice Mr Todd uses 9 steps but adds as some of the steps the address and building dimensions. There are 8 steps in BS 8800 which is another RA methodology. For me the most important part is the outcome based action plan solutions with choices for the RP to consider. Matrix based solutions with prose work best as it is easily viewed for current and then residual risk.
-
What a fire risk assessment shouldn't be, but often is, is just a collection of hazards and risks e.g smoking materials, extension leads, cooking, etc. and then a list of measures in place. There are many people out there, some of them fire consultants who produce just that.
You need to look at the hazards and risks within the building i.e. ignition sources, fuels, work processes, structural hazards. This tells you what type of fire you will have in terms of size and rate of growth.
When you know what fire you WILL have, you can now assess the existing provisions together with the expected reactions of the occupants to determine if everything is ok or if more needs to be done. i.e. will everyone get out before conditions become untenable.
Note I say the fire you WILL have, please don't try and do clever sums to prove that a fire is so unlikely that you don't need to bother doing anything.
It really is as simple as that, but to do that simple task you need to know, how fires start & develop, how buildings perform in a fire, how people react in fire and how buildings should be designed for giving warning and providing a safe route out. The level of that knowledge being proprtionate to the complexity of the building being assessed.
You can use the five step method, Toddys nine step method(which really is the same as the five steps) in fact any thing that does the job.
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
-
What a fire risk assessment shouldn't be, but often is, is just a collection of hazards and risks e.g smoking materials, extension leads, cooking, etc. and then a list of measures in place. There are many people out there, some of them fire consultants who produce just that.
You need to look at the hazards and risks within the building i.e. ignition sources, fuels, work processes, structural hazards. This tells you what type of fire you will have in termes of size and rate of growth.
When you know what fire you WILL have, you can now assess the existing provisions together with the expected reactions of the occupants to determine if everything is ok or if more needs to be done. i.e. will everyone get out before conditions become untenable.
Note I say the fire you WILL have, please don't try and do clever sums to prove that a fire is so unlikely that you don't need to bother doing anything.
It really is is simple as that, but to do that simple task you need to know, how fires start & develop, how buildings perform in a fire, how people react in fire and how buildings should be designed for giving warning and providing a safe route out. The level of that knowledge being proprtionate to the complexity of the building being assessed.
You can use the five step method, Toddys nine step method(which really is the same as the five steps) in fact any thing that does the job.
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
Totally agree PhilB. When I was a game keeper I was amazed at the poor quality of RAs I encountered. Many seemed to be very generic when it came to the Control Measures. For the money being charged it was and probably still is, in many cases, a complete rip off. I sometimes wonder if RAers talk to their clients about how a premises operate and the attitude of staff to fire safety.
There is absolutely no point in making general statements in a risk assessment regarding fire doors having to be able to close automatically at all times when in reality normal traffic doors will be wedged open. I can just imagine that on the morning of the visit to carry out the survey, the owner scurrying around putting extinguishers back on their hooks and lifting wedges off the floor at practically every busy doorway.
Now as a so called poacher, I have RAed a few Residential Homes and know all too well from experience, for example, that if you have a kitchen and dining room seperated by a fire door you can be as sure as Boris Johnston becoming Mayor of London that the door will be wedged open for any number of valid reasons. I would always strongly recommend to the occupiers, during a survey, the benefits of a hold open device as a control measure because then I and they know that, if properly fitted, the door is more likely to close in the event of a fire than if it was wedged open.
I hope that, because I get good money for my Risk Assessments, my clients see they are getting good practical advice.
-
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
But thats the problem PhilB - many people dont know how a fire will develop or how the building will react.
We're pushing the risk assessment message nationwide, saying its now down to the RP but often they arent competent, and dont know where to get good training.
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.
Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
So who is an expert? Fire Research Scientists? Senior Fire Officers? A fire risk assessor? Inspecting officers?
Are we saying that all fire risk assessors / consultants / RPs and IO's should have degrees in fire engineering or fire safety? (im not being sarcastic Im genuinely asking the question) bearing in mind an RP will probably apprach a consultant who might not have those qualifications to assist them.
Personally I place more importance on understanding fire precautions and what they do. The fact someone has identified a hazard and the risk it poses is a good start, also listing the existing and required precautions to minimise that risk is also good and we shouldnt knock it.
If i go into your offices now PhilB ill have a general appreciation of how a fire might develop (simple office environment, electrics, paper, etc etc).
If I go to Joe Bloggs furniture Polish factory who use weird and wonderful chemicals, and materials I will have less of an appreciation of what might occur. Is it explosive? is it highly flammable? will explode in a fireball and the quickly burn out? will the material support a prolonged steady growth pattern?
The fact is we cant know every last detail about how every single material will react in fire.
What we can have though is an in depth knowledge of is the basic principles of fire, coupled to a sound knowledge of how fire precautions work.
To me if you have to worry about structural integrity for life safety purposes then there is something very wrong with the building!
If the building wont hold up in the time it takes to evacuate then its alarm bells time. For me you should be competent to know when your skills render you incompetent.
The true answer is that everyone has a different idea of what a risk assessment should be. Ideas vary from consutlant to consultant , from assessor to assesor, inspecting officer to inspecting officer and its back to that oild shiney chesnut of that unless you have prescription you will never have consistency.
-
No fire risk assessment will be suitable and sufficient if the person compiling it is not competent.
But thats the problem PhilB - many people dont know how a fire will develop or how the building will react.
We're pushing the risk assessment message nationwide, saying its now down to the RP but often they arent competent, and dont know where to get good training.
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.
Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
So who is an expert? Fire Research Scientists? Senior Fire Officers? A fire risk assessor? Inspecting officers?
Are we saying that all fire risk assessors / consultants / RPs and IO's should have degrees in fire engineering or fire safety? (im not being sarcastic Im genuinely asking the question) bearing in mind an RP will probably apprach a consultant who might not have those qualifications to assist them.
Personally I place more importance on understanding fire precautions and what they do. The fact someone has identified a hazard and the risk it poses is a good start, also listing the existing and required precautions to minimise that risk is also good and we shouldnt knock it.
If i go into your offices now PhilB ill have a general appreciation of how a fire might develop (simple office environment, electrics, paper, etc etc).
If I go to Joe Bloggs furniture Polish factory who use weird and wonderful chemicals, and materials I will have less of an appreciation of what might occur. Is it explosive? is it highly flammable? will explode in a fireball and the quickly burn out? will the material support a prolonged steady growth pattern?
The fact is we cant know every last detail about how every single material will react in fire.
What we can have though is an in depth knowledge of is the basic principles of fire, coupled to a sound knowledge of how fire precautions work.
To me if you have to worry about structural integrity for life safety purposes then there is something very wrong with the building!
If the building wont hold up in the time it takes to evacuate then its alarm bells time. For me you should be competent to know when your skills render you incompetent.
The true answer is that everyone has a different idea of what a risk assessment should be. Ideas vary from consutlant to consultant , from assessor to assesor, inspecting officer to inspecting officer and its back to that oild shiney chesnut of that unless you have prescription you will never have consistency.
Must agree here too. Very agreeable today I am.
The RRO is such that, in order not to burden commerce and industry, reasonably intelligent owners and employers should be able to complete a RA to a reasonable standard unassisted. I don't believe that the Government expected them all to be Fire Engineers with a comprehensive knowledge of the burning characteristics of various fuel sources. There is no requirement in ther Order to seek professional advice.
You would be a hell of a clever employer if you had the same level of knowledge of a hairy Inspecting Officer who has spent years gaining experience in identifying fire risks and the lack of Fire Precautions in the workplace.
I think maybe that some are trying to take the RA under RRO business to a level where it was not intended to go.
-
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
-
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.
Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
That's my point Cleveland, whilst working at the FSC we often had delegates attending a fire isk assessment course expecting to be turned into competent risk assessors with no prior knowledge or training.
There are many employers who are sending their employees on 1 or 2 day courses and then expecting them to assess complex buildings. Some as we know give their employees no training yet expect them to carry out fire risk assessments.
When auditing premises I frequently ask " who did this assessment?" and often the response is "I did", next question is what training have you had?, usual response is none!, and often they don't realise that they are not competent.
Fire risk assesssment is a specialist area and should only be undertaken by someone with the requisite knowledge. Don't forget that fire development is only one area of required knowledge. I know of many retired fire-fighters with plenty of operational experience that beleive they are competent to carry out fire risk assessments, of course they're not unless they also know about the general principles of fire safety and areas such as human behaviour.
-
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
But the Order requires the RP to take general fire precautions. They are defined in article 4 and include measures to reduce the risk and mitigate the effects of fire.
THe WP Regs only required measures to be taken to evacuate, the Order goes much further. People in the vicinity also need to be taken into account, so you are correct to consider the risk posed by the kerosene in the example you give.
-
It can be difficult to pull up a galloping horse. Are risk assessments galloping away from the original intention.
I was RAing a hardware/builders supplies the other day and noted a 2250L plastic tank in a large yard containing kerosene. It was very close to a rear open roller shutter exit from a building store containing much combustibles. Here's a problem, I thought. Fire in store, close to plastic tank, exposure hazard, melt tank, running oil, big fire, fire spread, more buildings go on fire, etc. Then I thought, who is going to be at risk if the tank melts? Nobody really, because the chances are they will have cleared off before the fire would developed to the stage where it could effect the tank. I can't see anybody standing beside the tank having a look at what is going on especially when the staff would be evacuating the area.
Discuss please.
But the Order requires the RP to take general fire precautions. They are defined in article 4 and include measures to reduce the risk and mitigate the effects of fire.
THe WP Regs only required measures to be taken to evacuate, the Order goes much further. People in the vicinity also need to be taken into account, so you are correct to consider the risk posed by the kerosene in the example you give.
Yes but are the General Fire Precautions not suppose to be taken into account if the lack of them poses a risk to persons.
-
Thank you for your contributions and I agree with most of what you are saying but my interest is which of the methodologies is the most appropriate. I haven’t considered BS 8800 because I cannot afford it.
As a result of your comments I have looked at the DCLG guide plan and the PAS 79 plan more closely. As previously stated the basics appear to be very similar but I would think the methodology in 5 step plan is more suited to person who is familiar with the premises like the RP. The 9 steps plan would be more suited for a stranger to the premises like a fire consultant, mainly because of the order and the additional steps.
I would also imagine you could use either one as a starting point and then modify it to suit your individual working practices. For instance in step one of the nine step plan I would consider producing a single line drawing or sketch to assist me but that could be economically unviable.
-
I did colin todds risk assessment coure - it was very good, but it didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way that you descirbe, I did a fire service college risk assessment course, that too was good that didnt tell me how a fire would develop in the way you are talking about either.
Its only the years experience I have had as an operational firefighter that gave me the basis of understanding the dynamics of fire, and even then I still wouldnt claim to be an expert.
That's my point Cleveland, whilst working at the FSC we often had delegates attending a fire isk assessment course expecting to be turned into competent risk assessors with no prior knowledge or training.
There are many employers who are sending their employees on 1 or 2 day courses and then expecting them to assess complex buildings. Some as we know give their employees no training yet expect them to carry out fire risk assessments.
When auditing premises I frequently ask " who did this assessment?" and often the response is "I did", next question is what training have you had?, usual response is none!, and often they don't realise that they are not competent.
Fire risk assesssment is a specialist area and should only be undertaken by someone with the requisite knowledge. Don't forget that fire development is only one area of required knowledge. I know of many retired fire-fighters with plenty of operational experience that beleive they are competent to carry out fire risk assessments, of course they're not unless they also know about the general principles of fire safety and areas such as human behaviour.
I hear what you are saying and totally agree.
But thats my point completely.... until someone says " you need to have qualifications in A, B and C to be classed a competent risk assessor" then how can we ever decide who is competent.
Like I say I do agree with you, I just put my point across in a rhetorical sense.
-
Clevelandfire.
You say you attended a FRA Course at FSC and didn't cover Fire Behaviour? These Courses must have changed since I was there. Do they not teach BFPEM anymore? There was 2-3 days of Fire Behaviour in that Course. As an aside: The Scottish Building Standards are looking at comparing BS 7974 and the International Fire Engineering Guide. These are so akin to "The Method". Personally I hope we go down this route. Go to:
http://www.sbsa.gov.uk/archive/comparisonbs7974andInternfireenginguide.htm
Phil, give me a call or PM me. Lost your email addy. Thanks.
-
Clevelandfire.
You say you attended a FRA Course at FSC and didn't cover Fire Behaviour? These Courses must have changed since I was there. Do they not teach BFPEM anymore? http://www.sbsa.gov.uk/archive/comparisonbs7974andInternfireenginguide.htm
No Dennis
The risk assessemnt course dealt with carrying out and auditing FRAs. Not to any one methodology because enforcers need to be able to audit any methodology. That's why I've never understood the logic of FRS doing a PAS79 Course.
I'm not a great fan of BFPM, it's ok for property protection but not very good for life safety, in my opinion.
But as a way of justifying what measures you have or are going to take it is ok.
It doesn't matter what methodology you use, what is important is that the final document records all the information that is prescribed in the legislation. Most FRAs that I see don't do that.
-
Hello Phil,
I know of your misgivings re BFPEM but it is more than a tool for property protection.
You can use the time line to guesstimate where people (given their mobility etc) will be at any given stage of a typical modelled room fire.
The probibility of this fire leaving the room of origin etc.
From this the tenibility levels can be set. Using the L curve for Life Safety. To some extent BS 7974 and DD 9999 assume similar criteria. ie height of ceiling can determine longer TD etc.
It cannot be used alone in determining the safety of occupants in a fire situation but it is a great tool when used with other ways of conducting an FRA.
I feel saddened if it is no longer being taught at the FSC. A great opportunity for Local Authority FSO's to have a more rounded approach to the subject. Although their words say they are not being prescriptive, their actions and demeanor says otherwise.
Perhaps a lack of knowledge with a safety net of appendixes containing benchmark standards.
-
The 5 step approach is the one adopted by the Government guidance, itself issued under the FS Order. Use methods not contained within the Government guidance at your peril!
-
peanut.
Government Guidance is just that- Guidance. Different Governments= different guidance.
The 5 steps were taken from general H & S risk assessments and made to suit Fire Safety. A good aide memoire but not the Bible .....so to speak.
-
The 5 step approach is the one adopted by the Government guidance, itself issued under the FS Order. Use methods not contained within the Government guidance at your peril!
5 Step, 9 Step, L -Curves, matrices.....not important. What is important is the outcome. The methodology is just a tool for determining if things are ok or if more needs to be done.
The five step method will not record the precribed information, the example template in the CLG guide does not record the prescribed information.
....and no method will be any good unless the assessor has received the appropriate training.
-
I agree wholehartedly with the comment above. The outcomes need to be risk based and have options for each, one of the options being leave it as it is. The RA is not the RP and can only give proper recommendations with leeway for the RP to undertake the options to ALARP and on a Cost Benefit Analysis basis. That is why PAS 79 dos not work, it ends up as a fault list which is not coreect as one option for the RP is to do nothing.
-
I knew that would spark some comments, but I still think my points are valid.
I spend all my day arguing that guidance is just guidance, but unfortunately as far as the government guidance is concerned courts have decided that it needs to be followed.
With regards to the actual risk assessment process, it is the duty of the responsible person to prove that risk appropriate measures have been provided, not for the enforcing authority to prove otherwise. In this way the responsible person is very much guilty until he can prove he is innocent. Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.
-
Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.
The CLG guides are not issued by the Secretary of State and they do not give a methodology. They just say there are five steps, that is not a methodology.
Guidance Note No.1 is issued by the Secretary of State and recommends that for guidance on what is a suitable and sufficent risk assessment, reference should be made to the MHSW Regs ACOP.
That ACOP explains clearly what significant findings are and what constitutes a suitable and sufficient RA.
..and it will comes as no surpise to many that the definitions and guidance in the ACOP conflict with the CLG guides.
Also Guidance Note No.1 points out that in some buildings the FRA will not be suitable and sufficient without plans.
-
I knew that would spark some comments, but I still think my points are valid.
I spend all my day arguing that guidance is just guidance, but unfortunately as far as the government guidance is concerned courts have decided that it needs to be followed.
With regards to the actual risk assessment process, it is the duty of the responsible person to prove that risk appropriate measures have been provided, not for the enforcing authority to prove otherwise. In this way the responsible person is very much guilty until he can prove he is innocent. Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.
Yes, the responsible person has to provide a suitable and sufficient Risk Assessment. If it is not suitable and sufficient would it not be up to the F&RS to demonstrate to the court that it is not, rather than the RP to show that it is?
-
If we issued an enforcement notice for a risk assessment and it was appealed, then I would imagine there would have to be some sort of proof on our behalf that it was not suitable and sufficient. (This 'proof' could quite simply be an opinion as to why we consider the RA to be insufficient.)
This is quite different to a defense against an offence mentioned under article 32. That is the one where they have to prove they took all reasonable precautions. Guilty until proven innocent.
-
Article 34, Onus of Responsibility, is clear, it is the responsibility of the RP to prove that the FRA is suitable and sufficient along the lines of ALARP.
Enforcers are not prosecutors, the case is Regina versus whomever and the FRS personnel are there as evidential witnesses and give evidence of what they did, saw, took piccies of, they should not pass an opinion as they do not have any Fire Safety Duties under the Order and are not an RP. In the case above they would have to defend their enforcement notice in an appeal court and demonstrate why they believe that the FRA was not suitable and sufficient, this has been done in Lancs by reference to the CLG guidance "on page 55 of the sleeping risk guide it staes that all hotels have to have an L2 Fire Alarm to BS 5839 Part 1 2002". That is not risk assessment as the system may well be suitable as it is but could be a 1988 system.
-
Under Article 50 the SoS must ensure that guidance, which HE considers appropriate is available. This is the CLG risk assessment guidance, issued under the Order. The reference to a MHSW ACOP is bizarre. Since the MHSW Regs were made under the HSWA they do not apply to fire safety (Article 47). I would still stick with the RR(FS)O guidance. (The Article 47 point seems to have been missed by many. For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)
I wouldn't like to argue the toss about when a series of steps becomes a methodlogy, and I don't think it relevant. The RP has a duty to undertake an assessment of the risks, and under Article 34 it is up to him to prove that he did all that was reasonably practicable to fulfill this duty.
As jokar alludes to, sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents hardly seems in the spirit of the Order, but it is essentially what the Order, and the Courts, require.
-
Under Article 50 the SoS must ensure that guidance, which HE considers appropriate is available. This is the CLG risk assessment guidance, issued under the Order. The reference to a MHSW ACOP is bizarre. Since the MHSW Regs were made under the HSWA they do not apply to fire safety (Article 47). I would still stick with the RR(FS)O guidance. (The Article 47 point seems to have been missed by many. For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)
I wouldn't like to argue the toss about when a series of steps becomes a methodlogy, and I don't think it relevant. The RP has a duty to undertake an assessment of the risks, and under Article 34 it is up to him to prove that he did all that was reasonably practicable to fulfill this duty.
As jokar alludes to, sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents hardly seems in the spirit of the Order, but it is essentially what the Order, and the Courts, require.
I'm really not meaning to be rude Peanut but the more you post the more you demonstrate your lack of understanding.
The reference to MHSW Regs is not bizarre it is totally relevant. The MHSW Regs were made under the HASAW Act as you correctly point out, however, they became part of the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation and the ACOP is as relevant now as it was in 1997.
Unfortunately it appears that many people who either assess or audit have never read it and clearly do not understand what constitues a suitable and sufficient FRA including the authors of the CLG guides.
The Secretary of State has issued gauidance Note No.1 in which he states:
"Enforcing authorities should note that the requirement for suitability and sufficiency
is one and the same requirement as that in health and safety law. Detailed advice has
been produced by the Health and Safety Commission as part of the Approved Code of
Practice and Guidance to accompany the Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999 (ISBN 0-7176-2488-9). That guidance is equally applicable to the
suitability and sufficiency of risk assessments under the Order."
Have you read Guidance Note No.1?
The Article 47 point has not been missed, unfortunately you don’t seem to understand it.
Your comment
"For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)"
worries me, do you honestly not see how the Safety Signs & Signal Regs are very relevant here???
Sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents is certainly not what the Order, or the Courts, require!!!!!!!
.....please tell me you don’t enforce this legislation.
-
I agree with much of the comments submitted but my original posting was about the starting point for a FRA.
The CLG guides do not give a methodology. They just say there are five steps, that is not a methodology.
Methodology can be defined as a particular procedure or set of procedures so I started to use this word but it is not important which word is used but I believe it is important to have a methodology, plan, method call it what you like. Even the MHSW ACOP recommends the five steps to risk assessment.
Jokar gave me my answer use any of them choose the best suited to your working practise. You can modify it and create a bespoke plan suited to your own working practises but it is very important to have a plan to ensure you cover all the bases.
-
Jokar gave me my answer use any of them choose the best suited to your working practise. You can modify it and create a bespoke plan suited to your own working practises but it is very important to have a plan to ensure you cover all the bases.
that's correct, you need a template, document, thingummybob, or whatever you want to call it that makes sure you ask all the correct questions. Just following five steps will not do that.
I have a template that I use that does that and also a document for auditng that asks a serious of questions to determine if all the information that is prescribed in he Order has been recorded.
I am happy to share these if they are any use to you TW.
-
Thanks Phil I will take you up on that and send you an email.
-
PhilB,
Yes, I have read guidance note 1. Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance? That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47. And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?
I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of the CLG guides. I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.
The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned. This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence. What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation. I ask again, read Article 47.
As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied. However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed. This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.
No, I don't enforce this legislation. Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.
-
PhilB,
Yes, I have read guidance note 1. Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance? That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47. And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?
I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of the CLG guides. I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.
The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned. This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence. What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation. I ask again, read Article 47.
As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied. However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed. This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.
No, I don't enforce this legislation. Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.
Peanut I have read, understood the meaning of and taught fire safety law for many years. Incuding article 47.
May I recommend that next time, rather than stating what you think the Statute says, you read all of the Order and try and understand what it means.
For example 26(2) says "In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it."
The Secretary of State issued Guidance Note No.1, in which he points out that the ACOP to the MHSW Regs provides appropriate guidance on what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Yet you think my reference to the ACOP is bizarre.
What is bizarre is the fact that the authors of the CLG Guides chose to ignore that document when producing their guides and opted for a different definition of significant findings.
Of course the MHSW Regs are disapplied if the Order applies but the requirement for a suitable and sufficient risk assessment remains the same.
The Safety Signs & Signal Regs like most relevant statutory provisions only require measures to be provided if a risk assessment determines they are necessary. Why on earth do you consider that to be prescriptive?
If not an enforcer are you a consultant?, and If so I wonder if you advertise your competence on any other forums?
-
PhilB,
Yes, I have read guidance note 1. Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance? That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47. And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?
I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of the CLG guides. I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.
The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned. This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence. What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation. I ask again, read Article 47.
As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied. However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed. This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.
No, I don't enforce this legislation. Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.
Peanut I have read, understood the meaning of and taught fire safety law for many years. Incuding article 47.
May I recommend that next time, rather than stating what you think the Statute says, you read all of the Order and try and understand what it means.
For example 26(2) says "In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it."
The Secretary of State issued Guidance Note No.1, in which he points out that the ACOP to the MHSW Regs provides appropriate guidance on what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Yet you think my reference to the ACOP is bizarre.
What is bizarre is the fact that the authors of the CLG Guides chose to ignore that document when producing their guides and opted for a different definition of significant findings.
Of course the MHSW Regs are disapplied if the Order applies but the requirement for a suitable and sufficient risk assessment remains the same.
The Safety Signs & Signal Regs like most relevant statutory provisions only require measures to be provided if a risk assessment determines they are necessary. Why on earth do you consider that to be prescriptive?
If not an enforcer are you a consultant?, and If so I wonder if you advertise your competence on any other forums?
Time out Guys. Lets all get back into the nest again and do what we all do best. Debate.
-
I think "debating" is what they are doing Nearlythere
Withiout this healthy debate we wouldnt learn anything.
-
PhilB,
I didn't think that YOUR reference to the MHSW was bizarre, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. One of the points I am trying to make is that the reference to it in Guidance Note 1 is bizarre, as is the reference in the CLG guides to the Signals Regs. You agree that the MHSW regs don't apply if the Order applies, yet don't think it odd that Guidance Note 1 refers to an ACOP for those very regs?
Schedule 1 of the Signals Regs does set down some prescriptive requirements about the type of sign and their locations. Although the overarching requirement of the Signals Regs is for signs to be provided where required by a risk assessment, the presence of this prescriptive information at all is in contrast with the requirments of the Order.
I too have read all the Order, and like yourself would claim to have a degree of understanding in its meaning. I am only trying to stress that whilst, as Thatcher said "guidance is guidance, it is not the law", Courts have interpreted guidance in a more prescriptive manner. Although the guidance notes are issued by the SoS, they are not issued in pursuant of his duties under the Order, as this only requires him to provide guidance to assist responsible persons. The CLG guides are thus the only ones issued under the Order, as they are intended for responsible persons.
I think we are in agreement on one thing - the content of the CLG guides.
Thanks for umpiring nearlythere, but as Midland Retty says a bit of debate must be a good thing. Attend any legal conference and you will hear completely different opinions about legislation.
-
PhilB,
I didn't think that YOUR reference to the MHSW was bizarre, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. One of the points I am trying to make is that the reference to it in Guidance Note 1 is bizarre, as is the reference in the CLG guides to the Signals Regs. You agree that the MHSW regs don't apply if the Order applies, yet don't think it odd that Guidance Note 1 refers to an ACOP for those very regs?
Schedule 1 of the Signals Regs does set down some prescriptive requirements about the type of sign and their locations. Although the overarching requirement of the Signals Regs is for signs to be provided where required by a risk assessment, the presence of this prescriptive information at all is in contrast with the requirments of the Order.
I too have read all the Order, and like yourself would claim to have a degree of understanding in its meaning. I am only trying to stress that whilst, as Thatcher said "guidance is guidance, it is not the law", Courts have interpreted guidance in a more prescriptive manner. Although the guidance notes are issued by the SoS, they are not issued in pursuant of his duties under the Order, as this only requires him to provide guidance to assist responsible persons. The CLG guides are thus the only ones issued under the Order, as they are intended for responsible persons.
I think we are in agreement on one thing - the content of the CLG guides.
Thanks for umpiring nearlythere, but as Midland Retty says a bit of debate must be a good thing. Attend any legal conference and you will hear completely different opinions about legislation.
No Peanut I honestly don’t believe that the reference to the ACOP in the guidance note is bizarre. The ACOP explains, very well in my opinion, what constitutes a suitable & sufficient risk assessment. It did so before the WP Regs or Fire Safety Order were made and it continues to do so today, so to refer to it is entirely appropriate.
Yes Schedule 1 of the signals Regs may appear prescriptive as does article 14 of the Order which says, amongst other things, that exit doors must open in the direction of escape. But the requirement for the measures under both are subject to a risk assessment. i.e. if the FRA does not require exits to open in the direction of escape, they don’t have to, the same applies to the signal regs....in my opinion only of course.
Guidance is guidance, no more and no less and the case law you refer to was pre the days of enforcement appropriate to the risk.
Yes I concur that the SoS is not obliged to issue guidance for enforcers under article 26 in the same way as he must issue guidance under article 50, but the fact is that he has issued such guidance and enforcing authorities must have regard to that guidance. (come on you fellow anorak wearers, read the articles.)
At least we can agree that the CLG guidance is pants and that Nearlythere worries too much.
Debate is good, long may it continue, and although I often do, I never really mean to offend.
-
Gents
Lets not forget previous threads about what was deemed to be suitable and sufficient. The Guidance Note One at least clarifies this even if one does not entirely agree. (Some of the fire definitions differ to those in H & S)
(it would have been better to quote the ACOP and publicise the GN rather than sneak it out)
Peanut, whilst technically you are correct, common sense dictates that clarity is required in a vast number of areas of fire safety. Just think of it as Service Pack One! All it requires now is some of the FRSs to get out there and enforce it as more enlightened FRSs are doing eg Lancs
davo
davo
-
PhilB I have looked closely at your template and it is a very professional and compared with other similar templates I have seen, it would rate very high. It provides a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment record for your client and indicates any actions he needs to implement.
The way I see it template shows the written aspect of the FRA it does not show how you arrived at your conclusions therefore in my opinion you still need a procedure on collecting the information and evaluating it. The various step plans do provide this guidance and a good FRA template would form part of the later procedures.
In your template you use a drawing which is something I would favour but what are the expense implications.
-
The reasoning is contained in the narrative, you don't in my opinion need a scoring system or matrix, you can justify why or why not the existing measures are adequate in writing.
Yes I do favour a plan as I think it the easiest way to record the precribed information, which includes the findings of the assessment including the measures that have been or will be taken = the preventive & protective measures = the general fire precautions.
Most clients can supply plans, if not they can usually be easily produced.
-
For an inexperience person I do not think the narrative would be sufficient I think s/he would need a clear set of instructions, step 1, and step 2, so on. My understanding of scoring systems or matrixes is about reaching conclusions on your findings and I am not concerned at the moment with that aspect.
I am with you on plans but does the inclusion add very much to the cost of a FRA.
-
For an inexperience person I do not think the narrative would be sufficient I think s/he would need a clear set of instructions, step 1, and step 2, so on. My understanding of scoring systems or matrixes is about reaching conclusions on your findings and I am not concerned at the moment with that aspect.
I am with you on plans but does the inclusion add very much to the cost of a FRA.
Quite agree TW, but I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system.
Plans can often be suppied by the client and scanned, or a simple line drawing can show layout and most measures that need to be recorded. Of course you don't have to use a plan but a picture paints quite a few words, and I hate typing.
-
Blimey the way you ramble on the forums Mr Barry anyone would think you love typing :-) (just kidding ... you never ramble - you enlighten)
But plans are useful and its easy for all concerned (RPs, Assessors, Inspecting officers) to get a good grasp of what they're dealing with when a plan is available.
Complex buildings can be a nightmare to memorise in the mind's eye without a plan. Whilst you shouldnt rely on them things can be missed if you dont have one to hand.
They dont need to be too expensive - using most Microsoft software (Word, Powerpoint, Publisher) you can knock up a simple line plan.
Failing that whats wrong with getting those antiquated pencil and rulers thingies out and doing it manually?
Eitherway to me the inclusion of a plan provides a quick reference point for the installed precautions to accompany the risk assessment (rather like a fire cert plan) .
Furthermore in larger buildings they serve as a reminder of the layout of the building, reminds you of all those nooks and crannies that need to be looked at or may have been missed.
-
Blimey the way you ramble on the forums Mr Barry anyone would think you love typing .
Well just remember Young Retty that as I type (or ramble) at approximately 3 words a minute, I don't get out much.
It's just that I can't resist the cheery banter that goes on in here, where's that pleasant Clevelandfire chappy????, off for a new type-writer ribbon I'll wager.
-
TW I have sent you an e mail.
-
Phil you say "I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system." The RR(FS)O puts the RP in the driving seat and he is on most occasions, an inexperienced person, at least in fire safety, what does s/he use?
Sorry to be a pain in the a**e but although I have issued many fire certificates I have never done a FRA so I consider myself in a position to understand the problems of the responsible persons with regards to the FRA. There is plenty of conflicting guidance out there but which do they use? Please do not say use a fire consultant which in some circumstances could be the right answer, but another minefield.
I await your email jokar
-
Phil you say "I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced person used such a system." The RR(FS)O puts the RP in the driving seat and he is on most occasions, an inexperienced person, at least in fire safety, what does s/he use?
Sorry to be a pain in the a**e but although I have issued many fire certificates I have never done a FRA so I consider myself in a position to understand the problems of the responsible persons with regards to the FRA. There is plenty of conflicting guidance out there but which do they use? Please do not say use a fire consultant which in some circumstances could be the right answer, but another minefield.
I await your email jokar
Sorry TW but I do have to say use a consultant or alternatively they cound send an employee on a course or attend a course themselves.
Fire risk assessment is specialist subject that can only be carried out by someone who knows what their doing.
In the past a fire officer who hopefully had done quite a bit of training would inspect the workplace, issue a notice of steps and then issue a fire cerificate and then reinspect from time to time to make sure all was ok. That has now gone and has been replaced in many organisations by the local manager who knows chuff all.
Yes for small simple buildings Mrs Prendergast can assess her own shop but for more complex premises there should be suitably qualified assessors.
Also what is really worrying is that there have recently emerged many "fire consultants" who clearly do not know what they are doing.
-
Phil like most I agree with you but I am not sure if all responsible persons would. I think many RP's are only interested in a token effort and some no effort at all. Taking into account the chances of being found out being very low it doesn’t bode well for the future.
What is "a more complex premises", it’s mentioned in the guides but not defined I believe the woolly guidance doesn’t help.
-
Phil like most I agree with you but I am not sure if all responsible persons would. I think many RP's are only interested in a token effort and some no effort at all. Taking into account the chances of being found out being very low it doesn’t bode well for the future.
What is "a more complex premises", it’s mentioned in the guides but not defined I believe the woolly guidance doesn’t help.
I absolutely agree TW. CLG have issued poor conflicting guidance, many FRS have poorly trained inspectors, but to be fair what guidance is available to train with??
I would not say most, but a scarey number of businesses only pay lip service to the new law and some as you say just ignore their responsibilities aware that they are unlikely to get caught.
Perhaps you can understand their reluctance when there has suddenly emerged a whole host of incompetent fire consultants who will take their money and produce useless risk assessments.
Time will tell if this approach to ensuring appropriate levels of safety works.
-
TW I have sent you an e mail.
jokar I haven’t received your email.
Thanks to everybody who contributed it’s helped me a lot to understand the complications with this aspect of fire safety, with special thanks to PhilB and jokar.
-
TW Sutton,
The term 'more complex' was arrived at after a lot of soul searching. It was not possible to say 'anything over four storeys', or 'premises of more than 1000m squared'. It certainly wasn't a throw away comment.
-
Val I am not suggesting it was a throw away comment but how does the RP interpret it. Maybe the RR(FS)O should have said any premises with more than five employee’s the FRA should be completed by a competent person?
-
Tw
That would have made a lot of fire consultants happy, (and rich).
-
TW I have sent it agin, hopefully 3rd time lucky.
-
Val it does not have to be a consultant alternatively they could send an employee on a course or attend a course themselves. It would also help RP's to understand when they should hand over to a more experience person. I just try to look at it from the RP's point a view.
Thanks jokar I downloaded your attachments and the template, like some others, was a good one and very close to what I need.