FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on May 23, 2008, 02:39:20 PM
-
I receive this today,
"I am in the process of opening a retail unit, and part of the application process requires that I obtain a fire safety certificate."
Does it make you guys despair?
-
It could get a lot worse , just imagine the retail unit is in a shopping centre with complex cause and effect , seem to remeber a thread under 1st and 2nd stage alarm .
Ground Hog Day seems to spring to mind
-
Makes me laugh. Would love to overhear the conversation that will invetiably follow when someone updates them.
-
I receive this today,
"I am in the process of opening a retail unit, and part of the application process requires that I obtain a fire safety certificate."
Does it make you guys despair?
Whats wrong with that tws? Don't you want their money?
-
Whats wrong with that tws? Don't you want their money?
Doesn’t apply to me, my efforts are for free. However when I was treading the boards the lack of knowledge of those that should have known better was a common occurrence and it seems still happening.
-
I receive this today,
"I am in the process of opening a retail unit, and part of the application process requires that I obtain a fire safety certificate."
Does it make you guys despair?
If I had a pound for every phone call i have taken and still take with that same question i would be earning as much as a fire safety consultant (only kidding chaps), however when i question them further about their requirements 99% of the time they are looking for a fire safety certificate to demonstrate that the fre extiguishers have been tested by a competent engineer.......and yes it does make you despair.
-
I had an enquiry from a solicitor the other day who wanted to apply for a fire certificate for his client!
If I was the client, I would change solicitor.
-
Just goes to show that the Government failed in their attempts to publicise the RR(FS)O. However, that does not alleviate the failure of companies and individuals to keep up to date with legislation.
-
I receive this today,
"I am in the process of opening a retail unit, and part of the application process requires that I obtain a fire safety certificate."
Does it make you guys despair?
Very- we still let get loads like that including fromA/I's ! I have a large bruise on my head from hitting it against a brick wall !
-
Just goes to show that the Government failed in their attempts to publicise the RR(FS)O. However, that does not alleviate the failure of companies and individuals to keep up to date with legislation.
Absolutely right, but I can't see how small companies (and I include myself in this as a small business owner) can possibly keep up with every piece of fire/health and safety notice/code of paractise/guidance/legistlation/european guidance etc etc that ever comes out.
We are supposed to know the latest about everything from eye tests to correct chair positioning, to asbestos/legionella awareness - as well as the latest fire safety guidance.
We would have to employ a safety consultant full time to keep up.... and even then there are so many contradictions you can never satisfy every bit of building regs, ACOPS, RRFSO EN Standards etc.
As far as i can see the RRFSO is still one of the best kept secrets around....!!
-
OPSI is a good site to keep updated with legislation changes. However, it takes time and small busineses may not have that commodity.
-
Just goes to show that the Government failed in their attempts to publicise the RR(FS)O. However, that does not alleviate the failure of companies and individuals to keep up to date with legislation.
Absolutely right, but I can't see how small companies (and I include myself in this as a small business owner) can possibly keep up with every piece of fire/health and safety notice/code of paractise/guidance/legistlation/european guidance etc etc that ever comes out.
We are supposed to know the latest about everything from eye tests to correct chair positioning, to asbestos/legionella awareness - as well as the latest fire safety guidance.
We would have to employ a safety consultant full time to keep up.... and even then there are so many contradictions you can never satisfy every bit of building regs, ACOPS, RRFSO EN Standards etc.
As far as i can see the RRFSO is still one of the best kept secrets around....!!
While I take your point, there are alternatives to employing someone. There are email/literature based systems that small employers can use, or consultants who offer a part time service.
At the end of the day the duty is the empoyers and if they don't like it or can't deal with it, then they might want to consider if they are fit to run a business and enjoy the benefits of being self employed.
-
I agree with David. It must be a nightmare for small companies to keep abreast of the changes. To say if a company doesn't like it or can't deal with then they should shut up shop seems a bit strong. I was taliing the owner of a dry cleaners the other day about the RRO, and he said, "well at the moment I haven't even looked at it. I've the emission regs to worry about first." Kinds of puts it into perspective really doesn't it? We must be one of the most over legislated countries on earth. I'm not making excuses for them but it must be ludicrously hard and expensive to keep up to date.
No wonder we are a tertiary/quarternary industry based society in the UK nowadays.
-
Sorry if I am being "a bit strong" but that's how it works in the UK. If you want to set up and run your own company, there are laws you need to comply with. If you find it too difficult to comply with the laws, don't set up/run your own company.
Complying with the RR(FS)O is hardly asking much of an employer, if anything it allows them to comply with the law in the way they want. The introduction of it make it easier for employers to comply with legislation and reduced the amount of laws they had to comply with. If empoyers missed the introduction, they need not panic, providing they had complied with the previous legislation, then most will be compliant.
The main reason that we are service driven is the lower cost of manufacture outside the UK, not fire safety legislation.
-
I was taliing the owner of a dry cleaners the other day about the RRO, and he said, "well at the moment I haven't even looked at it. I've the emission regs to worry about first." Kinds of puts it into perspective really doesn't it?
So where will the fire he has never planned for or taken any precautions for or trained his staff for come on the perspective scale?
-
Sorry if I am being "a bit strong" but that's how it works in the UK. If you want to set up and run your own company, there are laws you need to comply with. If you find it too difficult to comply with the laws, don't set up/run your own company.
Complying with the RR(FS)O is hardly asking much of an employer, if anything it allows them to comply with the law in the way they want. The introduction of it make it easier for employers to comply with legislation and reduced the amount of laws they had to comply with. If empoyers missed the introduction, they need not panic, providing they had complied with the previous legislation, then most will be compliant.
The main reason that we are service driven is the lower cost of manufacture outside the UK, not fire safety legislation.
Slightly disagree with you there Chris.
They cant just "comply with law in the way they want to" when it comes to fire safety. There are set guidelines they must follow, how they achieve that is largely down to them in a sense but it isn't quite as adhoc as you describe.
There is a huge burden on SME's (Small to Medium Enterprises) to comply with all sorts of legislation. Rightly or wrongly fire safety is often forgotten or low down in their priority list. There are several reasons for this. Poor or unclear information, more pressing matters to deal with, cost restraints etc etc.
The feedback I get is that people are unsure where to go for advice (not just fire safety but all sorts of things)- they want to be compliant because it helps protect their business, from financial penalties or fines.
Whilst I partially agree that someone shouldnt start a business unless they know what they are doing we have to remember that fire safety is just one part of a vast array of other different things that they have to deal or comply with. All that in addition to the everyday matter of what ever they actually produce, manufacture, sell or service.
-
I was taliing the owner of a dry cleaners the other day about the RRO, and he said, "well at the moment I haven't even looked at it. I've the emission regs to worry about first." Kinds of puts it into perspective really doesn't it?
So where will the fire he has never planned for or taken any precautions for or trained his staff for come on the perspective scale?
It puts into perspective that in his opinion that the emission regs were more important to him than the RRO. This must be similar for a lot of SME's. I'm not saying he is correct though am I?
-
The main reason that we are service driven is the lower cost of manufacture outside the UK, not fire safety legislation.
Clearly i'm not suggesting fire safety legislation is responsible, but when the costs to manufacture abroad is cheap the jobs in our country have got to come from somewhere to fill the gap and creating new service industries by increasing the quantity of legislation seems to do the trick. I'd love to know how much revenue the RRO has generated for the economy. I expect it is huge
-
The implimentation of the RRO reduced UK legislation as it replaced dozens of other different bits.
I don't think anyone produces legislation (think about all the steps and approvals to get something through parliament) simply to create work for consultants/enforcers, if that is what you are suggesting.
I can't see how the introduction of the RRO has generated revenue - do you mean by getting work for consultants, as the obligations for employers are not much different than before? As the criticism seems to be that the government didn't advertise the introduction of theRRO very well, this appears to contractict this concept anyway.
-
It might have minimised the number of publications but nothing got removed. I don't know why you feel this legislation change would not produce increased revenue for the economy. Whilst I agree the obligations are similar, how many employers were complying to a satisfactory level in the eyes of the Fire service enforcement officers prior to the change? Not many I'll warrant.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. What revenue is being created by this? Are you talking about consultant's income?
-
If toy look at OPSI you will see that we are in the 1300's of SI's that have been issued so far this year alone. That is a high number for SME's to keep up with, to run a business and keep the HMRC happy.
-
Well consultants, assessors, retrofitting of passive/active fire safety systems etc, essentially getting stuff the level the government wrongly assumed the country was at to be honest.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. What revenue is being created by this? Are you talking about consultant's income?
There is an awful lot more revenue being created, risk assessment work seems to of gone up ten fold
An indication of this is the FIA deciding to give fire consultancy businesses their own trade body
Yes risk assessments have always been required but it seems that the law is now being more strictly enforced so people are taking more note. Alot of rogue traders seem to be using risk assessments as a way of forcing the sale of their goods on people
I have employed more sales people since the RRFSO so they are paying more tax for a start!
I would actually like to know where the money from fines goes to.... is it traceable?
-
Plenty of rogues out there flogging toot you don't need due to the RRO.
-
How much do you think this has boosted the UK ecomony by, a millionth of a percent? And is it a bad thing? Manufacture and installation of smoke barriers etc, isn't a service industry?
But going back to the point that our industry has moved towards serive industry becuase of legislation, well, I have not seen any evidence of this presented yet.
-
Slightly flippant i think. Its definately increased by more than one millionth of a percent as that would only represent an increase of appx £27,000 based on last years GDP to the entire economy. That would just be silly.
I haven't said that we have moved towards service industry due to legislation, i am saying we have moved towards legislation due to a required increase in service industry. And that is my cynical opinion. Not one that can be evidenced.
-
Sorry if I am being "a bit strong" but that's how it works in the UK. If you want to set up and run your own company, there are laws you need to comply with. If you find it too difficult to comply with the laws, don't set up/run your own company.
Complying with the RR(FS)O is hardly asking much of an employer, if anything it allows them to comply with the law in the way they want. The introduction of it make it easier for employers to comply with legislation and reduced the amount of laws they had to comply with. If empoyers missed the introduction, they need not panic, providing they had complied with the previous legislation, then most will be compliant.
The main reason that we are service driven is the lower cost of manufacture outside the UK, not fire safety legislation.
I thought small businesses were the back bone of the country and the economy......to be honest I think that if someone sat you down before you started and explained all the stuff you would have to comply with, and how much money you would have to turn over just to pay your taxes and sustain the business then fewer people would ever start a business.
As an employer of 6 people but I'm expected to have the same knowledge regarding every element of health & safety, fire safety, employment law, tax law etc etc as a firm employing 600 people.
As I don't play golf and work the best part of 12 hours a day within the business 6 days a week be it quoting, consulting, designing, commissioning, fault finding etc and I don't get to charge the hourly rate of some of the large nationals (or many consultants who don't know there tit from their elbow) - all present company accepted ofcourse (but I'm sure we have all met them!!). Finding the time to keep abreast of all the legislation aimed at businesses and employers is not top of my list when my priority is winning the next job and keeping the secretary paid and vehicles on the road.
As it isn't top priority for the man in the dry cleaners.
My point was that to many businesses the RRO is not the centre of the universe as it is to people like us who work within the industry. I'm not saying that that's right, it's just life.
The health and safety industry generally is the greatest money spinner, and as the man said we are so over legislated generally, it is rediculous.
......... rant over ..... :D
-
The UK's GDP (which exludes government spending) for 2007 was US$2.7 trillion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom).
So that's £1 350 000 000 000 000 000 000 per year.
1 % of that would be £13,500,000,000,000,000,000
a millionth of a percent would be £13,500,000,000,000
a millionth of a millionth of a percent would be thirteen and a half million pounds.
I'm not being flippant, I'm illustrating that the net effect of the introduction of the RRO on the UK economy is about zero.
(I've used the international definition of a trilliion in both my source and calculations)
-
The UK's GDP (which exludes government spending) for 2007 was US$2.7 trillion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom).
So that's £1 350 000 000 000 000 000 000 per year.
1 % of that would be £13,500,000,000,000,000,000
a millionth of a percent would be £13,500,000,000,000
a millionth of a millionth of a percent would be thirteen and a half million pounds.
I'm not being flippant, I'm illustrating that the net effect of the introduction of the RRO on the UK economy is about zero.
(I've used the international definition of a trilliion in both my source and calculations)
Yeah and what about what Dave Rooney said.
With all due respect Id like to see you run your own business and think its so easy.
-
I didn't claim it was easy, what I said was that if you want to be self employed, there are responsibilities that you must accept.
My post above addressed the different point that I was making, which was that the goverment doesn't introduce legislation on the basis that compliance with laws is some sort of money spinner.
What Dave R said is all sensible stuff, I didn't feel the need to argue with any of his points. He has made valid observations, I think I have too.
My ability to run a company isn't really what this debate is all about, so I'll ignore the last bit, hope you don't mind.
-
I still disagree with the legislation thing though. I do believe the legislation positively impacts the economy and the workforce and I do believe that some element of the way in which it is stringently enforced and adhered to is due to its ability to spread wealth by employing many more consultanant and enforcers etc. I don't want you to agree with me, just agree to disagree with me! Lovely old job.
I don't disagree with you that companies that can't comply shouldn't be in business but in real terms that isn't real life. And in addition many multi nationals should shut their doors also. SME's aren't alone in not complying and to be honest the SME's have more of an excuse!
David R prooves my point regarding the quantity of legislation and that to some extend small business have to pick and choose what legislation they can comply with day to day. The fire order is not a priority to small business' as it isn't to many large business'.
-
I do believe that some element of the way in which it is stringently enforced and adhered to is due to its ability to spread wealth by employing many more consultanant and enforcers etc.
There is one reason for stringent enforcement. It is based on self complaince, if we let people know that there are punishments for not complying, then people will comply without being asked/inspected, so ultimately LESS inspectors are needed, so the fire service saves money, then the government saves money, and we still keep paying the same amount of taxes, so the government gets to keep more of our money and divert it into important things like more traffic wardens, who will in turn make more money for the councils and the government, which can then be diverted into worthy causes like the Russian Womens One Legged Lesbian Shot Putters Association.
So yes, it's money.
I would say that they additional income tax taken from the new wave of consultants is little more than a nice kickback. By the time you lot have finished lying about your travelling expenses, stationery and nice suits there won't be much left to pay in tax anyway. :)
-
Theres no lying in my travel expenses. I did fly to Gucci in Milan to buy a new work suit (claimed it), meanwhile Candy and Bianca (My 2 Pa's) went to buy me some more stationary from Harrods.
-
It is based on self complaince, if we let people know that there are punishments for not complying, then people will comply without being asked/inspected, so ultimately LESS inspectors are needed
I think that this is inevitable. The enforcers of the FSO are still quite nice at the moment (despite what I often read on these threads), providing advice and in a lot of cases letting people get away with far more than the H&S inspector would. I believe this is changing rapidly and eventually they will carry out the same role as H&S, responding to problems after they have occurred and inspecting only the very highest risks. By the time we reach this stage, the numbers of enforcers will already have been reduced significantly and it would be a natural step for fire safety to become part of the HSE. Mark my words.
-
It would certainly be easy enough to alter the Fire Safety Order to change the enforcing authorities.
-
Very true. They already have control of the highest risk premises (not life risk) leftover from the Special Premises Regs. so they certainly have the knowledge, and we now use their enforcement protocols. We're Doooomed!
-
.
My post above addressed the different point that I was making, which was that the goverment doesn't introduce legislation on the basis that compliance with laws is some sort of money spinner.
This may interest you it was issued in around 2005 and is the final draft document detailing the impact the RRFSO would have on the economy, if anyone wants the full version (I have just posted the summary) I can e mail it. I would suggest that these figures are well out and have not considered the full impact by assuming a certain level of compliance with businesses already.
Also what about the cost of FRA reviews year on year or premises such as blocks of residential flats that did not apply to previous legislation and now have to provide a certain level of fire safety provisions all of which costs money. I am not saying that the money shouldn't be spent in order to acheive a satisfactory level of fire safety just that the costs have not been fully assessed......in my view. (See averge cost to businesses given as £196.00!!)
17. Summary of Costs/Benefits
We expect those who operate premises (i.e. employers, the self-employed with non-domestic premises, and the voluntary sector, as discussed above) to obtain the guidance, and familiarise themselves with it. The costs of this are considered below.
We have estimated a range of costs likely to be incurred in obtaining the new guidance and familiarisation with it. This comes within the range £66m to £88.8m.
We know that many businesses are not complying with the existing requirements upon them. We have estimated the total cost of complying, in terms of producing risk assessments and training staff, would be in the range of £212m to £301m for all businesses in England and Wales (see section 10 and Annex D). Most employers (65%) would face an average cost of £196 for these activities. As this is not a new burden it has not been set against the quantification of the benefits of the arrangements proposed in the Order.
Essentially, therefore, we estimate the effect of the Order will be to achieve annual savings within a range of £47m to £137m, plus some wider but unquantifiable economic benefits, and benefits in respect of reduced suffering and trauma of victims of fire and their relatives and friends. This is set against an estimate of one-off costs within the range £66m to £88.8m for businesses to educate themselves about the new arrangements.
So, while it is estimated that there is likely to be one off cost to business of between £66m to £88m, this figure is offset by the projected savings. Consequently, in the year of introduction, the cost benefit range is from between a saving of £49m and a cost of £19m. Thereafter savings in the range £47m-£137m will apply. Thus over a ten year period (not allowing for inflation), ongoing savings to business at current prices of between £382 million and £1.304 billion would be expected to accrue.
The Government believes that the benefits explained in this assessment over the longer term, outweigh the initial costs and fully justify the proposals for reform
Abolishing fire certificates
1.65m No saving as resources will be deployed on new single regime
Consequential cost of fire 39m
118m
Reduction in false alarms 1m 3m 5m 15m
Subtotals 41.65m 122.65m 5m 15m
Total potential economic benefits
£46.65 m to £137.65m
We can say that the total quantifiable benefits across all sectors fall in the range £47m to £137m per annum.
Unquantifiable economic benefits
While the cost of fire calculation takes into account the cost of lost business, there are wider costs which may be saved by a reduction in the number of fires, for example when a fire causes business failure: the impact and consequential cost and effect on a community, for example unemployment which may result and the effect that loss may have on the local area (property values, sense of community and so on).
Contact points : Andy Jack
Head of Legislation Branch
Zone 17/C Portland House
Stag Place,
London SW1E 5LP
Tel: 020 7944 5532
-
The tone of the text suggests to me that the readers if the document (legislators) would be pleased to see that the introduction of the RRO would save businesses money, seemingly backing up my theory that laws are not brought in simply to generate spending.
-
Well of course they want to see cost savings, the whole reason the RRO went through was the (in my opinion) false premise that it would save business' money. These people aren't stupid, they know there will be significant benefits.
The news is that in real terms it hasn't saved anybody any money. small business would dream of complying fully with the RRO for £196 in fact i would question whether any business could comply with the RRO for £196.
The RRO has so far cost my company in DIRECT costs through employment, works and consultants 1 million pounds. And we haven't scratched the surface yet
-
It depends how you look at this
I agree with Chris that legislation isn't brought out to deliberately cost people money, and I dont believe for one second the RRO was brought out for that reason either.
That said however whether we like it or we don't the RRO has indirectly had cost implications for pretty much all of us.
Firstly new guidance has to be produced, you have to advertise the fact new legislation is coming in, you have to train the enforcers to interpret and understand the legislation which costs money.
Equally the consultants and assessors also have to look at the legislation and either be trained on it or actually look through it themselves - time is money.
Fire Authorities may have to change their enforcement procedures, local guidance, policies and standard letter packs to deal with the RRO. All of that costs money
Then factor in the issue that the RRO now deals with some premises to which the fire authority had little or no powers of enforcement to deal with before and whom are now suddenly being hit with requirements from fire authorities. Again that all costs money too.
Then with the Government pushing for Fire AUthorities to take more prosecutions there is more money being used to deal with the legalities of the legislation, played out in the Magistrates Court or Crown Courts
So all in all yes this legislation has cost us all money, the tax payer, the punters out there, the assessors and consultants, fire authorities and the authorities who have responsibility to enforce the RRO
You should see however that after an intial spend to deal with its introduction costs will start to fall to the same levels as would normally have occured with previous legislation once the RRO has bedded in.
-
You have the read the government interpretation of costings in the Regulatory Inpact Assessment at the end of the initial drafts.
-
As a note on the HSE the government has just published a report on the HSE "The role of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in regulating workplace health and safety" from the Work and Pensions Committee. Amoungst the findings were that the HSE aimed for a ratio of 60:40 proactive to reactive visits and they were failing to acheive this and would continue to do so! This is amoungst 63 comments on the work of the HSE.
As for cost savings I rememeber the Home Office guidance on OMPIs that after demanding a vast bulk of information stated that there would be no financial implications to the work!
-
The whole point of RRO is to shift the cost of fire safety management from the government to the employers. If businesses have to carry out and pay for a fire risk assessment it means the government won't have to fund the F&R Services to do it. I doubt if the government really cares if a RA is carried out or not as most places, other than high risks, will not be policed. The only time normal and low risks will be required to show their FRA is when there has been a death or injury through fire and I think most employers will be prepared to take the chance of such a thing not happening.
-
I agree with Nearlythere, the 97 Workplace Regs placed the onus on the owner/occupier to carry out a risk assessment, (not much different than the RR(FS)O), however the main change as I see it was that the RR(FS)O actually stated that the F&RS would no longer risk assess but would audit FRA's and enforce, (or prosecute) non-compliances, savings here can be identified as reducing the taskings of fire safety work away from the F&RS and use them elsewhere, (a hidden cost saving so sneakily done), community fire safety springs to mind!!!