FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lingmoor on June 17, 2008, 08:52:45 AM
-
Well we are nearly two years down the line with the RRO and I'm amazed when I'm chatting in the pub with people in business that many are still not aware of the change in legislation and the need to carry out a FRA
I've put an article in the business pages of our local paper hightlighting the changes and I've been down the fire safety office talking to old colleagues asking them to do the same because the last article they did was around its introduction
I think one cast iron way of getting people aware of their responsibilities and for the RP to ensure that a Fire Risk Assessment is carried out would be if insurance companies stipulated that this was necessary to make the fire insurance premium valid
Any thoughts?
-
Is it not also the case that many do know but are not prepared to do anything about it, because of costs, until they are chased by the enforcers?
-
Is it not also the case that many do know but are not prepared to do anything about it, because of costs, until they are chased by the enforcers?
Yes I have no doubt that is the case with some.
As I mentioned, if the insurance companies stipulated they had to do it to ensure validity of the policy then I'm sure that would give RP's no choice but to do a FRA...after all what's the point of paying fire insurance premiums if it aint going to pay out
-
Tottaly agree with you Lingmoor have been saying this for donkeys now, if ony the Insurance Industry and the fire services had a partnership,so that whereby upon taking out insurance or renewals of policies, insurance companies insisted that their customers are in full compliance with fire regultaions, and the fire authorities could inform insurance companies on non compliers. Maybe that would just happen in my fantasy world.
I am sure most know that they do have fire safety responsibilities, even though many wont have carried out a FRA, I am sure most dutyholders do have general, even if incomplete or imprecise, understanding of their responsibilities for fire safety in their premises. In many cases they will have taken some action to meet their obligations.
-
..... and the fire authorities could inform insurance companies on non compliers.......
I suspect that the insurers might be more interested in maintaining 'a get out of paying claims clause' rather than ensuring the insurance premium payer has suitable fire prevention and detection facilities in place - or am I just being cynical?
-
Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.
Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.
Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too? What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to). And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't. Then what?
Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.
Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different. Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.
(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)
-
Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.
Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.
Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too? What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to). And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't. Then what?
Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.
Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different. Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.
(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)
Sixthly chill out :)... no one said it was your role...it was just an observation and asked for peoples thoughts
Seventhly your XYZ ABC scenario...if all insurance companies insisted that premises complied with the law ref FRA then there would be nowhere else to look
Eigthly having no FRA under the RRO... which has taken over all other Fire Safety legislation is fundamental and not just 'at least 1 failure'
Ninthly I didn't say Insurance companies not paying out was common
Tenthly Biggest isn't always best ;)
-
"biggest isn't best"? She only said that so you didn't feel so bad :)
-
Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.
Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.
Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too? What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to). And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't. Then what?
Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.
Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different. Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.
(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)
Sixthly chill out :)... no one said it was your role...it was just an observation and asked for peoples thoughts
Seventhly your XYZ ABC scenario...if all insurance companies insisted that premises complied with the law ref FRA then there would be nowhere else to look
Eigthly having no FRA under the RRO... which has taken over all other Fire Safety legislation is fundamental and not just 'at least 1 failure'
Ninthly I didn't say Insurance companies not paying out was common
Tenthly Biggest isn't always best ;)
Chris's second point is very true as an insurer has told me so.
It is a little like medical insurance. The contents of the proposal form mean absolutely nothing, apart from the Direct Debit instructions, until you make the claim. Most people don't make a claim so will never know that their application could well have been invalid right from the start and they did not actually have insurance at all but still paid for it. Insurers don't make money by refusing to take it.
-
"biggest isn't best"? She only said that so you didn't feel so bad :)
I know but being an assessor I can adjust and come up with an engineered solution ;)
on a point that you made earlier Chris about not being insurers job to do the Governments work...which I agree fully...and you being in that line of business, I'm interested to know if you think it would benefit the industry if all insurers had the FRA proviso on the policy....then maybe if we Fire Risk Assessors (or as we've been called on another forum 'licenced bandits') did our job properly you wouldn't have to pay out as much because of the increases safety provisions and staff training
Of course all insurers would have to agree this policy for it to work
Would car insurers pay out if there wasn't an MOT certificate in place?
-
I can't comment on the motor policy as it is not my area.
Now I'm assuming we are all thinking of property insurance here, rather than employers or public liability - because I don't think anyone wants to see insurers refusing to pay out to injured employees/guests/visitors etc for their injuries.
So on that basis we are talking about the insurance on the "bricks and mortar" and "contents" etc. Something that the RR(FS)O wasn't written to protect. So ignoring my comments above [about: who decides upon what complies, the massive % of non compliance etc] let's look at this from the customers perspective. He'll say " you won't pay for my burnt roof because YOU think I didnt comply with a bit of safety legislation? That's (A) irrelevant ad (B) none of your business and (C) open to debate.
I just can't see it. Will they also not pay out if people dont comply with the lifting regs, oil tank bunding rules, speed on the way to work, pay their child minder cash in hand?
While insurers support the RR(FS)O and ill quote it to every customer I see breaching it. And I'll even pretend to be amazed that they dont have a fire risk assessment, I think the it just aint insurers roles to meddle in this.
-
I can't comment on the motor policy as it is not my area.
Now I'm assuming we are all thinking of property insurance here, rather than employers or public liability - because I don't think anyone wants to see insurers refusing to pay out to injured employees/guests/visitors etc for their injuries.
So on that basis we are talking about the insurance on the "bricks and mortar" and "contents" etc. Something that the RR(FS)O wasn't written to protect. So ignoring my comments above [about: who decides upon what complies, the massive % of non compliance etc] let's look at this from the customers perspective. He'll say " you won't pay for my burnt roof because YOU think I didnt comply with a bit of safety legislation? That's (A) irrelevant ad (B) none of your business and (C) open to debate.
I just can't see it. Will they also not pay out if people dont comply with the lifting regs, oil tank bunding rules, speed on the way to work, pay their child minder cash in hand?
While insurers support the RR(FS)O and ill quote it to every customer I see breaching it. And I'll even pretend to be amazed that they dont have a fire risk assessment, I think the it just aint insurers roles to meddle in this.
I think those are very wise words personally.
-
If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient and if it wasn’t then does it achieve anything?
-
If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient
The Fire Authority
-
If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient
The Fire Authority
So would they check everyone's? If so, why involve the insurance companies at all then?
-
Chris
The question was who would check a fire risk assessment to see if it was suitable and sufficient...that is the duty of the fire authority...which was my answer...simple really
Whether they get round to checking them all, I doubt very much in the next few years...when I was in the job the rolling program at the time was to look at high risk premises first...ie sleeping risk etc
The insurance angle was an observation, a question to the forum to get views....it seems like its touched a nerve :)
don't get your insurance man knickers in a twist over it lad ;)
Ps I don't think it's that bad an idea to be honest :D
dons tin hat and dives for cover
-
If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient
The Fire Authority
Who in the FRS is going to do the auditing the operational personnel are up to their eyeballs in CFS the fire safety departments have been decimated and it’s debateable if they are meeting their obligations to high risk premises. The resources would just not be sufficient I would imagine.
-
Which is why I said this mate
"Whether they get round to checking them all, I doubt very much in the next few years."
My old department that I went to visit last week have recruited additional staff from those previously pensioned off and have a couple of 'civilians' who they are training up
-
I would be very anxious about using Insurance companies to effectively 'police' the FSO.
Firstly, the Order is soley about life protection, whereas Insurance companies remit go much further to protecting property, so I don't think they would approach the issue from the same direction.
Also by using a private company to indirectly enforce UK legislation, not only is the privatisation by the back door, but gives some of the more dodgy salespeople more clout to abuse their position and make loads more bucks!.
The financial industry is a profit making business and is littered with dodgy sales practises (ie Mis-selling endowment mortgages) and dodgy salesmen, so let's keep fire safety legislation away from them.
-
it seems like its touched a nerve :)
don't get your insurance man knickers in a twist over it lad ;)
No nerves have been touched and no knickers are twisted. ;)
-
Insurance companies not paying out without an FRA in place
Thats a 'No' then from the majority
ok the no's have it
on another note
messy
"Firstly, the Order is soley about life protection"
Do you advise the client with reference to arson at night when the premises are closed? ie locking wheelie bins, not to place them against the building and closing windows etc
I do...all part of the service
-
I would be very anxious about using Insurance companies to effectively 'police' the FSO.
Firstly, the Order is soley about life protection, whereas Insurance companies remit go much further to protecting property, so I don't think they would approach the issue from the same direction.
Also by using a private company to indirectly enforce UK legislation, not only is the privatisation by the back door, but gives some of the more dodgy salespeople more clout to abuse their position and make loads more bucks!.
The financial industry is a profit making business and is littered with dodgy sales practises (ie Mis-selling endowment mortgages) and dodgy salesmen, so let's keep fire safety legislation away from them.
Across the whole spectrum of Health and Safety, the Insurance Companies play a huge part in the maintenance of good standards and the promotion of safe practices and this is widely recognised- they have the huge financial lever and become effective regulators by weighting the premium offered to an organisation according to its fire safety or general safety record. This can be megabucks. One of my clients has just had their premium halved as a result of several very positive insurance audit visits.
Whilst their main focus is on protection of assets there is a direct knock on effect to life safety as a result of fire prevention and protection measures
-
I think the only thing you could do as an insurer is ask if a FRA has been carried out when arranging the renewal of a policy, if they say yes then you are in a position to not pay out if it isn't (just like motor insurance and points etc), getting the the insurer to interrogate the FRA's suitability would be prohibitive and wholely innapropriate.
I can't get any fire brigade that would review a fire risk assessment as they are all so flipping scared of saying "that seems fine"
They tend to say "It's up to you" "It's your residual risk, not ours" etc etc.
Until they turn up on your door to do an audit with their other hat on. Then it's all "your FRA is pants" "Your all going to die" "I'm telling the magistrate of you" "see you in court scum bag" etc.
-
I think the only thing you could do as an insurer is ask if a FRA has been carried out when arranging the renewal of a policy, if they say yes then you are in a position to not pay out if it isn't (just like motor insurance and points etc), getting the the insurer to interrogate the FRA's suitability would be prohibitive and wholely innapropriate.
So I'll just try and talk you through how this would work for the client that I work with at the moment. They have about 1,400 sites in the UK all of which are occupied, mostly by different tenants. Let's say 3 insurance companies quote for the busines at each renewal.
No wait, I won't even begin, it is simply impossible for them to get all their tenants to do this and even if they did, do you think the insurers would say "yes, we will insure you subject to these being OK and then 1 month later concluding that 3 were not OK and then the policy being void and them retendering the insurance program, no no no no. It just is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine.
-
I can't get any fire brigade that would review a fire risk assessment as they are all so flipping scared of saying "that seems fine"
They tend to say "It's up to you" "It's your residual risk, not ours" etc etc.
I do not for a moment think that FRS are "flipping scared" its a matter of resources if they agree to review fire risk assessments then they would be inundated with requests and they just wouldn’t be able to cope.
-
I think the only thing you could do as an insurer is ask if a FRA has been carried out when arranging the renewal of a policy, if they say yes then you are in a position to not pay out if it isn't (just like motor insurance and points etc), getting the the insurer to interrogate the FRA's suitability would be prohibitive and wholely innapropriate.
The first bit is what I meant...the second bit most certainly isn't
But I have to bow to the knowledge of the inside man as to whether it's doable (is that a word?) or not