FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on July 30, 2008, 08:42:06 PM
-
I am finding myself in a confusing situation as a result of the widespread use of "agreed action plans".
I recognise the guidance note number 1 paragraph 123 this reminds officers of the ethos of the enforcement concordat and states that "where the risk to relevant persons is not significant and the RP is willing to comply, agreed action plans may be preferable to formal enforcement notice procedures".
I had a nightmare the other night. It went like this.
As a consultant I produce fire risk assessments for my clients that I think are suitable and sufficent and above all proportionate, and will take into account character, nature, layout and management of the building and characteristics of the relevant persons, often arriving at what I think is appropriate even if at variance from the pictures in the guidance document.
The fire authority then vist to cary out an audit. During the audit the fire authority talks about the benchmark standard, shows the client the pictures in the book but makes no comment on the content or suitability of the risk assessment.
The authority then proceeds to agree additional measures with the client and confirms this in writing to match the pictures in the book. I ask the fire officer to comment on the suitability of the risk assessment and whether, if the client is unwilling to agree to the action plan, an enforcement notice would be issued to which no committment is given either way. I wager they would not.
Client is left in a difficult position. He agrees to the action plan but has no intention of fulfilling it at this stage, and after the audit sacks me and refuses to pay my bill for not identifying the risks. I stand by my risk assessment but the client will not throw good money after bad and push it to enforcement as I have already let him down. From my point of view if an enforcement notice were issued we could appeal and at least have the arguments heard.
Could this happen in the real world? Can my nightmare come true?
When I woke up I decided that in future I should recommend to clients that they forget the risk assessment, look at the pictures in the book and make their building match the book. And I should look for a job servicing extinguishers for £50k per year working alongside Nim.
-
I suppose what you are really saying is that the public look to the FRS to provide the prescriptive answer. Unfortunately the FRS will not let go, have some FSO's who will not let go and neither believe in FRA's. Only when someone from strong positin in a consultancy eg CS Todd challenges the FRS do FRA's work in this scenario. Smaller businessess will never have this clout and no matter that PAS 79 is not a great FRA methodology CFOA believe in and have signed up to it so it must be right. Those like yourself who understand and perform the function for an FRA showing and usinf proportionality may lose out to an inexperienced poorly trained FSO because he is part of a lerge orgnisation across the UK who are looked at as professional in all aspects of fire and fire safety. Not always true of course but there you are.
-
I fully agree with you Kurnal, I remember we discussed this very topic recently under the thread "fire behaviour"
It has even been brought up in a Scottish Fire Services Circular no 17 as well, to clarify Scottish ministers policy in relation to the scope of enforcement issues.
"One of the issues regularly raised by dutyholders relates to the intended purpose of the benchmarks set out in each guide and interpretation by enforcing authorities" All personnel involved in the enforcement of Part 3 of the Fire(Scotland) Act 2005 and Regulations should be aware that the benchmarks in the sector specific guides are not designed to be used as prescriptive standards, this is also emphasised in the strategic enforcement guidance.
The benchmarks are provided to asisst with the assessment of the adequacy of existing fire safety measures, they will not be relevant in all cases and each risk assessment will be site specific with the dutyholder making decisons in respect of fire sfaety measures based on judgement of risk.
I continuously try and get this message across to my dear collegues, who seem to do exactly what you are saying in your post. From my own personal experience some of my own colleagues are using the benchmarks as prescription, I cant do much else apart from try and put them right, but they dont seem to listen,Their mindset is If its there as a benchmark you need to achieve that standard. I speak from personal experience only.
-
Or maybe its the end of qualitative risk assesment techniques and the only way forward is to produce a probabalistic risk assessment with lots of curves and squiggles for each little job?
-
Prof
In this case, I won't have what you're drinking thanks............
Seriously, the odds are its already happened but the FRA is too embarrassed to air it here
davo
-
A few points I would like to raise.
As I understand it action plans are there for use in cases where enforcement would otherwise be used, but both (or all 3 parties) can agree on what needs to done and the timeframe in which the work should be carried out.
If there is agreement then the action plan approach is acceptable. My problem with this approach is that the RP may not do the work and the enforcement action would need to be taken anyway, with the same appeal times etc.
If there is not agreement then the enforcing authority will take the action they believe to be appropriate and if the RP and/or Risk Assessor disagree then they have to stand up and object. Now I understand what kurnal is saying, that the RP may fold and sack the Risk Assessor as a result, and you have my sympathy with this but it is no different to a good Inspecting Officer having a weak boss who caves in everytime anyone with any clout objects to something the inspecting officer has requested. Believe me this happens more often than you may think.
With regard to IO's being rigid and insisting that the Guides are followed to the letter, I agree that there are some that are still reasonably rigid but I've not met one who doesn't have some flexibility. And if the RP or Risk Assessor does object then it will usually be passed onto the IO's line manager and possibly their line manager, so these things aren't usually looked at by only one person. If the IO is being pedantic or too inflexible it will usually be pointed out fairly quickly by someone in the office (the fire safety office can be a pretty merciless place if you are on the wrong end of a savaging by your colleagues).
With regard to the Guides being the benchmark, well yes they are. They set the standard at which the RP should be aiming. If he can reach a very similar standard by the use of another method then I think the majority if not all of IO's would be happy with that. We see it all the time, lack of fire resisting seperation being addressed by automatic smoke detection etc. The point is that they still need to reach that standard. Yes there are different levels of risk but this is normally taken into account with such things as travel distances etc.
Other than that it is down to what an individual is happy with. Now I could put 10 IO's and 10 Risk Assessors together and show them a premises that doesn't fall in line with the guides and I should imagine every one would have a slightly different opinion on the level of risk and what would be acceptable, because it is ultimately down to opinion.
The one thing I have come across that gives me cause for concern is the cherry picking approach. For example: for a care home we use a HTM so we can have longer travel distances, we will dispense with the large landings because we don't intend to carry out matress evacuations, we will use ADB so we can have 30 minutes FR instead of 60, we will use BS5839 Part 6 because it more or less gives the same standard as a Part 1 system etc. etc..
I think there are always 3 sides (at least) to the debate.
-
but it is no different to a good Inspecting Officer having a weak boss who caves in everytime anyone with any clout objects to something the inspecting officer has requested. Believe me this happens more often than you may think.
Hi Johnjo, as Meatloaf once said, you took the words right out of my mouth.
-
Kurnel
I share your dream and from the point of view as a risk assessor I get annoyed if the assessment is put to one side in favour of a book of drawings. Hope springs eternal when I read that others experience similar Audits. The most galling thing is when to reach a proper assessment the guidance is used by assessors to gauge a property's safety or otherwise. Then to have reasoned judgement discounted to rigidly follow " a book of rules "
is so frustrating. However there are IO's I have found who use common sense and a real knowledge to work with assessors to achieve reasoned outcomes that don't leave you feeling the Audit was for the benefit of the auditor. I would guess that some IO's have real frustrations too when they do not recieve appropriate support and then they feel they are making decisions in isolation. It does not take rocket science to work that one out.
-
From personal experience only, there is a huge and deepening hole in the training of IOs - and in particular, ongoing training. This is bound to effect the efficiency of IOs out there on the ground and sometimes dealing with other professional safety folk
My Brigade have cancelled virtually all FS training. Why? I have no idea, but I have had all of my 7 requests in the last year turned down. (although I have been offered another equal ops 4 day course!!!)
Out of the last two meetings of all Brigade IOs, one was cancelled, the other comprised of a collective monologue from 3 senior officers of: targets, changes to priorities, and other promises that I have heard before. (such as the promise of a IFE eng tech qualification for all). ie all pi55 and wind and no substance.
Along with discussions with frends & peers (who work in and out of the fire service)- this (and other) forums act as my main training aid, especially when it comes to giving a balanced, proportionate response and to not hold on too tightly to the guides. I have colleagues who are super keen and become as frustrated as me with the lack of FS courses. We search the internet, pick the brains of others and generally train ourselves.
In my team, nobody had heard of the new Lacors guide, or PAS 79 until I mentioned them (Info which I had learned from here). It's a disgrace.
The newer IOs spend more time filling in competence folders that they do reading FS reference material and don't even get me started on how long we've all wasted filling in CPD forms.
The guides are seen as benchmarks in a similar way as ADB . If you can't match them, or better them, you're probably in for a notice. Some see debate as a test of their authority and will not back down. I had enough. More pills Matron.............................
Signed
Disillusioned of London
-
I'll stick my head above the parapet on this one ........
An agreed action plan does not, in my opinion undermine the legislation at all, it is a recognised means of enforcement.
Here is my reasoning:-
I carry out an audit where there are a number of deficiencies. I could serve a deficiency notice and possibly not even return to make sure that the requirements have been met as I trust the responsible person to take ownership and get the job done or I can go for an enforcement notice. As part of my judgement, I apply the responsible person factors / enforcement management model to determine my course of action.
Throughout my hyperthetical audit, the responsible person has been co-operative, asked for advice having admitted he/she isn't really sure of what is required, taken notes and is really willing to get this right BUT there is a bit of history on previous inspections and work has not been carried out.
Do I a) Serve an Enforcement Notice or b) go for an Action Plan?
Taking account of the responsible persons willingness to co-operate but mindful of the previous history, I would go with an action plan. I'm not just walking away and leaving them to meet requirements, but agreeing reasonable and achievable timescales knowing that the responsible person signs to agree that they will complete all requirements within those timescales and inspections are carried out at each agreed date to monitor progress.
I would of course explain that if the reasponsible person fails to meet one of the agreed deadlines, then an Enforcement Notice will be served.
Some officers will use an action plan rather than an enforcement notice because it's easier to produce, but as a tool to achieve the objectives, it's extremely useful.
If it undermines the legislation, then why is it recognised within the Enforcers Guidance No 1?
-
Along with discussions with frends & peers (who work in and out of the fire service)- this (and other) forums act as my main training aid, especially when it comes to giving a balanced, proportionate response and to not hold on too tightly to the guides. I have colleagues who are super keen and become as frustrated as me with the lack of FS courses. We search the internet, pick the brains of others and generally train ourselves.
Different brigade, same training programme
-
Baldyman
You are not sticking your head abover the parapet- I cant pick holes in anything you have written. Thats how the system is supposed to work.
On the other hand I am finding that in some cases the Responsible Person (RP) employs a competent person to carry out the risk assessment on their behalf.
The risk assessment identifies variations from the benchmark standards and identifies additional alternative risk control measures that in the opinion of the assessor provide an acceptable standard of fire safety.
The auditor reads the risk assessment very briefly and points out the variations from the benchmark standard. He does not comment on the alternative risk control measures in place. The RP does not have confidence to argue so accepts the fire officers opinion against the opinion of the risk assessor. The auditor shows the RP the pictures in the guidance book and writes out a list of the measures to be taken to make the premises comply with the pictures in the book. This becomes the agreed action plan. No mention of the risk assessment or the auditors view on whether it is adequate or not.
The RP feels let down by the consultant and takes the view that the auditor must know what he is talking about- he has the legal powers and the uniform- and the consultant does not.
The consultant hears of the problem when the RP refuses to pay for the risk assessment. The consultant points out that the agreed action plan makes no reference to the findings of the risk assessment and recommends the RP not to agree to it, to wait to see if an enforcement notice is issued and then to appeal. The RP now has a jaded view of the risk assessor and decides to go along with the auditor for a quiet life.
The consultant has nowhere to go. He feels that the risk assessment is perfectly suitable and sufficient and that the auditor, instead of specifying the schedule of works to be undertaken, should have asked for a review of the risk assessment detailing the general areas of concern. If it worked like that I would not see a problem with the system. But having seen two agreed action plans from two different brigades, I believe they undermine the philosophy of the legislation.
-
Kurnal all I can say as an I/O is that I believe the I/O in the case your talking about is very very wrong! To see a R/A with risk assessed deviations from the guidance would be a rare pleasure believe me!!
-
Could it be that part of the problem in this case is that the RP still has no ownership of the fire safety within his premises. The Risk Assessor may very well carry out an excellent FRA which does depart from the Guides but unless the RP has an understanding of what is required and why that particular approach was taken he will not be in a position to defend it.
I think this may ultimately come down to communication between the Risk Assessor and the RP at the Risk Assessment stage of the process. If the RP understands the ethos behind that particular assessment they should be able to argue the case for a particular solution more confidently and then present a united front with the Risk Assessor (i.e. be singing from the same hymn sheet). Then challenging the IO will be a much more productive experience.
e.g.
The problem in this particular area is getting relevant persons out of the building before the conditions become untenable due to fire;
The standard solution presented by the Guides is to have 30 mins FR construction;
We can't achieve that so as an alternative we are going to provide smoke detection to give relevant persons early warning of fire etc.
I think this approach would give the RP full ownership of the FRA, and not just putting it in the bottom drawer of his desk until the next Fire Safety Inspection.
-
The problem in this particular area is getting relevant persons out of the building before the conditions become untenable due to fire;
The standard solution presented by the Guides is to have 30 mins FR construction;
We can't achieve that so as an alternative we are going to provide smoke detection to give relevant persons early warning of fire etc.
Yes but the guide already sets a benchmark of full detection in all rooms leading onto the exit route- for example although it states in the table that an LD3 system is appropriate for small 2 storey buildings, the footnote modifies the definition of LD3 as defined in BS5839 part 6 and adds the statement that this includes detection in all rooms leading onto escape routes- and this is the benchmark that is being enforced in addition to the 30minutes FR.
-
Sorry Kurnal,
my e.g. was just plucked out the air as a general example. I didn't see any details of a particular premises in this thread?
I thought we were talking about hyperthetical action plans.
I've gotten myself in too deep, I want out!
-
No worries Johno- thanks for giving me the chance to get on another soapbox over the detection though!
-
Kurnal,
It may be an idea to thrash out a few examples such as the one you just detailed. Seeing as this site is used by Risk Assessors, IO's and other Fire Safety Prof's, it would be interesting to debate our different thinking on such issues or merely hack the official guidance to pieces. If you could give a bit more detail of your previous example I would be happy to post my thoughts (can't guarentee they will be anywhere near right though).
-
I can see where an assessor would apply other additional control measures such as additional detection etc, but when a consultant is the risk assessor, surely it is their responsibility to explain the risk assessment and reasoning so the poor RP actually understands?
I have on some inspections found the risk assessment to be unsuitable and insufficient and applied professional judgement. In these cases when it is a risk assessor as the "competent person" I advise the RP to have them back and ask for the risk assessment to be carried out properly, usually providing six to eight weeks at which point another audit takes place.
If it still isn't right, then I will consider formal enforcement.
I do not audit the risk assessor, I audit the RP, who should have an understanding of the risk assesment and the actions to be taken if any are identified.
I'm not going to blame all risk assessors as the RP has a duty to take ownership of the risk assessment and its content, not just pay the bill and stick it in a file in the office to gather dust, which many seem to do and then can't provide answers under audit conditions.
As they say "ignorance is no defence in law"
-
I can see where an assessor would apply other additional control measures such as additional detection etc, but when a consultant is the risk assessor, surely it is their responsibility to explain the risk assessment and reasoning so the poor RP actually understands?
I have on some inspections found the risk assessment to be unsuitable and insufficient and applied professional judgement. In these cases when it is a risk assessor as the "competent person" I advise the RP to have them back and ask for the risk assessment to be carried out properly, usually providing six to eight weeks at which point another audit takes place.
If it still isn't right, then I will consider formal enforcement.
I do not audit the risk assessor, I audit the RP, who should have an understanding of the risk assesment and the actions to be taken if any are identified.
I'm not going to blame all risk assessors as the RP has a duty to take ownership of the risk assessment and its content, not just pay the bill and stick it in a file in the office to gather dust, which many seem to do and then can't provide answers under audit conditions.
As they say "ignorance is no defence in law"
I couldn't agree more Baldyman this really gets to the heart of the matter! Without gaining some knowledge of the R/A they have bought they are just paying lipservice to the order
-
I agree with you both- ownership and understanding of the risk assessement is vital otherwise its all a waste of time. But its a question of degrees.
Take an office for example. Through the risk assessment I identify an unprotected dead end condition and report it as a significant finding, putting additional risk control measures in place ie detection in all rooms rather than protecting the route. I explain the reasons to the RP and he understands the risk and agrees to maintain the alarm system.
However another person comes along and says that detection is not a suitable alternative to a protected route in this case and the corridor should be protected. I cannot expect my client to understand and construct an argument to justify why I chose detection. He is likely to accept what he is told and upgrade the corridor. If this is done on an agreed action plan it is likely to be as specific as detailing the doors to be upgraded and specifiying the standard, rather than a general advice to review the risk assessment in respect of the mean of escape within the dead end.
I think something that was included in the enforcement concordat, to safeguard the Responsible Person from unnecessary formal enforcement is unwittingly being used against his interests and leading to unnecessary expense, as there is no right of appeal and the format of the action plan is not laid out as it is under formal action, giving alternative solutions or asking for a review of the original risk assessment.
-
Kurnal, I would hope that your client would refer back to you for some advice on this but otherwise i have to say that this is when it becomes banging your head against a brickwall time! i'm afraid there is no easy answer to this scenario.
-
Through the risk assessment I identify an unprotected dead end condition and report it as a significant finding, putting additional risk control measures in place ie detection in all rooms rather than protecting the route.
I could live with that as a solution, as long as the reasoning behind it is recorded within the fire risk assesment.
On the other side of the coin, I have to justify as an I/O why I've accepted it so that any other Officer can understand and it doesn't affect subsequent inspections.
I explain the reasons to the RP and he understands the risk and agrees to maintain the alarm system.
That's alright, but what if the RP doesn't understand or (just to be difficult!) the premises changes ownership?
However another person comes along and says that detection is not a suitable alternative to a protected route in this case and the corridor should be protected. I cannot expect my client to understand and construct an argument to justify why I chose detection.
In which case, I would hope that the RP refers back to you for some assistance!
Whichever way it goes, it is important that the risk assessment contains reasoning to support conclusions. How else as an auditor am I to understand why decisions have been made and are considered suitable for the situation?
It is equally important to allow the RP, in cases where clearly they don't understand the risk assessment and content, to contact the competent person to obtain the information. Again, it is the auditor being reasonable.
Unfortunately there are too many responsible persons that seem to be under the impression that because they've paid for a third party to carry out the risk assessment, then that is their duty fulfilled. As mentioned, it's a question of ownership!
-
Kurnal, I would hope that your client would refer back to you for some advice on this but otherwise i have to say that this is when it becomes banging your head against a brickwall time! i'm afraid there is no easy answer to this scenario.
You would hope the RP refers back to the risk assessor / consultant.
I generally ask the RPs to (where applicable) see if their risk assessor can be attendance when I visit.
Sometimes this isn't practical (i.e. consultant is busy because of workloads, or Ive turned up on spec because of a complaint)
I'm sure the likes of Prof Kurnal and his chums remind their clients of the need to get in contact should an inspecting officer ever question any of the installed precautions but alas 12 months down the line the RP forgets to and the consultant never gets informed of the inspecting officers actions.
Infact I went to a premises the other day where the turn over of staff is frightening - the manager has been replaced 3 times in the last 24 months.
The new manager was unaware that a FRA had been carried out for her premises by a consultant.
She consequently did an FRA herself and highlighted what she thought were several failures. Trouble was those "failures" had already been considered within the overal scheme and been addressed or compensated for by the original risk assessor.
So before you know it she might have instigated upgrade works unecessarily as could an inspecting officer so the need to read the Risk Assessment is paramount, and speaking to the assessor directly I think is even better still.
Where this is not possible the FRA needs to be comprehensive to explain to the auditor why certain things have or have not been factored in.
-
Davo wrote early on that the FRA would probably be unwilling to discuss this issue on the forum. Well, I reckon I might be from the FRA where the hypothetical premises might (or might not) exist. I'm happy to talk FP with anybody.
All I can say is that whoever feels aggrieved, whether that's the RP or yourself Kurnal, really needs to write to the FRA and question the process. That's what the complaints procedures are there for.
I know the legislation as well as the next person and I'm also able to apply risk appropriate solutions. The law is perfectly clear. Fire risk in all except 'houses occupied as single private dwellings' is controlled by the responsible person carrying out a 'suitable and sufficient' assessment of the risks and how they impact on the occupants. The 'general fire precautions' needed to reasonably protect occupants from harm by fire are determined in the risk assessment and recorded therein. If the RP doesn't have the necessary abilities they can appoint someone to assist them.
The FRA are given the responsibility to enforce the order and are given powers to inspect and audit compliance with the articles where appropriate.
Simple then, look at the risk assessment, agree or disagree with the hazards identified, agree or disagree with the control measures, discuss with the RP as the concordat requires, agree an outcome. Mmmm...
Perhaps not.
There's been a lot of talk about IO's not being trained properly, not being up to the job. Can't argue with that so long as we're not all tarred with the same brush. As in all walks of life there is good, bad and all that lies in between. The reasons for poor performance are wide and varied too, it's not all due to lack of training or a big paper round when you were a kid. I suspect we are now all suffering from the symptoms caused by this fine nation's drive towards a more inclusive and accountable society in which legislative fire safety has assumed a less prominent position than, lets say community safety, diversity or performance management, within FRA's.
It can't easily be changed from within, believe me I've tried. I have the scars to prove it. The only way forward is to raise the profile by insisting that FRA's do what the law requires, no more, no less. And when they don't, make sure you ask why. Only then will it become an issue for many FRA's. Don't forget, at the end of the day they, like many other organisations, have a limited budget and a plethora of things they're supposed to do. Our local chamber of commerce once explained that small businesses only did what they had to do in order to avoid trouble. I'm not suggesting that's what FRA's are doing but they have to be selective and put most resources into the most needy areas. By not complaining when things are really not right we're just giving the impression that all is well.
Finally, agreed action plans are intented to be just that - agreed. They should form part of the natural process of communication and negotiation between the IO and the RP and are only appropriate where the RP is in full agreement.