FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jokar on November 26, 2008, 07:41:31 PM
-
The RR(FS)O is working!!! FRS attendance at fires and false alarms was reduced to 803,000 a fall of 8% with false alarms accounting for 419,000 of these. Fire deaths fell by 5% to 466 of which 323 were in dwellings a fall of 11%.
-
Jokar
If you do the maths it means deaths other than dwellings is up- now 143, then 130 or so
methinks the detector gig is kicking in ;D
davo
-
Nothing to do with the RRO alas.
-
In the words of Homer Simpson.
"Statistics can prove anything, 96% of all people know that."
-
Nothing to do with the RRO alas.
So what do you put the ongoing reduction in the number of primary in non-domestic premises down to then CT?
Increased rain and cold snaps through global warming? Or the sterling work of risk assesors and fire professionals such as your good self?
-
Nothing to do with the RRO alas.
So what do you put the ongoing reduction in the number of primary in non-domestic premises down to then CT?
Increased rain and cold snaps through global warming? Or the sterling work of risk assesors and fire professionals such as your good self?
I would suggest SD that the FRA process has had an effect as it takes into consideration hazardous situations and the implimenation of control measures to prevent fires. Quite a difference to the former when we enforced the means of warning, firefighting, and escape only regardless of what went on.
-
Nothing to do with the RRO alas.
So what do you put the ongoing reduction in the number of primary in non-domestic premises down to then CT?
I know the brigade I worked for were looking at how they recorded attendances in order to meet targets...sorry 'improve accuaracy'.
-
101 different things, none of which have a jot to do with the FSO.
-
OK, so assuming that number one of the 101 is Sir Colin and the great anti-FSO crusade (dragons, errant civil servants and inspecting officers slayed by request). Could you enlightlen us all about some of the other 100?
-
If there is no impact on yearly figures then surely that is down to incompetent risk assessors? ???
After all, all we do is enforce whatever legislation is put in front of us. I do know that many more companies now have risk assessments as opposed to the pre-RRO days, so this clearly means that people with risk assessments must still be having fires, so maybe it IS the consultants that are to blame? :P
-
My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.
Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish. Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.
I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.
I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush. Like employers, there are also many good ones.
-
I have truly missed this forum. We have someone moaning that the RRO is the worst thing since sliced bread in another thread only to appear on this one saying its working and having a measurable affect.
To Colin Todd. You dont know me but I have attended one of your courses.We are one of those brigades who actually paid for some one who loathes the english fire service to deliver training to us and point out the errors of our ways and re programme us. Very intereesting indeed. If I recall you were never one to keep quiet about anything fire safety related particularly when it came to enforcement. Please spell out the 101 your reasons why the RRO isn't working. Please educate us and I dont mean that sarcastically I am genuinely interested to know. I am always eager to learn and hear other's viewpoints even if it is at odds with my own.
-
OK, so assuming that number one of the 101 is Sir Colin and the great anti-FSO crusade (dragons, errant civil servants and inspecting officers slayed by request). Could you enlightlen us all about some of the other 100?
Colin, our venerable administrator and keeper of fair play has pointed out to me that my post could be take an a personal slight or attack on Colin. I am suitably chastised.
Colin, if you read it that way please accept my apologies and be assured that I did not intend that. I am genuinly intetrested to know your thinking on the reductions recently highlighted through the CLG stats.
-
My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.
Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish. Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.
I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.
I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush. Like employers, there are also many good ones.
What is it about the rubbish FRAs Chris that you think makes them so? I have seem many RAs both in the out of the F&R Service and apart from the obvious "rubbish" ones they can vary in format and content depending on how the author interprets the legislation. I have seen ones written by persons I would have thought should be pretty good. In my opinion they fell well short of what I consider to be an assessment of issues of concern in relation to fire safety in the workplace and how they can be resolved, which basically is what I think a FRA should be.
Some FRAers think it is sufficient to point out deficiencies and defects and record that they should be fixed.
Maybe that is sufficient to satisfy the F&R Service audit and maybe I am going way over the top, but a Fire Risk Assessment by a professional assessor should be much more than just a report of failings.
-
OK, so assuming that number one of the 101 is Sir Colin and the great anti-FSO crusade (dragons, errant civil servants and inspecting officers slayed by request). Could you enlightlen us all about some of the other 100?
Colin, our venerable administrator and keeper of fair play has pointed out to me that my post could be take an a personal slight or attack on Colin. I am suitably chastised.
Colin, if you read it that way please accept my apologies and be assured that I did not intend that. I am genuinly intetrested to know your thinking on the reductions recently highlighted through the CLG stats.
Hey lets not get too wrapped up in kid gloves. Most of us on the forum who sometimes make a spirited argument and pointed comment are quite happy - indeed hope- for a bit of sport in return, I thought your posting was spot on smokey.
-
Quite agree Kurnal
And lets be honest Mr Todd is a big boy capable of fighting his own corner and also most capable of delivering the odd cheeky quip himself.
So horses for courses perhaps?
-
My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.
Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish. Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.
I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.
I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush. Like employers, there are also many good ones.
What is it about the rubbish FRAs Chris that you think makes them so? I have seem many RAs both in the out of the F&R Service and apart from the obvious "rubbish" ones they can vary in format and content depending on how the author interprets the legislation. I have seen ones written by persons I would have thought should be pretty good. In my opinion they fell well short of what I consider to be an assessment of issues of concern in relation to fire safety in the workplace and how they can be resolved, which basically is what I think a FRA should be.
Some FRAers think it is sufficient to point out deficiencies and defects and record that they should be fixed.
Maybe that is sufficient to satisfy the F&R Service audit and maybe I am going way over the top, but a Fire Risk Assessment by a professional assessor should be much more than just a report of failings.
Things that I have seen that I consider to be rubbish:
fire risk assessments in fire engineered buildings that have no consideration of the original fire strategy
people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources
people failing to look in plant rooms and store rooms and basements and missing major things such as storage of flammables, gas cylinders
people forgetting that people use the building they work in when it is dark
people overlooking the fact that their sprinkler pump is missing, or their fire alarm system has been broken for years
people writing a list of things with no analysis or conclusions
I could write a list as long as my arm.
-
My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.
Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish. Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.
I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.
I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush. Like employers, there are also many good ones.
What is it about the rubbish FRAs Chris that you think makes them so? I have seem many RAs both in the out of the F&R Service and apart from the obvious "rubbish" ones they can vary in format and content depending on how the author interprets the legislation. I have seen ones written by persons I would have thought should be pretty good. In my opinion they fell well short of what I consider to be an assessment of issues of concern in relation to fire safety in the workplace and how they can be resolved, which basically is what I think a FRA should be.
Some FRAers think it is sufficient to point out deficiencies and defects and record that they should be fixed.
Maybe that is sufficient to satisfy the F&R Service audit and maybe I am going way over the top, but a Fire Risk Assessment by a professional assessor should be much more than just a report of failings.
Things that I have seen that I consider to be rubbish:
fire risk assessments in fire engineered buildings that have no consideration of the original fire strategy
people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources
people failing to look in plant rooms and store rooms and basements and missing major things such as storage of flammables, gas cylinders
people forgetting that people use the building they work in when it is dark
people overlooking the fact that their sprinkler pump is missing, or their fire alarm system has been broken for years
people writing a list of things with no analysis or conclusions
I could write a list as long as my arm.
Maybe as long as both your arms.
I agree entirely and the tick box type is typical of the RAs I have seen. The tick box type is, in my mind, more of a FRA review or audit where the premises have already been put in order. Despite what the government believe employers generally do not give a donkey's dongler for fire safety and will only comply when made to by the enforcement authority.
-
people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources
Totally agree with this. One local council issued a tick-box form for it's properties RA's, and i saw the same assessment on schools, old people's homes, offices and vehicle depots. The questions didn't go as far as to ask whether the escape routes or alarms were suitable - it just asked whether there were any trip hazards, if testing of the alarm was recorded and if spare breakglasses were available etc.
I was also asked to review risk assessments of F+RS property, which were amongst the poorest of all the ones I saw. I did a long speil as to why they didn't comply with the regs, but was asked to tone it down to prevent any aggravation at higher level.
-
Thanks to Kurnal and MR for their comments above but within reason I respect CH (admin's vews) and we should all do so - or no FN. So I retain the right to offer apologies to CT. I am afterall recorded as a newbie.
What Chris H and others say about rubbish risk assessments certainly stikes a chord with me and I am oft asked "what can we do about these risk assessments?"
For me there are two things:-
(a) work out where and how RA's of the tick box type came from (difficult but probably not from the HSE/CLG five steps model unless based on the "checklist") and seek to address that original source; and
(b) for the FRS to "have due regard" to the Secretary of State's guidance in enforcment guidance note 1 to the FSO, form a decent argument why it is not appropriate to follow that guidance (i.e. the risk assessor has placed people at serious risk of death or injury due to their useless assessment) and so it is appropriate to prosecute the risk assesor either through their positin by contract under artilce 5(3) or simply by virtue of artilce 32(10).
Those competent and doing a good job (such as firenetters) should have little to fear but some cowboys would certanly get blown out of the water - and a few potential cowboys might think again.
Perhaps controversial but any suggestions?
-
We need to be careful about this as the next thing you know RAers will be required to have qualifications up to their armpits before they can practice.
Certificates and qualifications do not necessarily make a good risk assessor but neither does time in a Fire Safety office.
-
Requiring fire risk assessors to be qualified would be a good thing. I think we should accept that joe public isn't able to assess fire risks.
-
The reason that this mess is here is because, the government tried to sneak in the RR(FS)O in with out upsetting the millions of business owners and business leaders in the country that they were now going to have to pay for something they felt the fire officers did for free.
They can not possibly legislate how a fire risk assessment is done while they are claiming that joe public can do his or her own risk assessment. Its that simple.
I recently did a Nebosh Fire update course (its a basic fire risk assesors course), there was 12 people on the course and most worked for really big companies. Eight were after the course were going to be the person in charge of fire safety for their companies including all fire risk assessments. The others were hoping to make a living from doing fire risk assessments.
Not one of these people had any fire related work experience at all.
-
Requiring fire risk assessors to be qualified would be a good thing. I think we should accept that joe public isn't able to assess fire risks.
What qualification would you consider appropriate CH? One specifically on Risk Assessing?
No. Joe Public cannot risk assess but the government says he can. That is who the process was aimed by presenting it as a simple inexpensive procedure which really was to manage the already supposedly existing comprehensive fire safety measures which every dutiful employer had implimented in 1978.
Somehow the RA processs has got very complicated and certainly outside the capability of the average employer.
-
The reason that this mess is here is because, the government tried to sneak in the RR(FS)O in with out upsetting the millions of business owners and business leaders in the country that they were now going to have to pay for something they felt the fire officers did for free.
They can not possibly legislate how a fire risk assessment is done while they are claiming that joe public can do his or her own risk assessment. Its that simple.
I recently did a Nebosh Fire update course (its a basic fire risk assesors course), there was 12 people on the course and most worked for really big companies. Eight were after the course were going to be the person in charge of fire safety for their companies including all fire risk assessments. The others were hoping to make a living from doing fire risk assessments.
Not one of these people had any fire related work experience at all.
I disagree with your first comment Thomas. I think the reason we are in this mess is because the Government wrote the legislation and the guidance under the mistaken and very naive impression that the FP Act - Certificates and 9A together with the Building Regs had created an excellent standard of compliance, and a good platform to build on, enabling them to define very basic and general fire precautions in the Fire Safety Order that could be assessed by persons with minimal training or experience.
Once it is recognised that the assessor needs also to make a judgement as to whether the arrangements are suitable, risk appropriate and sufficient, then the house of cards comes tumbling down.
I am sure that the Nebosh Fire Update Course is a wonderful thing. Will people be competent risk assessors as a result of it? Yes- but only if it it teaches them to recognise the limit of their own competence and when and where to look for assistance. Thats the strength of the NEBOSH Gen Cert- it opens the students eyes to the range and depth of expertise across a huge range of topics and opens your eyes to what you dont know.
-
Wow , what a thread , had to read some of the posts twice , its the same old story you pays your money , I have recommended a dear fiend of mine on numerous occasions to my clients , for fire risk assessments , and all is well until they get a cheaper price . What then really annoys me is they phone me up and moan about the bloke they decided to use .
I would liken the risk assessment game to car insurance , a good policy till you claim and they kick the tyres .
The person ultimately choosing the risk assessment company , would spend more time on ebay rather than do his / her homework on proper procurement.
I don't envy you boys doing this type of work , I have been in detection for 25 years , and all I hope its sorts its self out sooner or later , as for me I will keep recommending my old mate (he needs the money ) lol
-
Cleveland, You have mised the sesne of this thread. There are not 101 reasons the FSO is not working. There are only 5. There are 101 reasosn that fires are down. Read the start of the thread. Here is Number 1 out of 101 if you go back far enough. The furniture regulations. That maut be true cos CFOA say so. Ready for number 2? And on a point of accuracy, I never said I ahted english fire and rescue services. I am gad I was able to be of service in my small and huble way in your education.
-
May I say how very very very sorry I am Col for missing the "sense" of your previous thread, although I wager the word "thrust" would have been better english. I think as a point of accuracy I got rather bored half way through reading and didnt pay much attention then tried to remember what you said and my brain kinda made some bits up to fill in the gaps. Your jappery as manifested by the ammount of speling mistaykes in your reply to me was noted, designed no doubt to replicate the epic lambasting your old whipping boy Philip Barry MBE gave me about my spellin'.
On an even greater point of accuracy you may not have said that you hated English brigades, but then you didnt have to. And why is it you hold inspecting officers in such contempt? You might actually like them if you got to know them a little. To me this is a typical "boy being nasty to girl in playground" scenario like we all used to play out at skool. You make on you dont like 'em to your chums but secretly deep down you think they are wonderful but just dont want to admit it.
I still would like 101 reasons why that thingame whatever you mentioned isn't to do with the wotsit. If you fail to provide them I may have no option but to write into Points of View. Not even you are brave enough to take on Wogan. So get righting or is it writing and no bed until theyre listed , in alpha numerical order too I might add
Love you Colin Night night xxx.
-
Cleveland, Since most of your post consitutes some form of dream on your part, I assume that you wrote it in your sleep. Night night to you too.
-
When the Nebosh first came out you could access the syllabus for free
I took one look and realised that whilst the course content is admirable, the time allowed to fully grasp is nowhere near that required.
Its like learning to drive. When I passed that I had never overtaken another moving vehicle! I learnt over the years and am still learning.
A course delivered at local colleges is required, even if it's one day, for small businesses
A smart man could of course seize such an opportunity to design one ::)
davo
-
People will not pay good money for a course that has no accreditation. Accreditation for courses in the UK is pretty well stitched up by a few major players. And it becomes more about quality management (again often on paper rather than in practice) than quality delivered. I have worked for several such organisations delivering a range of Health and Safety training courses and have seen it from both sides.
You could explore the possibility using the umbrella of other organisations by selling the idea to them, but for the independent the overheads of doing this would probably be prohibitive as you then have to support their quality management and administrative overheads as well as to earn a living for yourself.
-
Prof
Our local brigade runs a one day course for small to medium businesses. It costs £ 240 or so.
In contrast, another southern FRS runs free two hour seminars
I doubt if either are accredited but after all, its the FRS right?
davo
-
The average person hasn't a clue in relation to the RRFSO or to their responsibilties as the RP. Phone call the other day fom the RP can you carry out a fire risk assessment on the building the fire service has been there is no problem. On meeting the RP and reading the letters from the fire service, one was a prohibition notice for the first floor, the other was an improvement notice for the ground floor, the RP was told by the fire service to have a fire risk assessment carried out for the building, I am still typing this report. Now as we are all aware my report is on behalf of the RP poor sod. Any views on completing a fire risk assessment with notices already issued by the fire service, I know the brigade well, and they are a good butch of lads,our disagreements if any, are ironed out, and will meet with them to discuss my fire risk assessment. their notices and the way forward to help the RP. So is the RRFSO working, yes it can work with consultation with the enforcing authorities and assistance given to the RPs.
-
Butch lads are to be positively encouraged in the modern F&RS, but butch lassies will have better career progression.
-
Butch lads are to be positively encouraged in the modern F&RS, but butch lassies will have better career progression.
It's funny how a spelling mistake highlights what we really mean to say.
-
The fire services are providing me with a fairly good income simply for interpreting their letters on behalf of clients. Several calls every week- two today from clients who simply cannot understand what the letter is saying and whether it is enforcement, advice or wishful thinking on behalf of the authority.
And even I cannot understand one of todays letters and havn't a clue where they are coming from. (Thanks Surrey!).
-
Kurnal, As a Surrey resident myself, send it to me and I will explain. We southerners tend to be eloquent, and it is probably just Surrey's elequent use of the English language that is confusing you.
-
Kurnal, As a Surrey resident myself, send it to me and I will explain. We southerners tend to be eloquent, and it is probably just Surrey's elequent use of the English language that is confusing you.
Of course geographical references are based on perspective but thats the first time I have ever heard a Scotsman refer to himself as a southerner. Must be down to global warming.
Thanks for the offer by the way- If you really are interested I will forward you a copy, its a actually a case of the Bluff and Persuasion Act 1872 dressed up to look as though it is an enforcement notice but missing the teeth. And potentially could cost the client £50K for something that cannot work.
-
Wow! the clash of the titans. ;)
-
So now I'm thoroughly confused :-[. It seems there are five reasons the FSO isn't working and 101 reasons why primary fires in non-domestic property are continuing down - the first of which is regulations that don't apply directly to non-domestic property and which have been around for years without having this effect.
Having read the thread again I'm begining to think it must all be down to butch Surrey fire-fighters miss-spelling their postcards home having moved south due to global warming and the recipients having to send them for translation.
-
thats the first time I have ever heard a Scotsman refer to himself as a southerner.
Southerner = anyone born south of Aberdeen.
-
Well done Kurnal challenging the FRS is one way standards will improve, I hope more will. I realise there is a cost implication but I would imagine the cost would be acceptable unless it ends up in court. Challenging each other will make people stop and consider are they as knowledgeable as they think. When I was treading the boards I only wish more people had challenged us it would have speeded up the learning curve no end.
-
1. Kurnal. I have honorary southern citizenship, though I wear my city of belfast tie (given to me by the mayor of that fair city for services to fire safety in NI) with much greater pride. I will be happy to read your wee letter from surrey. They tend to be quite an elightened F&RS.
2. Smokey, I am sorry you are confused. probably easier just to trust the fact that the FSO has not had any effect on anything yet, except creating a healthy income for many people and lots of expenditure by others. It all makes the word go round and finds work for out of work house painters and the like doing FRAs after a couple of hours' course.
3. Chris , I would say its anyone south of inverness. can we compromise and say elgin.
4. tw. just cos a fire officer asks for something it doesnt mean its wrong. Challenge has its place but not purely as a matter of principle.
-
I'm ashamed to say that I thought Elgin was in Greece.
-
I always thought you had lost your marbles. Typical weegie. Lost outside a 10 mile radius of the barras.
-
It was marbles that made me think Elgin was Greek.
-
CT I never said an IO was wrong if he challenged a RP, providing he considers his FRA is not suitable and sufficient I think he is right. Conversely if a consultant thinks a FRS is wrong he should challenge the FRS. It makes people stop and think and research the subject more deeply hopefully learning something in the process.
It is also not a matter of principle I have very few of those.
I have submitted many reports and you could count on one hand the number of people who disagreed with those reports, which made me think, I must know what I am talking about. But in fact it was the recipients who believed it was a waste of time because the fire brigade would always win, again this is incorrect.
Sensible and informed debate is a great learning tool; this forum is a good example.
-
Sensible and informed debate is a great learning tool; this forum is a good example.
Feel free to nominate us for OBEs, Knighthoods etc.
-
Thanks for the offer by the way- If you really are interested I will forward you a copy, its a actually a case of the Bluff and Persuasion Act 1872 dressed up to look as though it is an enforcement notice but missing the teeth. And potentially could cost the client £50K for something that cannot work.
[/quote]
Actually Kurnal, Enforcement Notices are quite easy to spot they have a boat load lof leagal jargon and notes to explain how the RP can appeal to a magistrates court. If it does not have all the legal notes it is a notification of deficienecies. Also the heading on the letter should be a bit of a give away if it says enforcement notice it is....if it does not say enforcement notice it isn't.
-
Hi Izan
Yes thanks- I know it isnt an enforcement notice but the client does not know that and cant be expected to from the wording of the letter. And that goes totally against plain english and the enforcement concordat. The letter uses the word requirements twice and furthermore states that the requirements should be completed within 3-6 months and that a further visit will be made after this time to check that the work has been carried out.
But it isnt an enforcement notice because it does not include most of the information detailed in article 30 (2). And theres no mention of any means of appeal.
What makes me sad is that instead of using the ample powers accorded by the FSO 2005 the fire servcies are so widely using letters that include provisions pulled directly from the old Bluff and Persuasion Act and the outcome is that rather than trusting the fire service as a source of free and impartial advice with no axe to grind, clients would now rather seek the opinion of a consultant.
-
You may recall sometime ago I posted a thread on the very issue of how Brigade reports are worded / structured.
I urge anyone who feels that letters issued by any Authority are poorly written / unclear to make an official complaint to the brigade concerned.
You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either. They are cumbersome to say the least and in my opinion are not very helpful for punters and consultants alike.
-
You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either.
No. Not surprised at all. Normal actually IMO.
-
This is all jolly good fun
But.....
As I said right from the beginning....people are going to die BECAUSE of this particular legislation.
The problem is the British Desease which appears in all areas but mostly in the public services.
A complete and total lack of common sense.
How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.
-
Not sure why people will die as a result of this legislation Davidrh...could you explain that further?
In terms of your latter statement I agree - I dont think the RRO was particularly well thought out.
But what alternative would you prefer prescription or risk assessment?
-
How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.
Being, an intelligent businessman, you have an amount of common sense. You will have already done risk assessments on your finances before committing to this work. You won't be in buisiness to lose money. So, everything you have done will have invloved assessing. You have already assessed that you may not be competent to carry out RA as per your quote above. So, you may make the decision to do it yourself or get someone in on your behalf.
-
How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.
Being, an intelligent businessman, you have an amount of common sense. You will have already done risk assessments on your finances before committing to this work. You won't be in buisiness to lose money. So, everything you have done will have invloved assessing. You have already assessed that you may not be competent to carry out RA as per your quote above. So, you may make the decision to do it yourself or get someone in on your behalf.
Davidrh. Do you do your own tax and VAT returns? If so you are a heck of a clever person to be able to read and understand the mountain of tax legislation and guidance. I can't and won't so I employ an accountant to do it for me but, I am still responsible for my taxes, not him.
If you can understand the tax system a FRA should be easy.
-
You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either. They are cumbersome to say the least and in my opinion are not very helpful for punters and consultants alike.
Thats me.
I hate our written opinion letter, it reads too much like an enforcement notice and is worded too strongly in my opinion.
If the risk is so serious, thats what articles 30 and 31 are there for.
I always make a point of warning the RP about the letter, that seems to work. ::)
-
I always make a point of warning the RP about the letter, that seems to work. ::)
Yes me too!! ::) ...
-
As I said right from the beginning....people are going to die BECAUSE of this particular legislation.
But are you not the person who is complaining that the FRS have come to your Hotel and told you what to do?
Which way do you want it?
-
Can I just throw in a discussion point. Do people die because of legislation? Not directly, they die because of fires in unsafe buildings. Occupiers have the right, obligation, freedom to make their buildings safe from fire as they see fit and are not limited to the minimum legal solutions.
I'm not out to defend (or knock) the legislation, I'm just saying that there are more factors to consider. An employer who takes the approach "I will protect my staff by only protecting them to the bare minimum legal standards" is not very inspired.
-
2. Smokey, I am sorry you are confused. probably easier just to trust the fact that the FSO has not had any effect on anything yet, except creating a healthy income for many people and lots of expenditure by others. It all makes the word go round and finds work for out of work house painters and the like doing FRAs after a couple of hours' course.
Thanks for trying to ease my troubled mind CT but personally I subscribe to the view that the FSO (and the fire regs before them) are contributing to fire safety as part of an overall package. The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4)really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcment of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interestuing to see what the CLG review throws up.
Incidentally I didn't know you included painting and decorating on your courses. Might be worht attending one after all as Mrs Dokey has been on at me about the kitchen ceiling ever since Dokey Jr wasted his good and tasty porridge for a redecoration job of his own.
Good discussion point from Chris H. In my view we have safety legislation because people die from others not giving enough regard to their common law duty of care to each other. Enough die as a result and you wind up with criminal sanctions et al. The FSO may not have been directly tombstone based but that is certtainly where its origins lie.
-
The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4) really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interesting to see what the CLG review throws up.
SD the reduction you speak of, are they fires or fatalities in buildings covered by FPA and FSO. (Other Buildings) As this legislation is directed at life safety then statistics covering fatalities is the most relevant and fatalities 2003/2004 increased from 27 to 54 not a good example. Also reductions did not really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs because in 1971 when the FPA was introduced there was 152 fatalities in other buildings and it reduced year on year to 27 when the workplace regs was introduced 1997/8.
-
Well said. TW. Thing is you oldies have the experience to understand that. Its an ingredient missing a lot today. What people are calling common sense is actually something derived from experience. A lot of people (both consutants and inspecting officers) are very short of experience. Thats ok if they have supervisors who do have the experience because, after all, everyone has to start somewhere. In the absence of experience, then training is really important and education is even more important. People from other backgrounds can enter the world of fire safety, provided they are prepared to crawl before they walk and walk before they run. West Yorkshire have a predominance of non fire brigade inspecting officers, but they are not thrown out onto the streets to create mayhem. They have mentoring, training, supervision and a career progression. It is proof that it does not matter what the background is. But there are people out there selling services, and in some F&RS, without the requisite understanding of the subject matter. They have been trained to follow the guides, or have simply read what the guides say.
But the guides are not text books on fire safety. You need an understanding of the subject before you even read the guides, unless all you are going to do is follow them blindly. That might be ok for the rp, but will not help those who want to practise fire safety as a career. I am sure there are guides on frontal lobotomies, but you wouldnt want a house painter deciding that the credit crunch has reduced the demand for house decoration and that frontal lobotomies seems a good career to go into, so reading the guide and performing the operation. You would hope that the guide would be read and applied only by people with education in medicine.
Without education in the subject, you go back to prescriptive application of the guides, and no real understanding of fire risk.
-
West Yorkshire have a predominance of non fire brigade inspecting officers, but they are not thrown out onto the streets to create mayhem.
Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?
-
Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?
No. They are a mix of ex-operational people (Retired then returned as civilians) and fresh new people from all different backgrounds.
-
Are these non fire brigade IOs ex fire safety uniformed staff?
No. They are a mix of ex-operational people (Retired then returned as civilians) and fresh new people from all different backgrounds.
If the retired types are ex fire safety you have the advantage of some experienced IOs mentoring the freshmen and providing a steadying hand at the tiller.
-
Some non uniformed IO's (or shall we say civilian or non operational IO's) already have a wealth of experience to bring to the job from their previous roles.
Many were fire safety or health and safety officers in private industry and can bring a fresh perspective to the role.
At the end of the day both uniformed and non uniformed officers that haven't had any past experience must be monitored / mentored / trained before being let loose, so long as experienced officers (either non ops or otherwise) are on hand to keep the newbies on the straight and narrow then job done.
-
Some non uniformed IO's (or shall we say civilian or non operational IO's) already have a wealth of experience to bring to the job from their previous roles.
Many were fire safety or health and safety officers in private industry and can bring a fresh perspective to the role.
At the end of the day both uniformed and non uniformed officers that haven't had any past experience must be monitored / mentored / trained before being let loose, so long as experienced officers (either non ops or otherwise) are on hand to keep the newbies on the straight and narrow then job done.
Agreed, Its the same with any profession. Even newly qualified doctors need mentoring.
-
Archangel Retty, I thought that is what I said. Were you:
1. (Uncharacteristically) agreeing with me.
2. Trying to add something.
3. Disagreeing.
4. None of the above. (Please specifY.)
-
The timing of the reductions (from 2003/4) really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs and then the FSO. It will be interesting to see what the CLG review throws up.
SD the reduction you speak of, are they fires or fatalities in buildings covered by FPA and FSO. (Other Buildings) As this legislation is directed at life safety then statistics covering fatalities is the most relevant and fatalities 2003/2004 increased from 27 to 54 not a good example. Also reductions did not really start to come about from when fire certification was put on hold and enforcement of fire safety was largely done through the risk based regs because in 1971 when the FPA was introduced there was 152 fatalities in other buildings and it reduced year on year to 27 when the workplace regs was introduced 1997/8.
Actually TW I was talking about primary fires. I fully acknowledge and agree about the FPA position (other than to note that the deaths in 1970 were 84 - moved up to the 152 mark in 1971 -3ish years around 140+ and then back down to 84 then from there began their very welcome decline to current levels. (I may only be from the early Jurasic period but I do have a sense of history despite what CT may have said).
By the mid-90's the fire deaths figures had largely plateaued around the mid 30's (with occasional ups and downs such as 1997/8 and 2003/4). Trouble now is that the figures are so small they form no useful measure as only a handful of fires can throw them about by large percentages (in my view it is wrong of CLG to be talking in percentage terms when looking at these figures).
However if you look at the primary fires figures then you'll find that since 1996 they've dropped by about 38%. One might hope that has something to do with the introduction of fire risk assessment and the requirements for managment of fire safety on people who previously had not been subject to specific fire laws or had only the likes of 9A.
Part of the ethos ofthe fire regs and the FSO is prevention through removal of risk so perhaps there is something in it and we will see reductions first in injuries (I think we already are) and ultimatley perhaps even a sustainable further reduction in fire deaths.
But hey ho I guess wereally need to wait a few years to see - after all the year of introduction of the FPA 71 and the couple of years thereafter had the highest level of fire deaths.
-
Archangel Retty, I thought that is what I said. Were you:
1. (Uncharacteristically) agreeing with me.
2. Trying to add something.
3. Disagreeing.
4. None of the above. (Please specifY.)
Dear Hell's Angel Todd
Now Colin really, you must not get paranoid dear fellow. It is not that I disagree with everything you say at all, therefore it is erroneous to suggest that if I do agree with you I am behaving out of character. :P
Anyhow the answer is 4. None of the above.
Inevitably with a thread of this size, magnitude and indeed complexity one can occassionally miss or overlook what someone else has added to the debate, particularly if one hasn't been in the office to catch the lastest updates. It would appear that in this instance you had posted something in much the same vein as 'what I wrote'.
Therefore we appear to be in agreement about the aforementioned subject. Also I should point out I was directly answering a comment made by my old mate buddy pal Nearlythere - Irelands answer to Red Adaire. All in all I hope that in time you will understand that despite your Einstein-esque fly-away-silvery grey hair, unfathomable scottish accent, and questionable night time activities I do actually quite like you Col...and occassionally one finds one self in total agreement with you. Merry Christmas
-
SD the point I was making was the most fire legislation is designed for life protection and not property protection, with the exception of Building Regs, which covers both, therefore in my opinion the number of fatalities in other buildings, is the most relevant statistic. From 1971 to 2006 fire legislation, which the FPA and Building Regs are major players, has reduced the number of fatalities but the number of fire has remainder level (about 40000) but there has been a reduction from 2003 to 2006 of 30% but in my opinion three years are not sufficient time to predict a downwards trend.
As for trying to analysing any short trends I would not be brave enough other than to make general assumptions and I do not see anything in the workplace regs, not like the RR(FS)O, where part of the brief is to reduce fire risk.
What I do accept during the era of prescriptive legislation the first consideration was passive fire protection and active as a last resort. Now using risk assessment it appears to be visa versa and active fire precautions are more widely required. With the increase in the number of systems installed now, this will not only protect people, it will reduce the number of fires or at least allow occupiers to extinguisher fires at an early stage and not call the FRS.
-
You know, TW, somehow I think we may actually be broadly in agreement - just coming from slightly different angles.
The only thing I'd like to add is that as far as I recall (jurassic memory may be a dangerous thing) when bring the FSO forward one of the things was said was that with the level of fatalities being so low there may be little more that could be done to reduce the levels further through physical precautions in premises that had been subject to fire law for some time.
What the FSO seeks to do is elevate the prevention angle that the workplace regs had (same principles of prevention as the FSO). Basic idea is if you can prevent fires from occurring (and mitigate the effects of those that do) then hopefully you reduce the risk of people being killed or injured in a fire. Less fires = less risk. That's why I think the number of primary fires figure is quite important.
-
I agree SD and through the life of the FPA it played a major part in reducing fatalities but had little effect on primary fires.
From 2006/7 onwards it’s up to the FSO and Building Regs with very few pieces of other fire legislation involved and hopefully it will reduce both fires and fatalities.
Maybe the thread should have been titled “Has previous Fire Safety legislation worked” it is going to be many years before we can answer that question for the RR(FS)O.
-
FRO, RR(FS)O. Have you used different abreivations for the same thing, or am I missing something. I don't think we are helping any newbies with all these abreviations.
-
I accept your comments Chris despite your typo (FSO not FRO) but it happens all the time people using different abbreviations for the same thing its a pity we don’t have an official list, like the old drill book, incidentally what is the best abbrev for the new order. Also that internet slang threw me until I found a web site to help and it’s all right for you whipper snappers, think about us poor old OAPs. :'(
http://www.internetslang.com/
-
I think the best solution is not to abreviate at all. To answer your question, I use RR(FS)O as there can be no doubt what it stands for if you are reasonably aware of fire safety and it is an abbreviation of the official term. I'm confused by some of the things that Fire Safety Offices probably think are normal, as Fire Safety Officers would be if I started using insurance jargon. I wonder what percentage of posts on FireNet have no abbreviations.
As an experiment, let's try and not post any abbreviations in this thread? See who messes up first.
-
I think the best solution is not to abreviate at all. To answer your question, I use RR(FS)O as there can be no doubt what it stands for if you are reasonably aware of fire safety and it is an abbreviation of the official term. I'm confused by some of the things that Fire Safety Offices probably think are normal, as Fire Safety Officers would be if I started using insurance jargon. I wonder what percentage of posts on FireNet have no abbreviations.
As an experiment, let's try and not post any abbreviations in this thread? See who messes up first.
OK
-
As an experiment, let's try and not post any abbreviations in this thread? See who messes up first.
"let's" = let us
You lose?
-
Dear Allseeing, all wise, keeper of the Universe Retty, Sniff :'( :'( :'( I dont know what to say. No one has ever :'( quite liked me before and :'( I am overcome with emotion. This is the most emotional thing to happen to me since Princess organized a surprise party for my birthday. I need to go and lie down. Ummmmmmmm lots of luv or whatever one says to people who quite like them.
-
Dear Allseeing, all wise, keeper of the Universe Retty, Sniff :'( :'( :'( I dont know what to say. No one has ever :'( quite liked me before and :'( I am overcome with emotion. This is the most emotional thing to happen to me since Princess organized a surprise party for my birthday. I need to go and lie down. Ummmmmmmm lots of luv or whatever one says to people who quite like them.
I said on this forum that I like you, so thats two of us.
-
Goodness Xmas has come early.
-
My Dear Friend Colin
You simply must start getting more kip - I note your last message was sent at 4:28am this morning
I think you must be overly exited - Santa doesn't come until the 25th !!!
Now early to bed with you tonight !
-
My new best friend Retty, Unfortunately, the new legislation brings with it expert witness work that lawyers always want the day before yesterday.
This necessitates working at all hours, with the odd message on firenet for light relief. Drive carefully over xmas. Midland drivers are maniacs even when they are sober.