FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Bobbins on February 27, 2009, 12:02:28 PM

Title: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on February 27, 2009, 12:02:28 PM
I have heard that the IFSM have started to lobby for a national register and this has also been mentioned within the FIA at the Fire Risk Assessors committee. I think I know what the IFEs stance is on this and I understand the barriers that are preventing this from getting off the ground.

The RRO is not supposed to be a consultants charter but the ‘free for all’ at the moment is verging on criminal with no control at the bottom end of FRAs.

My stance on this is that if you charge for FRAs you should have some sort of competence, which is registered in some way the public can understand and that a national register would provide a level playing field. It would also eradicate the cowboys over night.

Anyone else agree, disagree, not give a dam?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: JC100 on February 27, 2009, 12:39:40 PM
It is down to the responsible person to employ a competent person if required and up to check on whether they are competent by checking experience, certificates, previous assessments etc. There is also plenty of information on the internet to explain what is required of a FRA and what is suitable and sufficient and what isn't.

If all employers did this, then your so called cowboys would be out of work.

I think therefore that this is an issue that lies with the responsible person, either not being fully aware of their duty under the RR(FS)O or because they are just trying to save a few quid and pleading ignorence if it goes wrong. Either way, they are still responsible in the end and can be held accountable.

Just my opinion of course
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on February 27, 2009, 12:41:53 PM
I have heard that the IFSM have started to levy for a national register and this has also been mentioned within the FIA at the Fire Risk Assessors committee. I think I know what the IFEs stance is on this and I understand the barriers that are preventing this from getting off the ground.

The RRO is not supposed to be a consultants charter but the ‘free for all’ at the moment is verging on criminal with no control at the bottom end of FRAs.

My stance on this is that if you charge for FRAs you should have some sort of competence, which is registered in some way the public can understand and that a national register would provide a level playing field. It would also eradicate the cowboys over night.

Anyone else agree, disagree, not give a dam?

Is it not up to the client to determine if the assessor is competant or not? A CV may go towards demonstrating this. How do you measure experience over qualification?
As I keep saying the FRA process, which was suppose to be within the capabilities of the average employer, is growing horns and teeth and turning into a monster and many qualified people are quite happy to let it go this way as they may be able to get a by ball to registration and capture some of the market.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on February 27, 2009, 01:10:01 PM
It is down to the responsible person to employ a competent person if required and up to check on whether they are competent by checking experience, certificates, previous assessments etc. There is also plenty of information on the internet to explain what is required of a FRA and what is suitable and sufficient and what isn't.

If all employers did this, then your so called cowboys would be out of work.

I think therefore that this is an issue that lies with the responsible person, either not being fully aware of their duty under the RR(FS)O or because they are just trying to save a few quid and pleading ignorence if it goes wrong. Either way, they are still responsible in the end and can be held accountable.

Just my opinion of course



‘If all employers and responsible people did this’ …….is a very valid point but they just don’t do it.

If I needed a FRA and wasn’t confident about doing it myself, as soon as I made the decision to pay; I would want a single reference point to find a risk assessor, i.e. a national register.

Too many risk assessors can talk the talk and the general small business guy doesn’t know any better. If they think every assessor is the same then it comes down to price and availability and those that don’t invest in training or qualifications or have the experience can and do charge less.

A single reference of competence would be very useful for the every day client at the lower end of the scale.

Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Wiz on February 27, 2009, 01:28:27 PM
Quote
.......As I keep saying the FRA process, which was suppose to be within the capabilities of the average employer, is growing horns and teeth and turning into a monster and many qualified people are quite happy to let it go this way as they may be able to get a by ball to registration and capture some of the market.

I always remember being told by a solicitor that any piece of legislation that is produced by the Government with the intention of it being simple to understand and used by the layman is a threat to the legal profession.

If a law is too simple then there is no work for the solicitor.

Therefore the solicitors would even fund legal action free-of-charge where they thought they had a chance to 'muddy' the waters with case law, thereby complicating things so that everyone would need a solicitor in the future.

Are Fire Risk Assessors any different from solicitors?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: JC100 on February 27, 2009, 03:42:34 PM

A single reference of competence would be very useful for the every day client at the lower end of the scale.


That would be all well and good but who would compose the list? Who would assess the assessors and and deem them competent? If an assessor got it wrong, could he then turn and blame the person who passed him as competent? That would be a job with a very large responsibility....i wouldn't want it, would you?

As this issue exists then maybe the government should provide clearer guidance for the responsible person, and provided they do this then if 'small business owners' choose not to follow it is another matter.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on February 27, 2009, 04:04:07 PM
I agree with the principle of third party certification and the IFSM are by no means the only body trying to get their own register off the ground.

A national register may be a good thing - but only if the register is set up right, effectively measures the competence of individuals, has teeth to investigate and take action in case of malpractice and is set up to support the full spectrum from one man bands through to multi-national companies. Not a lot to ask????

UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?

The registers should effectively test the competence of the individual and monitor the effectiveness of the assessment - I believe that some just ask for a list of assessments carried out and ring the end user to achieve a customer satisfaction survey? What does that prove?

Dont be too impatient Bobbins- the industry is still embryonic and the warrington certification and IFE schemes appear to me to be moving in the right direction.

 I have heard it stated by several assessors that the  peer review puts them off applying- if you have invested a lot of time and effort into your template and system, if the peer review is carried out by your main competitors it may put you off applying.

Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on February 27, 2009, 04:43:08 PM
I
UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?
 I
Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.

The Warrington scheme is written to 17024 and has all but got the UKAS accreditation, the six are from a pilot scheme held in last summer and it has not been open to applicants because they are waiting for the UKAS accreditation. So they tell me!

You have however highlighted the problem which scheme to choose wouldn’t it be better to go with a national one!

A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.


Kurnal I would hold on the IFE and the IFSM registers and give Warrington another look when they have accreditation. 
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on February 27, 2009, 04:50:07 PM
So how would such a scheme work with regards to the Enforcement Authority.
If an EO came to my business to check my FRA and found that I did it myself (me being "unregistered") is it automatically unsuitable and insufficient before the front page is even turned?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on February 27, 2009, 04:58:30 PM
A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.


The MOT analogy is different. All cars have to pass the same performance criteria. It is extremely prescriptive and garages are told how much to charge. The system is so bad that if you take an old car for an MOT that predates the emissions requirements, they have to use a new car for that part of the test - the emissions analysis- otherwise the system will not allow them to complete the test.

Fire risk assessments are a variable market- the risk control measures are proportionate to the risk. There needs to be a spectrum of practitioners available to meet the range of need. The big players aren't interested in the corner shops- they just want the big juicy corporate contracts. Make third party certification too complicated and too expensive and you will eliminate the opportunity for cost effective,  risk based support for the duty holders and smaller employers.

Depending on the overheads, the requirements of a compulsory national scheme could put the one man band out of business- especially if they start setting prescriptive requirements like £5million PI insurance, ISO 18000, ISO 9000 et al.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on February 27, 2009, 05:13:41 PM
I
UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?
 I
Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.

The Warrington scheme is written to 17024 and has all but got the UKAS accreditation, the six are from a pilot scheme held in last summer and it has not been open to applicants because they are waiting for the UKAS accreditation. So they tell me!

You have however highlighted the problem which scheme to choose wouldn’t it be better to go with a national one!

A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.


Kurnal I would hold on the IFE and the IFSM registers and give Warrington another look when they have accreditation. 

But your dad can give the car the once over Bobbins and if he is competant it should only be an audit and nod from an agency of the enforcement authority. Much the same as a FRA carried out by your dad. If he is competant it should only be an audit and nod from the enforcement authority.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on February 27, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
So how would such a scheme work with regards to the Enforcement Authority.
If an EO came to my business to check my FRA and found that I did it myself (me being "unregistered") is it automatically unsuitable and insufficient before the front page is even turned?

Not at all, that option is still available, but when money does change hands a minimum competence should be a requirement …………..otherwise you get salesmen offering risk assessments for a fiver.

If I buy a toy for my child it should have a CE mark on it which tells me it has reached a certain standard and shouldn’t fall apart, poison or injure my child.

I can go and buy a non CE marked toy (if I could find one) or I can make one myself; it might be a good one or it might not be; it might kill him or it may not.

The point being that at least a CE marked product should meet a standard and this provides me as a consumer with a reference and some assurances.


If a fire risk assessor has some starting point then the paying public will have a reference point, without a starting point many responsible people will make a bad choice because that’s what has been sold to them
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on February 28, 2009, 01:07:08 AM
There are lots of CBs offering BAFE SP203, why should there be a monopoly of a single national register. Maybe at most all that is needed is a single scheme, rather than a single register.

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: messy on February 28, 2009, 10:09:51 AM

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?

You should report them to the Competition Commission
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on February 28, 2009, 09:50:53 PM
There are lots of CBs offering BAFE SP203, why should there be a monopoly of a single national register. Maybe at most all that is needed is a single scheme, rather than a single register.

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?

Correct and that is how it should be …. one standard for all; just like a CE mark.

If you take a good look at the schemes available they all have some good points but there is a clear order of merit; some being paper thin, some being far from independent. The two best schemes are the IFE and Warrington and with a UKAS stamp the later will be the hard to beat.

If the professional bodies could sit round a table and agree to follow the same standard, then it wouldn’t matter who did the assessment as long as it was the same assessment ………see my MOT analogy (it is the same test no matter who gives it) and in theory the cars are safe for the road so a risk assessor would be safe to practice.

The FIA annual meeting might provide a good forum to discus a national register if not there then where?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: wee brian on March 03, 2009, 04:45:44 PM
The guy that designs the building doesnt have to be registered but you think the guy who spends five minutes looking at it does????

The risk assesor doesnt have the final say so there is no real argument for them to have a mandatory registration scheme.

We all think we know best, most of us don't (except me, I'm perfect)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 03, 2009, 05:41:51 PM
The guy that designs the building doesnt have to be registered but you think the guy who spends five minutes looking at it does????

The risk assesor doesnt have the final say so there is no real argument for them to have a mandatory registration scheme.

We all think we know best, most of us don't (except me, I'm perfect)

All building designs go through a fairly rigorous planning and approval stage, plus you don’t get many ex builders claiming to be fully competent architects.

The bottom line is that there are too many fire risk assessors out there who either tackle jobs they can’t handle or do a job that is far from satisfactory.

All buildings are checked at the planning stage, during building and after completion.

Not many risk assessments are checked at the moment; so unless the EO population is massively increased then the likelihood of all risk assessments being checked is very slim.

A national competence scheme could work for the industry but from the posts on this thread I can see a real split; those for it and those against it.

There are always going to be good and bad people in all jobs, but with an introduction of a quality/competence register it will force up standards all round.

I can see why people don’t want it……….but I can also see why it is needed.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 03, 2009, 07:03:41 PM
I still disagree with your MOT analogy Bobbins. The MOT inspector is measuring a vehicle against prescriptive standards- more akin to an audit than an assessment. Wheres the subjectivity?

All the certification schemes have one thing in common - they are based on peer review of presented documents- some do it much more rigorously than others but NONE of them measure the report against the building and the way it is used and managed. There could have been a firework factory on the ground floor of a nursing home- unless the report under review  volunteers this information it will never come to the attention of  the panel.

When I apply for one or more of the schemes in the very near future I expect not to be found wanting in terms of technical competence or currency, but knowing some of the peers  I could well face a good argument over the issue of ALARP. Its always subjective, usually qualitative and never black and white unlike your MOT.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 03, 2009, 09:37:50 PM
I still disagree with your MOT analogy Bobbins. The MOT inspector is measuring a vehicle against prescriptive standards- more akin to an audit than an assessment. Wheres the subjectivity?


Kurnal I didn’t say the analogy was perfect but it has some merit

1 There is a list of all 1900 approved MOT centres on the web (so I can visit any of them and get a safety check)
2 Each has a minimum standard it must reach before being granted approval
3 They are checked on a regular basis to maintain approval
4 They will tell you exactly where your car fails
5 They issue a certificate that is valid for 12 months or until I alter my car.
6 I can’t just go to any old mechanic to get my certificate

I fully accept that it a prescriptive test and not the same as proper risk based report.

The Warrington scheme has changed to include an accompanied visit with a review of the report that is written for that property. It is not part of the initial assessment but it is the only scheme to have it as part of the surveillance. The info is not on their web site yet so you have to give them a call for details.

Just for your info the car passed it’s MOT and it is now suitable and sufficient for the next 12 months……. unlike it’s driver!


Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on March 04, 2009, 07:36:19 AM
I still disagree with your MOT analogy Bobbins. The MOT inspector is measuring a vehicle against prescriptive standards- more akin to an audit than an assessment. Wheres the subjectivity?


6 I can’t just go to any old mechanic to get my certificate

No but you can go to any old mechanic to get it prepared for the inspection. Old mechanics are usually pretty good because they have a wealth of experience and can diagnose a certain knock, thump or dink in a short period. Knocks, thumps and dinks aren't covered in the books.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Galeon on March 04, 2009, 10:11:41 AM
Just for your info the car passed it’s MOT and it is now suitable and sufficient for the next 12 months……. unlike it’s driver!  

The MOT is an indication that when the vehicle was on the ramp it was compliant or not at that present time. You could be stopped at anytime by the police and the vehicle checked , and fail on an item , you are still required to keep your vehicle in the best possible order , no different from a fire system.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Davo on March 04, 2009, 11:39:36 AM
Bobbins old chap

Building Inspectors imo don't check fire precautions when inspecting, signing off etc. Too much other stuff to think about. ei will it fall down ::)
They can even ignore FRA advice during planning approval ;D


Prof
IMO the FRA is in parts like an audit. There are areas you apply subjectivity/common sense to once you have gathered your info.
I do agree though some stuff you can apply a bit of common to on the spot, so in reality I'm on the fence with this one :D

davo
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 04, 2009, 01:08:33 PM
Just for your info the car passed it’s MOT and it is now suitable and sufficient for the next 12 months……. unlike it’s driver!  

The MOT is an indication that when the vehicle was on the ramp it was compliant or not at that present time. You could be stopped at anytime by the police and the vehicle checked , and fail on an item , you are still required to keep your vehicle in the best possible order , no different from a fire system.

Nearlythere and Galoen you’re both correct but missing they key points, one minimum standard for all and a national listing that gives the public confidence that the test centre is capable of providing an accurate assessment of the cars condition in order to provide a legal document that says so.

Lets drop the MOT and address the real issue; how about this as a proposal for a national register.

One standard for all schemes, written to EN ISO 17024
UKAS approval so the accrediting bodies are checked
Include an accompanied visit on a live job with assessment of the resulting report (suggested by Kurnal)

Once the assessor has been approved by the body of his or her choice (IFE BRE Warrington IFSM or whoever has the UKAS approval) they go on to a shared data base listing all the approved assessors no matter who did the accreditation.

Ta Da simple! A level playing field; the public know where to go and that any assessor on the list has the basics to be able to complete a risk assessment for the purpose of life safety.

This would not be a compulsory scheme but it would soon become a must have as the public used it as a reference point.

It won’t solve every situation and it won’t mean that all the registered risk assessors are good but it will give confidence and drive up quality in a short period of time. It might eliminate altogether those that see FRAs as an opportunity to make money without providing the proper service people are paying for.

Could it be any easier? 
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: JC100 on March 04, 2009, 02:09:16 PM

Building Inspectors imo don't check fire precautions when inspecting, signing off etc. Too much other stuff to think about. ei will it fall down ::)
They can even ignore FRA advice during planning approval ;D


I think you have it spot on there Davo, i've seen many new build residential buildings where fire stopping is inadequate, doors missing smoke seals etc. Has this always happened or has it just been the case since the RR(FS)O has been out and all the responsibility is on the owner/landlord etc?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 04, 2009, 04:23:51 PM
We are talking about the competency of an assessor.

So would it not be better to create a Nationally recognised, third party accredited, qualification in Fire Risk Assessment rather than a "register"

Most Health and Safety Officers / Consultants are NEBOSH certified - (MOst employers when recruitng H&S Officers specify they must hold a NEBOSH cert)

Im all for third party acreditation or a Nationally recognised qualification that RPs can look for when searching for a competent FRA

But accreditation schemes which only require the risk assessor to submit several risk assessments for scrutiny is a bad idea.

How would the accreditation panel know that that the  risk assessor hasn't missed something major when assessing the premises?

How would the panel be aware of any mistakes made unless they actually went around the premises with the assessor and monitored them?

Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: jokar on March 04, 2009, 06:21:09 PM
CT grills them like mad for the IFE one.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 05, 2009, 01:14:54 AM
CT grills them like mad for the IFE one.

Oh well thats ok then. Problem solved

Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Tom W on March 05, 2009, 09:40:46 AM
FYI Warrington now has UKAS stamp

If you are any good at your job why wouldn't you want to look better than the next bloke, get a third party stamp and the chance of an hour in the company of Sir Todd?!

What's there to hold back from? If you fail perhaps you need to admit you need some more training/updating.

If you get something wrong it can be potentially devasting and or costly so you need to be sure you are doing a proper job. There is no shame in someone telling you that perhaps you need some more training before you can go on a register. Its something to aim for and it stands you out from people who have no training in FRA and all they have done is ride on a big red truck and squirt water (no offence!)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 05, 2009, 10:01:03 AM
We are talking about the competency of an assessor.

So would it not be better to create a Nationally recognised, third party accredited, qualification in Fire Risk Assessment rather than a "register"

Most Health and Safety Officers / Consultants are NEBOSH certified - (MOst employers when recruitng H&S Officers specify they must hold a NEBOSH cert)

Im all for third party acreditation or a Nationally recognised qualification that RPs can look for when searching for a competent FRA


“The ABBE Level 3 Certificate in Fire Risk Assessment is the first nationally recognised qualification designed specifically to ensure that people conducting fire risk assessments are operating to a government-recognised standard.”
The Awarding Body for the Built Environment ABBE

The qualification they run is approved by Ofqual and looks very good at the initial level.

Only BRE seem to run it at the moment but I know they are looking for other people to run courses.

Could this be the way forward? A nationally recognized qualification that anyone can go in for and once qualified individuals could go straight on to a national register.

My question is why isn’t this course approved by the IFE?

I don’t really need an answer to this question as sadly I think I know. 


Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 05, 2009, 02:58:14 PM
Many accreditation schemes operated by other "trade associations" involve an assessor physically checking the work of the person wanting to be accredited, they do not simply "grill" someone with technical questions.

Some assessors may have the theoretical knowledge, and be able to field technical questions with ease, but in reality they may have little practical experience and could miss certain issues.

As I mentioned earlier how can you tell just by looking at an Assessment that the assessor hasn't mised something - surely you need to see the premises which were assessed to ensure the assessor picked up on failings / significant findings etc

Of course my best chum Mr Todd would be spell bound at my talents, and would be wondering why he hasn't offered me a job yet.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 07, 2009, 04:27:44 AM
Great and superior being Retty, the IFE is not a trade association. It is a professional body. The two are entirely different somewhat like the IET is a professional body for electrical engineers, while the ECA is a trade association for electrical contractors and the FIA is a trade association for the fire industry.
And the combination of interview and review of FRA is a powerful tool by which to judge competence.
  ps I would never wonder why I did not employ you, as I already know the answer.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 09, 2009, 12:08:12 PM
Regardless, I'm still not convinced that accreditation is best done in this way. I have no doubt Sir Todd that you would be very thorough in your interview with an assessor. But how would you know if they had missed something fundemental?

  ps I would never wonder why I did not employ you, as I already know the answer.

My dear Colin I know I've always been far too expensive for you, even taking to account " best mates rates"
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 09, 2009, 01:36:24 PM
Regardless, I'm still not convinced that accreditation is best done in this way. I have no doubt Sir Todd that you would be very thorough in your interview with an assessor. But how would you know if they had missed something fundemental?



Fair point MR!

My take on this is that an accompanied visit should be included on the initial assessment particularly as in the IFE scheme they don’t ask for the name or details of the buildings submitted. 

This lack of traceability is obviously open to abuse and if an assessor is short on suitable reports to submit; what is to stop them submitting FRAs completed by another assessors.

If anything is dramatically wrong within the report what then? (No tractability = No accountability)

According to the Warrington scheme details: all reports submitted should have permission from the owner and have full contact details included. The owners also have to agree to provide confirmation that the person submitting the reports did actually complete it.

I do think an interview is a must along with a thorough look at the quality of reports a risk assessor produces, but to have an actual FRA on a building that the approval body has seen will give a far better indication as to the true qualities an assessor has. 

How far these schemes go to determine the competence of an assessor will ultimately be determined by the industry it’s self; the more comprehensive schemes will cost more and the cheaper ones will be less thorough. The value to an assessor in terms of marketing themselves and the amount of work they receive through having it; will determine which level of register they go for.

YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET!

At the moment there seems to be plenty of work for everyone registered or not.

Just off the topic, I heard that the IFE got a very public dressing down off the FPA recently, anyone know the details?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 09, 2009, 11:47:27 PM
The whole thing just smacks of openess to abuse. An interview. Wow. That will proove alot. Wonder how that would stand up in court. It isn't that easy I know to go round checking peoples work, but as Retty says how esle do you ensure that the assessment was of a genuine property in the first place and that the assessor aint missed something pretty major. I could quite easily produce a ficticious risk assessment making ive found 101 thinsg wrong and how i transfromed the building from a rat hole to something ultra safe. I could also bat off some questions from the would be accreditors quite easily. Wam bam thank you ma'am.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 14, 2009, 08:23:59 AM
So what would you propose Cleveland?

These systems are entirely voluntary. No practitioner is compelled to register  with any of them. As they are currently set up, they are operated partly for the benefit of consumers (ie duty holders seeking assistance) and partly for practitioners as a marketing tool. As such they have to strike some kind of balance between the two unless the Law is changed to make registration of a national scheme compulsory.

Perhaps we should make this a legal requirement, look how successful such a scheme has been in the financial sector with the FSA?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 14, 2009, 07:03:56 PM
So how do warrington confirm that the guy didnt miss anything?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Benzerari on March 14, 2009, 10:27:04 PM
Indeed; who will guard the guardians?  :)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 15, 2009, 12:21:21 AM
Cleveland, I imagine that many officers who write enforcement notices could indeed produce fictitious risk assessments. I thought that this is what many enforcement notices are, arent they?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Thomas Brookes on March 15, 2009, 07:02:56 AM
Until the idea that anyone can do their own fire risk assessment is dropped by the government any sort of legal qualification will not work.

The best that can be hoped for is some sort of recommendations, best practises or voluntary codes.

It just can not work, with out major changes in the government requirements in who and what is competency.
I had a recent conversation with a shop owner who asked a Fire Risk Manager (i think thats the new name for the FRS assessor now) if he was competent to do his own fire risk assessment. He was told "You work here every day and know the building inside out, you know what is flammable and what can cause a fire so you are competent to do your risk assessment".

With that sort of logic how can they force a qualification on everyone eles.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 15, 2009, 05:45:40 PM
So what would you propose Cleveland?

Easy Kurnal. The accreditation panel check the work and visit the premises that has been assessed.

Im not interested if its voluntary or compulsory. It makes no difference. At the end of the day a third party is putting their name to an individual assessor and confirming that assessor is competent.

Like Myself and Tom Brookes said other systems are too open to abuse - people could falsify their risk assessment, sex it up or copy someone elses.

So let me ask you a question Kurnal. Would you want a gas engineer or builder or plumber to sign up to a volutnary scheme, and accredited simply by asking some questions. You'd feel pretty cheesed off if on the basis of that accreditation panel you employed a builder they said was OK but turned out to be shoddy and cut corners . No need to answer by the way.

If people want to be accredited great. It shows they are willing to verify their competence and have theior work  scrutinised. Equally however the accreditation organisation needs to cover it's back when confirming the competence of somebody and they won't do that by "asking some hard questions"

Colin todd - dont understand the question about enforcement notices, but then Im not tuned into answering silly questions. Ask me a sensible question one and I may reply.



 
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 15, 2009, 11:02:36 PM
Cleveland, I will try to make it simple for you. Are enforcment ntoices always based on risk or are they simply prescriptive application of CLG guides (which, if that is what is required for enforcement of legislation, could be done by supermarket shelf packers).
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 16, 2009, 01:18:33 AM
No Colin Ill make it simple for you .EN's are normally issued tro address poor standards on a risk assessed basis. Often it is because an RP is clueless hasnt employed an all powerful risk assessor such as you to sort their fire precautions. It isnt the fire authority's job to give RPs options, it is for the RP to decide their own fire precautions and if deemed inadequate for the fire Auth to do something about it . Yes they the FA will default sometimes to CLG guidnace. Which is a benchmark incidentally. Sorry you dont think it is a  worthy benchmark  but dont blame IOs for that blame government.On one hand the likes of you moaned about prescription. Then when Risk Assessment came along you moan there is no consistency. YOu moan when IOs are jack booted for trying to actually help the RP.Unless you have something constructive to say, rather than trying to score points, then don't say anything at all. It is time you changed the record now. We all know you have some axe to grind.You wanna see some so called fire safety consultants out there some of which would be shown to be woefully incompetent by super market shelf packers. You seem to suggest shelf packing isn't a noble or worthy proffesion. Rather snobby.Anyway perhaps you wont be able to reply too quickly to my comments. Maybe you will be delayed being superhuman expert witness somewhere helping some poor police authority that just couldnt do without you as you like to tell us. Wow should I bow in front of you or something.Its funny you criticise british Standards yet you sit on many of their committees relating to fire safety. You dont understand the work of the fire auithority clearly or the position it is in, else you simply wouldnt say the things you say.  I'd have a lot more respect for you and be prepared to take on board a lot of what you said if you werent so sarcastic.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 16, 2009, 07:32:00 AM
Cleveland just to let you know I have reported your last posting to the moderator. I did this because whilst I think you do have a point to make, I dont think that personal insults add anything to the debate. They are more likely to deter others from contributing in the future to the detriment of the forum.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Wiz on March 16, 2009, 05:11:46 PM
Prof., this has happened before and I was surprised then that you never saw it!
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 16, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
Sorry I just grew a bit sick and tired of a certain member being facetious. Report me if you like Kurnal that is you perogative, but at times i think the other poster who I took umbridge with  has been more atagonistic and contraversial over time , particulalry about Inspectors and certain parts of the industry, than I ever have. His comments display a smug sort "of all knowing" quality as if he somehow lords it over us with a superior knowledge. Ive always said i have time for his experience, and his wisdom, i just dont like or have time to waste on his sarcasm, which incidentally isn't as clever as he thinks it is . Im not quite sure why he has such beef with particularly firefighters turned fire inspectors but his comments arent helpful, yet I wonder if he has ever been to a fire in progress and seen how catastrophic it is to watch or indeed fight.
 I dont see why people have tolerated him that long, yet well all just seem to bow at his feet. I just dont seem how telling us how busy he has been an expert witness for so and so adds anything to the debate. Frankly its just being big headed him reminding us saying he is better than anyoe else. And im not having it. Sorry if I offended but if you are going to pull me up on my replies I think you ought to perhaps conceed that the other person is also in the wrong to and can antagonise without any need. Also i didnt like comments directed at shelf stackers, and infering they are thick and lowly. What is so wrong with shelf stacking? Or do we all have to be rich fire safety consultants to have any standing in society.If you feel I put members off i think you will find others (not publically) get put off by him as well. I'm happy to be educated and learn more, but he is someone who totally turns me off.


Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 16, 2009, 07:25:40 PM
I will not dignify the above with comment, other than, as always, to correct invalid assertions.

1. I never complained about prescription under the old system. It is a matter of record that, in both private interview with the then Home Office, and public consulation, I advocated the semi prescriptive route of building regs, where you can have prescription or not as you choose. It works a dream.

2. A EN can indeed offer options. It is specifically catered for and often adopted.

3, I referred to workload simply because Cleveland suggested that my lack of response to someone on a statistical matter was because (and I quote) "the truth hurts". The fact was I had no time to even log into Firenet.

I cannot really comment on the worth to society of supermarket staff, as I once visited a supermarket but couldnt find anyone to take my order as used to happen in the Coop, so I never went back again. However, I imagined (perhaps erroneously) that the staff would not be conversant with the underpinning principles of fire safety, but were educated enough to read and dutifully follow guides.

I was not aware that fire consultants are rich, but if its true please do not inform the former Mrs Todd, as she will expect an increase in her maintenance payments.

I have not been to a motorway accident, but I know how car brakes work. Indeed I keep advocating to my daughter that she use hers more frequently when driving in the Surrey lanes.

Lastly on the subject of wisdom, a trully gorgeous dentist in Derry removed a tooth of that description in emergency surgery some time ago. The pain was less than that I sometimes feel in dealing with modern fire safety.

Kurnal, Thank you so much, but sticks and stones....sticks and stones.......
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 16, 2009, 09:10:59 PM
Cleveland you have a message.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 16, 2009, 11:22:28 PM
I have replied Kurnal.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 17, 2009, 12:33:22 PM
So how do warrington confirm that the guy didnt miss anything?

Warrington do pretty much the same as the IFE; a detailed review of the submitted assessments with a feedback report.

This report highlights the depth and quality of the advice and findings. They must have some kind of marking system in order to give a grade.

Following the portfolio assessment candidates attend an interview and then accreditation follows (if you pass)

I feel they should also have included the accompanied visit at this stage and not for the purpose of recertification after 4 years But I guess the expense is prohibitive.

However, as Colin pointed out previously the review and interview does provide a ‘Powerful tool’ by which a conclusion is arrived at. I think only 50% of the pilot candidates passed.

The main difference between the two schemes is that the Warrington scheme is written to an International standard and has quality and impartiality built in to it. Plus the checkers are checked via UKAS.

As I have said before all the schemes have some good points and some bad and until we can get some agreement on the best way to assess competence then the whole thing will continue to be a mess.

What we need is a well respected figure in the industry to ruffle a few feathers (which he is very good at) and start a full debate on a national scheme that all awarding bodies could deliver.

Go on Colin         “Unite the Clans”

I look forward to hearing you speak on the subject tomorrow or in the near future.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 17, 2009, 02:18:08 PM
Bob. I think that with new certification schemes such as these, there is a need to crawl before one walks and walk before one runs. There is probably a need for dust to settle and see how the schemes work out. Also, competition between CBs is not necessarily a bad thing. Warrington are to be commended if they have a UKAS certificated scheme (but then I would say that as I am a UKAS "industry sector expert"- in the current thread not sure whether to tell you this in case its big headed or not tell you and risk being accused of not declaring a prejudice).

If rationalization (note the Z Messey) is to occur it would probably most appropriately be through BAFE, and then any CB could run it. But thats for tomorrow not today. It is important that the cost of certification is limited. It is a minor cost in the running of a practice such as ours, but can be prohibitive for the one man band, who sees it as a big chunk off the bottom line and his fire service pension.

Ruffled feathers do no harm if it promotes thought and debate. As a lover of Burmese cats, they have a propensity to ruffle, remove and dissect feathers prior to eating them, so I have some way to go .

PS I think the last time somebody tried to unite the clans it resulted in the Highland Clearances, though Princess, being English, when I took her to the scene of the event, described it as a big field and asked me if there were any nice shops in Inverness.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 17, 2009, 02:48:37 PM
Fair points made Colin.

As you suggest we should perhaps learn to crawl before we walk etc, look to see how the current schemes "bed in"

I also appreciate that cost issues associated with the type of accreditation I want to see implemented would be prohibitive especially for a one man band.

It is a difficult issue. Other posters (some friendly, some not) have put forward sensible argument for and against the current way assessors are accredited.  But something is far better than nothing, and I do apreciate Colin that you and others, Im sure, would scrutinise applicants very carefully.

No "z" in rationlisation though Lord Todd  the "z" is the american spelling. Do stay behind after class.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: messy on March 17, 2009, 05:16:50 PM

No "z" in rationlisation though Lord Todd  the "z" is the american spelling. Do stay behind after class.

MR. Don't go there with the 's' versus 'z' issue. I did once and lived to regret it!!! (PS American should have a capital 'A', so feel free to join CT in detention)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 17, 2009, 06:10:27 PM
Messy, I am so sorry, but I just cant resist it. Alien Chieftain Retty, As I have explained tirelessly to Messey, who now is interested in edyoukayshun following his loss of spellchecking facilities when he handed in his offical issue of chewing gum when he left the greatest fire brigade in the whole of.......London, it is merely a common misconception that the Z form is north american.

Oxford English Dictionary policy used to be that, where there was a choice of s or z it MUST be the z if the word has a Greek root. When Greek was largely dropped in schools (along with, judging by some of the spelling in this thread, English) no one knew how to implement it, so OED dumbed it down. Their policy which you will find clearly espoused in the Retty family dictionary is that, where there is a choice, the Z is the OED style while an s is a secondary spelling. That is why the Z is ALWAYS used in all British Standards, as they use the OED style as a house style.

Messey, Does no harm to hear things twice, given the number of hearing loss claims in the greatest fire brigade in the whole of ..... London. 

Monsignor Retty, I would suggest detention for you at Moreton, but that would be a cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of human rights legislation.

On the more relevant subject of this thread, the interview principle is an accepted way of demonstrating competence. It is a requirement for registration of engineers at chartered or incorporated level by the IFE, and if it were that easy how come 40% fail? Perhaps the smarties who think it is such a doddle could run mentoring courses for would be registrants.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 17, 2009, 07:17:22 PM
My apologies to members of the forum for comments I made last night on this thread. My apologies go to Colin Todd in particular. I was rude and took out of context what was said. I respect any one who can give us the benefit of their expertise and knowledge. I know at times we can all ask seemingly daft questions or have weird and wonderful ideas which may make the more experienced amongst us roll our eyes. But we all want to learn and benefit from each others experience and knowledge in order to protect people and property from fire. A common goal on all sides of the proffesion.

Coversely I believe there are those with an axe to grind not only on this forum but within the industry as a whole. It would be nice where differences of opinion existed for moderate and professional discussion to take place without the need to disolve the whole thing into a slanging match or target individuals or tar people with a broad brush or use pointless sarcasm. Banter is healthy of course so long as it is just banter. I am a culprit of that myself I know. I will remind myself that tone in which a comment has been made cant be judged over the interweb. I should learn to shrug off or ignore those I perceive to be making inflammatory statements. Once again my apologies it wont happen again, and I hope I have not put off anyone from using these forums.

To answer your reply above Colin, I don't for one second believe it would be easy to sit an interview, as demonstrated by the pass / fail percentage you quote. But you will agree a person could have a sound theoretical knowledge of a subject but lack the practical experience to carry out the task competently.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Wiz on March 18, 2009, 08:30:27 AM
Spot on Clevelandfire 3. Well done.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Wiz on March 18, 2009, 08:40:39 AM
Quote from: colin todd
........Oxford English Dictionary policy used to be that, where there was a choice of s or z it MUST be the z if the word has a Greek root. When Greek was largely dropped in schools (along with, judging by some of the spelling in this thread, English) no one knew how to implement it, so OED dumbed it down. Their policy which you will find clearly espoused in the Retty family dictionary is that, where there is a choice, the Z is the OED style while an s is a secondary spelling. That is why the Z is ALWAYS used in all British Standards, as they use the OED style as a house style. .......

Thank you for the lesson Colin. Having some time to analyze your concize observations I accept they comprize elements of fact. I hope someone televizes a programme about this matter on the BBC
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on March 18, 2009, 08:56:40 AM
Quote from: colin todd
........Oxford English Dictionary policy used to be that, where there was a choice of s or z it MUST be the z if the word has a Greek root. When Greek was largely dropped in schools (along with, judging by some of the spelling in this thread, English) no one knew how to implement it, so OED dumbed it down. Their policy which you will find clearly espoused in the Retty family dictionary is that, where there is a choice, the Z is the OED style while an s is a secondary spelling. That is why the Z is ALWAYS used in all British Standards, as they use the OED style as a house style. .......

Thank you for the lesson Colin. Having some time to analyze your concize observations I accept they comprize elements of fact. I hope someone televizes a programme about this matter on the BBC
So why are they not called Britizh Ztandardz then?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 18, 2009, 07:41:57 PM
[Thank you for the lesson Colin. Having some time to analyze your concize observations I accept they comprize elements of fact. I hope someone televizes a programme about this matter on the BBC

Spot on Wis.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 18, 2009, 10:52:47 PM
.......... because its only where there is a choice that the Z OED preferred. Dont blame me, I am only relaying facts.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Mr. P on March 19, 2009, 02:08:49 PM
Colin, you may have to change your titles - Colin Todd, CZ Todd & Azzociatez.  Then there iz alzo the queztion of uzez of C & S (or should that be Z?)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 20, 2009, 03:37:03 AM
Ok Cleveland, but I am cancelling my holiday in the luxurious bed and breakfast in the "Whatever it Takes" area of Middlesbrough and taking my wee girl to the Beveley Hills Hilton instead. The Americans will appreciate my sense of humour more, as they are a fairly unsophisticated race. (Oops am I being broad brush again?)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 20, 2009, 03:39:22 AM
Alas, the lesson was wasted as it assumed that, in saying, it was only where there is a choice of S and Z, people would always know where choice existed. I now see why we need prescriptive codes.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 20, 2009, 02:05:11 PM
Lord Todd

As a fellow Laird (I purchazed a one metre zquare piece of turf near an unheard of  Loch in Bonny Zcotland - the honourary title waz free) I am very keen to zee that ztandards are maintained within zociety, and the izzue of zpelling and grammar iz of course a fundemental one.

Az you correctly point out "z" was in uze way before "s".

However the  "s" is now the accepted spelling and anything else would be grammatically incorrect. Now you can either accept my opinion or admit you are wrong.  ;D

Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: afterburner on March 20, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
Lord Toddy walks around a hill one day and finds Mr. Retty scooping water from a Highland stream and drinking the cold water.
 
'Hey' shouts Lord Toddy 'dinna drink the waater frae thon burn it's fu' of coo's keech and *ish'.

Mr. Retty looks around and says 'My good man, 'One is English, would your repeat what you said in English so that one may understand?'.

 'Och aye' says Lord Toddy 'please use both hands so that you don't spill a drop'
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on March 20, 2009, 03:05:33 PM
A young lad from Glasgow went to his dad one day and asked "Dad, can you lend me 30p?" His dad said "20p? What do you want 10p for?
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Wiz on March 20, 2009, 06:14:01 PM
M.R., Afterburner & Nearlythere you should all be in the Banter Bar with all this stuff. No wonder the bar takings are down with you lot out here trying to wind up Lord Toddy! And fancy thinking he would admit to being wrong!

Furthermore officer Dibble will soon notice your banter and slap your wrists. That's, of course, if he is back from his safari yet.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: nearlythere on March 20, 2009, 06:34:25 PM
It's a little too expensive in the Banter Bar now what with the government's chief quack cranking up the prices to see how much the counter propper uppers can take before they start to squeal.
The removal of the "as much as you can drink for a half crown" alcopops is causing problems as CT is prone to a few big swallys o the sticky green one with his bag of chips before he rolls home to her indoors.

Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: colin todd on March 23, 2009, 02:44:57 AM
Conquistador Retty, You can never be a laird as you are English and, worse still (if thats possible) a Midlander. Far from z being grammatically incorrect, it remains the "correct" (ie preferred) spelling in the OED. I am sure if you look you will find a copy of this in Retty Towers. If you cant find it anywhere, it may be under the coal in the bath.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Midland Retty on March 23, 2009, 01:51:17 PM
Oh Grand Articifer Todd I'm afraid your comments constitute racism!

I'm deeply and  utterly offended. I have removed you forthwith from my Christmas card list. How very extremely dare you!

Her Royal Highness Mrs Retty (INNL) has had me paint the aforementioned coal white after I made a mess in the bathroom looking for my ellusive lexicon.

That actually sounds rather rude - I should point out I was referring to coal dust being everywhere.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 24, 2009, 11:31:31 AM
I couldn’t help feeling dizappointed after attending the FIA conference last week.

A lot of talking by some good speakers but I left without the answers the RP needs.

The RRO is now a toddler and is walking, talking and potty trained, but it seems like the FIA are still keeping it in the pram and nappies for as long as possible.

I understand that as a new representative body they need to get things right but I can’t help thinking that the IFE vein runs right through the heart of the committee.

The biggest problem for this committee is not being brave enough to look forward. There is more than enough expertise on the committee to decide what a third party accreditation scheme should contain.

Instead of running with the existing schemes why not make a wish list and then offer it up to the accrediting bodies as a national model.

Why take a step back at this stage? 

The national scheme is the only way to go; I started this thread with a genuine intent to offer an alternative to the mess that we have now and from reading between the lines it seems like the FIA are going to perpetuate the non uniformity of the existing accreditations.

How can an IFSM, an IFE and a Warrington accredited assessor be the same?

They can’t; and how is an RP supposed to know that.

They could be if they all ran with the same scheme, an FIA specification scheme.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: kurnal on March 24, 2009, 11:38:08 PM
Hiya Bobbins.  The following is purely my own opinion and although I am fortunate to sit on the Council I have no mandate whatsoever to speak on its behalf.

I am not convinced that if the FIA proposed a national scheme at this time that it would currently have the standing to focus the industry, to achieve any greater penetration or lead to any greater take up of accreditation than the IFE, Warrington or any other scheme currently has. Yes these schemes are all very different and some appear to offer very little to any party.

You correctly point out the RRO is a toddler and potty trained- a good analogy - but are you suggesting now is the time for the embryonic FIA Risk Assessment Council to teach it to run a 4 minute mile?  The Council has only met three times!

The role of the FIA is first and formost as a trade association set up to represent the interests of the member companies, and in doing so to offer some tangible assurance of professional standards to help market the services of its members. It has done this with huge success in respect of the alarms and extinguisher branches of the fire industry.  The Risk Assessment Council is embryonic, it is currently looking at what is out there and assessing the value of the existing certification schemes and where these fit within its own objectives. The Council has to establish its own standing in the National forums- Politicians, Civil Service, Enforcers,  Professional Institutions and to attract a ground swell of member companies in order to have a credible voice. In all honesty we also have to attract a broad spectrum of companies if we are to be fully representative, from the one man bands to the multinationals.

A huge number of risk assessments are currently carried out by micro companies. We have to be careful as an industry body to attract and to represent the interests of all member companies.

We should not be seen as seeking to introduce additional hurdles for them to overcome simply because of the inherent weaknesses in the way the legislation was concieved, implemented and enforced. Once the membership base has become established we will then be able to assess how best to represent their interests.

In my opinion now is not the time for the FIA to try and develop its own criteria for certification scemes. To do so could easily develop into yet another  betamax/VHS scenario. I agree that leadership is a great thing to aspire to but first you have to amass your troops. Its all about the right judgement over timing and readiness. The Council has some very high profile members of huge standing which should help the organisation establish a credible voice, and what we do and how we do it will determine our success in attracting  new member companies. 

I reckon if not already on the Council you would have a lot to offer? :)
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Clevelandfire 3 on March 25, 2009, 01:40:42 AM
I couldn’t help feeling dizappointed after attending the FIA conference last week.

A lot of talking by some good speakers but I left without the answers the RP needs.

The RRO is now a toddler and is walking, talking and potty trained, but it seems like the FIA are still keeping it in the pram and nappies for as long as possible.

I understand that as a new representative body they need to get things right but I can’t help thinking that the IFE vein runs right through the heart of the committee.

The biggest problem for this committee is not being brave enough to look forward. There is more than enough expertise on the committee to decide what a third party accreditation scheme should contain.

Instead of running with the existing schemes why not make a wish list and then offer it up to the accrediting bodies as a national model.

Why take a step back at this stage? 

The national scheme is the only way to go; I started this thread with a genuine intent to offer an alternative to the mess that we have now and from reading between the lines it seems like the FIA are going to perpetuate the non uniformity of the existing accreditations.

How can an IFSM, an IFE and a Warrington accredited assessor be the same?

They can’t; and how is an RP supposed to know that.

They could be if they all ran with the same scheme, an FIA specification scheme.

Bobbins I understand your frustrations totally.But, and this is a big but, the FIA needs more support to implement theforward thinking you speak of. There is a large rift at the moment in terms of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the interested parties that deal with it on a regular basis. It is a big learning curve for all of us. Whilst any trade association should be forward thinking it can only move as fast as the industry will allow and until we all try and get round the table and thrash out common problems we can't expect our trade assocations to do the same. This is an ideal time to put differences aside and get talking for the benefit of all concerned. as a Game Keeper turned Poacher I do have a greater appreciation of the matters encountered on both sides. Yet both sides actually want the same thing.
Title: Re: National Register of Fire Risk Assessors
Post by: Bobbins on March 27, 2009, 10:17:04 AM
Kurnal and Cleveland

Thanks for your understanding, and you are both correct I am frustrated.

However unlike the both of you I don’t think a national scheme is like a toddler running a 4 minute mile or far from the scope of the new FIA committee.

It is a brave step to take but with the quality of people on the committee it would be just like a toddler learning to ride a bike. The committee could take off the stabilizers and run behind it before letting it go. The hardest bit is knowing when to take off the stabilizers and I think now is the right time, it may fall down but that’s part of the thrill.

I only have one drum to beat at the moment and part of my huge frustration is that people with the power, experience and respect within the industry; don’t want to change the mess for the good of the RP.

I know the reason why and it is the oldest reason of all…………………. money!