FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jasper on June 15, 2009, 10:27:27 PM
-
Please find link below to a FS blatantly advertising a fire risk assessment company
http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/businesseducation/riskcampaign.htm
Is this correct? if so I will do this with Lancashire FS - your thoughts!
-
I was under the impression they couldnt blatently indicate like this, but advise people on how to obtain companies etc
-
Appears to me to be outrageous.
-
Who's turn it it to complain this time, I did it last time?
-
Are they going to try and sell me something?
No, it is an information not a sales call. The caller will help you identify if you have a fire risk assessment. If you have not got one, they will explain the various options available to you.
What is this then?"One of the options is to subscribe to a Risksmart, online service, which will enable you to complete a fire risk assessment".
Extract from Risksmart website:-
FireSmart
FireSmart is an online fire risk assessment system that enables users with no previous knowledge of fire legislation or fire safety to comply with the RRO Fire Safety Order 2005, in around 30 – 40 minutes. FireSmart costs £249 + vat which gives you twelve months access to the site and its online fire consultant. Click here to link to the FireSmart site for more information.
No actual training or experience needed. I thought you had to be a "Competent Person" to carry out a fire risk assessment?
-
I've got my preliminary online complaint to HF&RS done but everybody has to do it. Do it now people.
-
[
No actual training or experience needed. I thought you had to be a "Competent Person" to carry out a fire risk assessment?
[/quote]
I am still amazed that people think the RRO says the RA has to be competent
-
I am still amazed that people think the RRO says the RA has to be competent
Who said ".....RRO says the RA has to be competent" footieboy?
-
I have not complained as such but have pointed out that if promoting private businesses they should at least offer a choice rather than a single supplier and can they also promote me! and the FIA and the Firenet and other businesses too.
-
Seems they also do the same thing for H & S
A full H & S audit in a few hours-
davo
-
Who said ".....RRO says the RA has to be competent" footieboy?
[/quote]
I think by 'RA' he means 'risk assessor'. And there is no duty in the RRO to be a competent person regarding the risk assessment. I do believe it is splitting hairs though, as the duty to ensure the assessment is suitable and sufficient would be a hard duty to comply with if done by someone who was incompetent.
-
The RP may not have to be competent according to the RRO but it seems that anybody he uses to assist him does. Guidance, although being good practice rather than a requirment, advises the use of a competent person.
-
The competent person you speak of is only there to assist in implementing the preventative/protective measures which really come about after the risk assessment is completed. Competent persons are required for other areas, i.e. evacuation, but none for the risk assessment.
As you say, regardless of this, guidance does indeed suggest the use of a competent person for complex premises or where the RP doesn't think they can do the risk assessment. So, if someone is told by an FRS that filling in some online form gives them a suitable risk assessment, then who are they to argue? Their own competency is not an issue, the suitabilty of the RA is the issue and are the local FRS (who almost 'promote' the method) going to find your RA unsuitable?
FWIW I also think it is wrong. We are a public service, we should not be allying with companies in this way.
-
Let me get this clear, if X brigade and Y brigade both have private companies promoting RA packages which are different and I have a company in X brigade but use Y brigades package. What happens if I am inspected by X brigade who tell me that the Assessment I have done from Y brigade is insufficient?
-
Then the FRA would be insufficient. I think what you are getting at is what would the discussion be. It would not deter me one way on who or what company compiled a FRA, if its insufficient in the legislators eyes ( Magistrate/Sheriff) then its insufficient.
What is important is what type of training and or advice the providor is providing. If its good quality advice with the end results being FRAs being better and relevant persons/premises safer then I think this has got to be an improvement. It shoulkd not matter if its a FRS or a private individual.
-
shouldn't the person undertaking the fire risk assessment have sufficient knowledge, training and experience to undertake the task?
-
shouldn't the person undertaking the fire risk assessment have sufficient knowledge, training and experience to undertake the task?
Seems not, according to the law, Jasper.
-
Well I must admit here and now that if that is the opinion of the majority then I have had this wrong from the start...I was under the impression that the RP had to carry out a suitable and sufficient FRA (as per article 9)
However under article 18 -Safety Assistance...the RP must appoint one or more competent persons to assist...
so if the RP appoints a Fire Risk Assessor to assist...that Fire Risk Assessor has to be competent...
..and paragraph (5) says that a competent person is regarded as competent if they have sufficient training and experience..
I'll go to the bottom of our stairs for getting that wrong
-
appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures
The preventive and protective measures are what come about after the assessment of risk has taken place.
-
And we need to remember that we are simply arguing a stupid technicality.
Regardless of the level of competency (or lack of) advocated by the wording, as you quite rightly point out, the risk assessment has to be suitable and sufficient regardless of who does it. That in itself infers that competence is required.
It is only semantics. (It's what we do best half of the time)
-
Go to: http://www2.kirklees.gov.uk/news/press-release/bodytitle.asp?ID=1106
it appears that West Yorks F&RS have an agreement with a Local Council to "to ensure the fire protection roles of the two organisations are translated into practical arrangements. They agreed a shared objective of ‘Improving fire protection..." What exactly does that mean? Anybody from West yorks know?
This is the thin edge of a very big wedge that will be driven by F & RS throughout the Country. Fire Safety Consultants be afraid.
We always come back to the same problem. Who will audit FRA's in premises where the Fire Authority has given "practical" help & advice?
-
In short it means that the Council are going to wriggle and squirm and temper their legal duties as an employer by pleading poverty and the fire authority are going to let them continue by a series of protocols such as not issuing enforcement notices on council properties.
Been there done that so many times. The most graphic example was when social services were responsible for the Registered Homes Act 1984 and most brigades, as advisors to the social services, had to bow and scrape to the politicians and take flack if they dared to suggest improvements needed to be made. This led to chronic dual standards so bad that most council run homes had to be closed when the Care Standards Act came along.
It also happened in schools, and fire stations.
-
It gets better if you do a credit check against the company, current credit rating of 3 out of 100 (Caution - Credit at your discretion) theres only one step lower and thats not trading anymore.
This one has a £2300 CCJ against it this year
Also the director has two previously dissolved and non trading companies behind him one looks like it closed owing £150k.
And the F&R Service are endorsing these people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I've got my preliminary online complaint to HF&RS done but everybody has to do it. Do it now people.
Not as much as an acknowledgment yet.
-
appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures
The preventive and protective measures are what come about after the assessment of risk has taken place.
blimey I'm stuck here at the bottom of our stairs...
here's me thinking that the 'one or more competent persons
to assist him' was the Fire Risk Assessor
and the 'preventive and protective measures' was the Fire Risk Assessment itself
-
Civvy
Surely some preventative and protective measures are already/should be in place courtesy of our old friend Doc B ???
The other stuff comes once you look at what has been added to the empty premises ie people, machinery, processes etc etc
Spot on though with the semantics ;D
davo
if you did a RA on the idea of using this company would it come out 'intolerable'?
-
The other stuff comes once you look at what has been added to the empty premises ie people, machinery, processes etc etc
Spot on though with the semantics ;D
davo
That would already have been taken care of under the employers duties under the H&S@Work Act. FRA should just be a rubber stamping exercise. These easy workplace ones are great to do are they not?
-
I had an acknowlegement letter to my complaint this morning and they will respond in due course
-
appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures
The preventive and protective measures are what come about after the assessment of risk has taken place.
blimey I'm stuck here at the bottom of our stairs...
here's me thinking that the 'one or more competent persons
to assist him' was the Fire Risk Assessor
and the 'preventive and protective measures' was the Fire Risk Assessment itself
The risk assessment identifies the GFP. The prevenative and protective measures are measures that have been identified by the risk assessment so therefore he has to do RA to get his P&P and then he appoints competent persons to assist him with them.
Get a stair lift to get you up the stairs
-
A totally unacceptable course of action. This from an authority who I have always found to
go out of their way NOT to show any preference when it comes to fire safety advisor services.
Their usual approach is 'look in the yellow pages'.
A friend recently dropped in a letter received from HFRS in connection with this 'so called' survey.
I rang the contact number and during a very short conversation it became clear that the
person I was speaking to was not conversant with the fundimentals of the RRO.
How professional is that?
I will be writing to complain.
PS Dealing a lot lately with another FA a short boat trip from HFRS.
Unusual approach and views with the 'nice to have' approach very apparent. Clearly still have a strong
hold over those in their area when it comes to what they consider 'suitable and sufficient' although crafty
enough not to put any comment on a notice. Frustrating!!!!!!
-
I understand that Cornwall FB send out letters signed by ACFO advising that someone will call them to assist with FRA. The assumption is that this will be someone from the FB. When the call is received, most people assume they are talking to the Fire Brigade when in fact they are talking to private independent company. Surely this is misleading and inappropriate for a local authority.
-
Are people missing the point here. It says not in law because the Government wanted employers to small businesses who may have only 5-15 employees in a 2-3 storey office block to conduct the FRA themselves with the assistance of the guidance available. As we know, it says over and over again in the guidance documents if things are slightly complex then consult competent/specialist advice.
Obviously if the environment and building is complex, then a outside competent person should be called in.
Under the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regs a competent person should already be in place providing competent advice. These people should assess if the working environment requires a level of competent advice or a simple FRA course and the guidance documents will be enough (and would cost a lot less).
-
Does anyone know if any member of Hants FRS has any kind of interest in the risk assessment company being promoted? It wouldn't surprise me. I believe a 'Freedom of Information' request might be able to unearth the fact. Same in Cornwall.
-
Cannot see a massive problem myself, if it raises awareness and potentially save life's then it is good for me.
-
I take it then hammer1 that you would have no massive problem with a Fire & Rescue Service sponsoring one of your competitors on it's website?
-
Spot on nearly there. This is fraught with problems cant believe it was allowed to happen.
-
I've heard that the sponsored company have been or are being used by other FRS to carry out research any one know if thats right?
-
How would someone without experience and knowledge deal with things like compartmentation issues i.e in risers or inner rooms!, yes, they could tick boxes to say they have fire extinguishers, or Fire wardens, but how many times i get a blank looks when i ask a client about 5 year electrical testing!, or even the basics such as PAT testing, often we take the time to explain what it is and why is should be done, even down to Lightning protection etc......I really can't see how an online checklist is suitable and sufficient, when the person completed it maybe under pressure from his boss to say the right things!!.sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous and if it goes wrong have these people the correct liability insurance or expertise to back it up in court because an insurance company spots a loop hole?
-
"Who Should Use This Guide?"
"It has been written to provide guidance for a responsible person, to help them to carry out a fire risk assessment in less complex ...premises... If you read the guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice of a competent person. More complex premises will probably need to be assessed by a person who has comprehensive training or experience in fire risk assessment."
CLG appear to be of the opinion that the owner/occupier of smaller businesses should start with the guidance document on its own, regardless of their level of competence, and that for most cases the book will provide a sufficient knowledge base. Only when they recognise that they are out of their depth should they seek expert help.
Competency can therefore be achieved, for a small business, by reading the book. And there are a lot of premises for which this is true. The difficulty arises when the owner/occupier does not recognise that they are straying beyond their depth level...
-
[quote author=Paul Turnbull link=topic=4310.msg46178#msg46178 date=1249577998
Competency can therefore be achieved, for a small business, by reading the book. And there are a lot of premises for which this is true. The difficulty arises when the owner/occupier does not recognise that they are straying beyond their depth level...
[/quote]
Paul,
Is this your opinion? I disagree, as reading a book does not qualify as being competent. Any book written for enforcers and RPs/Duty Holders will not achieve anything other than confusion. I would in no way attempt to do a risk assessment on a electrical installation as I am not a qualified electrician, no matter what books I have read.
Consultants with no experience of MOE or Fire Safety should not be carrying out FRAs. Training, knowledge, experience and aware of limitations show competence, not book reading.
-
PartyMarty007
My opinion is that the world of Fire Safety Consultancy is so vast that many experts are still a million miles from understanding all disciplines completely.
However Her Majesty's Government's view is outlined in the opening paragraphs of the guidance documents, in which it states that the book provides a sufficient knowledge base for the less complex premises and should be used until the responsible person starts to feel out of his or her depth.
Do I agree with this? Not at all. I work with both inspecting officers and fire consultants who can't agree on what the book says.
However if CLG firmly believe it, with the support of CFOA, then my opinion becomes less meaningful (except when I am in consultation with either CLG or CFOA) and I must view risk assessments completed by those with no knowledge or experience other than that found within the book. The job of the inspector is to take that FRA and determine whether it is suitable and sufficient and assess whether the significant findings have all been found and all addressed appropriately. Only when the FSA is found to be lacking does the competence of the assessor come to the fore.