FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Hightower on August 18, 2009, 11:05:44 PM
-
I wondered if anyone could give me some clarity on my position for the following matter.
I have recently conducted a fire risk assessment on a 2 storey block of flats having been instructed by a property management company (PMC). The PMC were reacting to a visit of the concerned property from an IO who had been tipped off by the local fire station regarding their concerns over the fire safety of the flats.
Having dutifully detailed my significant findings I submitted them to the PMC with 3 options for their consideration as corrective solutions to the deficiencies and advised consultation with the FRS to ensure that if any one of them was implemented that they would meet with the requirements of the RRO under the heading of ‘suitable and sufficient’.
All ok so far – having approached the FRS the PMC were then informed by them that they would not assist in providing solutions or necessarily agree to any put forward.
I personally argued with the FRS saying that any one of the solutions put forward would require a high capital expenditure and therefore it was important that my client was reassured that if that expenditure was spent that it would indeed satisfy the authorities.
The only reply I got throughout the argument was that the building was non compliant and needed to be upgraded (we didn’t disagree on that point) and that the LGC guide for sleeping accommodation should be consulted as the FRS took this guide as the prescriptive document for all requirements.
Again I argued the case that the guide was surely just that and not prescriptive, but the only answer back was that was what HQ was telling the fire protection department to use and do.
At the end of it all I came away thinking – surely, if corrective measures are put in place the FRS would come along at some time to conduct an audit to determine if the building was up to the mark. Why can they not then, using the information available view the building in its present state and assess the corrective solutions provided against it and give a definitive answer either way.
Is this a common problem out there – has anyone else encountered such barriers and unwillingness to co-operate?
More importantly, is there any way forward with the FRS such as legal obligation etc.
Appreciate your thoughts
Hightower
-
The FRS are the enforcing authority. They are under no obligation to come out and visit premises and advise which is the most cost effective way of satisfying the RR(FS)O. That is your job. That is why you get paid for doing what you're doing.
FRSs have certain pressures on them to satisfy their own audit programmes and do not have the resources to respond to every request for confirmation or advice that they receive.
Having said that, some are more willing than others to give advice. Some recognise that if they spend a little time confirming that something is right before the work is carried out, it can save a lot of effort in the future trying to put things right. Some would like to do this but don't have the resources.
Also, part of the whole point of the RR(FS)O was to stop buildings being designed by the prescriptive requirements of the fire service and to hand back to the building owners/developers the ability to design buildings how they saw fit (whilst still providing a satisfactory level of fire safety, of course).
If you really feel you need advice from the FRS then you could appeal to them stating that you are dealing with a life risk premises and you are simply aiming to achieve the best level of safety for the occupants. They might respond favourably. They might, though, think that you are the best one to make the decisions as you are the one who has inspected the building.
Under section 6 (2)(b) of the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004, FRSs must give advice on fire safety, but don't go waving that at your FRS because they only have to do it to the "extent that it considers reasonable to do so." They may very well reply that they consider it reasonable to leave it to you to make the decisions as you are the one who is being paid for your professional advice.
Stu
-
I read this slightly differently, I got the impression that the management company simply wanted a nod that the planned improvements (and expense) would meet the FRS concerns.
The alternative could be for the company to stand back and force the FRS to take enforcement action, during which (presumably) they would have to stipulate their precise concerns.
Surley the informal approach is far more effective for both parties concerned.
-
Even during enforcement action we could quite easily simply point out that specific articles were not being complied with, and that in order to satisfy the notice the RP simply has to comply with the article or very simple advice. i.e. Failure: Failure to comply with article 13.... Solution: Provide a suitable means of giving warning.
The FRS might be unwilling to choose between three options but if you choose what you consider to be the most appropriate solution, and submit that one, explaining that it is the way you intend on remedying the issues, then they might be more responsive. At some point they are going to have to say whether it complies with the RRO or not, but them choosing their 'preferred' solution might just be shifting the ball into their court a little too much for some.
-
I've not had any trouble before - a client has had a notice, I've devised a site specific solution (not contained within the guides) & presented it to them in a meeting.
However I've just asked for yes/no answers as to whether it satisfies them as it's my job to assess the detail,not them to do it for me. Where the client has wanted to consider various options to save cost I've filtered them down and again proposed them but for a simple yes/no
I would be rather annoyed of they wouldn't even give a yes/no however. I can understand them not giving detailed advice, but they need to say whether something will satisfy the FSO or not - otherwise it would end up in unnecessary court proceeding which would not go down well with the magistrate when their non cooperation is exposed.
-
Here's a thing. When I first started working in a brigade fire safety office in 1989, architects used to send in blank plans and we would mark them up for them! For free!
This went on, in my brigade, into the latter half of the nineties. Those were the days.
Stu
ps I don't complain about the change because it has given me a job in retirement.
-
Phoenix, Username, CivvyFSO and AnthonyB
Thank you very much for the time you have taken to respond to my questions. They have certainly clarified much for me.
Username, you are right in your interpretation of my comments, a nod from the FRS is all that is being requested by the management company before the planned improvements and expense are actioned.
By delaying, the alternative does seem to be to force the FRS’s arm by gaining prescriptive advice upon receipt of an enforcement notice, however, I note the vagueness that they may respond with by your comments Civvy.
Thanks again
Hightower
-
Its a fine line between giving a nudge in the percieved right direction to actually advising what to do. I would say though that most FSO's I know would at least try to help.
-
To elaborate further on my experience and to ensure that the FRS in my part of the world gets a fair hearing from me I add the following.
An FSO did on my request visit the said property with me to discuss my various findings and extremely helpful he was to.
During the course of the visit I explained what I would be advising the PMC to do as temporary measures until full solutions were agreed. The FSO nodded, said he thought that these temporary measures were fair and good ideas and the conversation went onto something else.
When the PMC wrote to the FRS they informed them of the temporary measures being actioned and that these had been acknowledged and deemed reasonable by the FSO during his visit. It was then that the FSO's line manager went off the rails saying it wasn't for the FRS to provide solutions etc. etc. etc. and closed shop.
Maybe its all down to individual personalities and / or the fear the manager had of excepting responsibility in any form?
-
Even during enforcement action we could quite easily simply point out that specific articles were not being complied with, and that in order to satisfy the notice the RP simply has to comply with the article or very simple advice. i.e. Failure: Failure to comply with article 13.... Solution: Provide a suitable means of giving warning.
You're on dodgy ground there Civvy...have you read the case law BT Fleet v McKenna?
If the enforcing choose to give directions, those directions must explain clearly what action to take ......terms such as "provide a suitable means of giving warning" is not a good idea in my opinion for 2 reasons
1) A court may rule that the direction was unclear invalidating the notice.
2) Who determines what is suitable? It will potentially end up as a battle of expert witnesses in Court.
Notices must explain clearly what is required, I would recommend specifying exactly what measure you require e.g. by referring to a british standard but point out that an equivalent standard would also be acceptable.
-
Here's a thing. When I first started working in a brigade fire safety office in 1989, architects used to send in blank plans and we would mark them up for them! For free!
This went on, in my brigade, into the latter half of the nineties. Those were the days.
Stu
ps I don't complain about the change because it has given me a job in retirement.
Stu, Back in the Eighties and Nineties I was commissioning fire alarm systems that had been 'designed' by the local Fire Service in the same manner as you discuss i.e Initially, architects had sent blank drawings to the Fire Service for them to mark up and in later years the architects would 'mark up' a design and the Fire Service would 'approve' the design.
Invariably the design did not comply in all respects with the BS.
I put this down to three reasons a) lack of appropriate training for the 'designers/approvers', b) not enough time to do a proper job c) failure to visit site and working solely from plans.
If I flagged up the deviations (as they were then) on my paperwork, I was castigated by the architect or customer who wanted to 'hide behind' the Fire Service's design/approval. They didn't particularly want a BS compliant system, they just wanted to keep the Fire Officer happy and to use his design/approval as a shield against future questioning of the effectiveness of the system, even if the Fire Officer had dropped an almighty b*ll*ck.
Things had to change. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
-
You're on dodgy ground there Civvy...have you read the case law BT Fleet v McKenna?
If the enforcing choose to give directions, those directions must explain clearly what action to take ......terms such as "provide a suitable means of giving warning" is not a good idea in my opinion for 2 reasons
1) A court may rule that the direction was unclear invalidating the notice.
2) Who determines what is suitable? It will potentially end up as a battle of expert witnesses in Court.
Notices must explain clearly what is required, I would recommend specifying exactly what measure you require e.g. by referring to a british standard but point out that an equivalent standard would also be acceptable.
Thanks for that. The case was relative to an improvement notice issued under the HSAW Act, the RRFSO seems to offer something specific in the way of a way round this potential pitfall;
"(3) An enforcement notice may, subject to article 36, include directions as to the measures which the enforcing authority consider are necessary to remedy the failure referred to in paragraph"
This would suggest that we don't have to, but it is something that may take more case law to decide. I appreciate that it could be seen as already decided though, due to the case you mention.
The problem with actually requiring something specific is that much of what we ask for is subject to the fire risk assessment, so for us to include something as specific as 30 minutes fire resistance to a corridor with strips and seals on the doors, when it should be a risk assessment that determines whether this is necessary, surely we are leaving ourselves open to be lining the former Mrs Todd's pockets?
An example here would be if you own some dodgy 2 storey place, you have no risk assessment and I consider that the stair to the first floor needs protecting. If I enforce a risk assessment and passive protection to the stair, but Kurnal comes along and his risk assessment points out that with suitable measures in place the stair does not need protecting, then where do go from there? The notice could then be seen as unreasonable by virtue of including the measures required, whereas simply "Supply a suitable means of escape" is also corrected by Kurnal's method.
To be honest, at the FRS I work for we do give detailed info, and it is quite unlikely that any RP will challenge it while it is done in this way unless we are being blatantly unreasonable.
-
Even during enforcement action we could quite easily simply point out that specific articles were not being complied with, and that in order to satisfy the notice the RP simply has to comply with the article or very simple advice. i.e. Failure: Failure to comply with article 13.... Solution: Provide a suitable means of giving warning.
You're on dodgy ground there Civvy...have you read the case law BT Fleet v McKenna?
If the enforcing choose to give directions, those directions must explain clearly what action to take ......terms such as "provide a suitable means of giving warning" is not a good idea in my opinion for 2 reasons
1) A court may rule that the direction was unclear invalidating the notice.
2) Who determines what is suitable? It will potentially end up as a battle of expert witnesses in Court.
Notices must explain clearly what is required, I would recommend specifying exactly what measure you require e.g. by referring to a british standard but point out that an equivalent standard would also be acceptable.
Totally agree.
A non commital from the FRS doesn't help anyone in the long run.
As you point out simply stating something like " Failure: Did not comply with Art. 13 - Solution: Provide suitable means of giving warning" is ridiculous and totally unhelpful. Furthermore it is not in the spirit of what the UK Fire Service is working toward.
Im concerned that a non commital approach will, over time, put people off from engaging with Fire Authorities, and that could have very serious consequences.
Whilst an Enforcing Authority can't produce a fire risk assessment / manage fire precautions on behalf on the RP they should wherever possible be pointing them in the right direction, offering good will advice, helping the RP achieve compliance. Fire Safety Enforcement is, afterall, a two way street.
Imagine now if you started your own business, how many different pieces of legislation would you need to comply with? How much would you know about every seperate bit of legislation and how to comply? we can't be experts in everything and anything, and thats why enforcing authorities should give advice and commit to certain acceptances and approvals.
-
An example here would be if you own some dodgy 2 storey place, you have no risk assessment and I consider that the stair to the first floor needs protecting. If I enforce a risk assessment and passive protection to the stair, but Kurnal comes along and his risk assessment points out that with suitable measures in place the stair does not need protecting, then where do go from there? The notice could then be seen as unreasonable by virtue of including the measures required, whereas simply "Supply a suitable means of escape" is also corrected by Kurnal's method.
But the fire authority isn't being specific Civvy and thats the whole point. When you issue a report / notice you will put forward best practice solutions to remedy the failings you have found during an audit .
I suspect your reports / notices will point out that the RP is within their rights to select an alternative solution which achieve the same standards
There are then mechanisms in place such as the determination processes or ultimately court where any compliance matters, the suitability of alternative solutions or other general disagreements can be challenged / thrashed out.
-
just to be argumentative... Look at it this way then:
We have 2 premises; Castle Retty on the left, Castle Civvy on the right.
On the left, Sir Retty paid PhilB £1000 to come and sort out his fire safety, get his procedures right etc. He runs a lovely safe premises.
I really can't be bothered to pay PhilB anything. I will wait for the FRS to arrive, say to them "Fair cop guv", gratefully accept my notice with all the advice on, do the work and save myself £1000 in the process.
I think I will spend that £1000 on extra advertising that Sir Retty can't afford.
-
The argument is a none starter Sir Civvy
The "Oh it's a Fair Cop Guv" mentality that some RPs seem to have is all well and good - it is the risk they choose to take, it may pay off, it may not. (Bit like me choosing to park on double yellow lines - I may or may not get caught).
Anyway back to our little scenario.... it would depend on how bad the precautions were at Castle Civvy when the Inspector dropped in. Things may be so horrific that the Inspector tells that dastardly naughty, non compliant Sir Civvy that he is going to prohibit the use of his castle.
All the guests get turfed out and take their business to Castle Retty and spend much wonga at his luxury bar, $chahing$
The legislation is about self compliance and good old Sir Retty is a compliant sort of chap and would therefore not run the risk of an unpleasant encounter with an Inspector. Whereas Sir Civvy really is sailing close to the wind and chancing it tut tut!
For the record I'm sure PhilB is a fab risk assessor, alas I couldnt afford his charges.
-
If a traffic warden catches you parking on double yellows would you expect parking advice from him? A free copy of the highway code with the applicable areas highlighted perhaps? ;)
Some of this is the product of what fire legislation used to be about, and the way we used to work. Now we are basically here to see if someone is complying with the order, and taking into account the compliance code, dishing out meaningful sanctions/action to those who do not comply and create the greatest risk. In my book 'meaningful' does not always mean 'helping' them along free of charge.
I think the way round it all is to simply enforce a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and have a clause that ensures that the findings and necessary measures are actioned in a reasonable time.
Cue - arguments regarding suitable and sufficient, and reasonable timescales.
-
Civvy
But of course you will not get precise advice, and have to pay PhilB or even worse Sir Todd himself to interpret what part x of BS xxx means :o
davo
-
Civvy, I make you correct providing of course that once an FRA is done and is deemed suitable and sufficioent by the Risk Assessor the FRS don't try to change standards and do not use the non prescriptive guides as prescription.
-
Jokar
IMO, if we are applying the guides prescriptively then there is no point enforcing a risk assessment at the same time as telling someone exactly what to do. The risk assessment may as well be a paper exercise once the issues have been remedied, and simply used as a starting point for future assessments or reviews.
If we enforce the risk assessment, then subject to us being reasonably comfortable with it, then we should accept the assessors findings.
Davo, I have no problem with dictating a suitable standard to use, I just don't think we should essentially be doing the risk assessment for them.
-
Well the guides are the Article 50 guidance. Therefore is it not case of justifying why your premises does not meet the same standards?
After all they are the only standards that can be enforced under the FSO.
-
No. Not for the RP. As is discussed in the other thread on a similar line, as an FRS we MUST have regard to that guidance. There is no duty on the RP or any consultants to use it as a benchmark.
-
Well the guides are the Article 50 guidance. Therefore is it not case of justifying why your premises does not meet the same standards?
After all they are the only standards that can be enforced under the FSO.
No standard can be enforced under the RRO. it can only be refered to as an accepted standard that they would need to demonstrate they are acheiving or justify why they are not.
lets say an IO visits a office premise and is not happy with with the MofE signage, not because its not sufficient but because it's not complying to BS5499 . He could justifiably serve a notice to say that the signage needs to be updated to comply.
Now lets say the premise is a heritage site.
They provide you with a risk assessment that says, we have not provided signage in accordance with BS because of the adverse impact it would have on the heritage of the building. Instead, we have similair signage that clearly indicates the exit routes. Also, to mitigate non compliance to BS5499, and to avoid any confusion, we have posted staff at every point along any exit route, whilst the building is occupied, to direct people out of the building. This is to mitigate the following statement in BS5499
It is recommended that all signing systems should conform to the recommendations of this Code, so as to
minimize the risk of confusion for the public.
Their solution would be non compliant to BS but, in my opinion, would be satisfacory. remember british standards state:
As a Code of Practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and
particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not
misleading.
-
Cue - arguments regarding suitable and sufficient, and reasonable timescales.
now your opening a can of worms. i bet we could get at least 10 different opinions on this one!! lets all use our best judgement and any disputes, leave to the courts.
-
I see that if the FRS does not fully explain what it pecieves as the defficiency(s) when issuing an enforcement notice the accused could then appeal to the Secretary of State - RRO, clause 36, 2. who would then provide specific advice. Granted some resolution information from the accused would need to be forthcoming to raise a dispute in the first place - but the content of this resolution could be ridiculous just to get the process started.
The accused, once having gone into dispute could sit back and wait for the answer.
It would certainly be a lot easier if the FRS just assisted in an amicable way from the beginning to get to the same result - but for those RP's who want a free risk assessment the opportunity is still there - so long as the Secretary of State obliges.
-
We're discussing the RR(FS)O, but let's not forget that under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 the Fire Authority has a specific legal duty to provide fire safety advice, upon request. Specifically regulation 6 states that they must (to the extent that the Service considers it reasonable to do so) make arrangements for:
"the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire".
So, a responsible person would have every right to request such advice from their FRS on the above matters, and the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice, upon receiving such a request.
-
We're discussing the RR(FS)O, but let's not forget that under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 the Fire Authority has a specific legal duty to provide fire safety advice, upon request. Specifically regulation 6 states that they must (to the extent that the Service considers it reasonable to do so) make arrangements for:
"the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire".
So, a responsible person would have every right to request such advice from their FRS on the above matters, and the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice, upon receiving such a request.
Which could be to point them to the CLG guides? discuss
-
From section 6:
a fire and rescue authority must in particular, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of information, publicity and encouragement in respect of the steps to be taken to prevent fires and death or injury by fire;
(b) the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire.
The explanatory note for the FRS Act points towards this 'required advice' being geared towards community fire safety:
The Fire and Rescue Service already carries out a wide range of activities to promote community fire safety, with the aim of preventing deaths and injuries in the home and reducing the impact of fire on the community as a whole. This includes fire safety education (especially for vulnerable groups), smoke alarm installation, chip pan safety demonstrations and fire safety checks for householders and others. Many fire and rescue authorities also provide training programmes for young people and work with local businesses, agencies and partnerships (such as crime and disorder partnerships and local strategic partnerships). This work is currently carried out on a discretionary basis and the effect of section 6 is to impose a statutory duty.
So, it is my opinion that if we have supplied a team to deal with Community Fire Safety issues, and that is all we consider it reasonable to do, then we have discharged our functions under the Fire Services Act.
(Although, there is another requirement for advice coming from the Regulators Compliance Code, which could again technically be fulfilled by the presence CLG guidance.)
-
ahhh the days of doing the architects job for them...I remember going round with pen and paper and tape measure...drawing the soddin rooms up and bringing them back to the station. If we were lucky the 'plan drawer' on station would knock them up to a decent standard. We had hundreds of 'skins' lying around all over the place.
back to the Op original post
I think you have to have the courage of your convictions and trust in your experience and knowledge (and of course advice from this site :) ) and crack on and take all the actions necessary that your FRA flags up...ok it would be nice to have a bit of confidence boosting Fire Service nodding in your direction but If you do a good job of the FRA then the Fire Service can have few comebacks
-
Mushy - I take your point about forging ahead - my present course of action has been to file a pointed letter to superiors - will this get me the response I am looking for or just ailenate me - time will tell.
-
So you are basically going to complain about someone not doing your job for you? :-X
-
CivvyFSO
No one has done the job for me, I have assessed the risk, written up the significant findings, provided solutions and then asked the FRS to engage in dialogue to ensure all will be well with them if my suggested solution(s) is implemented.
A simple yes / no is all that is required and surely not unreasonable as they can view the buildings present state and review the solution against it.
I have seen from others on this site that this is a reasonable request of them.
-
Like Mushy says, have the courage of your convictions.
If you are competent in your role and you consider the solution to offer a suitable level of safety then why do you need confirmation from anyone?
-
From section 6:
a fire and rescue authority must in particular, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of information, publicity and encouragement in respect of the steps to be taken to prevent fires and death or injury by fire;
(b) the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire.
The explanatory note for the FRS Act points towards this 'required advice' being geared towards community fire safety:
The Fire and Rescue Service already carries out a wide range of activities to promote community fire safety, with the aim of preventing deaths and injuries in the home and reducing the impact of fire on the community as a whole. This includes fire safety education (especially for vulnerable groups), smoke alarm installation, chip pan safety demonstrations and fire safety checks for householders and others. Many fire and rescue authorities also provide training programmes for young people and work with local businesses, agencies and partnerships (such as crime and disorder partnerships and local strategic partnerships). This work is currently carried out on a discretionary basis and the effect of section 6 is to impose a statutory duty.
So, it is my opinion that if we have supplied a team to deal with Community Fire Safety issues, and that is all we consider it reasonable to do, then we have discharged our functions under the Fire Services Act.
(Although, there is another requirement for advice coming from the Regulators Compliance Code, which could again technically be fulfilled by the presence CLG guidance.)
Wouldn't argue for a moment that, from a proactive standapoint, FRS should be concentrating advice on community fire safety, but my point was that if asked by a Responsible Person for advice on matters such as means of escape, the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice (and probably cannot refuse to do so, as long as the request is a reasonable one).
-
I do not think that the request is unreasonable. After all FRS staff have a habit of being off the wall in their asumptions, you only have to look at both determinations to realise that. All solutions are good, it is just that unless it comes from a book most FRS staff can not see it for the trees.
Perhaps some training in risk perception will assist.
-
There is a difference between a RP asking for advice on compliance, and a consultant who is being paid (often quite handsomely) for his knowledge and skills, asking the FRS to decide something for him.
If we are all that rubbish at assessing risk then why bother asking us at all? If your opinion is better than mine then don't bother troubling my feeble brain with what is clearly above my level of capability.
Jokar, your constant belittling of FSO's gets tiresome. Where do you get 'most FRS staff' from? If your opinions are based on what you hear here then you should bear in mind that the FRS employees that people come on here and moan about will be in the minority. Nobody will join the forum to say what a good job an FSO just did in their assessment/audit, or how fair/helpful they were when consulting at the building regs stage. However, if your work is constantly getting questioned by different FRS's then maybe it is your training that needs addressing.
-
Civvy, baited and hooked.
-
Lets not forget that an RP often has little or know knowledge about fire safety. I think it is only right that they be given helpful advice and guidance from the Fire Authority.
A competent paid professional assessor or consultant on the other hand shouldn't need advice. There might however be an odd occassion where something quite unique presents itself and the assessor wants to consult or liaise with the Fire Authority about it. Also local brigade policies - such as the use of green emergency break glasses for example- can vary between authorities so an assessor would be well within their rights to ask what the Authority's policy is on certain matters, etc.
To me if a fire risk assessor comes up with three seperate solutions to a failing its up to the RP to decide which one they choose to implement, not the fire Authority, because all three solutions should defacto adequately address the failings found ! The choice will then come down to cost and practicality and what suits the RP best.
-
Lets not forget that an RP often has little or know knowledge about fire safety. I think it is only right that they be given helpful advice and guidance from the Fire Authority.
A competent paid professional assessor or consultant on the other hand shouldn't need advice. There might however be an odd occassion where something quite unique presents itself and the assessor wants to consult or liaise with the Fire Authority about. Also local brigade policies - such as the use of green emergency break glasses for example- can vary between authorities so an assessor would be well within their righst to ask what the Authority's policy is on certain matters, etc.
To me if a fire risk assessor comes up with three seperate solutions to a failing its up to the RP to decide which one they choose to implement, not the fire Authority, because all three solutions should defacto adequately address the failings found ! The choice will then come down to cost and practicality and what suits the RP best.
Quite right MR. Common policy amongst the UK's Services can be lacking is some areas and there may be times when clarification is needed. I know that in some cases IOs can speak before they think, and to be fair, so can some consultants.
-
My letter got some attention.
A senior officer from said FRS met with me to advise me that his department was indeed to provide advice to RP’s so that compliance of the Order could be made as easily and simply as possible.
It just so happened that in my personal dealings I’d come across a particular person that hadn’t been given that brief yet.
Most importantly I am informed that this FRS is now taking guidance from the ‘Hampton Report’ of March 2005’ which considered the scope for reducing administrative burdens by promoting more efficient approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bud05hamptonv1.pdf
I have only briefly perused this report but notice that many comments are made with respect to providing advice.
Paragraph 2.62 of the report states: ‘Regulators’ advice services need to address the full range of business requirements. Some businesses will want general information on the minimum requirements they have to meet. Larger businesses may want specialist advice on detailed issues……….
further more the following paragraph states:
Paragraph 2.67 - Firm specific advice. This is advice given to particular firms, either as a general overview or as part of a site visit. This advice needs to be tailored to the needs and capabilities of the firm, and should be as specific as possible. Advice on improvements above minimum standards should be distinguished from advice that must be followed to meet minimum standards.
This report certainly gives me some encouragement that collaboration between all interested parties through discussion and specific advice (where necessary) is considered a key part of reducing the burden of inspection and enforcement to everyone involved.
-
Guidance should not to be taken from the report, but from the Regulators Compliance Code; This is a statutory code of practice to regulators.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45019.pdf
-
Thank you Civvy
This code also states that advice should be given - in particular i note paragraph 5.4.
It seems that there is plenty of codes and reports around to ensure it is all forthcoming.
-
We took on the findings from the Hampton report back in April and are more likely to advise on compliance rather than enforce. That being said it is down to the discretion of the officer (within the constraints of the EMM).
Providing we are not doing a full FRA for the RP I cannot see a problem with working with the RP to achieve a decent outcome. After all, if they have come to us for the advice, they are the ones who are making the effort and should be encouraged.
-
Providing we are not doing a full FRA for the RP I cannot see a problem with working with the RP to achieve a decent outcome. After all, if they have come to us for the advice, they are the ones who are making the effort and should be encouraged.
I do think you have a valid point here, FSO, but there is an opposing argument that should be an important consideration for FRSs.
That is, that the people that come seeking advice from the fire service are generally not the ones who have fires anyway. If they approach the fire service for advice they must have some awareness of the hazards of fire, and if they have some awareness then they are less vulnerable to fires than those who have no awareness (of whom there are many).
This reasoning supports the idea that FRSs should direct all their efforts to their own independent and prioritised reinspection programme whilst giving the minimum attention to those who approach them for advice.
Stu
-
I totally agree phoenix.
The latter person to which you prefer is the person we are more likely to take enforcement action against which generally would lead to us on them advising on matters anyway. All of our enforcment notices come with a comprehensive schedule, so you could sort of argue that it has covered most if not all of the significant findings of an FRA.
We generally direct all general enquires to the relevant guidence documents but will deal with any specific enquiry as appropriate.
I feel that we should be advising where we can and working to achieve a safer community in the long run.
-
Although I agree with Phoenix's premise, I disagree with the attitude. Yes the people who seek advice are aware and less likely to have fires but they also talk to their business associates. Which attitude would you prefer from the business community: "I had a problem and I asked the Fire Service and they were very helpful" or "I had a problem and I asked the Fire Service and they weren't really interested and told me to go and read it up for myself. I wonder why I am paying Council Tax to employ them"
-
Good point, Mike.
I think FSO's comments indicate what a balancing act it can be. At the end of the day, it's down to each FRS what policy they adopt and, in my experience, it devolves further - sometimes down to who happens to answer the phone in the fire safety office, sometimes down to what mood the person who answers the phone is in.
In general, and in my very humble opinion, I think FRS officers should respect approaches from people who come to them in good faith and they should give appropriate advice, but they should be efficient in giving their advice and they should maintain their overall focus on their audit programmes. And it is down to individual officers to make sure they do not get drawn into protracted cases where the punter is taking the piss. It's happened to me.
Stu
-
I wonder why I am paying Council Tax to employ them
Mainly so that when you have a fire, someone turns up with some water and some ladders?