FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on October 14, 2009, 10:38:30 PM
-
I had a query from the RP of a Victorian house, split into 3 apartments. I gave him advice and he followed my recommendations and commissioned a fire risk assessment for the house. The following is part of his actions and the response to them. It would be interesting to hear your views.
It is a 4 storey Victorian house converted into 3 flats in 1987. The flats do not share any kitchen; toilets etc and are totally separate. All flats are currently owner occupied, but will be rented out in the near future.
Flat 1 is accessed at the front of the property by going down half a flight of stairs (external). It has two separate means of escape, one front and one back.
Flat 2 have two means of escape, one front thought the communal hall and down the external steps, the other through the back via external wooden stairs.
Flat 3 are accessed via stairs which is off of the communal hall, but are within its own demise. It also has two means of escape, one front through the communal hall as above and also through a door from one of its bedrooms, which leads directly into the bedroom of the property next door. This is reciprocated in the neighbouring property.
The FRA was conducted by a person who claimed he was a ‘Qualified Assessor’, working for a company that is a member of a recognised body. The RP received a completed report and part of this report recommended:
“Fire Alarm – (BS5839 PART 1 2002): Residents should provide an independent fire alarm in each flat (residents responsibility) and additionally a mains fed smoke detector (responsibility of the management company) is required at the ground floor entrance to ensure occupants are alerted to fire in the common areas in the early stages of a fire (75 db to be achieved)”. He also recommended that the alarm in the communal hall had an emergency light on it.
The RP asked a company, who claims to be a member of a recognised body, to come out to give a quote to fit such an alarm system. He showed him the recommendation, and asked him for a quote to provide what is recommended in the risk assessment.
The engineer promptly sucked his teeth and stated that the advice the RP had been given is wrong. He then proceeded to explained the situation at the house, and he said that the premises needed a complete system fitted with sounders in each bedroom, smash points at all exits, heat detection in all kitchens, smoke detection in all separate areas…you get the picture, all singing and dancing system that you would expect to see in a office. He also recommended that fire extinguishers should be placed in the communal hall.
Needless to say, the quote to carry out this work is more than 10 times the rough ‘max’ price quoted as a guide by the risk assessor.
The RP wants to do what is right, and safe but does not want to pay over the odds if it is not necessary.
-
Hi Tom
Do we know if the conversion of the property was done in accordance with building regs prevailing at the time?
The level of AFD required will be dependent on the level of fire seperation between flats and the communal areas.
In all but a few cases converted houses do not have the same level of fire seperation you would find in a block of flats for example.
Thus a fire in one flat of the victorian house has the potential to spread to another flat or compromise escape routes.
From what you descirbe two of the flats have two seperate means of escape .
Flat 3 has a wayleave agreement whereby alternative means of escape is through an adjoining flat. This is not ideal, and whomever purchases or rents the flat next should seek legal advice to ensure that the MOE through an adjoining property is always available.
Based on all flats having two seperate means of escape I think it would be reasonable to simply install single point mains powered smoke detectors (with battery back up) in each flat as the risk assessor suggested.
I'd risk assess the communal areas - depending on how big the area is, and the amount of combustibles / ignition sources therein AFD may be required.
If the weayleave agreement in flat 3 can not be guranteed you may need to assess if window escape is acceptable from the flat. If not the only MOE for flat three is via the communal stairs / hall and thus the communal areas will need AFD
May also need an interlinked heat detector in flat 2 to protect the MOE (as it opens onto the communal hall)
Whether an interlinked heat detector in flat 1 is required will depend on whether a fire therein could jeopardise the communal hall.
It seems the fire alarm engineer is applying a standard found in typical HMOs where only one means of escape is available to all flats.
-
I agree with all Retty says but there are a couple of areas of concern with the wording used by the fire risk assessor. He has described what is clearly a part 6 alarm system but referred to part 1 system, the 75db reference is unclear. (obviously referring to bed rooms but not stated.) Silmilarly the reference to emergency lighting is equally unclear. It makes one wonder whether the rest of the report and the logic applied to the proposed risk control measures is flawed.
The fire risk assessor's recommendation could not be used as the basis for designing a suitable system, therefore I have sympathy with the fire alarm engineer. The assessor should have been clear as to the standards to which the alarm and lighting should be installed.
“Fire Alarm – (BS5839 PART 1 2002): Residents should provide an independent fire alarm in each flat (residents responsibility) and additionally a mains fed smoke detector (responsibility of the management company) is required at the ground floor entrance to ensure occupants are alerted to fire in the common areas in the early stages of a fire (75 db to be achieved)”. He also recommended that the alarm in the communal hall had an emergency light on it.
This is a moderately high building and it is difficult to see how many floors each flat covers.
-
The following is a reply from the RP to some of the questions asked.
"Do we know if the conversion of the property was done in accordance with building regs prevailing at the time?”
I do not know the answer to this. The house was split into 3 flats in 1987, where they were all sold separately. I would hope that any solicitor at the time would ensure that this had planning / building regulation approval (I know they would now-a-days) but I cannot be sure.
“the level of fire separation between flats and the communal areas”
The two doors to the flats (flats 2 and 3) that open up to the communal area appear to be original (solidish construction, but with large panes of glass in them with very old looking glass) there is also no smoke seals.
“flat next door should seek legal advice to ensure that the MOE through an adjoining property is always available”
I (as director of the management company) have asked for access into the flat to asses this. I have not been able to do this. The Fire Risk Assessor was made aware of the situation, but, as above, did not see it himself. There could quite conceivably be a bed up against the door in both rooms!
“I think it would be reasonable to simply install single point mains powered smoke detectors (with battery back up) in each flat as the risk assessor suggested”
This is not what was suggested in the fire risk assessment. This stated that individual fire alarms should be installed, but did not specify that these should be hard wired. The system in the communal area was recommended to be hard wired.
“I'd risk assess the communal areas - depending on how big the area is, and the amount of combustibles / ignition sources therein AFD may be required.”
I totally appreciate that you would need to see this to get a proper opinion, but I can describe it as follows: a single corridor that is part tiled and part carpeted. It has 2 steps in it. It has a single door open to the outside and internal door (with no lock) and the two entrances to the flats at the other end, approximately 5 meters away. There is nothing else, no stores for example. There are no obvious means of ignition, apart from maybe wires under the floor board that I do not know about.
“Whether an interlinked heat detector in flat 1 is required will depend on whether a fire therein could jeopardize the communal hall”.
The communal hall is over the main hall of flat 1. As such it is conceivable that a fire here could spread and cause fire in the communal hall. The construction of the floor in this area is a standard found in Victorian buildings (timber joists, plaster / lath below and carpet above).
It seems from the post that the advice contained within the fire risk assessment looks woefully inadequate. In addition, it also appears like the advice from the company I called to install the recommended alarm looks over the top.
Does any of the above help?
-
It needs a competent fire risk assessment. However the Fire Safety Order applies to the common areas only and not to internal arrangements of the flats. Whether the means of escape from the individual flats is adequate or not is more likely to be a matter for the Housing Act. It all goes back to the standard of the conversion which was probably not carried out in accordance with the Building Regulations 1985 and the mandatory rules for means of escape current at the time. But it is impossible to say how far these rules would have applied to the conversion without seeing the building or a set of plans.
-
Quite
Apologies Tom for misreading what the assessor had asked for in terms of AFD
From what you describe and bearing in mind that we haven'tr seen the premises I'd perhaps recommend the following
You have hinted that there is questionable alternative means of escape from flat 3, that a fire in both flats 1 and 2 could compromise the main means of escape from flat 3, therefore in my opinion it would appropriate to have a linked fire alarm system (i.e single point mains powerred detector in each flat, plus interlinked heat detection.) plus AFD in communal hall.
This may become a nightmare to enforce however owing to the fact that you have three seperate owner / occupiers. If one common landlord were involved it would be much easier to deal with!
-
Another posting from the RP.
Many thanks all for your assistance. I have given this matter a lot of thought over the last couple of your days, and the advice I have been given from this forum, and discussions elsewhere, have been invaluable! Thank you very much!
It seems to me that before I can get into the nitty gritty of the situation, I first need to establish the competence of the FRA that was carried out. With the best will in the world, and as posted above, no one could definitively say what steps would be reasonable to take (with regard to choosing a suitable fire detection system) without either visiting the property, or to have the floor plans.
As such, and from my point of view, is it not my responsibility to employ a suitably qualified person, and implement any alterations within the referred time frame? Would this not be the test of reasonableness of my responsibilities?
So, the question then becomes, what is a suitably qualified person?
IF the person who carried out my FRA was a qualified fire assessor and registered as such, and the company he worked for was a member of a national fire safety association, surely that would make him competent.... or rather, I could not ask for any more than this could I?
I am making investigations into the above, and will report back. In the mean time, is there any other professional organisation or qualification that you would recommend a company or person should belonged to ensure that the person is qualified to do the job?
Your thoughts are most welcome.
-
There are in my opinion two registers of competent risk assessors that go some way towards a measure of competence. The IFE scheme and the Warrington Fire scheme. I dont believe the others hit the mark. (We are not registered with either for particular reasons of our own).
Otherwise I am afraid its Caveat Emptor. The FIA are working with BAFE to produce a registration scheme for competent businesses. but its embryonic at the moment. The other solution is to ask to see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work.
-
Thanks for your comments much appreciated, my concern is how RP’s when they employ a competent person knows who they can trust. I fully agree with kurnal but being a member of a trade association is for the benefit of the company not the client and those that run risk assessors registers appear not to guarantee the standards of those on the registers.
I see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work, similar to Kurnal’s competence pack he provides for his clients is the best safeguard. It is very much Caveat Emptor.
-
Another comment from the RP.
I totally see where you are coming from. However imagine the following solution.
I am a manager who is responsible for a block of flats. I know nothing about what I should do, or what regulations are applicable. Although not an ideal starting point, It could be argued that as long as I recognise this, employ a group of suitably qualified consultants, and act on their recommendations, my duties of care have surly been met? Is this not what happens in the building industry when a person with a ‘fist full of money’ wants a new office build? They employ consultants.
Now take my instance, I recognise that I do not understand enough about what is required in the house that I manage. As such I choose a consultant to advice me. I opt to choose one because of the various memberships he and his company belongs to, and when I speak to him on the phone, and meet him in person, he fills me with confidence.
If alternatively I had taken Kurnal’s advice and asked to see ‘evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references’ – I believe that it could be argued that this would be the wrong approach as I have already admitted that I do not understand enough about the measures. As such, a bit of sales patter, a nice looking website and I could be persuaded.
In short - I am not competent to judge if a company is competent. That is why associations that you can trust are so important. I believe it should be them that judges competence, not someone who by the very action of requiring this sort of assistance has admitted that they do not know enough about it!
I agree, it does seem like ‘Buyer beware’ – but this scares the hell out of me. What we are talking about is fire safety not getting ripped off buying an old banger. If you ‘buy’ the wrong thing, people could die. I am therefore surprised to find there are not multiple organisations that are regulated by legislation that can be trusted.
Many thanks for the continued support. It goes without saying that it is invaluable.
-
The industry is embryonic and the fundamental flaw within the legislation is that it was written with rose tinted spectacles under the impression that the existing UK building stock is in good condition and nobody would dream of carrying out alterations except under the supervision and in accordance with the Building Regulations. If this had been the case your building would have been straightforward and after reading the National Guidance document you probably would have been able to carry out your own risk assessment without use of a consultant.
But because your building is unusual and perhaps does not conform to the Building Regulations at the time of conversion it makes it almost impossible for the Responsible Person to evaluate existing and additional risk control measures without competent assistance.
Its not just the fire industry where this duty of due diligence applies- its across the board - all areas of health and safety, accountancy, medicine, alternative medicine, car repairs, building work etc. Yes if it all went pear shaped you probably could argue a strong case of due diligence. But until the Government changes the Law Caveat Emptor will always apply.
I cannot understand why you dont just ask your existing risk assessor to justify his report and his evaluation of the risk. You have paid good money- ask him to clarify his recommendations.
-
The industry is embryonic and the fundamental flaw within the legislation is that it was written with rose tinted spectacles under the impression that the existing UK building stock is in good condition and nobody would dream of carrying out alterations except under the supervision and in accordance with the Building Regulations. If this had been the case your building would have been straightforward and after reading the National Guidance document you probably would have been able to carry out your own risk assessment without use of a consultant.
Agreed. The Gov reckons that a FRA would cover one or two pages. One only has to look at the templates contained in some of their guidance.
The reality is that as part of the Assessment you end up reconstructing the building to what it should have been in the first place.
It's a bit like a the old (in GB) certification process. Has any ex or serving FSO ever carried out an inspection and gone back to the office to prepare a certificate. In all my years I have never nor have I known anyone else to do it.
-
There are in my opinion two registers of competent risk assessors that go some way towards a measure of competence. The IFE scheme and the Warrington Fire scheme. I dont believe the others hit the mark. (We are not registered with either for particular reasons of our own).
Otherwise I am afraid its Caveat Emptor. The FIA are working with BAFE to produce a registration scheme for competent businesses. but its embryonic at the moment. The other solution is to ask to see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work.
Kurnal
I am still very unsure about a company quality scheme for fire risk assessors. I know it sounds fine in principal but effectively you will get a blanket cover for all who are employed. Hiding under a blanket is something that should be reserved for consenting adults and not ‘competent persons’. Individuals go out ‘on site’ and therefore competence is for individuals not companies.
The competence of individuals under any company scheme should be through a UKAS approved scheme which Warrington has in place already. So why write a company scheme? Individuals still need to prove their competence!
Could it be something to do with the IFE by any chance?
The FIA fire risk committee need to think about making a real change for the better, not just dress up what is in place at the moment. What is needed is a national scheme that government puts some support behind and not a continuation of the ‘mish mash’ of registers that are running at the moment.
I don’t think the FIA committee are brave enough to do what is needed; it will serve its members for the sake of its members and do nothing for the good of the RPs, who employ fire risk assessors.
-
No I think its a bit different. The warrington fire scheme is for individuals. The FIA scheme- if it gets off the ground will go further - its for comanies not for individuals. It will complete the circle- competent companies who can show adhere to standards- quality management, customer care, employing competent staff who no doubt will be individually certified through schemes such as Warrington. The company scheme should also have third party accreditation.
Take a look at the BAFE SP203 scheme for an example of an industry association making a real difference to industry standards. The industry association has a vested interest in doing it well- if it launches a credible scheme that is well respected in the Industry and by enforcers companies will be keen to get on board. The difficult bit will be getting the balance right though- doing enough to be a worthwhile scheme but not being so difficult or expensive to put off smaller companies from joining.
-
It will complete the circle- competent companies who can show adhere to standards- quality management, customer care, employing competent staff who no doubt will be individually certified through schemes such as Warrington. The company scheme should also have third party accreditation.
Take a look at the BAFE SP203 scheme for an example of an industry association making a real difference to industry standards. The industry association has a vested interest in doing it well-
Kurnal
BAFE SP203 is a accredited against 45011, not appropriate for ‘competence’!
If the FIA wants to do this right they should at least get the right standard.
The competence’ element of a 45011 scheme is effectively the company setting their own ‘competence’ levels.
It is likely to be down to each company which if any of the ‘competence’ registers they choose to put their employees on, or they could go for exams or experience or just general in house training as a way to demonstrate ‘competence’.
Effectively the FIA will have changed nothing, as they are not looking at the issue of ‘competence’ they will be merely looking at a quality mark for companies, with an ambiguous and minor ‘competence’ element.
The issue is incompetent fire risk assessors selling their services and not; has the company got a training plan in place or do the company deal adequately with complaints.
The FIA need to talk to some RPs and find out what they want; “confidence in the guy who turns up at the door to do the assessment” is the single priority of the RPs who buys in fire risk assessment services.
The trouble with trade bodies is they serve their members and not the people that keep their members employed.
If you ask the wrong people you get the wrong answers!
-
[Effectively the FIA will have changed nothing, as they are not looking at the issue of ‘competence’ they will be merely looking at a quality mark for companies, with an ambiguous and minor ‘competence’ element.
The issue is incompetent fire risk assessors selling their services and not; has the company got a training plan in place or do the company deal adequately with complaints.
The FIA need to talk to some RPs and find out what they want; “confidence in the guy who turns up at the door to do the assessment” is the single priority of the RPs who buys in fire risk assessment services.
The trouble with trade bodies is they serve their members and not the people that keep their members employed.
If you ask the wrong people you get the wrong answers!
Of course an industry association has a vested interest- that of representing its members- the raison d'etre. But does this mean they cannot also make a meaningful contribution to society at large? Every other stakeholder in the fire safety industry has vested interests- the FBU, the FPA, the CBI, the FSB, even the Government has one eye on its own political support when drafting legislation. Can any group of stakeholders (apart from Civvy FSO and his peers) honestly say that they act fully impartially in the sole interest of serving the best interests of society?
It isnt up to any Industry Association to paper over the cracks and perceived shortcomings of the legislation. Democracy gave us the legislation as it is and a deliberate decision was made in respect of competence issues. Why should we seek to gold plate that which Parliament passed? We recognise the difficulties created as a result of the legislation and wish to offer some support to our members and Responsible persons in putting together a scheme that may assist RPs in exercising their due diligence. We hope to strike a balance and offer both RPs and members a worthwhile and credible benefit. If we dont succeed in striking this balance then its self defeating, we wont attract members, wont be able to offer a credible system, standards will fall.
My first car was a mini van, it got me from A to B. Everybody laughed at it but hitch hikers still put their thumbs up and were glad of a lift. I now have a mondeo, its adequate but i still aspire to an aston. Likewise we have to get a system off the ground slowly and improve it in a stages as we grow.
I know we will probably always sit on opposite sides of the fence over this Bobbins but I do appreciate the continuing debate.
-
I take on board your comments Kurnal and agree that the goals of an industry association, vested interests aside, is to raise standards and give members / punters worthwhile choice and peace of mind.
So long as the accreditation process is implemented correctly I would be more than happy to support it.
What I still have a problem with Prof, and perhaps you will be able to correct me on this, is that if I want to be accredited as a fire risk assessor what safeguards are in place to ensure that:-
1) I haven't just produced FRAs on a ficticious premises
2) I haven't "sexed" up the findings of my assessment in the hope of coming across as 'more impressive' or "competent" as I may otherwise have been
3) I haven't missed something blatantly obvious or dangerous
To my mind the only way you could ever prevent the above is for the accreditor to actually go out to the premises being assessed or to invite the candidate to an assessment centre where set scenarios are staged and the candidate is asked to produce assessments based on those staged scenarios
I'm also wary of blanket accreditation for companies rather than individuals, but will conceed that this may be down to my lack of knowledge on how these processes work.
-
Thanks for all the submissions and to me it appears clear cases of buyer beware. A company being a member of a trade association doesn’t do anything for the consumer and it may show the company is interested in their profession or could it could be a marketing ploy? Being on a risk assessor register is a better guide for the consumer but even this still has a long way to go before it is considered a guarantee. In both cases it is very important you confirm their claims are genuine. Another possible avenue to consider is to check to see if the company has a competency statement including previous clients and details. This is another way the consumer can check and hopefully get recommendations from previous clients but the trouble is they will not include dissatisfied clients. As I said at the beginning it’s Caveat Emptor.
-
I agree TW
Unfortunately I am very cynical about standards of competence and third party accreditation, and I don't think there is enough support for RPs to make an informed choice about whom they should or shouldn't employ based on levels of competence.
Gas Engineers need to be Gas Safe or CORGI registered because of the 'safety critical' nature of their work. So why are we not looking at similar schemes for fire alarm installers, risk assessors et al? Afterall their work is related to life safety issues too.
It comes down to the classic scenario of a fully qualified sparky installing a fire alarm system. Just because he / she is a fully trained electrician does this automatically make them competent to install / commission / service a fire alarm system? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - Ive asked this question literally hundreds of times and no one has yet been able to tell me one way or another.
What about Firefighter Bloggs who has just retired after thirty years of faultless front line service and decides to become a fire risk assessor. Does thirty years riding a fire engine make him competent to undertake that role?
As far as Im concerned any genuine contractors / assessors who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.
Where does this leave our RP?
-
MR It may sound like a mutual society but I am with all the way.
What about BAFE they claim "Established in 1984, BAFE is a non-profit making organization dedicated to improving standards in fire protection" how good is their schemes do they live up to the hype.
-
Unfortunately I am very cynical about standards of competence and third party accreditation, and I don't think there is enough support for RPs to make an informed choice about whom they should or shouldn't employ based on levels of competence.
Gas Engineers need to be Gas Safe or CORGI registered because of the 'safety critical' nature of their work. So why are we not looking at similar schemes for fire alarm installers, risk assessors et al? Afterall their work is related to life safety issues too.
As far as Im concerned any genuine contractors / assessors who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.
Where does this leave our RP?
As i am feeling tetchy tonight I would point out that at least the RP can choose a fire risk assessor competent or otherwise. The RP can carry out whatever due diligence checks they consider appropriate. They get no such opportunity to choose the enforcer and likewise there is a huge variation in competence levels.
Then there are brigades that offer fire risk assessmet services under the wing of a seperate business trading unit but fully capitalise on their being the fire brigade - so we are the best. Seen an absolutely dire example of this today- a one size fits all fire marshall course that was totally inappropriate for the premises involved.
As far as Im concerned any fire service inspecting officers who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.
-
Tetchy K. And the week has only begun.
You probably need a good dose of UV therapy.
-
Prof
Is the course at MITM compulsary nowadays?
Reason I ask is as you say differing levels in competence for I/Os.
I have yet to meet a current one I would set on to do a FRA, although I would happily do so for certain retired gents who have put the effort in ;D
davo
-
Different Brigades have differing training strategies. Some do in house training, others employ the FPA do do it. The real problem is that FRS do not seem to have a consistent policy about how they operate and get caught between 2 stools. Spme want to do their real job and enforce, others want to be presciptive and others want to be aligned to the FRA Act and be helpful. This leaves IO's in a bit of a minefield not knowing where to go.
It needs a consistent policy about how and what Brigades are doing and then a decent training strategy with set objectives to meet.
-
As i am feeling tetchy tonight I would point out that at least the RP can choose a fire risk assessor competent or otherwise. The RP can carry out whatever due diligence checks they consider appropriate. They get no such opportunity to choose the enforcer and likewise there is a huge variation in competence levels.
Then there are brigades that offer fire risk assessmet services under the wing of a seperate business trading unit but fully capitalise on their being the fire brigade - so we are the best. Seen an absolutely dire example of this today- a one size fits all fire marshall course that was totally inappropriate for the premises involved.
As far as Im concerned any fire service inspecting officers who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.
Totally agree. (Perhaps the competency of auditors / IOs need a seperate thread)
I'm not attacking contractors or risk assessors here by any means.
But put yourself in the shoes of the RP. The law states that they must appoint competent persons to assist them in their duties.
All I'm asking is how does the RP ensure they get a competent person? There are so many different trade associations and bodies out there offering differing levels of accreditation for their members that it can be bewildering for someone unfamilar with the industry.
Who does the RP choose? And how can the RP satisfy themselves that they won't at a later date find themselves in hot water because auditors or a court finds that the engineer they employed was infact incompetent, or atleast, not competent to a perceived standard, and that the accreditation that the engineer claimed to have is actually quite worthless.
So do we say that the RP needs to look for UKAS appointed accreditation schemes only, knowing that atleast a government agency has given that particular body the thumbs up and that that initself should offer the RP some protection??
It seems to me that I could quite legally start my own trade association - lets call it "Retty's Risk Association" - and offer accreditation to my members in all manner of things - yet who states I'm quailfied and competent to give accreditation?
I note that several of the risk assessor accreditation bodies mentioned regularly on these forums aren't listed on the UKAS website. So who or what has deemed them to be competent to accredit others? And how does the RP protect themselves
I ask you all again how easy is it for an RP to check someone's credentials and know that those credentials actually mean something?.
Why isn't there one standardised system out there for each trade as you would find for gas engineers for example?
I said before Prof that I'm all for third party accreditation if its done correctly - hence why I asked you how Risk Assessor accrediation is undertaken (and note you haven't replied you tetchy so and so! ;-))
Midland Retty, News at Ten, taking his bat and ball home
-
Im not sure if this has been mentioned or not but the FIA now have a code of conduct which it asks its risk assessor members to sign up to.
It is in affect an ISO statement pledging to quality of work/insurance/competence.
-
Retty
Sorry for not answering your question its just that I have looked into a number of these accreditation schemes and if I give my opinion of some of them on this forum I am likely to end up in hot water. But would be happy to chat about them anytime. There are a couple of schemes that appear to be worthwhile but only one has UKAS accreditation. And I have a few personal reservations about that one as well. but thats just my opinion.
-
Retty
Sorry for not answering your question its just that I have looked into a number of these accreditation schemes and if I give my opinion of some of them on this forum I am likely to end up in hot water. But would be happy to chat about them anytime. There are a couple of schemes that appear to be worthwhile but only one has UKAS accreditation. And I have a few personal reservations about that one as well. but thats just my opinion.
Dear All
The answer is simple you put in place a national model of competence assessment which leads to a national register for the RP to refer to as a definitive list.
What would a national model look like?
It would need to be written to a national standard, something that BSI supports; the standard would need to look directly at the issue of competence. BS 17024
Then you need a check to see that the checkers are doing it correctly possibly from a government approved body. UKAS
You then need accredited certification bodies to run the scheme.
FRACS as Warrington calls it is effectively the national model.
But hay ho! the Kurnal doesn’t like that one so lets get the trade associations to do something else for their members, just like the first time around because we all know how successful that has proved. ( and the same people that stuffed it up last time are running the show this time)
Certificated fire risk assessors satisfy the due diligence process of the RPs (it says so in the standard).
BAFE are not a certification body so what ever they knock up with the FIA and the IFE will need to be run through a certification body as all the other BAFE schemes do.
Kurnal you and I will always be on other sides of the fence and as I am on the RP side I know the grass is greener on your side. Come over the fence; it’s a mine field!
-
There should be a national register but without government backing it aint ever going to happen
-
There should be a national register but without government backing it aint ever going to happen
Cleveland it is on the way, government are doing something about it as I type, following the tragic deaths in Lakanal and the revelations about local authorities having no fire risk assessments CLG are reviewing the situation with haste as you might expect!
How much backing will remain to be seen but they can't do anything else but try and make things right.
-
I would very much welcome a national register (gas safe) however as the FSO is geared up for a DIY approach to Fire safety i unfortunately doubt they will do it.
-
I would very much welcome a national register (gas safe) however as the FSO is geared up for a DIY approach to Fire safety i unfortunately doubt they will do it.
So as to give the impressison it would not overburden bisinesses, it was packaged and sold as something that was capable of the average employer/manager.
Now that it is in place and over the years allowed to grow horns and teeth it has become a rampaging monster.
-
I would very much welcome a national register (gas safe) however as the FSO is geared up for a DIY approach to Fire safety i unfortunately doubt they will do it.
So as to give the impressison it would not overburden bisinesses, it was packaged and sold as something that was capable of the average employer/manager.
Now that it is in place and over the years allowed to grow horns and teeth it has become a rampaging monster.
Are you talking about Katie Price or Fire Safety?! ;)
-
I would very much welcome a national register (gas safe) however as the FSO is geared up for a DIY approach to Fire safety i unfortunately doubt they will do it.
So as to give the impressison it would not overburden bisinesses, it was packaged and sold as something that was capable of the average employer/manager.
Now that it is in place and over the years allowed to grow horns and teeth it has become a rampaging monster.
Are you talking about Katie Price or Fire Safety?! ;)
Price, of course. Who cares about FS.
-
much prefer Fire Safety - Katie Price (eurgh)
Anyway thats enough of that. NT why would you object to a National Register old chum?
-
much prefer Fire Safety - Katie Price (eurgh)
Anyway thats enough of that. NT why would you object to a National Register old chum?
What's wrong with Katie? Every time I see her I think I married a man. (You have 30 mins to read this before it self destructs or my wife sees it and I am destructed).
Never expressed much of an opinion on NR subject, don't think? Was complaining more about how some are pushing the FRA business to the extreme.
But hey, Que sera sera.
-
Right Ive made a copy of your post NT and I'll be using it to bribe you in future. ;D
No I just thought you seemed a little hesistant towards a National Register. Could have advantages and give assessors a level playing field, and meaningful accreditation!
-
If they were to create one register they would embarrass many an Institution and association who are already running them.
If they plumped for an existing register they would put the other ones noses out of joint.
I am just forseeing problems. I am 100% behind having a national accreditation scheme.
-
No real concerns about a register of FRAers. I am more inclined towards reputation and word of mouth although that doesn't necessarily mean competance. But I'm possibly looking at this cynically when I know some who would pass any competancy to practice test but you darn't let them on to the street. Having a driving licence does not make one a competant driver.
Only been asked for a CV once, by an insurance company, when I was providing staff training which was a bit above the normal run of the mill stuff.
-
So long as the Government dont get involved with running it.
Or maybe if they do it could be ok provided that they specify a nice new computer system to run it on. That will ensure its not in place till 2525 and will cost more that the GDP of most of the world economies. Bit like the regional controls, National Care Standards Commission (remember them?) NHS etc etc
-
So long as the Government dont get involved with running it.
Or maybe if they do it could be ok provided that they specify a nice new computer system to run it on. That will ensure its not in place till 2525 and will cost more that the GDP of most of the world economies. Bit like the regional controls, National Care Standards Commission (remember them?) NHS etc etc
What about ID cards as well?
-
Can all you fire alarm and extinguisher experts or anybody who has any point of view, please comment on BAFE schemes. They claim "Established in 1984, BAFE is a non-profit making organization dedicated to improving standards in fire protection" how good are their SP schemes, do they live up to the hype.
-
BAFE have ten schemes covering manufacture, installation and service, for example SP101 for the maintenance of fire fighting equipment, ST104 for the certification of extinguisher maintenance technicians, SP203 for fire alarm systems, voice alarm systems and suppression systems.
The BSI have confidence in SP203 as partners, through which they operate their kitemark scheme, in conjunction with SP203 and through which UKAS accreditation is achieved.
http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Product%20Services/Fire/New%202009%20SP203%20Sales%20Pack.pdf
More information on BAFE here.
http://www.bafe.org.uk/fire_protection/bafe_adopted_schemes_fpc.html
-
Thanks Kurnal I do have most of the details and it seems a good system on paper. But in practise is it that good, quite often things don’t live up to the hype.
-
TW I think that you may have more responses from the technical thread.
-
If they were to create one register they would embarrass many an Institution and association who are already running them.
If they plumped for an existing register they would put the other ones noses out of joint.
I am just forseeing problems. I am 100% behind having a national accreditation scheme.
Good they need embarrassing!
What is needed is a good shake up; by CLG providing for a national register, the associations will need to adapt and change or loose their listings.
They need to adapt because what they are doing just isn’t good enough.
However CLG are very unlikely to make this a requirement to practice as an assessor, so the ‘rogue traders’ will still be out there peddling rubbish and the poor unsuspecting RP will still be stung by salesmen with little or no fire risk expertise.
Some of the stories I have heard border on criminal and only last week I saw two reports that demonstrated just how poor some risk assessors are. They were not worth a penny never mind the price the RP actually paid for them.
-
What problems have you found with the "Institution" (whichever one it is) such that you feel they should be embarrassed?
Were the assessors in question on any existing register?
Bobbins you have always kept your cards close to your chest- it would be very helpful to have a clue as to your involvement in the Industry- enforcement,consultant, RP etc.
-
The FSO is geared up to RP and their responsibilities, is does not mention really anything about risk assessors and what their duties are or about a national register, the FRA is only part of the process that the RP needs to undertake as part of there legal responsibilities.
The main aim was to lessen the burden on Employers for low risk/simple premises which I am afraid is the majority in general are. Various guidance documents were published to help the RP, THIS INCLUDED TEMPLE FRA's. It is down to the RP to assess if they are competent to conduct FRA or require specialist advice. It is the RP responsibility to ensure the FRA is suitable and sufficient (not a national register). It is the F&RS to ensure this also when conducting inspections.
The Law requires suitable and sufficient training, shall we have a register on that. or maybe or a register to ensure the requirements of Article 11 are meet???
Think I am playing devils advocate here ;)
-
My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.
The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent
-
My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.
The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent
M.R. You are correct the RP needs help and CLG need to give it to them. If Gas, Electric, Asbestos, Double-glazing, are all regulated; then why not fire risk assessors?
Asbestos is nasty but not as nasty as burning alive, try telling the families of those that perished in Lakanal House that risk assessors don’t need to be regulated.
Kurnal I have a foot in the RP camp and one in the consultants plus a toe in the enforcers, which is not easy I can tell you.
Lets take the second biggest register of competence; under no stretch of the imagination does that register check the competence of an assessor in any way more than superficially. .
No assessment of previous work and no interview, well done that trade body;
Good Job!
Then there is the big one, you can go on a 5 day course approved by that trade body, obviously you need to pass the open book exam before you apply, but that will give you an easy ride on to their register; a couple of assessments (that you could have borrowed from your mate) and no interview. Plus if you get on with the course presenter you might even get a fast track and not have to wait 8 months, as he is likely to be the assessor who approves your application.
Again, another great job; well done.
Sorry to be so cynical, but the above is only the tip of the iceberg.
Its time for a shake up and when it comes the trade associations will have their noses put out of joint.
-
The following is a quote from the Lakanal Inquiry.
It is important, says Sir Ken, that assurance be given to the responsible person for the premises that a risk assessment has been and the enforcing carried out by a competent person, particularly in relation to high-risk premises. As a result, he proposes a review as to how the responsible person, under the Fire Safety Order, can be assured that their risk assessment is suitable and sufficient, particularly where the premises has a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the assessment. Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be amended accordingly.
Is it hot air or will something be done?
-
My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.
The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent
Good point well made Midland. Theres a lot of people on this forum who like to defend their own position within the industry but pay lip service to the rest of the industry. We know who they are, and certain people will form cliques with other who share theior view
The fact is we do need better regulation in one area to support the freedom of self assessment in other areas. Some people on this forum need to remember that.
-
The following is a quote from the Lakanal Inquiry.
It is important, says Sir Ken, that assurance be given to the responsible person for the premises that a risk assessment has been and the enforcing carried out by a competent person, particularly in relation to high-risk premises. As a result, he proposes a review as to how the responsible person, under the Fire Safety Order, can be assured that their risk assessment is suitable and sufficient, particularly where the premises has a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the assessment. Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be amended accordingly.
Is it hot air or will something be done?
Hi TW
I sincerley hope it isn't hot air because in theory this is good news for the RP
Ive been banging on for the past week or so about support (or lack of it) that RPs get not least from enforcers, Governemnt and other sectors in the field.
Its all well and good telling RPs " You must do this you must do that etc etc" but unless you can point them in the right direction, support them to know how to identify a competent person we are going to see RPs get shafted for otherwise trying to comply.
I see this on almost a daily basis. The retired firefighter who who charged someone £800 for a frankly disgraceful risk assessment - the so called alarm engineer who didnt know the difference between a smoke detector head and a sprinkler head when questioned. The RPs concerned hired these people in good faith.
However I live in the real world too and unfortunately anything the Government gets involved with normally becomes over complicated or muddied in some way shape or form so we will see.
-
MR I am with you on this one and it looks something is happening check out http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4568.msg47984#new I hope they extend it to other areas as well.
-
TW, yes, the answer is hot air, expelled with the halitosis of insincerity.
-
CT I a accept getting the government involved, especially the CLG is a last resort but the industry hasn’t come up with a common standard in three years how long will we have to wait or do you think we don’t need a common standard.
-
The "industry", TW, was told by the cynical and disengenuous civil servants that comprise the Department for Crap and Loads of Garbage (or their forerunners the Old Dozy and Post Menopausal) that UK Ltd would NOT need consultants because the department would issue loads of good guidance so that people could carry out their own fire risk assessments. They publicly stated that the legislation did not include a requirement for FRAs to be carried out by competent persons because to do so would imply people had to use the services of consultants. One previous Head of Fire Safety Policy, who to be fair, was very disinclined to be unduly influenced by firemen so had many good points, stated publicly on the same road show platform as my wee self that the department would not permit consultants to come out of the woodwork as had happened in the field of heath and safety (Department statement, not mine).
Is one to understand that they have changed their minds. If so, one assumes that they will go back to Parliament and tell them that their regulatory impact assessment was a tissue of terminological inexactitudes.
One cannt help but feel that, if the Department were more interested in keeping people safe from fires in buildings and less worried about politics, the world would be a safer place.
-
CT I am with you regarding your contempt of government departments and I see you still insist on having digs at firefighters no change there but you never answered the question “the industry hasn’t come up with a common standard in three years how long will we have to wait or do you think we don’t need a common standard”?
-
Colin it isnt firemen that are the problem as you well know. Im not sure what your problem is with the fire service but whichever element you are talking about the people you talk to are not rank and file personnel, they are the principal officers and politicians. Please do not confuse the two groups. I can otherwise accept your comments and agree that once again HMG have stuck their noses in and made a complete hash of what should have been a better regime. What a shame, perhaps when Gordon Clown is ousted out of gorvernment things may change. I very much doubt it.
-
Clevey, At last we are coming closer in our thinking. By the way, I dont have a problem with the fire service- some of my best friends are firemen, though its not something I like to admit for fear of bringing shame on my family. I just have a problem with bad enforcement, of which we see a lot. You are gracious to assume that principal officers and politicians would speak to a waif or stray such as myself, but this is a level of grandeur about which I can only dream (after too much cheese at night). Regrettably, it is unlikely that small minows like thee and me will see much difference when Big Gordie goes, though there may be less beer and sarnies for the FBU.
Many of us are spending happy days of time trying to sort the hash to which you refer, which brings me back to TW, to whom I would say simply that a common standard will be great but Rome was not built in a day. Had the CLG been clerk of works on the Italian building project, they would have decreed that no city was necessary since people could build their own homes. Then they would have decided to build a village. Then in blind panic when their political masters complained that there were homeless people, they would have desparately tried to create a city without any knowledge of the building trade, created a shanty town from old oil barrels and corrugated iron and blamed shoddy workmanship when it fell down in the first gale. Only then would they have got Wee B to write some cracking stuff on wind resistance of buildings.
Give it a year or so TW.
-
Give it a year or so TW.
Thanks CT
And by the way I'd give it a decade or so TW.
-
I would even accept a decade if I thought all the relevant organisations could get together but I feel vested interests will not allow and who would take the lead roll?
-
Clevey, I will rake a wager with you re timescales. The winner gets a free weekend in Middlesbrough. The loser has to spend a week there.
TW: The answer is simple. BAFE. Happy now?
-
I am always happy CT except when any of my many medical conditions raise their ugly heads or when I look at the state of our country which I avoid as much as possible.
Is it all being done behind closed doors or is there anyway we can monitor the progress and if they don’t get it sorted soon your favourite government department may beat them to it.