FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on November 11, 2009, 11:10:32 AM
-
Following Sir Ken Knights report on the Lakenal House fire, and his recommendation for a national fire risk assessors certification scheme, initial discussions are taking place with interested parties.
http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=9460&viewcomment=1
Personally I support the concept of such a scheme but have grave reservations over its implementation.
I understand that further discussions between DCLG and other stakeholders are planned to take place the first week in December.
I have started this thread to try to pull together different views and questions over the proposed scheme and will try and put some kind of summary of your views in front of who ever may attend the meetings- I understand FIA, IFSM, IFE etc will be at the meeting so through canvassing several of these organisations we have a good chance of making our concerns heard.
Heres a few questions for starters.
1- Will UKAS accreditation be mandatory for any scheme?
2- If so will IFE and IFSM registers be upgraded to meet UKAS requirements?
3- If we are left with FRACS will they have the resources do meet the demand?
4- Will the implementation be big bang or phased?
5- How will the big players- (the Nationals and multi nationals companies who sometimes have the poorest standards) cope with the implementation of a scheme?
6- What would be the effect on online risk assessment companies?
7- What will be the cost of the scheme
8- Will there be grandfather rights for existing schemes?
9- Who will enforce the scheme?
10- Will legislation be needed to implement the scheme?
11- How will complaints be dealt with and by whom?
12- Will the scheme inevitably lead to a bespoke examination rather than the current assessment by peers?
13- If so will it degenerate to a HIPS style farce with the absolute lowest denomination of competence as a result?
14-Or will it be more like the Gas Safety system with numerous branches and disciplines - people who can work on sprinklered buildings, hospitals, care homes, big buildings and small buildings, sports grounds etc etc
15 If the government scrutinises the current state of the industry they will observe a very clear lack of diversity, will this then become an over riding issue? And should it?
-
Kurnal,
You beat me to posting a thread on this, I have contacted Warrington directly, the response is below.
My concerns would be the cost, expensive!
The process is definitely the most rigorous I've seen and will certainly sort any cowboys out.
I think grandfather rights are unlikely.
Could an assessor still legally trade without being registered?
Do we know of any one who took part in the pilot scheme last year and was successful/unsuccessful?
FEES
STAGE 1: Application and document review fee £350
(non-refundable)
STAGE 2: Technical interview fee £300
Annual registration and surveillance fee applicable from year 2 £250
Certification is for a 4 year period, candidates wishing to continue on the register
will be re-certificated after successful completion of a surveillance visit and
document review; outlined in the scheme details. A surveillance visit fee will be
applicable and will be advised at the time of recertification.
"We anticipate we will be able to completed certification in 6 weeks maximum, depending on the arrangement of a suitable interview date, which is always the area delays occur.
I have attached the scheme details and below is a summary explanation of the scheme. It is our intent to promote this to the end users/RPs as a way they can ensure due diligence has been seen to be done. FRACS is a nationally accepted competence assessment process and as such the RP can’t be expected to do any more than appoint a ‘certificated’ fire risk assessor to complete their fire risk assessment.
The scheme is very new and since the pilot last year we have not accepted any new applicants. We wanted to wait for the UKAS accreditation that will give FRACS national status. Interest has been very good and those on the pilot scheme rated the thoroughness of the assessment highly.
The scheme has been written in accordance with BS EN ISO/IEC 17024; 2003, an international standard that covers the general requirements for bodies operating certification of persons.
The 17024 standard sets out very specifically the requirements for a competent persons certification scheme in some detail.
The standard is a globally accepted benchmark for organizations operating certification of persons and within the requirements of the standard the scheme has to be open to all applicants and therefore the assessment must be performance based ie objective and not subjective. We can not restrict applicants by asking for specific qualifications nor can we insist they attend specific training courses. We can and do monitor CPD but we don't insist on a level of education or training. The pilot scheme proved that some of the better qualified and more experienced assessors didn't actually produce work of a quality that matched our criteria. All applicants regardless of experience knowledge or qualifications undergo the same evidence based assessment; therefore the RP knows all FRACS assessors have demonstrated the same level of competence to be certificated and their ability has not been assumed on the ground of a subjective assessment but assessed objectively.
The standard then goes on to set out the structure of the certification body and its policies relating to its operation; management systems, records, use of subcontractors, confidentiality, security, requirements for assessors and examiners etc etc We use external technical experts to assess the candidates and UKAS audit the scheme every 6 months.
The certification process is in two stages
1) Candidates submit 4 risk assessments on buildings from at least three separate categories of buildings. Each report has on the contact details of the RP and we ask that assessor has the RPs permission to use their report as evidence. The submitted reports then undergo a detailed quality check. A report and a score are generated according to objective marking criteria, and if the reports demonstrate sufficient technical quality the candidate is invited to attend an interview.
2) The technical interview has three parts; a practical table top exercise, a Q and A on the submitted reports and an oral technical interview. The candidate has to answer correctly 80% of the questions to achieve competent status.
After two years the candidates resubmit 4 new reports for review and after 4 years they undergo recertification, which involves an accompanied visit to an assessment job and subsequent review of the report produced.
The scheme is by far the most comprehensive and impartial of the third party schemes available and we expect that it will rapidly become the industry standard and that certificated assessors will be the preferred choice of the RP"
-
I know of two who passed and apparently there was a 40% failure.
Obviously cant divulge names on here. But the successful ones appear on the list along with their employers name.
I have spoken to the FIA head office this morning and their view appears to be that:
There is no political will to make such a scheme mandatory
There is no will to amend the legislation
The focus at this time is very much on consultation with interested parties
The current opposition are very clear in their views which go against further regulatory burden
The focus is towards setting up a national voluntary and centrally managed scheme but one which doesnt rule out other registers.
I hope I have not misinterpreted anything I was told.
I was a little peeved to receive a personal email from FRACS with a fairly hard sell message yesterday, heres the body of the mail:
The competence of fire risk consultants is now a major focus for government attention. FSE Online 6th November 2009 reports; ‘Government action on selecting competent people to carry out fire risk assessments came a step closer this week…’ The Government commissioned initial report in to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order highlighted that competence of fire risk assessors was of concern for all stakeholder groups surveyed. The tragic fire in Lakanal house and the subsequent BBC news investigation in to the lack of suitable and sufficient risk assessments of social housing in multiple occupation, (in many London boroughs) has stimulated a government investigation in to the possibility of regulating fire risk assessors. A national method of assessment leading to inclusion on a national register is the most likely outcome of the investigation; several parallel certification schemes are already operating in other disciplines where competence of individuals is required to ensure public safety.
In anticipation of this need, Warrington Certification Limited (WCL) has cooperated with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), to provide a nationally accredited Fire Risk Assessors Certification Scheme (FRACS). Accredited by UKAS to BS EN ISO 17024 “Conformity assessment — General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons”, it is the only third party certification scheme in the UK to use a standardized and accredited model of assessment to prove the competence of individuals operating as fire risk assessors. UKAS has a memorandum of understanding with UK Government established in 1995, by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to accredit bodies operating various types of certification, especially in support of regulatory requirements and this is such a case. The FRACS certification process is analogous to that used in the identification of competent gas fitters (included on the Gas Safety Register) and competent electricians (included on The Electricians Register). Therefore, using a FRACS certificated assessor provides a powerful demonstration that a ‘Responsible Person’ has exercised all due diligence in the selection and appointment of a competent fire risk assessor.
Further details about FRACS can be obtained from
So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".
IF this turns out to be misinformation and IF the wording was deliberate sales tactics then in my opinon it could lead to questions in respect of ethical standards. And if such questions did arise that would be a shame because the scheme appears to have a lot going for it.
Thankfully the FIA have put my mind at rest to a great extent.
-
IMO a national scheme would be the best route but not run by the government. They should devise the scheme and make the rules and regulations but leave it to a competent body to administrate it, like UKAS. The selected body could then select appropriate organisations to run the registration process using the rules and regulations of the national scheme.
If it was left to DCLG it would be a disaster. :(
-
Tom
I understand that the role of UKAS would not be to run or administer the register of assessors, their job would be to audit the provider of the registration scheme. So people like FRACS, BAFE, BSI could run the scheme and they would in turn work to procedures and be audited by UKAS.
Leastways thats how I believe it all comes together.
The downside of this is that all these people rightly want to be paid for what they do, the nature of the beast is that they all want nice offices and bonuses for their directors (much better than yours or mine) and it all pushes up the cost for the Responsible Person.
If the scheme is not compulsory the RP at the bottom of the food chain usually with the lowest levels of compliance will continue to shop round for the lowest price - and that means the moonlighting firefighters, online providers etc.
-
If the scheme is not compulsory the RP at the bottom of the food chain usually with the lowest levels of compliance will continue to shop round for the lowest price - and that means the moonlighting firefighters, online providers etc.
I agree there is not much point in a register run by anyone if it is not compulsory. Some of the RPs will go with consultants off the register, the majority I feel will shop around for the best price as long as it done by someone from a fire/health and safety background that looks the part. A national register is the right step BUT it needs to be done in the right way. I also got the same e mail which would concern me if this has been sent on mass to drum up some trade?
Also in my view it will be the vast majority of already competent consultants that will apply and jump through even more hoops.
-
Compulsory registration is a non starter. It cuts across all sorts of European Law and so Government won't do it unless there's no alternative.
The idea is a common industry standard that RPs can use to show due dilligence in selecting a consultant.
-
Kurnal you put it much clearer than me and that is the set up I would like to see. I also agree with your other concerns and hope the DCLG don't make a cock up of this, like some of the other projects they have been involved with.
-
Looks to me like the cart before the horse. To get on the register you need to supply 4 Risk Assessments, so to get on the register to do Fire Risk Assessments you have to do Fire Risk Assessments!!
Surely a better way would be to have a probationary scheme where there are a set of criteria you need to pass, interview, courses, practical fire safety experience etc. then you can do FRAs as a probationer possibly with mentoring, then when you have built up experience you can have your FRAs assessed for full membership of the scheme. Licence, ID card to show the RP what they are getting.
Sorry if I am too logical, havn't been to the bar yet.
-
So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".
Kurnal you missed out the word “possibility” from your quote, which changes the context of the sentence significantly.
What are the gas register and electricians’ register if not a form of regulation?
Those of us that have already spoken to CLG get the impression they are looking to support a register akin to the ones mentioned above.
How far they will go is another question.
The long and short of it is that the RP needs more advice, assistance and information from CLG and that looks like it is on the way.
-
So according to FRACS not only are the Govt looking at "regulating fire risk assessors" they are also looking at a "National method of assessment".
Kurnal you missed out the word “possibility” from your quote, which changes the context of the sentence significantly.
What are the gas register and electricians’ register if not a form of regulation?
Those of us that have already spoken to CLG get the impression they are looking to support a register akin to the ones mentioned above.
How far they will go is another question.
The long and short of it is that the RP needs more advice, assistance and information from CLG and that looks like it is on the way.
Agreed. Why not just have a set national framework audited by UKAS operated by any mumber of trade bodies who want to run it and make it competitive that way. So say BAFE want to become an accrdited centre and run courses for assessors. they charge £200 whilst BSI charges £400 there no prizes in seeing where assessors will go to get their ticket. I dont see what the fuss is about. Its time the industry was regulated, cos aint just moonlighting firefighters its the incompetent cowboys who are taking money hand over fist.YOu cant have your cake and eat it and i dont think the argument that consultancies will push prices up to Rps is valid. So what if individuals want plush cars / swanky offices. Some do some dont, it happens all over the shop in all kinds of industries, it happens now without regulation in the fire industry so why is that a factor?
One other thing Kurnal for your list to take to the meeting - if assessors have to get registered what about the auditors and inspectors, shoulkdnt they also have to be accredited auditors? and if not, why not?
-
Looks to me like the cart before the horse.
Mike - I totally agree with the sentiment of your message. So I've done 22 years as a retained firefighter, I hold various certificates that are fire risk management related and I continue to study with the FPA, all the while I continue to do fire risk assessments so that when I grow up I can leave my current post and do something else that I believe is worth while in doing. The FRA's I do are progressively more difficult as I gain experience, but I have to start somewhere, as does everyone.
Therefore training, continuous education, mentoring and all those other good things need to be considered in a register, which then has different levels to accomodate the various knowledge bases that are abound.
The FRA's club seems to be very elitise at times??
-
Looks to me like the cart before the horse.
Therefore training, continuous education, mentoring and all those other good things need to be considered in a register, which then has different levels to accomodate the various knowledge bases that are abound.
The FRA's club seems to be very elitise at times??
How do you give a value to a course when all those who attend will have learnt and more importantly retained different amounts? How can you put a value to time ‘served’? How do you logistically look at the hundreds of training courses out there?
The answer is you don’t do it that way; give them a test and see if they pass it.
The driving test is a fine example of a standard assessment taken at different centres. If you pass your test you are competent to drive. Now we all know that there are some bad and some better drivers on the road, but they have all demonstrated they can perform the minimum required to drive on the roads.
Now here is the key point, you don’t get a free pass or special consideration if you have;
Driven your dads tractor on the farm since you were ten years old
Owned and raced your own petrol go-cart and become national champion.
You don’t sit a different test if you are going on to drive a high-powered sports car as apposed to a smart car.
You don’t get a different test if you have had 30 lessons as apposed to 10 lessons
You don’t get to sit the practical test till you have passed the theory and if you have a degree or 1 GCSE it is still the same theory exam.
You do sit a different test if you want to drive special vehicles ie buses or truck.
Lets face it the biggest problem is the low end stuff RPs who own specialist buildings like power plants or chemical refineries should have enough about them to select an assessor who can do the job. What at first appears to be a simple building may be complex when you enter the building so all risk assessors need to demonstrate they know what they need to know to do the job properly. You don’t really face any restrictions once you have passed your driving test in terms of the type of car you drive or the complexity of the roads you drive. I know you do a motorway lesson but they are the easiest roads to drive on, big wide and all going the same way; not too difficult for most people.
A national test administered at different approved centres is what is needed. It isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, honestly Kurnal it has to come. Heaven forbid there is another tragedy and the assessor who did the job wasn’t competent the government wouldn’t have any defence.
-
Bobbins if it was simply taking a test to get on the register then there would be no problem however all the existing schemes require you to submit a number of FRA's how do you provide them if you need to be registered to practise? I suspect this is where the cart and horse reference comes from. ???
-
Thomas I think it would be fairly easy to come up with a development programme for new recruits to our industry where they initially would worked under the supervision of another assessor, their work being signed off by another, this could even be something the IFE or FIA could look into supporting. The IFE register already recognises this to some extent by having different procedures depending on the level of training and experience. With their examination systems and branch structure, in my opinion they above any other organisation would be best placed to take this up and run with it. I bet companies who made the effort to support such a training and development scheme could get funding for it through the Chambers of trade or Government schemes. And in any case any scheme MUST have a development structure behind it because if like on the pilot FRACS project if 40% are going to fail first time well they aren't going to get the sack are they?
Bobbins I like your driving test analogy very much but it isnt the full picture. Yes there are varying levels of competence and tests for motorcycles, cars, caravans, buses and lorries. But IMO your analogy falls because the driving test is totally prescriptive and is based on two very thin books- the highway code and the DOT manual. Theres no breaking or bending rules allowed. Period.
Qualitative fire risk assessment is very different isnt it. Through risk assessment I am allowed to drive at 45 in a built up area if I can prove that in doing so the level of risk is equal to or less than it would be if I drove at 30. Who is going to judge the additional risk control measures I adopt? Is the examination going to probe my underpinning knowledge on which my decisions were based or am I going to fail because I have not exactly followed a prescribed code? How can the quality of my my logic, and its proportionality to the hazard be assessed in a consistent way through testing or examination? And what if the examiner disagrees? Am I automatically going to fail?
I was curious as to the reason for the reported 40% failure rate on the first trial run of the FRACS system. I wonder if perhaps it was because of an unwillingness to allow people to take a subjective view? I know such attitudes do exist in our industry among senior figures- for whom I have the utmost respect. But it seems to me that if you are involved in writing legislation and standards there is a tendancy to become extremely defensive of them and this can lead to some inflexibility. We have had contributors on this forum threatened with being taken to court over their attitude to a BS. If this attitude persists on registration panels measuring the competence of others- well I need say no more.
But yes the examination needs to be modular, progressive, allow free argument and discussion and accept that if someone can argue their corner and has the necessary underpinning knowledge then different answers may be acceptable.
Somehow we have to come up with a scheme that can assess a range of people- graduates, others with up to 40 years experience, and newcomers who have attended a 2 day training course. I fear a lowest common denominator approach is inevitable if a scheme is introduced in a hurry as a result of a political knee jerk reaction to a tragic fire - that was in no way related to the competence of a risk assessment because none had been carried out.
Now if we can come up with a scheme that effectively overcomes these issues I would give it my wholehearted support.
-
Kurnal I accept what you say but are there sufficient companies out there that are big enough and willing to take on this responsibility. I understand there are many one man bands and companies that act as agencies for self employed FR assessors so who is going to do the training.
Before I joined the Fire Service I served my time as an artist in burnt clay, bricklayer for the uninitiated and I got my apprenticeship because the government of the day funded an apprentice scheme which had very few takers because even with the funding it cost participating companies money.
I would also ask how many of the 40% was employed by a company anyway.
Assuming a development programme could be achieved and the registration scheme was mandatory how would new entrants conduct the necessary FRA’s unaided unless this situation was included in the scheme. If it was not mandatory then there would be no problems but how many consultants would bother getting registered anyway considering the extra costs.
-
I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned. I can however see the reason for people thinking it would be a good idea in weeding out all the incompetent chancers out there trying to make a fast buck, but surely the enforcing authority would identify these people whilst conducting audits?
-
Has this thread drifted abit? I thought the original problem was how a RP could judge the competence of a Risk Assessor. There is no need for an enforcing authority to vet a risk assessor's assessments. What is needed is an easy and reliable way for a RP to judge the capability of a risk assessor as it will be on the RP's head if it goes wrong. It is up to the RP to use a competent person to assist him and if he doesn't and gets caught, it is the RP who will be prosecuted for not having a suitable and sufficient FRA.
The obvious answer is a certification scheme. The RP has an assurance that an assessor who is approved by the scheme is a competent person to carry out the FRA. Then if something does go wrong the RP can prove that he appointed a competent person ie that person was certified. I very much doubt that there will be a compulsory scheme as it will cost the government too much to set it up and keep it running.
The next bit is getting certified which is where I was talking about a two stage scheme with a probationary Fire Risk Assessor status and a full Fire Risk Assessor status. To gain probationary status you have to prove that you have some knowledge, experience and training in the field. You then get a card to carry out assessments as a probationer. The RP then knows that you have a level of competence and can judge whether or not to employ you for the job. Obviously this will depend on the compexity of the job but again it is up to the RP. the RP could be justified in using a probationer to do an assessment for a small factory, office or shop but would not be justified in using one for a major petrochemical site.
Yes there will still be RPs who wish to use uncertifed people, but the same RPs may very well not bother with a fire risk assessment at all.
-
I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned.
I know wee brian is a man of few words but I do not think he was saying the idea is a non starter he was saying compulsory registration is a non starter and the aim is a common industry standard in selecting a consultant which many of us will agree with.
-
I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned.
I know wee brian is a man of few words but I do not think he was saying the idea is a non starter he was saying compulsory registration is a non starter and the aim is a common industry standard in selecting a consultant which many of us will agree with.
Tom you are so right compulsory registration is a non-starter. An industry standard is what is needed, how do you get an industry standard? You use a British standard!
Kurnal I love your attitude; it's ok to break the speed limit by 15 miles an hour if you risk assess it out. My attitude is that 30 is the limit and if it is foggy I’ll drive slower and if it is dark and raining I’ll drive slower. That’s the risk assessment as the limit is set! I know that some times the limit isn't allways achievable but as an assessor you have to have the skills to at least indentify the limit in the first palce.
ABBE level 3 is the training model as it is Ofqual approved and has surveillance and mentoring for the new risk assessor.
So if you are a practicing risk assessor you can get certificated by a 17024 scheme for competence and if you want to become a risk assessor you do an NVQ or Ofqual approved course; the reason being they are all government approved and not industry approved. The reason industry can't set the test is they look after their own interests and not the RPs interests. If you had a gas fire to install you used a CORGI fitter and if you didn't you knew it was wrong, FULL STOP! Thats what we need in the frie risk assessor industry a one stop shop.
The IFE has to take a look at the wider picture, as they are very very inward looking, they could in one quick act accept a BS standard of competence assessment but that is as likely as Katie price winning ‘I’m a celebrity…. ‘
Kurnal what do you use on a daily basis to make judgements against? I’ll give you a clue it starts with B and has an S with a series of numbers at the end.
Why should the IFE and FIA try to reinvent the wheel when it is already been done and they could do the same as FRACS or could they?
Don't try to make it too complicated as that won't work and don't make it so simple that 100% of applicants get on. If it was 40% of people who didn't get FRACS certification then thats a good thing isn't it? I think you will find that the IFE register has about the same rate of failure but the IFSM register has a much higher acceptance rate.
-
Yes the ABBE level 3 is a reasonable starting point but having paid over £2k to obtain the cometence what am I qualified to assess?
Small offices and low rise commercial builings with no storage risks and less than 60 staff . Small village halls with a capacity of less than 300 - but only provided the boy scouts never camp there.
I dont knock it - it is a great starting point but very much unproven, and very embryonic. If it takes off, is exended to cover all levels of competence, and is affordable then there is no doubt it will be a Very Good Thing. Then there are the FRACS and IFE schemes certifying risk assessors. Also embryonic but certainly moving broadly in the right direction. Then there are the even more embryonic but relevant FIA / BAFE proposals for companies offering risk accessments. Very different to the certification for individuals - and no the FIA could not and would not seek to replicate what FRACS are doing.
You know it appears that maybe the industry itself is already moving in the right direction without government leadership, perhaps thats why they are interested?
Bobbins- As far as the speeding thing goes as you are fully aware I was trying to make a point about prescription vs risk assessment. (And clearly suitable risk control measures may include blue lights and sirens?)
Otherwise If I go to a workplace and find that part of the office is more than 18m from an exit (without an alternative) I shall have to draw a line on the floor and appoint a security guard to make sure that nobody steps inside that area and places themselves in danger.
RSET/ASET? Forget it mate never 'eard of it. Its more than me jobs worth. And I have got the badge to prove it.
CORGI was a great scheme but it too was modular, someone competent to fit a cooker was not competent to fit a gas fire. But all you ever saw was the CRGGI Badge- it relied on the integrity and competence of the engineer to keep within their range. But lilttle indication was given to the client. Would the same thing apply in the fire industry? Often the issues / complexity does not become apparent till you walk through the door. .
-
Kurnal
I think we will never see eye to eye on this one as we are coming at it from different angles, you the consultant and me from the RP side.
Subjective solutions to real hazards are never going to be easy to put a right or wrong against. That’s why we have enforcers and appeals and fire safety engineering etc.
What you can evaluate is; does the assessor have the knowledge and skills to identify hazards correctly in the first place and has he or she reduced the hazard to the lowest possible level by reasonable means. It isn’t perfect but it is a start and by providing a consistent bench mark for assessors the RP knows what to look for when appointing an assessor and those that are not up to it don’t continue to work in a field where life safety is the key driver.
You have constantly knocked the government approved training and certification models but you have not suggested an answer to the problem. May I suggest you contact ABBE as they are looking to establish a technical panel to work on Level 4. You know your stuff and it would be of benefit to us all if you put that knowledge to good use and come up with an answer or two, its easy to knock things but those of us who are trying to improve things need support not negativity.
If the FIA and BAFE use BS 45011 to produce a ‘Quality’ scheme for fire risk assessor companies I will be fully behind it, however if the competence element of that scheme is weak then I’ll be letting all the RPs I know that it isn’t worth approaching a ‘Quality’ company but it is best sticking with a ‘Competent’ assessor.
They have the chance to do it right but I know some of the key drivers behind this and I think self interest will be a key player in this one I am afraid.
-
Thanks Bobbins.
I dont mean to knock the government schemes for the sake of it, just trying to prompt as much discussion as possible so that if a central "official" certification scheme comes along we at the sharp end at least have prepared our arguments and have exercised as much influence as we can.
The devil is always in the detail but the powers that be only ever want to look at the broadbrush principles and to paper over the cracks. I dont need to give examples of this I am sure.
I fear if we dont get the balance right the costs and overheads will weigh heavily against the small fry of the industry, making them less likely to succeed as a business. We small businesses need the scheme to help sell our services- more than the very big players. They can continue to trade on their market penetration size and public perception and will probably ignore the scheme- some of their staff are more competent in sales rather than assessment and salary structures are heavily commission based. If a large proportion of their staff are failing to achieve the necessary standard that would be a big problem for them- probably better not to take part at all.
I started this thread to explore and discuss the issues and I have learned a lot so far. Thanks to all who have taken part, I hope you will continue to do so.
-
I still feel that there needs to be a nationally recognised qualification or accreditation scheme for assessors - something that allows an RP to check the creditentials of the assessor concerned easily and know they've been trained to a certain standard which will be recognised by enforcers. More importantly there should be the means to know that the assessor concerned in competent to deal with their particular type and size of building
Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.
Thirdly is the problematic "chicken & egg" situation people have mentioned regarding submitting risk assesssments for scrutiny. I suggest that assessments aren't submitted for scrutiny at all and instead assessors sit exams and / or undertake mock assessments of staged scenarios.
Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc
-
I applaud Kurnal’s aims and which side you are on is irrelevant. I am not aware of any official statement on this subject other than items in fire journals but if and when it materialises and requires comments on a scheme then you guys selected will be ready to give a well informed response.
-
Absolutely. I think CLG are just sounding people out at the moment.
-
What about BAFE etc certified fire extinguisher service people marking extinguishers as u/s, or advising the client you need more extinguishers guv, all just to get more money? Certification is not the be all and end all unfortunately
Taking up MRs excellent point, I know I am probably a two on a scale of five ::). Could I improve? Possibly, but my employers are skint for the next two years.
davo
-
I know I am probably a two on a scale of five ::). Could I improve? Possibly, but my employers are skint for the next two years.
davo
Davo you are much too hard on yourself. I would have given you four out of ten. :D
-
Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.
Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc
A balanced view Retty but what about the possible financial constraints Davo points out
-
Too kind Prof ;D
davo
-
Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.
Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc
A balanced view Retty but what about the possible financial constraints Davo points out
Im not sure how this would be resolved, but it all comes back to what I was saying about making any potential scheme financially accessible for all that need it. Perhaps Im being a little niave, but it would be a missed opportunity if the proposed "national scheme" became simply a cash cow.
-
You're being very naive as it happens. You like to give politicians answers Retty yet dont seem to have common sense answers for sensible questions.
-
Clevey, not wishing to interefere but what was the question you wanted Grand Master Retty to answer. As his erstwhile new best friend, I may be able to assist.
-
I was pulling his leg CT you probably didn't spot the irony. Funny he has to get bigger boys to fight his battles for him though lol.
-
Has this thread drifted abit? I thought the original problem was how a RP could judge the competence of a Risk Assessor. There is no need for an enforcing authority to vet a risk assessor's assessments. What is needed is an easy and reliable way for a RP to judge the capability of a risk assessor as it will be on the RP's head if it goes wrong. It is up to the RP to use a competent person to assist him and if he doesn't and gets caught, it is the RP who will be prosecuted for not having a suitable and sufficient FRA.
The obvious answer is a certification scheme. The RP has an assurance that an assessor who is approved by the scheme is a competent person to carry out the FRA. Then if something does go wrong the RP can prove that he appointed a competent person ie that person was certified. I very much doubt that there will be a compulsory scheme as it will cost the government too much to set it up and keep it running.
The next bit is getting certified which is where I was talking about a two stage scheme with a probationary Fire Risk Assessor status and a full Fire Risk Assessor status. To gain probationary status you have to prove that you have some knowledge, experience and training in the field. You then get a card to carry out assessments as a probationer. The RP then knows that you have a level of competence and can judge whether or not to employ you for the job. Obviously this will depend on the compexity of the job but again it is up to the RP. the RP could be justified in using a probationer to do an assessment for a small factory, office or shop but would not be justified in using one for a major petrochemical site.
Yes there will still be RPs who wish to use uncertifed people, but the same RPs may very well not bother with a fire risk assessment at all.
Surely the whole point of the FSO is that the RP can conduct the risk assessment themselves where appropriate to lessen the burden amongst other things. Are people saying that only risk assessors on a national register should conduct risk assessments?? surely this goes against what is said in Law
Article 9 The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order.
Obviously where competent risk assessors come in is Article 18
(1)The responsible person must, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.
(7) Paragraph (1) does not apply to individuals who are employers and who are together carrying on business in partnership, where at least one of the individuals concerned has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities—
This would not only include risk assessment but training, fire safety arrangements etc. Should there be national competent register in training then, why solely risk assessors??.
With a national register would RP be no longer viable to conduct FRA's themselves, will all enforcing bodies use the register as a benchmark when assessing peoples risk assessments??
Would we need a slight amendment in the FSO to ensure this national register has any substance and is not just a money making scheme.
-
Surely the whole point of the FSO is that the RP can conduct the risk assessment themselves where appropriate to lessen the burden amongst other things. Are people saying that only risk assessors on a national register should conduct risk assessments?? surely this goes against what is said in Law
No I dont think anybody is saying that. I think the crux is that if the RP choses to seek assistance and to pay a contractor to provide such assistance, there should be an easy way for them to judge
the competence of the individuals and businesses offering such services.
Whether a register is the way forward is open to debate.
I feel very strongly that a suitable register is a way forward but to those of us in the industry there are reservations about the schemes currently in operation. Only one has UKAS accreditation, and although set up as an independent company they are very closely tied to their parent company which itself offers fire consultancy services. Within the Industry some of us have major reservations over whether such an organisation can be truly independent, we would need very strong reassurance and evidence of their total independence before using them.
Some of our peers also regard the IFE scheme with some suspicion as each application is considered by a panel of peers, many of whom may be in direct competition. At least with the IFE scheme the reports submitted for scrutiny have clients personal details and company names removed.
-
Yes I agree with Kurnal, if the RP chooses to do the assessment himself, then it is on his own head. In a similar way if the RP chooses to appoint one of his employees to do the assessment (with or without training), that also is up to him.
Where the problem comes is when the RP decides that these two courses are not satisfactory and decides to employ an outside "competent" person to do the assessment for him, how can he judge the competence of the person? At the end of the day anyone can claim to be competent but it is the RP who gets it in the neck if it goes wrong. We have all seen the companies who are in for the quick buck and will disappear as soon as there is any trouble, to immediately reappear under a new name.
I am sure that many of the members of this forum have had the same experience as I have going into a place where the fire alarm system has been installed by an "alarm company" and have to tell the RP that the system doesn't meet any known standard and is little better than useless. This is what we need to avoid in the risk assessment business.
-
[/quote]
No I dont think anybody is saying that. I think the crux is that if the RP choses to seek assistance and to pay a contractor to provide such assistance, there should be an easy way for them to judge
the competence of the individuals and businesses offering such services.
Whether a register is the way forward is open to debate.
I feel very strongly that a suitable register is a way forward but to those of us in the industry there are reservations about the schemes currently in operation. Only one has UKAS accreditation, and although set up as an independent company they are very closely tied to their parent company which itself offers fire consultancy services. Within the Industry some of us have major reservations over whether such an organisation can be truly independent, we would need very strong reassurance and evidence of their total independence before using them.
Some of our peers also regard the IFE scheme with some suspicion as each application is considered by a panel of peers, many of whom may be in direct competition. At least with the IFE scheme the reports submitted for scrutiny have clients personal details and company names removed.
[/quote]
Oh Kurnal you do make me chuckle!
You seem to give credit for UKAS accreditation yet in the same paragraph you dismiss it as not being enough of an assurance for the independence of the Warrington scheme.
The ‘checkers are being checked’ what more do you want? Once again nothing is good enough for the Kurnal, so again I ask for some answers and not just for you to take the easy option and knock everything that’s out there.
I can’t imagine you will come up with anything other than a BS standard scheme with UKAS accreditation, with the possibility of BAFE involvement. Although BAFE take their cut from the certification bodies so it has cost implications and it is only my opinion, but they add very little to the process.
The level playing field is out there but some people refuse to accept it even exists.
My concern is that the FIA/IFE/BAFE scheme will perpetuate the status quo.
I can almost predict the competence element of the ‘quality company’ scheme;
COMPETENCE LISTINGS
The IFE register is a given as is the FRACS scheme, if you are on the IFSM register you are out of the picture I am afraid. (Not strong enough assessment and no IFSM representation on the FIA committee)
TRAINING FOR COMPETENCE
Nebosh and ABBE (not sure what level) are a given as is an IFE approved scheme. Fire safety engineering degrees will also do the job I assume.
EXPERIENCE FOR COMPETENCE
This is the only bit I struggle on I would say a minimum of 12 months in the fire safety industry would possibly be required.
Actually you know what, just down load the IFE matrix on what makes competence and that’s pretty much what you will end up with.
As an RP all I want is one list, one system, one way, to ensure that the person who I appoint is competent to do the job. I want the cowboys out of business and the only way to do that is have a single unified agreed method of assessment. Forum members have pointed out that this is never going to happen and I agree too many people looking after their own interests and no one looking out for the RP.
My one remaining hope is that the current government gets something in place following their review and the Conservatives are too busy to look at it again until the next multiple fatality fire.
-
Clevey, not wishing to interefere but what was the question you wanted Grand Master Retty to answer. As his erstwhile new best friend, I may be able to assist.
Aw thanks Col, youre like my very own (Ken) Knight in Shining Armour!
Bobbins,
I dont think anyone is contradicting themselves, I think they are simply pointing out that none of the schemes are fully or truly independent.
The UKAS accreditation process purely looks at the competence of an organisation to provide training or to adjudicate and assess others for example, it is beyond the scope of UKAS to look at how that organisation conducts itself in other business matters and practices.
I have jumped the fence many times during this argument. At first I thought a Governement lead scheme would the only sure fire way of ensuring complete independence from the industry, but of course this is not the case, and no scheme will ever be truly independent.
Also do we really want the government to get involved given its performance in other areas?, and if Downing Streets best were to implement their own compulsory scheme would they not simply approach the big players in the industry for advice and consultation on how that scheme would be run? If so would this be a good or bad thing?
Its a catch 22 situation in many respects, and I certainly do not deem it to be a level playing field at all.
-
Thanks Bobbins
I am glad I make you chuckle, though do I detect the faintest undercurrent of frustration?
Is your friendly chuckle really to cover up a snarl?
Yes in reality you may end up close to the mark, time will tell. I recognise it matters little what you or I think, there are powerful vested interests here and huge diversity amongst service providers. There is also huge diversity amongst RPs- -you say you are speaking on behalf of the RPs - but which ones? Blue chip? Major corporates? SMEs? Sole traders? Commercial, Industrial, leisure or care sector?
I too think I have a good feel for what many RPs are looking for within the sector I operate in. My customers keep coming back for more and recommending us to others. Our services are very often compared most favourably against other providers - some with very big names.
But I am fearful that if the big boys of the BSI have it all their own way- or the politicians for that matter - then the smaller businesses will be squeezed out through disproportionate overheads of a system that will very quickly become little more than a rubber stamp for the big corporates.
The big players will have sufficient clout to ensure that the system does not hamper their continuity of service in any way. This will limit its effectiveness as a tool for the RP.
If we are not very careful we could all end up with a useless millstone around our necks. I have the influence of a grain of sand in the ocean, but the FIA is kind enough to offer me the chance to state my opinion so I give it my best shot with them. I may be dissapointed by the outcome but it wont stop me trying. The fllowing is aspirational and offered as a talking point. It is probably pie in the sky as you point out.
What does the Industry need? It needs to have a strategy in place to replace the aging ex fire officers as the tap of experienced ex fire service staff will run dry within about 5 years. The big problem is that so much of the industry relies on retired ex fire officers even some of the big players- FPA included- rely almost totally on them.
Much of the remainder is made up of general H&S staff who have bolted on something like the NEBOSH fire module to their Gen Cert. The big problem with this group is they do not have the underpinning knowledge of how buildings and systems are put together and interact with each other. Their evaluation of buildings and systems is generally superficial. Then there are those with degrees in fire engineering many of whom are excellent (though often they believe their formulae and CFD a little too much and have little experience of management and human factors) They also desire a more significant salary commanding fees that the RP in the SME sector cannot meet.
How do we get round this? We need to find a route to bring in young blood to the industry.
First and formost a recognised qualification and route to competence through affordable courses that are accessible on a parallel with the ABBE scheme. Government funding should be available to those employers willing to develop this sector. The medium larger companies in the sector should be encouraged and rewarded for offering apprenticeships. Fire Authorities and insurance companies have an interest and should appoint business community/ client support officers to visit local companies, pass the fire prevention and safety message and whilst doing so to develop their expertise. The FPA, BAFE, ABE IFE and FIA et al could all contribute to the scheme in financial or supportive ways.
Then we need a range of official formal qualifications that are recognised and stand on their own. Something culminating with the status of the NEBOSH diploma and with a practical exam at the end of it. The tech / Grad / MIFireE would be great but its too service orientated.
And in parallel to this a fully independent certification scheme. Competence would be assessed in a subjective manner depending on the qualifications and experience of the individual, a model based on the IFE scheme but with a range of access points into it. Involving at least one on site assessment and review of their work to establish a level. The assessment not to be by peer review but by professionally appointed staff employed for this purpose. This would lead to a more consistent, reliable and accountable outcome.
My ideal certification scheme would cater for a range of skill levels, functions, and occupancy/ building types in a modular approach.
Quantitve assessment
Qualitative assessment
Structural assessment
Fire engineering
Life risk
Property protection
Business continuity
Environmental and social impact
Suppression systems
Healthcare premises
Residential premises
Commercial premises
Custodial premises
Industrial plants
DSEAR
etc.
This could not be introduced as a big bang- it would be prohibitively expensive and place unrealistic burdens on current businesses. It would need to be introduced on a phased basis over say 10 years.
-
Kurnal I knew you had the capacity to contribute and not just chuck a spanner in the works. Thanks for putting in the effort it is much better to read positive thoughts than negative.
I like some of your ideas and think that some of them could even work. I am not convinced you can do all that on the cheap, but if that’s the price you have to pay for a decent system then so be it. (but you can’t complain about the cost of things in one breath and then come up with what would cost £1000s in another)
It seems very complicated to me and as such will take years to get in place, my thoughts are we go for the simplest option that is available now. 17024. It is the way to go, in my eyes it covers all and if another certification firm could take it up, assessors could have a choice of who to go to. However my understanding of UKAS is they look in to the impartiality of the cert body during audits that’s how you get mutual acceptance of certification across cert bodies. So if you don’t have faith in a UKAS approved scheme/body then the fire safety industry is doomed. You would be hard pressed to find anything fire or building related that has not been tested or certificated by a UKAS approved body.
Kurnal as you say; all we can do is keep trying to offer something and let the big guys get on with it.
-
Prof
Trust you to bring pie into the conversation ;D
davo
-
Fair play Kurnal I think you have hit the nail on the head. Ive nowt to add to your response just that I totally agree. Kurnal for Prime Minister!!
-
Grand Wizard Retty, if you continue to describe me as Ken Knight, I will cease to be your new best friend.
However, you are totally incorrect about UKAS- they actually spend a lot of time looking at how a CB conducts its business. I can assure you of this as a UKAS "industry sector expert". Similarly, I cannot understand Kurnals self contradiction in which he seems to fail to grasp the firewall (no pun intended) that must be in place between a CB and other activities of the CB owner. In assessments we even raise an issue if the CB inspector even suggests to a certificated firm how to fix a non compliance, since, technically, to do so, is giving consultancy advice which an accredited CB is not allowed to do,
As for independence of IFE, all professional bodies do peer group assessment- its what they do for goodness sake.
-
There you go Kurnal straight from a UKAS inspector’s keyboard. I know you have reservations about how independent Warrington and the IFE schemes are, and Colin probably can’t comment on if he did the Warrington inspection. However I am guessing he knows the process inside out and that UKAS do look in to all areas as I suspected; this should be the evidence/assurance you need to persuade you that the FRACS scheme is above board. With the IFE scheme it is peer assessment which has no external auditing at all and as such is open to question. I think it is probably a pretty robust system but it is too subjective for me and the anecdotal evidence suggests it is very open to abuse, therefore I think it needs to change to a certification model let UKAS get involved, I guarantee Colin won’t be doing that Audit! .
With reference to the private message you sent me, I do actually know what you are referring to (it is a reasonably small risk assessor world after all) It’s just a lot of huffing and puffing from one company, without a leg to stand on.
-
However, you are totally incorrect about UKAS- they actually spend a lot of time looking at how a CB conducts its business.
Fair comment Colin, my apologies. Any potential conflicts of interest should therefore be picked up by UKAS I pressume?
-
Bobbins I am not anti the FRACS scheme and hope to be convinced that the "firewalls" are robust and resilient. Believe me I would be delighted to see evidence of this. But I feel very strongly that nobody can be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time. Or if you are you dont wear your poaching jacket when you are checking the covers.
I would feel happier and more convinced if when I did a search on Companies House for Fracs and the new company behind Warrington I could see two different companies with at least some different directors on the boards even if some are shared. But I have looked hard and long using the company number quoted on the website and as far as I can see there is just one company and one set of directors. I cannot see how if this is the case anyone can suggest that there is true independence between the two functions. Please tell me I am wrong or am looking in the wrong place.
Otherwise I fear the firewalls could turn out to be a case of the Kings new suit of clothes.
But I do hope someone can prove me wrong or convince me otherwise because the Industry needs a UKAS accedited scheme and at the moment theres only one on the table.
-
Kurnal you are wrong; I don't know all the details but I believe WCL has a separate management structure and I think Sir Ken is the chair.
Kurnal you are right too; a UKAS system is what we need and the sooner all registers move to a UKAS model the leveler the playing field will become.
I know you are not against any particular register Kurnal but I do think your suspicions are unfounded with FRACS. You say yourself we need UKAS accredited schemes but the only one in place isn’t acceptable. Once the FIA scheme is up and running it will need certification bodies to operate it, Warrington is likely to be one of the cert bodies to offer it as they are a fire cert body as are BRE/LPCB would you say that these two can’t run the FIA scheme because they have fire expertise?
However we will still be faced with the cowboys, as has been said many times those who take responsibility and go for third party approvals are not the problem. It is the little knowledge, lot of flannel guys that are a danger to life. There must be thousands of poor risk assessments out there with little chance of being audited until after a fire, and as we know that can be too late.
Sleeping accommodation in my opinion should be mandatory to appoint a competent person for the first risk assessment. I appreciate it will be a burden but look at the stats each year sleeping accommodation is the biggest fire death statistic. Ok most are in one single dwelling but the potential for multiple deaths in separate dwellings is obvious, I know this may be controversial but I think in HMOs the individual properties should be included in the risk assessment. I recommend this to all the RPs I speak with, it takes some selling but interacting with the residents gets everyone involved in fire safety not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.
-
Bobbins
Please can we be sure? I have credit and companies house search software and using the company number displayed in accordance with the Law on their website I am lead to think otherwise?
-
Ok I'll throw this into the mix then.
How about an awarding body is set up to provide accreditation consisting of ex risk assessors, enforcers and consultants. Note i use the word "ex" because to sit on this body the members would have to give up their current roles or business connection and purely become adjudicators to get over poacher come game keeper problem. 'Dont be daft' I hear you all cry a succesful risk assessor isn't going to give up a well paid job to sit on some panel. Accepted you would need to pay them an attractive salary to sway them from their existing roles but is that such a big hill to climb?. I dont think so. The body would natually have to be UKAS registered and the panel recruited from genuine sources with wide ranging knowledge and experience. Or am I being daft?
-
You may not be too wide of the mark there C3 - I agree that the certification body should use dedicated and professional staff in the course of its business and I think that just like OFSTED inspectors in schools their new role may in itself give them sufficient exposure to the job to maintain their currency.
They should not rely on Retty of Midland Retty Fire Safety Ltd doing a day or two here and there as an "adjudicator" to assess the work of Kurnal fire safety, and then going back to his day job knowing all about the other businesses that compete with them, that is half of the concern that have at present.
The other half of my concern is that Midland Retty Fire Safety Ltd may themselves become a certification body whilst still trading as a fire risk assessor. This would give them direct access to all competitors staff and clients. Look at the marketing opportunity that offers. "We are the people who certify all other companies - we are obviously the most competent of all to carry out fire risk assessments because we assess all other companies. You dont need to go elsewhere- we are the one stop shop".
All I am asking is whether this has been considered in respect of the only UKAS scheme that is available at present. I would have expected the Company providing the accreditation to be a completely seperate entity from the company providing fire risk assessments. The Law requires all businesses to display certain information on their websites. I have looked at the information displayed on their website and as far as I can tell, using creditsafe I see a single company and a single board behind both sides of their services.
I hope to be told by someone who knows for sure that I am wrong. And in the unlikely event of me being right, am I the only person who would see this as a potential concern?
-
Yes I would see this as a potential concern, for the reasons you have already stated.
C3 I do think there is some mileage in what you are saying, but as you point out if you pay peanuts you get monkies. Would there be enough income to sustain a panel of expert adjudicators? Plus you could still have a situation where one of the adjudicators passes confidential info onto their chums in the industry. So its still not guaranteed to be truly independent , but should in theory be much better than any current system.
-
Received this email and had a long chat with Simon this afternoon
"Dear Alan
My attention has been drawn to the thread you started on the fire net forum. Please accept my apologies for emailing you directly but you do have your email address on your forum identity and I don’t have access to post this response directly on the site.
Please posts the following as I feel it is very important to have the true facts regarding WCL published on the forum and not have any more speculation about the independence of WCL; any concerns you may have should be taken up directly with UKAS.
Kind regards Simon
The independence of certification companies is maintained through a management council, who oversee all activities of that certification body. The WCL management council of key stake holders is a voluntary group of independent industry experts which include representatives from; ASPF, DHF. CFOA, IFPO RICS, RISC Authority, CPA, PFPF, BSI, BRC, BWF, it is chaired by Sir Ken Knight. This management council is truly independent of WCLs owners; the decisions it makes are made independently of the EXOVA group and can not be overruled. UKAS approve the make up of this council and thoroughly check its independence from the EXOVA group, including firewall protection which prevents information from being transferred from WCL to the Exova group.
In terms of FRACS as a certification scheme, it too has an independent technical panel which is a working group for the overall management group, and again this has representatives from key sector groups, including CFOA, Building control, insurers and RPs. The influence of this group on the decision making for the scheme is looked at by UKAS, and the influence this committee needed to have on the FRACS scheme was key to obtaining accreditation for this BS EN ISO/IEC 17024 competence scheme.
For those who don’t understand certification and certification bodies it can be confusing; often assumptions are made that are completely wrong.
WCL is owned by Exova but that only applies to financial contributions to the parent company. The Exova board of directors has absolutely no say in how WCL is run or operates and they are not on the management council of WCL. This system applies to all UKAS approved certification bodies but not to non accredited bodies, hence non accredited approvals carry much less weight than approvals from a body with UKAS accreditation.
UKAS accreditation is as independent as it is possible to get; hence the difficulty in gaining accreditation and maintaining such accreditation. WCL works very hard to produce schemes of ‘real value’ for the industry and for fire safety. WCL has an outstanding reputation within the fire safety industry and we take any allegations of impropriety very seriously, any expressions on forums are public statements and as such need to be accurate. You are correct that WCL is owned by Exova but that link is very much subject to UKAS inspection and therefore the management of WCL is not compromised by this ownership.
Simon Ince"
I was also given to understand that FRACS is soon to be given its own web hosting, which was one of the issues leading to my concerns of independence.
Seems reasonable to me- any other views?
-
Yep - it does seem reasonable. It banishes some of the scepticism I had. As Simon said himself "For those who don’t understand certification and certification bodies it can be confusing; often assumptions are made that are completely wrong."
It would seem that the UKAS route then is the only way to guarantee true independence and security for assessors. This topic has thrashed out some really useful points.
-
I think the industry involvement in certification bodies is very reassuring and to have Sir Ken involved suggests very strongly to me that it is as Simon says (sorry) “independent as it can be”. It is very hard to get anyone from CFOA to commit to anything they don’t back fully.
The date for CLG feedback following its review has been set for the 14th of December and I dare say it will provoke much debate on this site once the findings are made public.
I think a few key stakeholders are going to be very put out by the findings and then again it could be a weak assessment that appeases all; who knows with this government?
I dare say they will toss the ball in to industries court and let them fight it out amongst their selves, or in other words a ‘cop out’ which will take years to sort out; can you imagine it a room full of big hitters all trying to get a piece of the action for themselves. It would be just like the G 20 summit except a certain Scotsman would actually have some influence unlike Mr Brown.
-
This is a matter that should correctly be resolved by the profession and not by the amateurs in the civil service. It is already well in hand. The best thing Government and their civil service chums could do is keep out of things they dont understand, and be ready to lend support to industry-developed schemes. I suspect, to be fair, that they realise this in any case.
-
Why do we fire risk assessors accept the flack? Incompetence reigns even in highly regulated sectors.
I have just received the following comments from an approved building inspector for a 6 storey multi occupied office with basement in London I have been asked to work on.
"A Grade A category LD2 fire alarm and detection system to BS5839 part 6 2004 is required" ....... Any smoke detectors within the proximity of a kitchen should be an ionisation type detector not an optical detector........ the power supply to the A grade system should conform with BS54 - 3 with an idependent circuit run from the consumer unit"
This building inspector is one of the Big Nationals and has over 20 letters after his name. BY heck!
-
This is a matter that should correctly be resolved by the profession and not by the amateurs in the civil service. It is already well in hand. The best thing Government and their civil service chums could do is keep out of things they dont understand, and be ready to lend support to industry-developed schemes. I suspect, to be fair, that they realise this in any case.
I suspect many would agree with you but why the secrecy we know a little about the government idea but other than BAFE is involved I no nothing what the industry is proposing.
-
Theres no secrecy Tom its just at very early stages as far as the FIA scheme is concerned.
Two meetings have been held with BAFE and we have compared the existing BAFE schemes such as SP203, discussed strengths and weanesses and areas of relevance to the Fire Risk Assessment Industry, taken on board a few comments from others including many of those expressed in this thread and come up with an idea for the bare bones of the scheme. The FIA is attending a meeting of many interested parties with the Government on 14 Dec where the General Manager and CT will represent our views.
There will be no surprises if I tell you that the basis of the scheme is for member companies to use competent staff listed on an approved register run by others and the company to have systems in place for quality management systems and supervision. Companies will be subject to audits - both of work carried out and probably of work being carried out.
-
Thanks Kurnal that’s the kind of information those not in the loop will appreciate and I noticed Bobbins mentioned 14 Dec therefore I assume it’s the same meeting you referred to. I am also glad CT will be there to give them stick.
Don’t forget the minions :'(
-
Tom most of us are minions myself included. But big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite em.
-
TW et al, to update you, Kurnal is correct that there is absolutely no secrecy, in fact quite the opposite. But it is not as at early a stage as he suggests.
To keep you informed, yesterday, the Fire Risk Assessment Council of the FIA, which I chair, worked on, amended, approved, and signed off as completed, a draft BAFE scheme document, which was prepared by the Professional Standards working group, which reports to the Council. As far as FIA is concerned, our work on the document is finished.
The draft scheme has now been forwarded to BAFE to take it forward, though FIA will contribute to that process along with other stakeholders. As kurnal says, the principle is competent fire risk assessors though not necessarily on a register (that is just one way of proving competence) and a proper QMS system.
The idea is that the scheme could be run by any UKAS accredited CB. The scheme exactly follows SP 203, so will be recognisable as a BAFE scheme even in the early draft.
CLG will be kept informed.
If you need to know any more, happy to respond.
-
Kurnal, you do your self an injustice. Thanks CT I appreciate that I have learnt more about what is going on, this week, on this subject, than all my searching on the internet (my main source of information) since this subject was raised.
-
The feedback from the CLG review as far as I have been told is that RICS and IFE are to lead a group of key stakeholders in defining competence of fire risk assessors and that certification schemes with UKAS accreditation for individuals (17024) will be the preferred model for identification of the defined competences.
The time table is refreshingly short 1 month for an initial list of stakeholders and dates for meeting and 12 months for completion.
Let the bun fight commence!
Actually I do hope this will be the start of something very positive let’s hope the two professional bodies charged with coordinating this can keep control of the others and actually produce what is needed in the time frame.
-
But it is absolutely certain that this will NOT be a compulsory scheme. Lets hope that whatever the outcome it is supported by sufficient publicity and guidance to RPs across all sectors to make such registration worthwhile for assessors from a marketing point of view.
The FIA/BAFE scheme for companies has now been put together by the FIA and sits with BAFE for their consideration.
The Industry is moving itself in the right direction, all proposals have value in contributing to our common objectives lets hope that all parties will put vested interests on one side and make rapid progress.
-
Bobbins, regrettably there was nothing quite so definitive. But, having listened to the consultants' findings, I now understand why people say consultants are people who borrow (or steal) your watch, tell you the time and send you the bill.
-
Bobbins, regrettably there was nothing quite so definitive. But, having listened to the consultants' findings, I now understand why people say consultants are people who borrow (or steal) your watch, tell you the time and send you the bill.
Oh Colin tut tut, telling the government they are crap and that it's their own mess they are lying in is not going to gain you any brownie points. If you then offer to solve their problems for them are you surprised if they don’t bite your hand off. I am paraphrasing but I think that was the gist.
I think I am correct in saying that the IFE and RICS are to run the working group, I have heard that from three sources now and that UKAS and individual competence was the reason for the working group being put together ie to define competence by which the certification bodies could judge fire risk assessors to certificate them as competent individuals.
Regardless of what went on in the meeting there is some movement towards an agreed method of identifying competent consultants and I know that has to be a good thing for the RPs. Lets hope that what ever the professionals decide to do is acceptable to the RPs; who after all are the customer and pay your and other consultants wages.
The key to all this is a ‘buy in’ from all and if history is anything to go by, that is going to be the most difficult thing to achieve.
CLG have put the bus on the road we have the drivers and lets just hope everyone gets on and ends up at the final destination together. My greatest fear is a hijack by the militants who ‘know they know best’ because they are making good money from the situation as it is. Lets hope they don’t manage to get the brakes on or get the bus off the road all together.
Tickets please! The next stop is…………….
-
My greatest fear is a hijack by the militants who ‘know they know best’ because they are making good money from the situation as it is. Lets hope they don’t manage to get the breaks on or get the bus off the road all together.
Tickets please! The next stop is…………….
Thats uncharacteristically cynical and cryptic Bobbins. Who are these "militants" who wield sufficient power and have a desire to hijack your bus?
I have heard no voices within the industry opposing such a scheme in principle, indeed for example the FIA/BAFE proposals support and complement it perfectly.
Many of us have cautioned that the scheme should be cost effective, well managed, achievable and appropriate- thats not opposition its just worry that we dont want to end up with something thats not fit for purpose.
For clarification, the FIA / BAFE scheme would not relate to "person certification", which the FIA regard as a proper matter for professional bodies. The scheme would relate to third party certification of organizations that offer fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (including organizations comprising simply a single self-employed person). There are numerous similar schemes, supported by CLG and CFOA, which are published by BAFE and operated by any certification body accredited by UKAS for the purpose.
The format of the proposed FIA/BAFE scheme exactly parallels other BAFE schemes operated by UKAS accredited CBs. ie the scheme would incorporate the use of competent persons (such as those registered with professional bodies), in conjunction with a suitable management system.
-
Bobbins, Unlike those in power at the CLG, who seek nothing more than to gain brownie points from their political masters, brownie points count for very little in my life. For avoidance of doubt, the Government are lying in their own mess, and no doubt the civil servants are telling them how they will be getting them out.
For further avoidance of doubt, the CLG could not even blow up the tyres(they would need to ask their chums in building regs how to use the tyre gauge) on a bus never mind drive it. They did not set any bus in motion, they simply paid consultants to find out, purely for political reasons, what the timetable was for the various bus companies that were already running a well oiled omnibus.
Perhaps if they spent less time on sanctimonious hypocrisy in Fire Policy and CFRAU and put their own house in order, they might gain the respect their colleagues in building regulations have achieved.
-
Kurnal , Love the cut and paste of my text. There is no greater compliment than plagiarism. I read your last posting with huge admiration for your prose, until I remembered I wrote it.
-
Nope. You dont hold the copyright.
Someone else beat you to it and I may have plaigiarised them.
After all had I thought they were your words I would have been far more selective. Me turn into a Toddy Clone? Never. Well not for at least another 80 years at any rate. And a few hundred weight of Ugly pills.
-
You did plaigarise them, but they merely reproduced my words. So you reproduced 3rd generation Toddy text in your post. Admiral choice on your part.
-
They did not set any bus in motion, they simply paid consultants to find out, purely for political reasons, what the timetable was for the various bus companies that were already running a well oiled omnibus.
So Colin, are you saying you won't be buying a ticket?
Will you perhaps be taking alternative transport to the final destination?
Did some government minister or senior civil servant treat you badly in your formative years?
You’ll have a seat on the bus I am sure of it and probably not at the back but near to the front so you can whisper in the drivers’ ear (actually whispering isn’t a skill you are known for). It is far too important an issue for you not to be involved and I do hope you contribute to what could potentially be a huge boost for the industry.
Having competence and quality rubber stamped by UKAS will be a good thing and if the cowboys are run out of town as a result it will make a big difference to the RPs and to those professionals who want to do a good job for their clients and charge a professional rate for the service they provide.
Kurnal the militants I refer to are those bodies/groups/individuals who only have a minor interest in fire risk assessment but want to be seen to have a say in what goes on and those with ideas above their capabilities ie poorly run associations who can’t manage themselves or those who have very vested training interests.
The RPs need to contribute as do the representatives of the risk assessors, these two groups need to work together on this; CFOA need to monitor the process as do CLG, but they don’t need to butt in too much, just be satisfied with the outcomes.
The professional bodies should and indeed have been charged with running this working group, RICS and the IFE will; given the support of the rest of the industry produce something we can all buy in to. I know that this relationship was explored when the RRO first came in to existence and for some reason it didn’t take off at that time.
-
Having competence and quality rubber stamped by UKAS will be a good thing and if the cowboys are run out of town as a result it will make a big difference to the RPs and to those professionals who want to do a good job for their clients and charge a professional rate for the service they provide.
Do you carry out risk assessments? Are you on the UKAS scheme register?
-
Bobbins, I was hoping for a complimentary season ticket, but, if all else fails perhaps Kurnal could get an OAP pass. I know that I will gladly give up my seat for him as is courtesy to the elderly.
I have no problem with Government ministers, as no one expects them to tell the truth, and they are paid to be politicians. I have a dislike of civil servants who want to play politics and meddle in things they do not understand (largely because they got rid of the good and honourable people who did), or who fail to understand the concepts of transparency and impartiality. While keeping people safe from fire in buildings is what we should be all about, this has been relegated to at best a spin off or bonus to political manoeuvres. Perhaps someone can remind me as to what roused them from their slumbers to suddenly have a care for the matter of fire risk assessment, bearing in mind that a previous head of fire policy stated publicly that it would not be a consultants' charter as there would be such great help from the Governement that people could all do it themselves.
On a point of (possibly pedantic) accuracy, in certification schemes, it is not UKAS who assure the competency, it is the UKAS accredited CBs.
-
On a point of (possibly pedantic) accuracy, in certification schemes, it is not UKAS who assure the competency, it is the UKAS accredited CBs.
Colin to be pedantic too my reference to ‘rubber stamping’ by UKAS does refer to the approval it gives to the CBs scheme. UKAS has a memorandum of understanding with government to provide accreditation of CBs ie it has no real power but that which it has been given by the state and therefore rubber stamping in its political terms is an approval by a subordinate on behalf of those with the responsibility.
If you read the sentence again I think you will find it reads as above.
Will you be contributing; as the elected representative of the FIA fire risk assessors council, to the working group who will be defining competence of fire risk assessors or not?
I think we have established your loathing of the civil service, but I hope that doesn’t mean you will be cutting your face off to spite your nose. A lot of people think this is very over due and much needed and regardless of why it was started or by whom it needs people like you to support it and not dismiss it.
-
Bobbins, it will be a matter for the FIA (and indeed IFE) to determine who should represent them. Organizations such as these are bigger than any individual. However, I am touched that you should consider me worthy of even pouring the coffee for the assembled good and great of the profession.
On a point of accuracy, I do not loathe civil servants, I merely have a healthy distrust of their intentions or even the accuracy of the time of day as allegedly read by the watch that their consultants borrowed to tell people the time.
I still await the basis for their sudden concern over the matter of the risk assessments that they told people could be done for themselves.
-
Perhaps there has been a revelation that carrying out a Risk Assessment for a possible once in a lifetime event, such as a fire, is not as easy as a Risk Assessment for an everyday event such as operating a machine. Also there are a lot of people who have experience of operating machines but there are not that many who have experience and knowledge of fire.
In short their initial assumptions about fire risk asessment were wrong and they are trying to a) correct the mess and b) cover their backs before the brown smelly stuff hits the ventilation unit.
-
Michael, I like the theory, especially the second part.
-
Yes Mike I think you are correct; following the BBC investigation into the Local authority flats in London the Government must be concerned that another fatal fire could cause brown stuff to start flying.
They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them.
It would be nice to have a definitive name to give to competent fire risk assessor so the RPs know what to look for; any suggestions?
FRACS does seem the obvious choice but Warrington have that one, what about RoCRA
Register of Competent Risk Assessors
-
"They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them."
Bobbins your faith in politicians and civil servants is greater than mine. If the government starts it, it is in the knowlegdge that there will be a general election before anything happens and if they lose it will be someone else's problem and the new government will add it to the list of messes to blame the previous governemnt for. If the civil servants work on it it will be mired in countless committees and reviews and it will die from red tape strangulation.
-
Yes Mike I think you are correct; following the BBC investigation into the Local authority flats in London the Government must be concerned that another fatal fire could cause brown stuff to start flying.
They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them.
It would be nice to have a definitive name to give to competent fire risk assessor so the RPs know what to look for; any suggestions?
FRACS does seem the obvious choice but Warrington have that one, what about RoCRA
Register of Competent Risk Assessors
Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?
As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?
Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.
-
Face the Facts
- High Rise - Low Safety
John Waite presents the investigative consumer series.
The deaths of six people in a tower block fire in London in July 2009 have revealed poor to non-existent fire safety standards in some similar residential buildings. At many there was no fire risk assessment - one has even been condemned as too unsafe for people to live in. We reveal that it had been visited by the fire service on a regular basis because of broken lifts, yet only after the London fire did it become clear the building was unsafe.
This programme was aired today on Radio 4 and is available on the BBC website to listen again.
-
Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?
As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?
Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.
[/quote]
Kurnal
Lakanal house didn’t have an up to date suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a competent person. FACT!
The BBC investigation revealed that many high rise social housing stock in london had no fire risk assessments either. FACT!
The sister block to Lakanal had a risk assessment that was not suitable and sufficient FACT!
Sir Kens report highlighted the competence of fire risk assessors as a real issue of concern FACT!
The review process just completed was as a result of the fire at Lakanal FACT!
The radio show on BBC 4 was full of illustrations of incompetent risk assessments and more importantly lack of action by the building owners. FACT!
Standards in the industry need improving I don’t see how you can argue against it. You must have seen as many poor risk assessments as I have, and I bet if we opened a thread on poor risk assessment examples on this site it wouldn’t take long for many examples to come flooding in. The scale of the problem is huge make no mistake about it.
My agenda is simple; improved life safety and consumer protection.
You may be doing fine out of the situation as is but so are the cowboys and as a knowledgeable, conscientious, and very competent risk assessor what do you propose to do about it?
Is your primary concern the life safety of the people in the buildings you risk assess or is it just a wage to you?
I know from the comments you make on this site that it is more than just a job to you, so how can you stand back and let RPs get ripped off by incompetent risk assessors who put lives at risk?
What you are actually saying is “tough; buyer beware”, it is the RPs own fault for not appointing me.
Very commendable Kurnal!
A name is for consumer confidence and consumer protection, everyone knew you needed a Corgi guy to do your gas work and FENSA for your windows and that a kite mark is a sign of quality on products.
What do you suggest the RP looks for in appointing a risk assessor?
“are you RoCRA registered” “your name is not on the RoCRA register” “Can I see your RoCRA ID please” “sorry I need to appoint a RoCRA risk assessor”
As long as RoCRA or what ever it is called is robust and user friendly it would be wonderful if the above could be heard from the RPs mouths.
The industry are due to set out the criteria for competences of risk assessors so lets hope they get it right and give it some support.
Sorry for the rant Kurnal but I some times think you and I interpret things we hear and see very differently and from the opposite sides of the fence which I guess is a good thing in some ways.
-
Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?
As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?
Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.
Kurnal
Lakanal house didn’t have an up to date suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a competent person. FACT!
The BBC investigation revealed that many high rise social housing stock in london had no fire risk assessments either. FACT!
The sister block to Lakanal had a risk assessment that was not suitable and sufficient FACT!
Sir Kens report highlighted the competence of fire risk assessors as a real issue of concern FACT!
The review process just completed was as a result of the fire at Lakanal FACT!
The radio show on BBC 4 was full of illustrations of incompetent risk assessments and more importantly lack of action by the building owners. FACT!
Standards in the industry need improving I don’t see how you can argue against it. You must have seen as many poor risk assessments as I have, and I bet if we opened a thread on poor risk assessment examples on this site it wouldn’t take long for many examples to come flooding in. The scale of the problem is huge make no mistake about it.
My agenda is simple; improved life safety and consumer protection.
You may be doing fine out of the situation as is but so are the cowboys and as a knowledgeable, conscientious, and very competent risk assessor what do you propose to do about it?
Is your primary concern the life safety of the people in the buildings you risk assess or is it just a wage to you?
I know from the comments you make on this site that it is more than just a job to you, so how can you stand back and let RPs get ripped off by incompetent risk assessors who put lives at risk?
What you are actually saying is “tough; buyer beware”, it is the RPs own fault for not appointing me.
Very commendable Kurnal!
A name is for consumer confidence and consumer protection, everyone knew you needed a Corgi guy to do your gas work and FENSA for your windows and that a kite mark is a sign of quality on products.
What do you suggest the RP looks for in appointing a risk assessor?
“are you RoCRA registered” “your name is not on the RoCRA register” “Can I see your RoCRA ID please” “sorry I need to appoint a RoCRA risk assessor”
As long as RoCRA or what ever it is called is robust and user friendly it would be wonderful if the above could be heard from the RPs mouths.
The industry are due to set out the criteria for competences of risk assessors so lets hope they get it right and give it some support.
Sorry for the rant Kurnal but I some times think you and I interpret things we hear and see very differently and from the opposite sides of the fence which I guess is a good thing in some ways.
[/quote]Didn't hear the programme Bobbins but have you any idea who the "incompetent risk assessors" were? Were they LA or private consultant/advisors?
-
Thanks Bobbins yes we agree in a lot of respects and I guess a lot of my concern comes from my inherent distrust of the motives of some politicians and local authorities. Sorry for coming across as cynical but I have so often seen experienced the effects of "Do as I say not as I do " that I sometimes start to lose faith in human nature.
For what its worth I have equal or greater mistrust of the private sector and especially some sections within it - but at least they do not have the authority to tax me, fine me, dictate how I should run my business or put me in prison. Thats the reason for my focus on the Authorities.
Yes I also take your point on a universally recognised name for a register. However since unlike the Gas safe register it will not be mandatory nor will there be a single scheme. If there was to be a single scheme "Fire Safe Register " would work.
NT in the program the worst case risk assessment was only allegedly carried out - it was not recorded as there were less than 5 employees and no licence in force. In this case the owning company carried out their own ( allegedly) went bankrupt and the new owners were forced to close the building due to the state of the place.
-
One FACT missing: None of so called Government concern is about keeping people safe from fires in buildings. Its about politics and the CLG pleasing their political masters and their chums in the fire service. Stop message ends.
Further Informative message: I have said it before and I will repeat it: The professional bodies and the FIA were already well ahead of the game in addressing Bobbins concerns. Many people in the profession are giving of their time without pay to do so. The public interest is not being served by the civil servcie but by good intentioned people who have already done masses to sort out the wheat from the chaf.
What more is it people want? If they could be specific instead of ranting, there are plenty of people willing to listen.
Returning home station.
-
Colin I will be specific, if I get an enquiry from a RP asking how does s/he select a competent Fire Risk Assessor what answer do I give him, knowing in my own mind I have given the best possible advice?
-
Easy TW. tell them to go to: http://www.ife.org.uk/frr/riskregistersearch or go to a member company of the FIA or to http://www.warringtonfire.net/ContentAttachments/928.pdf.
Available for further fire calls.
-
Thanks CT but because all the registers you suggest used differing criteria to select assessors I usually choose Warrington Fire because as far as I am aware it’s the only one that is third party certificated, also I always add the proviso Caveat Emptor. What I would like to see is one national register with one set of criteria to get on that register.
Incidentally I feel a little guilty because it’s the IFE who provides my Fire Risk Management Journal and I have been on their books for some time.
-
Are we really saying that once a person or Company is registered on any scheme then that will be the end of it? There are good and bad in all occupations and so much depends on any one persons particular viewpoint. Whatever robust type of process takes place to get someone onto a register, it does and will not follow on that the person or Company concerned will be scrupulous all the time. There are many 3rd party accreditation schemes out there at the moment for all types of industry and commerce, banking as an example, that have or could fail at any time. It is not just a scheme or register that will provide suitable and sufficient FRA's it will be diligence in the job that people do. I do not know of that many RA's or FSO's who would have completed a intrusive survey in a housing block and many will still not and just make vague suggestions or recommendations about ventilation or structural work. The difficulty is knowing or having the standards available to which particular premises were built and then having an understanding about whether that standard can be increased where required or practical to do so.
-
So, being on the IFE register makes one a competent Fire Risk Assessor?
Is that what some people are saying?
-
So who are you recommending Tom?
People on the FRACS register or Warrington Fire Ltd? There is a huge difference.
Why do you feel under pressure to recommend anybody?
Why not tell people what to look for and let them choose rather than telling them who they should use.
-
Kurnal when I referred to Warrington Fire I was talking about FRACS however if I get such an enquiry I tend to be far more general.
My opening gambit is usually when employing a fire risk assessor treat it like employing any other tradesperson. Check out their competence pack if they have one, contact previous clients, what are their qualifications, also the proof, are they members of any relevant trade associations, are they on any fra registers and check out more than one company.
All these details should be looked at carefully and finally emphasis Caveat Emptor and make sure there is no come back on me.
-
Easy TW. tell them to go to: http://www.ife.org.uk/frr/riskregistersearch or go to a member company of the FIA or to http://www.warringtonfire.net/ContentAttachments/928.pdf.
Available for further fire calls.
Colin just because a company is in your club it definitely doesn’t make their risk assessors competent. Members of the FIA as far as I am aware only have a code of conduct to work to and that does not require individual risk assessors to have any kind of third party certification, and the competence isn’t even defined yet.
So the company will effectively be self assessing their fire risk assessors for competence.
“Oh yes Bill is very good he has been in the fire industry for 20 years he knows his stuff alright”
TRANSLATION:- Bill has been on a two day course on fire risk assessment as he fed up with filling fire extinguishers after 20 years.
Colin don’t make the same mistake as last time the “OLD BOYS CLUB” tag is transferable and make no mistake it will follow from the IFE if the FIA don’t do things properly. Competence needs to be independently assessed or it means nothing, hence the IFE register of competence was established. It is a step back as far as I am concerned and if what I am hearing is correct the IFSM and IFE also think competence needs to be assessed for individuals by an independent third party.
As Tom suggests a more rounded approach needs to be made by the RP a rigorous assessment of the fire risk assessors ability or failing that the this process should be done by an independent third party for the RP.
-
TW, It is not unique that there is more than one route to demonstration of competence. If you were recommending an electrical contractor, you might well recommend to people that they use an NICEIC company or a member of the ECA (or, in Scotland, SELECT). If you were recommending a fire alarm contractor, you might choose to suggest an LPS 1014 company or one certificated under BAFE SP 203.
More generally, before risk assessment was ever invented, how did you recommend a competent fire consultant-again a number of professional registrations could be cited.
As you know, in due course, there may be a national scheme for fire risk assessors. However, Rome was not built in a day.