FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Midland Retty on February 09, 2010, 04:50:16 PM
-
Hi Folks
Your comments please.
What accreditation do you look for when appointing or recommending a fire alarm contractor? - in other words if a punter were to ask "How do I check my fire alarm installer / servicing engineer is competent" what do you tell them?
There are the usual accreditation schemes out there such as LPC and FIA but what do you recommend?
Would it be helpful to list accrediated schemes on the forum so that RPs when visiting the site can see the recognised schemes that are available and select a contractor and or check the competency of their contractor ?
-
My experience is that choosing a service provider who is accredited by a third-party organisation is no guarantee of receiving a cost-effective or competent service. Some of the stupidiest and laziest fire alarm engineers I've ever met have been employed by 'third-party accredited' companies!
However, I would accept that choosing an accredited company is far better than sticking a pin into a list from the Yellow Pages!
I maintain that the most important 'selection' criteria (in order of importance) are:
1) Recommendation from someone you know and trust.
2) Properly and fully insured
3) Length of time established
4) Written contract of service to be provided and with guarantees
5) Membership of recognised trade body
6) Smart corporate image
-
Working for someone who gives advice as part of our business, we need to be careful how we specify.
I'd be asking for someone who is 3rd party accredited for fire alarm design/installation/commissioning/maintenance (delete what ever isn't necessary) by a UKAS accredited body.
-
Thanks for your replies so far
Anymore thoughts on this folks?
-
Don't rely on general Contractor Approval schemes that vet all trades for potential scheme customers - they check the person is insured and has all the H&S paperwork mountain but in no way means they won't over charge/over specify/cut corners/be incompetent as they do not look at this aspect in any useful way shape or form. They are intended purely to ensure that any contractor a customer uses is going to work on your site in a safe appropriate manner and that if something still goes wrong they are insured.
-
Three things to insist on when looking for competent individuals;
1 An individual certification of competence (company schemes can be very weak unless the certification body are on the ball)
2 Membership of a trade/professional body with a published code of conduct
3 Insurance cover
If you have the three above; then if anything goes wrong you have three bodies to complain to, and hopefully do something about the complaint. Removal from the certification scheme listing, removal from the trade association and an increase in insurance premiums are all motivators for the company to get it right in the first place.
There are no sure fire ways of guaranteeing quality, even big companies can get it wrong. Anyone drive a Toyota?
-
Thanks Anthony and Bobbins
Bobbins you mention an individual certificate of competence - what would that be specifically,? what should it say on that certificate, and who should it be issued by?
cheers
mf
-
I have a office company located in the Bromley, Kent area, that will be looking for a competent fire alarm company and also a extinguisher/E/L company.
Anyone know any cowboys..........I mean competent contractors please PM me (they will have to go through a vetting process, but not the CDM standards).
Cheers
-
I doubt anyone can answer you Retty in the way you are expecting and that is because no one really knows. I've seen a bewildering number of so called qualifications from bodies ive never heard of. And the daft thing is they may be ok and up to the job. But its difficult to check their credibility. Id say if someone hands you a piece of paper which says " joe bloggs" has attended a course to design install and maintain fire alarms to BS 5839 then its a start. Then follow Wiz's bullet points to check you will get good service. The problem is the RP could be duped into employing someone they think is ok only to find theyre not who they say they are. I would suggest so long as the RP has made "reasonable" enquires as to the person's competence then they should never find themselves in court which is why I suspect you are asking about this. Given Gordon Browns mob has done little to help RPs in this particular area and to be honest neither has the fire industry the RP is left as always a bit high and dry wondering where to go. The sad thing is we fire consultants, and enforcing officer dont know either, unless someone wants to bite the bullet and correct me on that of course.
-
Hammer 1
I know many on this forum are absolutely competent and well worthy of a recommendation.
For starters on the alarms side why not give Galeon, Dave Rooney, Buzzard905, Dr Wiz, Bearded Yorkshireman, Graeme, a call? And those others I have not mentioned but who prove their competence day in day out on the technical forum helping folks resolve their sticky problems.
I know Dave Rooney and Galeon are on your patch.
-
I'll admit my list of decent contractors is also from experience & recommendation rather than them being in a scheme - in the very unlikely event those above can't help I might be able to also.
-
The purpose of this thead was to highlight the difficulty an RP has in choosing a competent contractor and it is interesting to note no-one has suggested any specific schemes or qualifications in their responses.
Im not saying any of the replies are incorrect but I am mindful that when we specify or recommend an RP installs an alarm system to BS 5839 for example, they dont get into the situation of employing someone in good faith only to find out down the line, perhaps in court, that the contractor wasn't competent.
How do I reasonably check the competence of an engineer? I may have been recommended an engineer, the engineer may be punctual, reliable, and fully insured, but that doesnt tell me he or she is competent to install a fire alarm necessarily.
What is it that tells me specifically that an engineer is competent? How would I stand up in court and safely say " yep i did everything i could possibly do to ensure this fellow was competent"
Some people say experience is a pointer toward competency - well where has that experience come from, did they learn from another engineer years back? For years Ive generally done repairs on my own car - does that make me mechanic?
-
The purpose of this thead was to highlight the difficulty an RP has in choosing a competent contractor and it is interesting to note no-one has suggested any specific schemes or qualifications in their responses.
Im not saying any of the replies are incorrect but I am mindful that when we specify or recommend an RP installs an alarm system to BS 5839 for example, they dont get into the situation of employing someone in good faith only to find out down the line, perhaps in court, that the contractor wasn't competent.
How do I reasonably check the competence of an engineer? I may have been recommended an engineer, the engineer may be punctual, reliable, and fully insured, but that doesnt tell me he or she is competent to install a fire alarm necessarily.
What is it that tells me specifically that an engineer is competent? How would I stand up in court and safely say " yep i did everything i could possibly do to ensure this fellow was competent"
Some people say experience is a pointer toward competency - well where has that experience come from, did they learn from another engineer years back? For years Ive generally done repairs on my own car - does that make me mechanic?
Depends on who carried out the in-house training in relation to making an engineer competent.My personal experience is that it counts for more than some of the accredited companies who have joined the SP203 scheme for example,some of who I wouldn't trust to change a 13A plug.Yet,certain sections of the industry are insisting on membership of this scheme and the BS does point towards it as proof of competency also.
We don't have it and where I am based it is causing difficulties - I have a small site that I have maintained for over 15 years but now the council is insisting that the maintenance company be accredited by a UKAS accredited company and that the maintenence must be done to BS5839:1988.
Anyone want to spot the problem with this requirement??
-
I can get someone to quote you on 1988 standards Buzz, but it will still be at 2010 prices!
-
I can get someone to quote you on 1988 standards Buzz, but it will still be at 2010 prices!
I'll bear that in mind Wiz!!
-
Cheers for that Buzz
Right come on the silence is deafening folks, need some answers please.
If some of you are uncomfortable in replying publically please PM me. I never asked barbed questions and Ive no hidden agendas, and this is not an attack fire alarm engineers. I'm just asking a genuine question.
So I will ask again - if I were an RP and I needed to install a fire alarm to BS 5839 what should I do to ensure I employ a competent engineer? Do I only go for engineers that have their sp203 ticket? Should I disregard anyone who has no formal qualifications? What do I do?
What I'm gleening from the replies so far is that there is nothing stopping me having a quick glance at the relevant guides and then setting myself up as a fire alarm engineer. Now, I know other roles within the industry such as assessors can set themselves up with no previous experience, so what should I advise RPs on how avoid the cowboys and employ the good engineers?
Lets list some of the accredited or formal schemes which are out there. If formal qualifications are not necessary where an engineer has experience then lets specify what experience means - does 2 years fitting alarms making you competent? Does 10? what? what is it we are talking here.
If Im asking a daft question, please do tell me, but if Im advising an RP I would much prefer to steer them in the direction of the good guys, not the cowboys. Surely that benefits everyone concerned.
-
M.F. The simple answer is surely that there is no simple answer!
However, I would say that choosing a member of a third-party assessment scheme is a virtual guarantee of getting a competent, if not necessarily the cheapest, job. It is probably the only 'guarantee' currently available.
However, there are certainly many others who can provide an equal, and possibly cheaper, job, but a customer would need to then check the following criteria (at the least)
a) Obtain personal recommendations or references from similar jobs for at least three years.
b) Obtain a guarantee that the design/installation/commission/servicing would be to BS5839 Part 1 2002 + A2 2008.
c) Insurance cover is in place suitable for the work in question
The simple answer would be for a non-profit making organisation (but excluding all those 'non-profit making organisations' that are really just 'jobs for the boys' from the insurance industry) to provide a simple but cost-effective nationally accepted accreditation scheme. Currently having so many schemes run for profit, is confusing and expensive for everyone.
-
M.F. The simple answer is surely that there is no simple answer!
However, I would say that choosing a member of a third-party assessment scheme is a virtual guarantee of getting a competent, if not necessarily the cheapest, job. It is probably the only 'guarantee' currently available.
However, there are certainly many others who can provide an equal, and possibly cheaper, job, but a customer would need to then check the following criteria (at the least)
a) Obtain personal recommendations or references from similar jobs for at least three years.
b) Obtain a guarantee that the design/installation/commission/servicing would be to BS5839 Part 1 2002 + A2 2008.
c) Insurance cover is in place suitable for the work in question
The simple answer would be for a non-profit making organisation (but excluding all those 'non-profit making organisations' that are really just 'jobs for the boys' from the insurance industry) to provide a simple but cost-effective nationally accepted accreditation scheme. Currently having so many schemes run for profit, is confusing and expensive for everyone.
Ahhh,the voice of common sense and good practice speaks again!!!
-
M.F. The simple answer is surely that there is no simple answer!
However, I would say that choosing a member of a third-party assessment scheme is a virtual guarantee of getting a competent, if not necessarily the cheapest, job. It is probably the only 'guarantee' currently available.
The simple answer would be for a non-profit making organisation (but excluding all those 'non-profit making organisations' that are really just 'jobs for the boys' from the insurance industry) to provide a simple but cost-effective nationally accepted accreditation scheme. Currently having so many schemes run for profit, is confusing and expensive for everyone.
Two things WIZ
Firstly you are right with accredited schemes, it is a measure of quality which should guarantee a specified level of service, but more importantly it provides a level playing field.
Secondly I think you are wrong; with the non-profit making organisation angle. Why? Professionals versus amateurs. The so called profit making organisations do the job for a living they are not peer assessors they don’t do it as a favour. They will work to a standard model and also be checked by UKAS to ensure what they are doing is independent and accountable. They will have to be efficient and offer a professional service. Yes these schemes cost more but I don’t believe its all down to profit. If you take cars as an example you can get from A to B in a Fiat Panda or you can go in a BMW, quality costs! If you want simple and cost effective you can buy a Panda and if you want rock solid reassurance you buy BMW I agree there has to be a balance but in my opinion cheap is cheap for a reason.
Wiz don’t be fooled by what you think is a non profit organisations, they are still in the business of making money the only difference is where it goes. They will have targets and margins and % to aim for just the same as a profit making company. Yet they won’t have the accountability a professional company has or be subject to the same controls and inspections.
-
Thanks for your replies so far folks.
The reason I ask questions like this stems from the fact that most RPs want to comply with legislation but need to be steered and directed to resources which will help them to do so.
Im concerned an RP could end up in the dock because the s/he has employed a dodgy contractor or assessor whose actions have caused a serious case offence. Perhaps Im being unrealistic, and looking too deeply at it.
But lets be honest from the RP's viewpioint appointing competent persons is a minefield, infact we have proven it on this very thread the the issue of competency is a minefield to people who actually work within the industry!
To what extent do we say the RP has done everything reasonably practicable to appoint competent persons. How does the RP stay out of the dock?
I notice alot of assessors / consultants have said little on this, so my question is this , how competent are we if we cant direct or guide RPs to appoint competent persons. What are we doing to check we are guiding our clients in the right way?
-
M.F. The simple answer is surely that there is no simple answer!
However, I would say that choosing a member of a third-party assessment scheme is a virtual guarantee of getting a competent, if not necessarily the cheapest, job. It is probably the only 'guarantee' currently available.
The simple answer would be for a non-profit making organisation (but excluding all those 'non-profit making organisations' that are really just 'jobs for the boys' from the insurance industry) to provide a simple but cost-effective nationally accepted accreditation scheme. Currently having so many schemes run for profit, is confusing and expensive for everyone.
Two things WIZ
Firstly you are right with accredited schemes, it is a measure of quality which should guarantee a specified level of service, but more importantly it provides a level playing field.
Secondly I think you are wrong; with the non-profit making organisation angle. Why? Professionals versus amateurs. The so called profit making organisations do the job for a living they are not peer assessors they don’t do it as a favour. They will work to a standard model and also be checked by UKAS to ensure what they are doing is independent and accountable. They will have to be efficient and offer a professional service. Yes these schemes cost more but I don’t believe its all down to profit. If you take cars as an example you can get from A to B in a Fiat Panda or you can go in a BMW, quality costs! If you want simple and cost effective you can buy a Panda and if you want rock solid reassurance you buy BMW I agree there has to be a balance but in my opinion cheap is cheap for a reason.
Wiz don’t be fooled by what you think is a non profit organisations, they are still in the business of making money the only difference is where it goes. They will have targets and margins and % to aim for just the same as a profit making company. Yet they won’t have the accountability a professional company has or be subject to the same controls and inspections.
Bobbins, I accept that you are entitled to your opinion and that it is a valid opinion, but I disagree with you.
I have actually found that most people are not looking for 'cheap'. They are looking for 'value for money'. They are looking for 'not paying for fancy offices and corporate images'. They are looking for 'not paying through the nose because I don't know anything about this subject'. They are just looking for a job well done at a reasonable price.
I personally don't like paying for someone else to confirm that what I have done complies with BS. Generally, I know more than the person who is 'checking' me, so it is a waste of money. And the 'checking' costs are not cheap, particularly when these also include an element of charge for the 'checker' to also be 'checked' by another person to ensure he is 'checking' correctly! And Ad Infinitum, I would imagine!
I also don't like paying for expensive training I don't need to get a certificate issued on the results of a simple test when I'm not given the opportunity to take the test without the expensive training!
In saying all of the above, I don't see how the 'cowboys' can ever be 'weeded out' without some sort of assessment/certification scheme.
-
Well said Wiz you hit the nail on the head. Midland I tell my clients to look for an installer with some form of accreditation, the client will then come back to me so that i can check the persons credentials if its a scheme im unaware of.
-
Ah Cleveland. How about you and I developing a funny handshake so that when your client comes to you for you to "Check" you recommend me in return for a nice bung.
Simples.
-
Ah good, there you are Kurnal - come on dont be shy while you are here tel us what you advise your clients if they ask how to find a decent and competent fire alarm engineer ...
-
Simples. There are four firms that i know and trust having worked along side them on other jobs and I always recommend one of them on a horses for courses basis and others I have met through the forum and learned to respect from the quality of their postings.
The fire field is no worse than any other industry though and personal recommendation is always the best and most reliable indicator.
Can you recommend a good builder, plumber, garage, masseur, solicitor? (particularly the masseur)
Most customers want a good job at a fair price. And most of the industry endeavours to deliver that but with varying degrees of success.
But there are a substantial number of customers (and I find some groups in society to be more prone to this than others ) who just want the cheapest and nastiest job doing that looks right and fools the authorities cos you chaps all too rarely actually look at the commissioning certificate and measure the system against it. These customers are the fair prey of the rogues in the industry. Bit like a certain factory I came across in the West Mids that churns out "Fire Doors" that have never been near a candle let alone a test lab. No amount of certification schemes will clean any industry of these rogues- and if busted they will move to another industry and prey on people there. Oh dear I guess I have gone and upset the moderators again :(
-
Thanks for that Prof.
So from the replies thus far the answer appears to be that there is no simple answer.
Does that suprise me? No. But does it need addressing? That depends: Am I being perhaps a bit over the top to suggest one day we will see an RP hammered in court simply for choosing the wrong contractor? A contractor who on the face of it ticked all the boxes?
The tips you have all given should atleast help an RP make an informed choice when selecting a competent contractor, which is better than nothing, and that was the point of my asking the question.
Prof its not like you to tar everyone with the same brush, least of all Fire safety Inspectors, some of them do look at certification you know.Stop baiting! Will get you back at playtime - (oh and I've PM'd you about the masseur!!)
-
No you arent being over the top. It will happen and unfortunately the responsible person will cop for it because as with everything the government does there is sketchy information available to the minions it deems should cmply with its laws.
Kurnal your comment about fire safety inspectors is wholly inaccurate. If people started having a rant about us assessors you'd soon be up in arms talking about sweeping statements and all the rest of it. So lets not be silly as some assessors are just as bad.
-
A client I have has a very large portfolio , having worked for them for many years , they asked me to recommend a good fire consultancy practice . Which I did and my client who is now their client is extremely happy.
The twist in the tale , when my clients , tenants ask for risk assessments etc , I advise them to use >>>> , as they also work for their Landlord , the tenant then searches the tinternet decide they can get it cheaper , then moan to me about what a crap job they got.
I told you so , gets boring after a time , ultimately you pays your money .....................
What I have done for many years is build up a good working relationship with like minded people , and insist upon common sense , but when it comes to the punters it aint so common.
I am lucky not to have any issues with the boys who do the RP work as we go back some 20 years now , if you are 'recommending ' firms put a few on a list , and bear in mind it doesn't have to alphabetical .
Old story not what you know ...........
-
Hi Galeon
Cheers for that, so the fire consultancy you recommended, how did you know they were competent? Im not asking because im having a pop at consultants, or anyone else, Im just interested in general opinion - what made you think "This company is good and knows it stuff?"
-
MR/MF/TMU
Does that suprise me? No. But does it need addressing? That depends: Am I being perhaps a bit over the top to suggest one day we will see an RP hammered in court simply for choosing the wrong contractor? A contractor who on the face of it ticked all the boxes?
If as you suggest the RP has chosen a certified and accredited contractor would he not have a defence of 'due diligence' and could not the contractor be regarded as a responsible person under 5.4a
Please be gentle I'm new in these here parts!
-
MR/MF/TMU
Does that suprise me? No. But does it need addressing? That depends: Am I being perhaps a bit over the top to suggest one day we will see an RP hammered in court simply for choosing the wrong contractor? A contractor who on the face of it ticked all the boxes?
If as you suggest the RP has chosen a certified and accredited contractor would he not have a defence of 'due diligence' and could not the contractor be regarded as a responsible person under 5.4a
Please be gentle I'm new in these here parts!
I agree with Jimbosdad. If the contractor "On the face of it" ticked all the boxes and the RP had some evidence could show that they had exercised reasonable diligence there would be no case to answer. Probably a suitable question to ask of the Man on the Clapham omnibus.
It is not what what we specialists with our inside knowledge perceive that matters- more what the average person would be expected to consider.
-
The fact is what we speciailsts perceive doesnt matter cos we dont really know ourselves. If I asked you to name all 3rd party accreditation schemes for fire alarm engineers out there would you know all of them. I wouldnt. Why isnt there any checklists available to guide an rp on what they should look for.
What do we mean by "ticking all the boxes". We still haven't bottomed what ticking all the boxes is. Jimbosdad mentioned accreditation so Im not sure who is saying what or who is agreeing with what. I dont disagree with him and in the case of accreditated engineers the rp may be ok. I think Midland is being unrealistic. But it is so crucuial to advise responsible persons the right thing and not put them in the position where they end up in court in the first place, regardles of what the final outcome might be.
I said it before ill say it again you will get one clever lawyer who will push the boundaries on definitions of things like due dilligence and reasonably practical. An rp will get caught out through no fault of their own, I can see it happening cos one persons definition of reasonable may be completely different to the next man.
You cant just go and get any pimpled herbert to install a gas boiler and the same should apply to fire alarms.
1)
-
This is a similar discussion we had regarding Fire risk Assessors having a compulsory certification scheme as suggest by Sir KK. http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4573.0
Compulsory National Registers may solve the problem, but trying to devise them is another matter as the above thread shows.
-
The problem here is that we are all saying different things.
If we can't make our minds up then what chance has the RP got?
If we are saying that accredition would prove due dilligence, as jimbo did, then what about the engineers who haven't sought accreditation?
Just because they haven't got accreditation doesn't mean they are incompetent, but we haven't mentioned anything yet (other than Wiz's checklist) to define what we are actually looking for.
So put yourself in the shoes of an RP
Define what experience an engineer should have? Is it 5 years? 2 years? what?
What relevant guarantees should they give? what insurance? do these things alone allow RP to prove due dilligence?
I want to point an RP in the direction of a good engineer (accredited or not) so lets define what exactly we mean by experience, and all the rest of it.
-
I am not going to profess to have any great knowledge on the fire industry or the accreditations that are available but from my experience of being recognised that is not the be all and end all. Experience at the moment seems to be more important in most not that im complaining about that. I think you need to combine accreditation with hands on.
There was a recent case where a con artist pretended to be an expert in fingerprints claiming to be a member of the national fingerprint society (This was completely made up) Having testified in thousands of cases in court they have all had to be re examined and in most cases teh convictions overturned. NOt only this but the Council For The Registration Of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP) was a genuine body but that has now disbanded because people like the above were getting registered.
I think accreditation in any field can help but using soley accreditation alone could cause problems like the above situation or maybe unqualified people doing e.g maybe FRA's. Like with forensic science we have the Forensic Science Society, is there anything similar to that for the fire industry or is the IFE the main governing body?
-
Hi Galeon
Cheers for that, so the fire consultancy you recommended, how did you know they were competent? Im not asking because im having a pop at consultants, or anyone else, Im just interested in general opinion - what made you think "This company is good and knows it stuff?"
The head honcho is from north of the border , but resides in Surrey , as to them being competent I will leave that open , answers on a postcode .
-
Yes ok Ill let you have that one - he is my bestest friend him ! ;)
-
The problem here is that we are all saying different things.
If we can't make our minds up then what chance has the RP got?
If we are saying that accredition would prove due dilligence, as jimbo did, then what about the engineers who haven't sought accreditation?
Just because they haven't got accreditation doesn't mean they are incompetent, but we haven't mentioned anything yet (other than Wiz's checklist) to define what we are actually looking for.
So put yourself in the shoes of an RP
Define what experience an engineer should have? Is it 5 years? 2 years? what?
What relevant guarantees should they give? what insurance? do these things alone allow RP to prove due dilligence?
I want to point an RP in the direction of a good engineer (accredited or not) so lets define what exactly we mean by experience, and all the rest of it.
Midland Lion, experience can mean nothing and it can mean everything. To even consider a time reference is nonsense, 30 years or 3 months; it matters not a jot. What counts is that you can do the job and that you can prove you can do the job.
Doctors and teachers are an example that everyone can understand. Old doctors and teachers may be stuck in their ways, they may have lost the drive, they may not use modern techniques or understand modern theories in short they may just be waiting for retirement. Young teachers and doctors should know modern techniques, they should have more energy, the training they have had should be fresh in their minds and they should be keen to do well. Experience is relative, and to give a blanket number shows no appreciation for the individuals concerned. You get some good young people and some bad old people and vice versa. Why should it be any different for fire alarm engineers or fire risk assessors?
When you watch the TV program ‘Rogue Traders’ the people featured in the main are not youngsters and have ‘been in the business’ for more than five minutes.
The problem is that accreditation schemes are not all the same and they are not compulsory, so you can get cowboys with accreditation and you can get good guys without it. Hence the RP is stuffed, as once again they have to make assumptions regarding the competence of the person they appoint.
Accreditation is a starting point, and that only comes from a UKAS approved scheme. Trade representation is a must as long as the trade body has a published code of practice. Insurance is essential and the other elements are as per normal; personal references, a good credit rating and a professional approach all help convince you of competence.
The long and the short of it is there is no easy way to appoint; hard work and effort on behalf of the RP is the answer even then there is no cast iron assurance, but at least you have some comeback on others and you have been seen to do your homework as an RP.
-
Thanks for that Bobbins, I slightly disagree that the time reference doesnt matter. You wouldnt class a firefighter competent in three months, but thats by the by, I do realise the general point you are trying to make and in the main agree with you.
I will leave it there. Im not going to get the answer I want, because the answer just isn't there. I firmly believe however that HM Government need to produce some better guidance to assist RPs in appointing competent persons.
Thanks for all your replies / comments.