FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Toddy's best friend on March 23, 2011, 03:29:56 PM
-
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/scottish-government-recognises-the-benefits-of-third-party-certification
Today, fire alarm contractors etc, but maybe one day also fire risk assessors (another valuable contribution by my good friend Toddy I see)
-
Hi Toddys only friend! Welcome back to the forum. Good to hear from you again.
We all thought his supporters were becoming extinct or at least retiring to the nursing homes to re-live their memories of dipping their hands in their pockets at the bar.
-
All that says is "Colin Todd, recommended that Scottish Government guidance should make duty holders aware of the existence of third party certification schemes and their benefits. During cross examination, the Advocate for Scottish Government confirmed to the FAI that this recommendation would be considered."
So something will be considered. The title of the article was written by a journalist and doesn't mean a thing. English/Welsh government recognises third party certification. It doesn't mean a thing as its not and will never be mandatory.
-
It's nothing new and changes nothing. Unless law you are still going to get hundreds of sparkies and rag & tag firms messing up fire alarms, EL, extinguishers etc due to price or the customer not knowing any better.
The type of RP that would insist on 3rd party approval is the one who has being insisting on it for years (as it isn't a new thing, BAFE for example started in 1984)
And with the £350million of deregulation (certainly in E&W) announced in the budget (and I'm sure I heard the Chancellor mention implementing the Young report into H&S) the chances of any more mandatory requirements gets even further away.
-
Kurnal, Glad to see you too. Obviously, the broadband is still working at your care home for those with the delusions of grandeur.
Piglet, It would appear you did not read the whole article which, if I am reading it correctly was making the point that it is not just considered but has led to a change in Scottish Gvt advice on their website to encourage people to use third party certificated firms
-
TBF
If you can see Kurnal I suggest taking a wee drop of branch water with it in future ;D
davo
-
Kurnal, Glad to see you too. Obviously, the broadband is still working at your care home for those with the delusions of grandeur.
Yes I cannot understand what I am doing here with all these commoners and riff raff. It must all be some kind of terrible mistake.
-
Its the least commitment I have ever seen in a sentance!
I thought the Scots had balls!
-
TBF will you be at firex? See my post in Q and A
The Scottish government haven’t gone far enough, however I do think there may be more to come.
Look out for a very interesting concept due to be proposed at Firex by one of the presenters, third party is and will always be voluntary but it is a good way of marginalising the cowboys. The only thing is that the end user needs educating and that’s difficult.
-
It's nothing new and changes nothing. Unless law you are still going to get hundreds of sparkies and rag & tag firms messing up fire alarms, EL, extinguishers etc due to price or the customer not knowing any better.
The type of RP that would insist on 3rd party approval is the one who has being insisting on it for years (as it isn't a new thing, BAFE for example started in 1984)
And with the £350million of deregulation (certainly in E&W) announced in the budget (and I'm sure I heard the Chancellor mention implementing the Young report into H&S) the chances of any more mandatory requirements gets even further away.
I don't think the current type of third-party certification works.
They all seem to be run by organisations that charge unrealistically high fees for their services. And If third party certification became mandatory I wager that their fees would be even higher.
It also seems that the various TPC organisations have different expectations of the standards that need to be raised. I'm sure I recollect Graeme saying that his one demands his involvement in areas not even covered by BS5839-1!
What is the point of that? Will we eventually get one TPC provider promoting that their scheme as being better for end-users than other schemes? That will certainly confuse Joe Public.
Surely, there are far better ways of raising standards than the current Third Party Certification schemes which I feel are all run as 'jobs for the boys'? Let's raise standards not someone else's pay-packet/profit !
-
Third party certificaton may not be a requirement for all as yet, however the main duty holders within Scotland certainly do require third party approvals. Many are Natonal companies with a UK policy for approvals.
One gripe I would have though is that these duty holders have passed procedures and requirements down the line to the buiding maintence or facilities managers who have so much paperwork and boxes to tick that they don't unerstand the requirements or someone has passed the wrong information down the line.
I am currently arguing with a new facilities manager for a building run by The Scottish Govn. regarding CRB and Disclosure Scotland. He misunderstands the legislation and therefore as the duty holder has denied me access to a site I have been servicing for the past three years. (Enhanced CRB cleared)
God help us if there's more legislation to confuse folk with. ::)
-
Speyside, I hope to be there. TBF
-
[/quote]
I don't think the current type of third-party certification works.
They all seem to be run by organisations that charge unrealistically high fees for their services. And If third party certification became mandatory I wager that their fees would be even higher.
It also seems that the various TPC organisations have different expectations of the standards that need to be raised. I'm sure I recollect Graeme saying that his one demands his involvement in areas not even covered by BS5839-1!
What is the point of that? Will we eventually get one TPC provider promoting that their scheme as being better for end-users than other schemes? That will certainly confuse Joe Public.
Surely, there are far better ways of raising standards than the current Third Party Certification schemes which I feel are all run as 'jobs for the boys'? Let's raise standards not someone else's pay-packet/profit !
[/quote]
Wiz I would be interested in your alternative to third party; you actually say there is a better way to raise standards and you are right.
I think the answer is that the fire risk assessors should be in court along side the RP and be fined appropriately. Trading standards should prosecute every rogue fire risk assessors and the RP should sue fire risk assessors for negligence; when the FRS audit and say the fire risk assessment is unsuitable. Perhaps Dominic Little should do one of those consumer programmes ‘Fire Risk Assessors Caught on Camera’ or ‘Catch a cowboy assessor’. Better still the government could invest heavily in an education campaign to let the end user know how to spot a ‘good one’ from a ‘wrong one’
Over to you Wiz; how do you spot the good from the bad?
Third party certification perhaps!
The reason that third party isn’t working too well at the moment is simple; lack of standards which is being addressed in some part by the work of the Fire Risk Assessment Competence Council. The second and third reasons are lack of standardised assessment methods between certification bodies/registration bodies and a lack of appropriate guidance for the RP.
Wiz have you ever heard of the saying ‘quality costs’. Unfortunately your attitude to third party is the same as that of the RP to fire risk assessments. “How much? I can get a fire risk assessment for £90 from risk assessor B and you want £500. I saw one from a firm on the internet for £25 and they don’t even have to turn up”
If you/the risk assessor wants certification for nothing, can you blame the RP for doing the same with risk assessments? That’s one of the reasons the profession has such low standards.
-
Wiz I would be interested in your alternative to third party; you actually say there is a better way to raise standards and you are right.
I think the answer is that the fire risk assessors should be in court along side the RP and be fined appropriately. Trading standards should prosecute every rogue fire risk assessors and the RP should sue fire risk assessors for negligence; when the FRS audit and say the fire risk assessment is unsuitable. Perhaps Dominic Little should do one of those consumer programmes ‘Fire Risk Assessors Caught on Camera’ or ‘Catch a cowboy assessor’. Better still the government could invest heavily in an education campaign to let the end user know how to spot a ‘good one’ from a ‘wrong one’
Personally I couldn't agree more. Of course it is happening in the Penhallow case. Investigative journalism is an excellent way of raising public awareness.
The effectiveness of TPC depends on the quality and diligence of the certification bodies. In the fire industry we are starting out from a baseline level in recognising the existing registers, some of which do very little to measure competence. That is worrying. The sooner the goal posts are raised the better, and UKAS accredited certification schemes seem to be the only available way forward.
But we also have to keep an eye on the market and the legislation. There is no mandatory standard for fire risk assessments and no requirement for RPs to use fire risk assessment companies. The Legislation allows a DIY approach. So the lower end of the market is always going to be driven by cost. .
-
Speyside, It's not what the fire risk assessors charge for their work, but the additional costs they incur by being Third-Party Certified by a profit-making organisation that annoys me. This also applies to fire alarm installers and, these days, anyone else who can do the job properly, but has to pay for someone to confirm it.
If the rules and recommendations are laid down by independent bodies it is up to everybody to apply these to their work. They shouldn't have to pay for someone to look over their shoulder, and then pay someone to be looking over the shoulder of those supposedly looking over the shoulder. And so on, ad infinitum! This all just adds to additional cost to the customer and with little, in my mind, benefit to the customer.
I wonder if a TPC fire alarm installer was taken to court for some infringement, if their Third Party Certification provider would also face court action. I'm guessing that this would never happen.
I personally agree with you that it should be enough that fire risk assessors and fire alarm system installers etc. etc. could be taken to court for failing to properly implement the rules/recommendations to deter the cowboys from short-changing customers.
Who really benefits most from TPC schemes? I believe it is the TPC providers.
-
Speyside there is already a ‘legally enforced’ alternative to third party.
There is already a legal system in place for assessing that employers have carried out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a ‘competent person’; it’s called a Fire Safety Audit conducted by the local authority through the F&RS fire inspectors. There is also a definition of a ‘competent person’; this is described in PAS 79. An event like the Penhallow case and numerous other prosecutions shows us that this system is already being used.
How many individuals/companies who are taking payment for carrying out fire risk assessments have actually been prosecuted for failing to comply with the RRO?
I have carried out thousands of fire risk assessments since the Workplace Regs made them a legal requirement in 1997 (how many ‘certified’ fire risk assessors have been doing them since then?). Why should I pay out for certification, which quite often requires attendance on one of the certifier’s expensive courses before they will issue me with a certificate?
I already spend enough money on new publications and attending CPD events etc. to keep me ‘competent’ without the added burden of ‘certification’ which will no doubt have to be renewed every 3 years or so.
One again this is seems to be promoted by companies offering third party certification. Are they really interested in making the workplace safer from the effects of fire, or are they only interested in lining their pockets?
-
The only people who can make third-party certification ‘work’ are the people who provide that certification. They have to be willing and able to put the time, money and effort into promoting the benefits of their schemes to those who have the ability to make them (contractually) mandatory. Yes; without the benefit of it being the ‘law’ you will not initially get the low-end of the market interested in such schemes, but if enough high-end clients & government organisations take them up eventually the effect will trickle down to ‘Joe Bloggs Ltd’. It’s interesting to note the success of some of the other newish certification schemes out there – the fire door & installer certification schemes run by TRADA & Certifire are an example where a part of the industry that was largely unregulated a dozen years ago has been transformed by certification; now Certifire alone has about 200 members & claims to represent “over 75% of the fire doors sold in the UK”. All that marketing costs money, which is one of the reasons why membership isn’t cheap.
Government ‘encouragement’ (which is the most they will ever give, in current times) will help, but at the end of the day it’s up to those running these schemes to get membership into procurement spec’s and give their members the value for money that will enable them to earn enough to make paying the fees worthwhile.
-
Speyside there is already a ‘legally enforced’ alternative to third party.
There is already a legal system in place for assessing that employers have carried out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a ‘competent person’; it’s called a Fire Safety Audit conducted by the local authority through the F&RS fire inspectors. There is also a definition of a ‘competent person’; this is described in PAS 79. An event like the Penhallow case and numerous other prosecutions shows us that this system is already being used.
How many individuals/companies who are taking payment for carrying out fire risk assessments have actually been prosecuted for failing to comply with the RRO?
I have carried out thousands of fire risk assessments since the Workplace Regs made them a legal requirement in 1997 (how many ‘certified’ fire risk assessors have been doing them since then?). Why should I pay out for certification, which quite often requires attendance on one of the certifier’s expensive courses before they will issue me with a certificate?
I already spend enough money on new publications and attending CPD events etc. to keep me ‘competent’ without the added burden of ‘certification’ which will no doubt have to be renewed every 3 years or so.
One again this is seems to be promoted by companies offering third party certification. Are they really interested in making the workplace safer from the effects of fire, or are they only interested in lining their pockets?
My thoughts exactly!
-
Daveyh and Wiz what I am reading from your last posts is ‘leave it be’ ‘there is nothing wrong’ ‘the current system is fine’ ‘buyer beware’ ‘I am competent so that’s fine’
That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA, the professional bodies and the fire safety press to name just a few. Standards need to improve and one of the most established and an effective method is through third party certification. As fishy has mentioned it has worked for other areas of fire safety in the past. He is also correct the third parties need to promote and make it worth the expense. However the industry needs to assist and make a statement to the RP.
Don’t worry guys you won’t have to line anyone’s pockets as it is and will remain VOLUNTARY. Wiz which of the current register keepers is a ‘for profit’ organisation?
Third party is a form of assurance to aid the RP complete due diligence and reduce their chances of appointing a technically poor assessor. Third party is also a differentiator for the fire risk assessor or company; it allows them to clearly demonstrate quality and competence; which sadly doesn’t need to be demonstrated in the current climate. Poor risk assessors are just as busy as the good and the RP has no easy way of telling which is which.
Wiz how does the RP differentiate when appointing a fire risk assessor?
-
I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.
-
I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.
How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?
-
I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.
How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?
Blind faith.
-
That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA,
That would be enough to suggest to me that it is right......
-
That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA,
That would be enough to suggest to me that it is right......
What a spectacular OWN GOAL Mr Todd, one of the best ever. Well you do play for Scotland and OGs are often the only ones they score.
As chairman of the FIA fire risk assessment council, you surely can’t believe that nothing has to change and that standards are fine. Wouldn’t that make a mockery of all the pontificating about cowboy assessors and BAFE quality assurance schemes?
-
Well, Simon, I was merely pointing out that you were arguing against yourself with your strange collection of bedfellows. You were doing ok with your arguments until you blew it on the basis that you seemed to think that all else had failed so you needed to scrape the barrel by finding a collection of people who you think think that you are right.
Buzzy may now reply and say that his mum, some guy he met down the pub and a girl he was stunned by at Thompsons Garage the last time I saw him all think he is right.
-
I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.
How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?
The same way they would appoint a competent tyre fitter I suppose!
-
what i find quite funny about all of this is is that the original concept of the FSO was not just to move away from prescription by the fire Authorities and to place the burden of compliance with the occupier. But it was also intended to be acheivable by the occupier with guidance (hence the RP guides) and was distinctly intended not to create a reliance on third parties.
Anyone could of said this was never going to work. But this is why we are were we are.
Third Party accreditation, however well intended, always becomes an exercise of control and a revenue stream to be manipulated. Does it work anywhere else?
Extinguishers :D :D :D
Fire Alarms :D :D :D
I know people on the IFE register that are totally belt and braces, code huggers. they're not dangerous, but they are a burden on their client. they recommend more than they should and very rarely provide detailed explanation. Oh! and they also take on the work recommended by the FRA.
A company that tells you what you need and then provides that service? one that over prescribes! now where have i heard that before?
-
Well, Simon, I was merely pointing out that you were arguing against yourself with your strange collection of bedfellows. You were doing ok with your arguments until you blew it on the basis that you seemed to think that all else had failed so you needed to scrape the barrel by finding a collection of people who you think think that you are right.
Buzzy may now reply and say that his mum, some guy he met down the pub and a girl he was stunned by at Thompsons Garage the last time I saw him all think he is right.
If only I knew I was right all the time instead of thinking I was right some of the time. Colin, what’s it like knowing you are right all the time?
I can see how you do it, particularly about this subject; but if you could fall off the fence and actually offer an opinion. Just let us know which hat you are wearing.
As chairman of the FIA fire risk assessment council, you surely can’t believe that nothing has to change and that standards are fine. Wouldn’t that make a mockery of all the pontificating about cowboy assessors and BAFE quality assurance schemes?
Actually as you are so very very good at speaking on behalf of others I may have a go.
FIA hat
Third party UKAS accredited quality assurance certification is the way forward and will raise standards within the industry.
IFE hat
UKAS accreditation is not needed at all for third party certification.
Surely a foot in both camps means your position is untenable. I think I am right in saying that….no…. I know I am right.
It’s a bit like being a member of the Labour party and the Conservative at the same time.
It’s time to vote Colin; or deflect, distract and avoid the issue with sarcasm and razor wit as per usual.
-
To be fair both these organisations are democratic and the chairman does not get his own way all the time. The FIA position was a recommendation to the Council from its own professional standards sub committee and Colin was not chairman or indeed present for many of the meetings.
When wearing the FIA hat Colin has to represent the FIA view. Similar for the IFE.
I too would be interested in knowing Colins own view but I guess it would put him in an untenable position. Would we expect Sir Ken Knight to tell us which political party he supports?
-
I'll chip in with my two penneth.
I completely agree with third party accreditation, it is an easy way to show competence. It is not the only way though.
It is a fine balance. What annoys me as there are large companies out there farming out FRAs for loose change, sometimes free if they pick up maintenance contracts. FRAs to them are not a way of making money, they are a selling tool.
You have smaller companies carrying out FRAs that just do it because they have been involved in extinguishers and think they can. These people are most likely to fail a 3rd party scheme so won't do it. They don't need to and will carry on getting work because their prices will be competitive.
You have the smaller (under 10 consultants) consultancy companies that are very good and would pass a 3rd party scheme. These guys are probably also struggling with being undercut but they will go ahead with 3rd party because the costs are only x10 and their overheads are minimal.
You then have the medium size companies (under 50 consultants) who want to comply but need to remain competitive. Government WILL NOT make it mandatory, they have never been asked for it by a client, the costs are prohibitive. They can prove their competence in a number of other ways.
3rd Party certification is a good idea.
Depending on what camp you are in, its very expensive. You can say that if you have 50 consultants you are doing 50 times times the amount of work so you can afford it, it doesn't quite work like that.
Would a client turn their nose up if you didn't have it but you could get them to speak to any number of your clients, show cvs, insurance, ISO, Certificates?
I like the idea of the BAFE company wide scheme though
-
Well, Simon, I was merely pointing out that you were arguing against yourself with your strange collection of bedfellows. You were doing ok with your arguments until you blew it on the basis that you seemed to think that all else had failed so you needed to scrape the barrel by finding a collection of people who you think think that you are right.
Buzzy may now reply and say that his mum, some guy he met down the pub and a girl he was stunned by at Thompsons Garage the last time I saw him all think he is right.
Damn - the guy is away on business,my mum's at the shops and I'm voluntarily staying out of Thompsons as I was too distracted to get a serious drink going.
-
Daveyh and Wiz what I am reading from your last posts is ‘leave it be’ ‘there is nothing wrong’ ‘the current system is fine’ ‘buyer beware’ ‘I am competent so that’s fine’
Anyone buying any goods or services needs to take care that what they are buying meets the specification of their requirements. The good thing about fire alarm systems for instance is that there is a recognised British Standard covering all aspects of such systems. The customer only has to demand, as part of the contract, compliance with that BS to provide a powerful level of protection and the legal system can deal with any subsequent disputes.
That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA, the professional bodies and the fire safety press to name just a few. Standards need to improve and one of the most established and an effective method is through third party certification. As fishy has mentioned it has worked for other areas of fire safety in the past. He is also correct the third parties need to promote and make it worth the expense. However the industry needs to assist and make a statement to the RP.
The opinion of anyone, myself included, is almost certainly based on what they feel is best for themselves.
Don’t worry guys you won’t have to line anyone’s pockets as it is and will remain VOLUNTARY. Wiz which of the current register keepers is a ‘for profit’ organisation?
An organisation may describe themselves as a 'not for profit' organisation, but they certainly wouldn't survive if they ran at a loss (unless subsidised). However, it is the costs for running an organisation that makes 'no profit' become an interesting phrase. If these costs include a high wage bill, plush offices, fancy cars etc. etc. then those people 'forced' into providing the income for that organisation might wonder if they were getting value for money.
With no reference to the foregoing paragraph, BAFE, for example, which describes itself as an 'idependent' not for profit' organisation' is , in fact, a Limited Company with Directors etc. and at the end of March 2010 had a reserve of 'members Funds' of over £182,000.
Third party is a form of assurance to aid the RP complete due diligence and reduce their chances of appointing a technically poor assessor. Third party is also a differentiator for the fire risk assessor or company; it allows them to clearly demonstrate quality and competence; which sadly doesn’t need to be demonstrated in the current climate. Poor risk assessors are just as busy as the good and the RP has no easy way of telling which is which.
Wiz how does the RP differentiate when appointing a fire risk assessor?
Whilst my misgivings about the value of Third Party Certification schemes are about such schemes in general and not fire risk assesors in particular, I absolutely accept that someone offering a fire risk assessment for £50 is hardly likely to be providing the same service as someone who charges £500, but does the customer not enjoy the same protection in law from the failure to perform by either provider?
I'm all for raising standards in some way, I'm just not sure that the costs of TPC provides value for money
-
All fair responses Wiz, and well 'thunk' out
However if we accept that inevitably some end users are going to get ripped off and that less than competent people are operating in the open market, and will continue to do so. What can be done to help the consumer avoid being caught out?
Rogue Traders, Cowboy Builders, Rip off Britain; it happens across the board not just fire safety.
Wiz you don't seem to disagree that standards need to be raised in fire safety and I dare say you know of people in the profession that would fit in to the categories above, but can you give us something tangible to deal with the above in the fire safety sector.
-
Well for consisntency, Simon , let me make my position clear.
FIA hat: No, Simon the CB you represent cant be given a monopoly no matter that it has a good scheme.
IFE hat, No, Simon, the CB you represent cant be given a monopoly no matter that it is a good scheme.
CST view No, Simon, the CB you represent cant be given a monopoly no matter that it is a good scheme.
The Common man's view of many posters, to whom you dont seem to be listening. No, Simon, the CB you represent cant be given a monopoly no matter that it has a good scheme.
Govenrment policy: No, Simon the CB you represent cant be given a monopoly no matter that those who act on the government's behalf wouldnt know a good scheme from one run by the coop.
THERE, DOES THAT HELP?
-
The last sentence on previous thread about registration for FR assessors.
"As you know, in due course, there may be a national scheme for fire risk assessors. However, Rome was not built in a day."
I would like to ask, how long did it take?
http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4573.90
-
There is no need for a single national scheme. There is no single national scheme for most other things that are suitable for third party certification.
-
There is no need for a single national scheme. There is no single national scheme for most other things that are suitable for third party certification.
However if that is the situation it doesn't make it right and there are national registers the Gas Safety register (Corgi) for example. You could have a national register or standard administer by approved organisations something like The ABBE Level 3 Certificate in Fire Risk Assessment with many providers.
http://www.abbeqa.co.uk/template2award.aspx?centreid=30&id=3&awardid=53&course=53®ion=4
-
Tam,
I assume you will be lobbying the elctrical industry because there is no single national register of people competent to come and install the ring main in your house, or more relevantly to do a periodic inspection and test of the installation. Personally, I would always use an NICEIC approved contractor. However, I would object to any suggestion that they should run a single national register. By the way electrocutions are now very rare.
The Gas safe man comes and installs your appliances (and there is often regret expressed that Government ever allowed this single scheme to exist). The analogy is a single register for fire alarm installers. Risk assessors dont install anything. But that is not going to happen either. Government is in favour of deregulation, not more regulation. And no CB will ever have a monopoly.
I used to recommend one CB's scheme for fire risk assessors, but I never do so now, as it is being over-sold on the grounds of scaremongering. Personally, speaking as the MD of a consulting practice (and not wearing any other hat) I am content that the profession is sorting itself out and I will wait for the BAFE scheme, which by facilitating competition amongst CBs, will ensure that prices are kept to a reasonable level.
-
Simon from a CB
On a point of accuracy the CB I work for has never asked for a monopoly in fact quite the opposite they want another CB to operate an accredited scheme for fire risk assessors. It would provide extra credibility for the scheme and offer the fire risk assessor an alternative at the same level. I think I may be on record to that effect in my professional capacity and I know people have heard me say it too. I think you need to retract or clarify your statement regarding a monopoly as soon as possible. It is not something that has been asked for directly or indirectly. In my professional capacity I have been advocating the standardization of the existing registers to allow for a level playing field. A need which you have acknowledged personally in a response to an article on info4fire.
Speyside
On a point of order the opinions of speyside are not those of the certification body I work for. Just like some of the posters on this site who work for the FRS and wish to remain anonymous I use a posting name too. I will leave it to the administrator to ‘administer’ but I believe you have stepped over the mark with your posts regarding my identity.
Back to the topic; no your answer doesn’t help at all, as it avoids the issue of you being in an untenable position with a foot in two opposing camps; avoidance not through sarcasm and wit but through a statement that is inaccurate and with no basis in fact.
As chairman of the FIA fire risk assessment council, you surely can’t believe that nothing has to change and that standards are fine. Wouldn’t that make a mockery of all the pontificating about cowboy assessors and BAFE quality assurance schemes?
I do listen to those on this forum and also to those opinions on forums used by the RP and thus I have a balanced opinion of the true situation. The reality is that certification for the profession by the profession is not a recipe for a scheme that offers protection for the RP.
Simon form a CB
Thanks Colin for saying the scheme I manage is ‘a good scheme’ the reality is it only just about does what it is supposed to do. Hence our genuine concern about non accredited schemes. Do keep recommending it; as again your assumptions on how it is being ‘sold’ are based on inaccuracy. There is no scaremongering; in fact I stood in front of a room full of fire risk assessors and told them we were not selling to them at all. Due diligence for the RP is the line we have been taking and will continue to do so. The RP has a far more important role than you give them credit for and it is the end user groups who will initiate the more significant changes as has happened in other third party schemes we operate.
Speyside
If not through a National register then how can standards be improved?
Assuming you eventually agree they do; either as chairman of the FIA or as a member of the IFE fire risk assessment panel or even as CS Todd. I appreciate you are on the political ladder now, but go on gives us an answer that is clear and beyond all doubt.
Accredited certification or not?
-
It seems you have ignored everyone elses points apart from Colins!
Does your Fire Risk Assessing side of the company http://www.warringtonfire.net/2/95/default.html only have one risk assessor?
That is all you have registered on the scheme so I'm guessing you only have one consultant?
-
All fair responses Wiz, and well 'thunk' out
However if we accept that inevitably some end users are going to get ripped off and that less than competent people are operating in the open market, and will continue to do so. What can be done to help the consumer avoid being caught out?
Rogue Traders, Cowboy Builders, Rip off Britain; it happens across the board not just fire safety.
Wiz you don't seem to disagree that standards need to be raised in fire safety and I dare say you know of people in the profession that would fit in to the categories above, but can you give us something tangible to deal with the above in the fire safety sector.
Speyside, it is fair to say that there are Rogue Traders & Cowboys within too many industries. I believe that it is also fair to say that if 'consumers' had to use service providors regulated and approved by a governing body created to maintain Standards then these Rogue Traders and Cowboys would soon be identified and dealt with.
What has to be determined is if the cost of providing the regulation benefits the consumers and industry in the long run.
The direct costs of annual membership and 'certification' costs per system, and the indirect costs of adminstering the scheme may be considered as fairly reasonable to begin with. But I'll wager these costs will increase exponentially over the years as the scheme gains a stranglehold on the industry, and would become so high as to threaten normal industry expansion if such scheme became obligatory.
For example, has research and development budgets of fire alarm equipment manufacturers been affected by the eye-wateringly high costs of third-party certification of products? I believe they must have and we are currently suffering from a real lack of innovation in the industry because of this.
As I said previously, surely the British Standards recommendations are enough. If a product or service providor claims to meet these and doesn't, then the legal system can sort it out (as it would still have to do even if the providor was TPC'd).
I believe Third-party certification does very little to raise standards relative to its cost, and mighthamper the growth of an industry if it became obligatory.
In respect of the fire alarm system industry, I can't believe any manufacturer would invest a large sum of money in a product and state it complies with BS knowing that it didn't. I also believe that standards for system designers, installers, commissioners and servicers could be most simply raised by gaining recognised qualifications. Not qualifications for the company but for the actual persons carrying out the work. However, I also believe, the exam(s) for the qualification(s) must be set by a body independent of those offering training in gaining that qualification (something like City & Guilds) for it to be worthwhile.
-
CT I would always use an "National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting" approved contractor the same as you and if it was a gas installation I would use a corgi approved contractor the fact one does not use a registration system does not concern me.
However when it comes to fire risk assessor registers you have the choice, all with varying criteria, which one do I choose?
I found this quote from info4fire news which explains my concerns more eloquently, "The move towards a nationally recognised quality assurance scheme for fire risk assessors has stepped up a gear" but when is it going to happen.
Check it out at http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/needs-of-responsible-person-to-be-key-in-national-risk-assessor-scheme
I am no way asking for a mandatory scheme or regulation but somebody has to stick his head above the parapet and smash a few heads together.
-
Tom there is a choice with electrical contractors but you would select one of them over the other because it has chosen to use the word National in its name?
So if looking for an approved building inspector one assumes you would select the NHBC and not look at other service providers?
As you are probably aware CORGI no longer exists, its now the Gas Safe scheme.
-
It seems you have ignored everyone elses points apart from Colins!
Does your Fire Risk Assessing side of the company http://www.warringtonfire.net/2/95/default.html only have one risk assessor?
That is all you have registered on the scheme so I'm guessing you only have one consultant?
Piglet I name at least 4 people I respond to in my posts Wiz DaveyH, Fishy and CT please do read them again.
Strange question and very out of context of the current debate, let me know who you are and who you are working for and I will give you an answer as it seems like you have a hidden agenda. Alternatively you can fill the blanks yourself like the only one I respond to on this forum. (According to you)
-
Kurnal, NICEIC is the only one I know and to the best of my knowledge is the prime authority when it comes to electrical contractors. I highlighted the word national as opposed to local council approved contractor lists or websites specialising in approve lists or any other such recommendations.
If I required an approved inspector then I would hope I could find, one nationally recognised quality assurance scheme for AI's if not then I would be in the same position if I was looking for a FR assessor.
I do know about corgi and it still does exists but for gas installation contractors its the Gas Safety register.
Piece of useless information assuming not all my information is useless. In a former life I was an indentured artist in burnt clay and hated building inspectors who kept criticising my efforts on one occasion they made me pull down a pike because it was one inch overhanging, nasty people.. :'(
-
It seems you have ignored everyone elses points apart from Colins!
Does your Fire Risk Assessing side of the company http://www.warringtonfire.net/2/95/default.html only have one risk assessor?
That is all you have registered on the scheme so I'm guessing you only have one consultant?
Piglet I name at least 4 people I respond to in my posts Wiz DaveyH, Fishy and CT please do read them again.
Strange question and very out of context of the current debate, let me know who you are and who you are working for and I will give you an answer as it seems like you have a hidden agenda. Alternatively you can fill the blanks yourself like the only one I respond to on this forum. (According to you)
Apologies, but it seems like although mentioning them you are not listening to them.
My point was "practice what you preach" don't get me wrong, third party cert has its benefits but I was wondering why your risk assessing side of the company hasn't got on board with it? I think its a fair enough question.
-
piglet
My opinion is that I know the value of good certification and I know there is some real dross third party schemes out there. I think that some opinions are tarnished by some of the alarm and extinguisher schemes and cert bodies who run them. I am not going to change my opinion re the value of third party to the end user but I am taking note of what they say. I am also taking note of end user groups who want something in place to help their members. I am not surprised at all that some of the posters on this site don’t see value in 3rd party, it will always be voluntary and therefore it is their choice to have it or not. Unless they are missing out on contracts as a result of not having it, then it isn’t value for money but just a grudge purchase.
The short answer to your question is they are as far as I am aware, using only certificated competent assessors on a subcontract basis to do the fire risk assessment work. But as I work for the CB and they work for the guarantor company I don’t know and can’t comment with any accuracy. The two companies are very separate and have to remain so, as the relationship is subject to audit by UKAS. In terms of certificating assessors from a guarantor company there are extra measures needed to demonstrate impartiality of assessment but the standard does allow it to be done as long as the processes are auditable. Hence the benefit and assurance of having the checkers checked by a government approved body.
-
I wouldn't want you to change your opinion, I too think 3rd party certification is good.
Its just interesting to know that unless your other company (the risk assessing one) is using http://www.warringtoncertification.com/fracs/individual-register.html Dr Bob and the like, they are not using subcontractors that have been through your scheme, thats all.
-
My understanding is that they only use ‘competent’ fire risk assessors that have UKAS accredited certification. I am sorry I can’t add any more as I just don’t know those details, perhaps you should ring and ask for clarification.
-
Speyside, as always you miss the point. Calm down and listen. You have a good scheme, I have never heard a bad word ever said about it. You do yourself a disservice by calling it barely adequate-it is fine. Thats great. But in this day and age, no one will recognize only one scheme. It is a pain being first, and frustrating. We were the first consultants to receive BAFE SP 203 but no one could specify a BAFE SP 203 consultant as we would have had a monopoly. Third party certification is great, but there needs to be more people in the business of offering UKAS-accredited COMPANY schemes. It will happen, it just takes time. It is being worked on.
Person certification is another matter. It is legitimately the role of professional bodies as well as TPCBs. It complements company schemes. You put competent persons together with QMS and bingo you have what everyone is looking for. Under a company scheme, if the CB is not too happy with the competence of the persons who do the work, registered or not, it can take its own view and use its own techniques to determine competence.
It will all work in the end, it just needs time.
-
A much quicker approach would be to do what the H&S industry are doing.
http://www.oshcr.org/
Its a register of people who are professionally qualified and have promised to be good consultants.
I suppose potential clients could just ask for qualified people and ask them to be good but where's the fun in that?
Brilliant
-
Colin by the tone and message in your last post it looks like you have done the calming down. It isn’t hard to get your points when you make them so offensively and quite often for dramatic effect. Your last post is much more respectful and if I might say it, is more dignified than the cheap shots you often fire out. I have never been agitated or distressed just bemused and amused. So now you have calmed down perhaps you could try comprehending and also acknowledge your double standards.
I think this is what you are saying ‘Accredited third party only for the company and none accredited will do for the individuals’. Are you suggesting a two tier system? If so why?
It seems you are also saying that the current professional body registers will support the BAFE company scheme. I suspected all along that the BAFE scheme would be a tick box exercise and it seems like you are teeing the FIA fire risk assessors up nicely, with your get on any register message. How can an accredited scheme rely on none accredited competence assessment? It is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t make sense to water down a scheme so much that the competence element doesn’t hold any value.
I am frustrated, not at being first but at the industry for being so slow at doing something so weak that it will mean nothing and will do nothing for the RP. I have spoken with senior members of the FIA and they have all admitted to me that they have members that are doing fire risk assessments that just shouldn’t be doing them as they are not even near to be being competent. Don’t you think the industry has had time and plenty of it; October 2006 is a long long way back and your so called answer is a long way forward, 18 months was mentioned at the FIA conference. If I was in the FIA I would be asking questions about how exactly the quality differentiator suggested by the council to BAFE is going to work. It isn’t a quality differentiator in the format I think it is going to take, so what would be the point in having it? Don’t just give them a token badge, set a real quality standard one that differentiates them from the rest and more importantly offers the RP genuine assurances.
Not after a monopoly, never asked for it never wanted it. Just after a level playing field of independent accredited certification for companies and individuals on a voluntary basis that can be sign posted for the RP to help marginalize the cowboys and improve standards.
Regardless of what you say there is support for this amongst several bodies and organizations, obviously they are wrong as a collective and you’re right as an individual; but hey a difference of opinion is good.
-
A much quicker approach would be to do what the H&S industry are doing.
http://www.oshcr.org/
Its a register of people who are professionally qualified and have promised to be good consultants.
I suppose potential clients could just ask for qualified people and ask them to be good but where's the fun in that?
Brilliant
Is it brilliant? It is interesting that they are listing 722 persons competent to carry out fire risk assessments.
Have they pulled the rug from under our feet? They have more competent fire risk assessors on their lists than the current 4 fire industry registers combined but no measure of competence whatsoever in the fire field. And no fire industry bodies recognised in the member organisations.
To me its a disgrace and a travesty and I hope Sir Ken and the Competence Council are putting pressure on the OHSR to review their criteria.
-
Kurnal I fully agree with you that's the kind of situation I would like to see for Fire Risk Assessors, one register, one standard with many approved providers. I also agree with your reservations and let industry decide on the standard, also I am sure the end users would agree.
-
I have spoken with senior members of the FIA and they have all admitted to me that they have members that are doing fire risk assessments that just shouldn’t be doing them as they are not even near to be being competent
If I was in the FIA I would be asking questions about how exactly the quality differentiator suggested by the council to BAFE is going to work. It isn’t a quality differentiator in the format I think it is going to take, so what would be the point in having it? Don’t just give them a token badge, set a real quality standard one that differentiates them from the rest and more importantly offers the RP genuine assurances.
Regardless of what you say there is support for this amongst several bodies and organizations, obviously they are wrong as a collective and you’re right as an individual; but hey a difference of opinion is good.
Speyside, Any FIA registered Fire Risk Assessment company must of signed up to the FIA Code of Conduct.
Do I have it right that you think the BAFE scheme will be a "token badge" You are calling a UKAS stamp "A token badge"?! The BAFE scheme has been written and commented on by a number of extremely qualifed Fire Risk Assessors. It shows great depth of knowledge. Who wrote your scheme?
About the "support for this" comment, I think you'll find "this" means third party certification not neccesarily your scheme. They will show the same support for a BAFE scheme.
-
Prof
Strange, the 11 listed for my area do not give qualificatiopn details, and many of them don't even list assessment as one of their areas!
Methinks it is the register at fault!!!!!!!
I know one of them, an ex Federation H & S advisor ??? ???
davo
-
Simon, The doctor's practice you go to might be ISO 9000. If the ISO 9000 is from a non-UKAS accredited CB, it may not be worth the paper its printed on. The Doctor will be registered with the General Medical Council. They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.
If the doctor suggests you are a little hard of hearing, tell her the old Scots saying, "There's nane sae deef as those that dinna want tae hear."
-
They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.
I think that is irelevant Colin. Just because (only some of them) have been around for years this does not mean that they are good or competent at what they do. Or would not benefit from an outside impartial overview. The IFE is an old institution but no individual officer has served for more than a comparative few years.
Fire Brigades have likewise been around for years. Does this make them perfect and above scrutiny? Would they not benefit from an independent audit of standards, consistency and quality?
-
Its surely a bigger picture though. One of a company producing quality. So why haven't all these companies got ISO9001? Is it because they don't need it so they are not going to get it?
We have 9001 and its a great help to ensure we are quality. Not just the risk assessors but the customer services, accounts, procedures. Everything is documented and audited to ensure a good service.
So 3rd Party is about proving a good service. But only looks at the one task.
-
Simon, The doctor's practice you go to might be ISO 9000. If the ISO 9000 is from a non-UKAS accredited CB, it may not be worth the paper its printed on. The Doctor will be registered with the General Medical Council. They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.
If the doctor suggests you are a little hard of hearing, tell her the old Scots saying, "There's nane sae deef as those that dinna want tae hear."
Colin take yer pick of these auld Scottish sayings!
‘Yer bum's oot the windae’
‘An ill-willy cow should hae short horns’
‘As true as Biglam's cat crew, and the cock rocked the cradle’
‘A wise man gets learning frae them that hae nane o' their ain’
‘Say well's good but do well is better’
But I love this new Scottish saying from some wise old Scot talking about the existing fire risk assessor registers
‘There may be a need for some form of leveling of the playing fields,’
What about this for a suggestion BS 17024 and BS 45011 with UKAS accreditation for all schemes, as a minimum requirement.
There has to be a good reason why you think one of these standards is essential but the other isn’t. I think you are saying that the British standard for bodies operating certification of persons doesn’t apply to the professional bodies because they’re good guys and they do that sort of thing and have done for some time so lets not make them do it properly. Kurnal has it spot on and without this leveling the two tier system could actually become a three tier system. Self certification …….anyone!
Piglet that’s what your FIA code of conduct is, self certification and I wrote all our schemes on the back of a fag packet down the pub. You need to check out ISO guide 67, UKAS just check you’re doing what you say you are; the level of what you do is set by the CB or in the BAFE case some well qualified fire risk assessors.
-
I hope you are not this angry with all of your potential clients!!
I merely stated about the FIA code of conduct as you had claimed you had been told FIA companies aren't doing a good job.
With regards to the ISO 67 guide, it gives guidance on product certification systems, so im not sure where you are going with it.
Anyway did you hear Battersea Dogs home was broken into the other day?
Police are searching for leads ;)
-
I hope you are not this angry with all of your potential clients!!
I merely stated about the FIA code of conduct as you had claimed you had been told FIA companies aren't doing a good job.
With regards to the ISO 67 guide, it gives guidance on product certification systems, so im not sure where you are going with it.
Anyway did you hear Battersea Dogs home was broken into the other day?
Police are searching for leads ;)
Not angry piglet, just short on time for a full response to your comments and questions and to be honest its getting a bit tedious now; what started out as fun has become too much like work thanks to Colin ‘outing’ me on the forum.
I think its best just to agree we all have different opinions and leave it at that. The industry stakeholder group has a meeting on the 21st of April and I hope we will have an industry decision on this very topic at this meeting. One way or the other, a decision is all I really want, so at least it is clear to everyone what standards the industry wants to set.
-
Simon, While I am very sorry I blew your cover, I did not know you were trying to keep it a secret. To be honest, I have never really understood why people use aliases, other than in the case of FRS people, as the FRS have never really rejoiced at free thinking and free speech, so I can kind of see why some of them would not want to be identified.
Equally, if people are making vehement comments or advising all and sundry, I think their angle should be identifiable. I asked a fire service chum months ago if he thought my poisoned finger was alright and he took a look at it and said yeah it should be fine. Now I need to see a specialist next week, as I have a lot of pain in it and a worrying little cyst. But in accepting my chums advice I knew what his level of expertise was, so I dont hold him to account. I am thinking of getting my daughter a new car, and the man from the bmw garage said I should buy a mini from him. He sells good minis and when he said he would advise a mini cooper I knew he might have a bias, though I will probably take his advice (also next week).
The affiliation of most people here is perfectly obvious and it is relevant I feel in some cases that it should be. For avoidance of doubt Kurnal for example, is a fireman turned consultant. Its good to know that cos if he tells me something about the gear ratios of a Dennis, I will probably not bother to check if he is right cos I myself just select gears in a car and know nothing of fire engines. If he tells me the answer to a question on second order differential calculus, I will check it very carefully, as he does not have an honours degree in maths. All of his other views lie somewhere between these two extremes. But if he were to say, for example, all small fire risk assessment companies should only employ ex fire officers from the east midlands I will know where he is coming from.
Tam used to be a fireman too I believe and now spends his time altruistically wanting to help the world. I think Piggie has made it clear where he comes from , not least cos he very courteously asked if it was ok to tell people about his companys cool new product.( It was). graeme is a fire alarm geezer from gods own country and the Buzz is a similar geezer in the country where god goes on holiday. So if Buzz says why do the NI regs not say something (or why did that girl in thomsons garage not give him a second look) we will know we are hearing a legitimate point of view (well not about the girl in the nightclub as she was way too young for him) from someone with a particular perspective.
When I have views about the CLG and the FRS people know its in part cos no one gets consultants in to tell them how well the FRS are doing and arent their enforcing officers lovely chaps, but instead as consultants 10% -20% of our turnover is cos of crap enforcement of crap legislation and crap guidance documents for which I blame crap civil servants with the sole exception of wee b, and he is only not crap cos bre taught him well not to be crap.
If it bothers you that much I am sure you can bribe someone in the passport office to give you a new identity.
-
Speyside ;D
In view of the posting title and the fact that most viewers still don't have a clue who you are, I shouldn't throw the teddy out just yet ;D
CT is right, the background of the poster will influence the casual viewer looking for solutions and indeed lesser mortals like me looking for a steer 8)
davo
-
Davo
My opinions are not always the opinions of my employer and just like some of the FRS guys I do need to mindful of that. Plus I am now being asked questions regarding the work I do and not on my opinion or thoughts in general. It’s only a small matter but one that has happened before on this site, if you don’t want to be identified you may have good reason and that should be respected. If people want to put on personal details, that’s fine and if you don’t then so be it. Thanks for the apology Colin!
-
"My name's Allen and I'm a regional fire alarm engineer"
God,that feels so much better getting that out in the open. ;D
-
"My name's Allen and I'm a regional fire alarm engineer"
God,that feels so much better getting that out in the open. ;D
Why only 'regional', Buzz?
What are you still hiding?
-
A regional fire alarm - blimey that's a big job.
-
Thats what it says on my card - Regional Engineer NI.
-
Kurnal, you are right, the IFE is an old institution, though, as it is of similar age to you, you might prefer to call it mature and experienced. It was founded in 1918 in SCOTLAND. You remember that day don't you? You spent the day playing pool in the fire station unlike these modern young bloods, who spend much more time knocking on people's doors in dwellings, giving them smoke alarms and generally spoiling the fun for the operational people by reducing fires.
Given that, by your own admission, part of the reason you are here is for marketing purposes, it is no surprise that you tell people on your website that you are a grad of the IFE. Now, Big Al, you know how Simon the CB worries his wee head about possible inconsistent views, so I feel that in view of your views so to speak, you should amend your website to say something like “I am a grad of the IFE but it is an old qualification obtained from an old institution a long time ago and never gets looked at by any third party, so you would be better going to someone younger like Toddy, who has a degree in fire engineering that was subject to third party scrutiny because I have been giving consultancy advice for years without even as much as ISO 9001 in relation to the services I produce.”
-
Buzzy, If you had told the girl with the legs in Tomson's garage that you were a regional fire alarm engineer, my bet is that she would have thrown her underwear at you, rather than staring at the wall behind you as though you didn't exist.
-
Wee B, Norn Iron is a very small region, so it is not that big a project. Following regionalization I fully expect Norn Iron and the whole South West of England to become the Western Command of London Fire Brigade. They will appoint a Sub Officer as the Divisional Commander, and he won't need to fly to get to the Norn Iron stations as he will live in cloud cuckoo land anyway and think that he can leap across the Irish housemaid's knee in one bound. There will soon be 7 redundant Chief Officers in Scotland who can act as his leading fireman.
-
Wee B, Norn Iron is a very small region, so it is not that big a project. Following regionalization I fully expect Norn Iron and the whole South West of England to become the Western Command of London Fire Brigade. They will appoint a Sub Officer as the Divisional Commander.
Bugger. i wanted that job!!! Now you've just spoilt it by telling me i'm over qualified.
All that hard work for nothing. >:(
-
Buzzy, If you had told the girl with the legs in Tomson's garage that you were a regional fire alarm engineer, my bet is that she would have thrown her underwear at you, rather than staring at the wall behind you as though you didn't exist.
You see,that's why some of us gets the chicks and some of us don't - experience.
-
Colin I am touched. How kind of you to visit my website, I do hope you enjoyed your browsing experience. I do however hope you did not link to me via my google advertisement as this would have cost me 3p plus VAT for the click. ;D
As you can probably tell from that marketing is not really a major priority though I do remember once saying that one reason I post on firenet is to raise the profile of my business. I made that statement partly through a feeling of awkwardness when I copied your lead and added my business name as a footer to each post. Actually yes several posters did like my helpful approach on firenet, forgave my over enthusiasm to assist and occasional hare trigger and appointed me to work for them. I have been grateful to firenet for this and would not seek to hide this, though as a marketing tool it will never be cost effective. Several of these customers have become firm friends, and this is the best thing of all.
Please forgive the website, it is old and in need of update. It will shortly include details of what we are doing to implement a QMS and in seeking third party certification, not from one but two of the person registers. I have already had some discussion with FRACS over their company scheme but the manager suggested that it was perhaps not aimed at small companies such as mine at this time.
I remain more than a little surprised that you cannot understand Speyside's desire to remain anonymous. I note that none of your people ever post here and remember you once telling me that if they so much as gave their granny free advice on where to place her smoke alarm they would be out. Perhaps such restictions and control may be imposed by other employers too? ;)
-
TM: What hard work????????????????????????
Buzzy, who did get the girl with the legs???
Kurnal, I always forgive your many many errors of judgement and, in this case, your hardness of hearing, which is something that comes with advanced age I would imagine. Firstly, how do you know none of our people post here. Perhaps they are being anonymous like Simon the CB. Secondly, I think you will find I said that if they gave any advice (free or otherwise) without it being subject to QA they would be in trouble, because of liability considerations, of which, I know, you are always totally unaware. On the QA point, if you do ever manage to get a QMS system in process like any responsible practice would have had in any case, you will understand the point.
-
Kurnal, I always forgive your many many errors of judgement and, in this case, your hardness of hearing, which is something that comes with advanced age I would imagine. Firstly, how do you know none of our people post here. Perhaps they are being anonymous like Simon the CB. Secondly, I think you will find I said that if they gave any advice (free or otherwise) without it being subject to QA they would be in trouble, because of liability considerations, of which, I know, you are always totally unaware. On the QA point, if you do ever manage to get a QMS system in process like any responsible practice would have had in any case, you will understand the point.
Colin I am grateful for your benevolent forgiveness. It is good to know one can be absolved so quickly, after all I am unlikely to find if the Good Lord has been so accommodating till I arrive at the Pearly Gates.
It is good also to hear that you do understand others desire for anonymity. Firenet has no problem whatsoever with the concept of anonymous postings provided posters do not purport to represent the views of anyone other than themselves.
Your concern for potential liability as a result of posting off the cuff advice on a public forum has been raised in the past, I had not linked this to your concerns over your own people posting here and apologise for misrepresenting this. Communication is a two way thing and this point had not come over to me. Perhaps we should revert to fire service radio procedures. Message ends. Over.
In terms of Quality Management Systems I do recognise the point, but as you recently said yourself in this thread , Rome was not built in a day. Speaking personally I actually operate as a sole practitioner, but with strategic links to other sole practitioners who assist me to complete projects. I find that most of the big players in the field also operate in this way, (and I for some of them). Very few fire safety consultants are direct employees of the companies for whom they carry out work.
As a small consultancy I find I am already way ahead of most large competitors in having signed up to the FIA code of practice and from April this year undertaking to use only practitioners who are on one of the existing four registers. I note that the majority of large practitioners including National and International companies / fire safety organizations do not appear to have yet taken this step.
Whilst quality and service are important to me, as a fairly young business timing is an important consideration when considering ISO 9001 certification. There are obvious costs involved:- the cost of certification itself, plus the other costs such as consultants fees, perhaps buying a kit, and the work associated with developing audit and management systems involved.
It's something I have been weighing up to see if the cost-benefit ratio stacks up: that is at what stage it becomes viable to do so. Not one customer has yet asked me for it, so market forces are not leading me down this path, as with the FIA membership criteria it’s founded in a desire both to do a good job and to be seen to be doing a good job for my customers.
Regarding the other practitioners that I use, they only want to make an honourable living and are not interested in ISO 9001 certification. As they are my subcontractors though my QMS will have to show how I select, monitor & manage them to ensure that my client gets the standard of work they expect and deserve.
Like many other member companies of the FIA I feel I am bending over backwards to meet the concerns of Sir Ken and the Government and will implement the recommendations of the Compentency Council when these are finalized. I look forward to BAFE to produce a decent Company scheme in SP205 to complement the FRACS company scheme already operating. But I also hear concerns from other disciplines in respect of the performance of some of the CBs operating some of the other BAFE schemes which undermine their credibility within their sectors..
No matter how good the schemes, I fear all this effort and expense will not come to fruition and standards generally will not improve unless the CBs, Fire and Rescue Services and the Government grasp the nettle and publicise the importance of using competent companies.
-
Big Al, I do not believe there is any problem with any of the other BAFE schemes. All CBs that operate them have to be accredited by UKAS to ensure a level playing field. It is very easy for people to say that they found some fault or other with a BAFE registered firm. One could equally go off and find fault with non-registered firms. This does not reduce the credibility of the BAFE schemes. I am in no doubt whatsoever that all the CBs in question to a good job on behalf of the public.
-
Prof
I did not realise google charged you 3p plus vat when I visited your website the other day.
Cheque's in the post ;D
davo
ps All that accreditation must hit the coffers of CT and asociates somewhat, eh? ???
-
Out with Cockburn in with Speyside
-
Piglet, Please send £100 along with the size you require and I will send you by return a David Cockburn is innocent OK tee shirt.
-
Colin I’ll send you another £100 if you put on the back “Speyside is Guilty” and in teeny tiny letters underneath put ‘of not agreeing with the opinion of CS Todd’
-
Colin I'll swap you for a framed signed photo of Harriet Harman stroking her cat ;)
-
Colin I'll swap you for a framed signed photo of Harriet Harman stroking her cat ;)
Is Colin actually yours to swap? ;)
-
Colin - I will swap you my signed copy of Phil Barry's Autobiography entitled "I Did It My Way,Collllllin" in return for your "Frankie Says: Relax, Don't Risk Assess" T-shirt (very much a collectors item)
-
Big Al, I do not believe there is any problem with any of the other BAFE schemes. All CBs that operate them have to be accredited by UKAS to ensure a level playing field. It is very easy for people to say that they found some fault or other with a BAFE registered firm. One could equally go off and find fault with non-registered firms. This does not reduce the credibility of the BAFE schemes. I am in no doubt whatsoever that all the CBs in question to a good job on behalf of the public.
I dont think there is a problem with the schemes as such but do you not hear the frustration of some of the companies who have registered under those schemes?
For the scheme to be a success companies must feel it is worth being a member, that the certification body will actively police the scheme, that the scheme will be managed in a responsible and cost effective manner and that the schemes will be publicised by all stakeholders and end users informed over the benefits of using contractors registered under such schemes.
I hear rumblings from respected posters on this forum and whenever I go to a CPD day or fire safety event I hear much grumbling and discussion over this. Or maybe it is just hot air and hearsay? Come on guys have your say.
-
Big Al, I have heard such things about TPC from the days when you were a young firefighter (well actually not quite that long as I cant remember the 4 pennies in the phone box to send the stop message). It was said in the early days of LPS 1014 (when a leading firm of consultants did all the inspection work!!!) and is still said today.
As a BAFE SP203 company ourselves, we have no complaint about the scheme, the CB we use or BAFE.
-
TM: What hard work????????????????????????
I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm too busy at the moment.