FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Midland Retty on April 04, 2011, 12:08:06 PM
-
Hi All
Recently I dealt with a low rise / three storey apartment block. The residents committee employed an independent risk assessor to undertake a fire risk assessment of the communal areas of the blocks, at considerable cost.
The assessment consisted of three pages, mentioned several trivial items, but totally failed to pick up on the fact that some of the original fire doors accessing individual apartments had been changed by residents to non fire resisting doors
When I spoke to the assessor about this issue he quickly dismissed me and stated that 'flat entrance doors are not "communal" and therefore do not need to be considered in the risk assessment'.
He was (supposedly) trained by a well known 'elf and safety' association whom (apparently) told him flat entrance doors don't need to be considered
Is it me?
-
Unfortunately there are a great number of elf n safety consultants who believe they are competent to carry out FRA. The common view taken is that FRA can be carried out by following guidance notes
-
I remember this coming up before MR and being well thrashed out. Someone may be able to link you to the post but I can vaguely remember that some considered the door a common issue because of what it does or is suppose to do in protecting the common escape route whereas others suggested that the door is part of the individual flat. My particular view is the former.
Another issue was to how to enforce.
There is a chance that the deeds may contain conditions relating to the flat entrance doors.
-
Oh im not arguing about whether the doors are communal or not - my point is that the assessor didnt realise the significance of the doors, and why they needed to be fire resisting.
-
We could have a firenet white stick award for naming and shaming. (Only joking). But if fire services would name risk assessors on the public register of enforcement notices this would help us to get rid of the cowboys. Please also publicise the registers on your website.
I hope you will suggest the RP carries out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and obtains a refund from the incompetent consultant.
-
It is very interesting to see the number of “front doors” to flats and maisonettes that have been recently “upgraded” to uPVC. I recently observed a balcony approach condition block of maisonettes that had been modernised by the simple expedient of changing the front doors to uPVC and enclosing the balcony with double glazed uPVC units, changing it to a corridor approach. (I would suggest this changes the premises from being maisonettes to flats myself)
Burnt well too.
-
I hope you will suggest the RP carries out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and obtains a refund from the incompetent consultant.
Yes I did suggest they approach the risk assessor and comfront him about the poor standards of work.
Alas just like anything else the residents committee employed him in good faith, they responded to the assessor's glossy A4 advert in a housing magazine. They have not got the heart to confiormt him - all of the residents are in their eighties, and frankly don't want the hassle (who can blame them)
Im growing increasingly angry about the lack of guidance out there to assist the RP in selecting a competent assessor / tradesperson etc.
-
It is very interesting to see the number of “front doors” to flats and maisonettes that have been recently “upgraded” to uPVC. I recently observed a balcony approach condition block of maisonettes that had been modernised by the simple expedient of changing the front doors to uPVC and enclosing the balcony with double glazed uPVC units, changing it to a corridor approach. (I would suggest this changes the premises from being maisonettes to flats myself)
Burnt well too.
Still a maisonette if accommodation has accommodation on two or more floors. As far as the balcony enclosure is concerned its hard to believe anyone would make such huge and funamental mistakes isn't it. What were travel distances like?
This work would have required Building Regulations approval. Do you know if an application was made?
-
Alas just like anything else the residents committee employed him in good faith, they responded to the assessor's glossy A4 advert in a housing magazine. They have not got the heart to confiormt him - all of the residents are in their eighties, and frankly don't want the hassle (who can blame them)
Im growing increasingly angry about the lack of guidance out there to assist the RP in selecting a competent assessor / tradesperson etc.
So in such a hypothetical case where the responsible persons have bought a pig in a poke although in good faith, what action is a fire and rescue service likely to take?
1- Shrug shoulders and walk away making appropriate tutting noises? -
2- Serve an enforcement notice on the responsible person?
3- Consider legal action against the assessor under the Fire Safety Order? (go on read em their rights)
4- Report the risk assessor to the Trading Standards department?
Please dont tell me its number 1.
-
What were travel distances like?
This work would have required Building Regulations approval. Do you know if an application was made?
Huge. ……………..and it was LA property so probably done in house.
-
So in such a hypothetical case where the responsible persons have bought a pig in a poke although in good faith, what action is a fire and rescue service likely to take?
1- Shrug shoulders and walk away making appropriate tutting noises? -
2- Serve an enforcement notice on the responsible person?
3- Consider legal action against the assessor under the Fire Safety Order? (go on read em their rights)
4- Report the risk assessor to the Trading Standards department? Please dont tell me its number 1
No they certainly wouldn't choose number 1
Option 2- Possibly, but you would hope that the fire authority would allow the RP an opportunity to submit an action plan to remedy the failings (which is what happened I believe in the non hypothetical scenario I described)
Option 3 - Maybe - could be tricky however, and possibly only if someone were to be injured or killed in the event of fire!
Option 4 -Possibly
-
Thanks Midland thats reassuring and good to know. Its a very common scenario and we who are making ourselves unpopular with clients in these circumstances need to know the Authorities are with us on this.
Everyday we come across outrageous "fire risk assessments" carried out by people who haven't a clue and its very frustrating that we are seen as the bad guys by some clients because the last chap said everything was fine - but you need another 20 extinguishers.
Very frustrating. London seems to be worst than most places for this, came across a small first floor suite of 4 offices served by a central corridor with 14 yes 14 extinguishers - a water and CO2 in every room and two of each in the main office which measured 12x6m, (most on the far side remote from the door) an F75 wet chemical in the brew kitchen (toaster microwave and kettle) a dry powder, water and CO2 in the entrance lobby.
-
I wonder who supplied them......... :D ;)
Never let the supplier specify that's what I say.
-
Retters, Calm down, dear. All will be sorted in the wash.
-
Well Kurnal I did a sprinklered clothes shop shop a couple of weeks ago roughly 20 metres by 10 (with an upstairs stockroom with its own exit ) then when i stopped counting and falling over them had at least 16 extinguishers!
-
So who is it that is asking for all these extinguishers to be installed? and where are they being sited?
*interested*
-
Usually its the "fire risk assessor" who works for a company that sells fire extinguishers as their core business. Very thin on meaningful fire risk assessment, very heavy on the sales.
Often sited close to the perceived risk that requires protection so often remote from alarm call points and exit routes.
-
We could have a firenet white stick award for naming and shaming. (Only joking). But if fire services would name risk assessors on the public register of enforcement notices this would help us to get rid of the cowboys. Please also publicise the registers on your website.
I hope you will suggest the RP carries out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and obtains a refund from the incompetent consultant.
i think this also goes into this thread. 'Scottish Government recognises the benefits of third party certification'
You can't look to the Fire Authorities, an enforcement notice does not automatically infer that the risk assessor hasn't done his job properly.
Why not a website where your views can be posted? Ebay allows its members to 'score' each other. Then theres trip advisor!
wouldn't this be better than Third Party Accreditation. a site where you could look up the contractor and the reviews of their previous clients or agencies?
-
Some of the worst offenders for putting five times as many extinguishers in as are needed are third party accredited (& charge £200-£300 per extinguisher)!
-
Usually its the "fire risk assessor" who works for a company that sells fire extinguishers as their core business. Very thin on meaningful fire risk assessment, very heavy on the sales.
So if this is a fact. Why are some of the firms not pursued in the courts for mis-selling. ???
-
Who would initiate the action? I tell the client but what recourse do they have? A lot of hassle for a refund at best. Are trading standards interested? Probably not. There are lots of people selling stuff to others that they dont need. The fundamental probblem is that the "fire Risk Assessment" used to sell these things usually isnt suitable or sufficinet but many of these are low risk workplaces that are at the bottom of your audit priority lists.
-
So if this is a fact. Why are some of the firms not pursued in the courts for mis-selling. ???
Sorry but it is a fact. i see it all the time, virtually every week.
Why aren't they prosecuted? That easy.
because the worst offenders are the biggest companies and they are all bullet proof in their contracts. wording is everything.
'recognised best pracice'
'Our recommended standard will ensure you fully comply with British standards'.
'Look! we have loads of stickers that say we're great and can be trusted'
-
Please don’t be sorry TM I was asking a question nothing else.
That is the beauty of this forum, It shows me opinions from a wide fire industry and public sector base.
It is very very interesting.
-
We could have a firenet white stick award for naming and shaming. (Only joking). But if fire services would name risk assessors on the public register of enforcement notices this would help us to get rid of the cowboys. Please also publicise the registers on your website.
I hope you will suggest the RP carries out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and obtains a refund from the incompetent consultant.
If only, our service wont even give enforcement officers access electronically to their register yet it is available to all should they choose to visit HQ.... what are they scared of?