FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: William 29 on July 08, 2011, 09:51:51 PM
-
WARNING TO LOCAL BUSINESSES AFTER LANDMARK FIRE SAFETY PROSECUTION
Business owners and companies contracted to provide Fire Risk Assessments to businesses are being advised to pay greater attention to Fire Safety legislation following the sentencing of two Mansfield men at Nottingham Crown Court today.
David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Market Place, Mansfield, was jailed for 8 months and ordered to pay £15,000 costs after pleading guilty to 15 Fire Safety offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
John O’Rourke, who runs Mansfield Fire Protection Services, Mansfield, was also jailed for 8 months and was ordered to pay £5,862.38 after he pleaded guilty to two breaches of Fire Safety requirements in relation to the inadequacy of Fire Risk Assessments he provided for Mr Liu’s hotels.
The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct Fire Risk Assessments and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.
Fire Protection Officers from Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service had visited both premises and found that the fire precautions which should have been provided to protect residents and employees in the event of a fire were inadequate. This presented a serious risk to the lives to Mr Liu’s customers and staff, so they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises as hotels until suitable improvements had been made.
Mr Liu was prosecuted because he was the responsible person for both premises, and failed to make sure they were safe for customers staying there. Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he carried out Fire Risk Assessments at both hotels, but those assessments were wholly inadequate.
Today Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is reminding all owners and occupiers of buildings of their legal responsibility to protect their customers and staff against the risk of fire and warning them that, where necessary, action will be taken against anyone found to be in breach of Fire Safety regulations.
Ian Taylor, Fire Protection Group Manager at Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, said: “It is a legal requirement for places of work to have a Fire Risk Assessment. Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment and Fire Safety measures appropriate for different types of premises are available on the Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service website and also on that of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The guides are to assist employers to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment.
“If employers are unsure about their own ability to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment within their premises they should seek advice from a competent person. In ascertaining someone’s competence to provide Fire Safety advice I would encourage people to ask for references, be aware of what Fire Safety training and qualifications they have and check to see if they are registered or accredited with an appropriate third party body.”
-
Is there any information on the failings of the fire risk assessment? I have seen someof thetick box type that were factually incorrect and significant findings that were totally irrelevant!
-
Does anyone know how the fire risk assessor was prosecuted i.e. was it under article 32(10) or by virtue of article of 5(4)?
-
Sorry I don't know any other details other than the info posted, I'll see what else I can find out.
-
Check out http://www.chad.co.uk/news/mansfield_pair_jailed_for_hotel_fire_safety_breaches_1_3561159 a little more info.
-
I now have more details of the offences in this case at:
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fire-risk-assessor-and-hotel-manager-jailed-for-fire-safety-offences-updated-11-07-11 (http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fire-risk-assessor-and-hotel-manager-jailed-for-fire-safety-offences-updated-11-07-11)
-
Does anyone know how the fire risk assessor was prosecuted i.e. was it under article 32(10) or by virtue of article of 5(4)?
Was responsible under Article 5(3) failed to comply with Article 9(1) failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to which relevant persons were exposed.
-
I am a liitle surprised that Mr Liu got prosecuted, after all he relied on the competence of Mansfield Fire Protection. If I were Mr Liu I would think about an appeal. If I were Mr Liu I would argue that I am not a Fire Engineer and that is why I employed the services of Mansfield Fire Protection to carry out the process and instruct me accordingly.
It is interesting that the case law now suggests that the RP can not rely on the external consultant for absolution. It is also interesting that this prosecution is as a result of routine inspection not incident.
I think this indeed is a landmark.....I am impressed with Nottingham enforcement team.....there are plenty more where these two came from.
-
There has always been a requirement on the RP to ensure that the persons conducting the fire risk assessment are competent to do so. I think there are many ways and means out there now with the various risk registers of assessors to do this. I do have some sympathy in this case and it does look like an example has been made by the Courts.
-
I agree. But do the RPs know how to check competency in this respect, I still feel there far too little information out there to assist the RP.
Put yourself in their shoes, if they you know nothing about the industry how do you know about the likes of the IFE, FIA, et al ?
And even if you did a bit of homework I could set up a new trade association tomorrow called "The Fire Risk Asessessor Association" if I wanted - doesn't mean to say it would be any good, yet people might assume it was a pukka , responsible association, especially if I produced a glitzy website, and jazzy leaflets.
-
Midland
New guidance for the RP is being produced and should be available shortly after the competence standard has been released. You do hit the nail directly and squarely on the head re your fake association and the lack of adequate signposting. A National register of assessors is the way forward; the one stop reference register; signposted by everyone in the fire industry with a requirement for UKAS accreditation will be a huge step in the right direction.
That way you could set up your F.R.A.A. but the approval you ran wouldn’t be accredited so they wouldn’t appear on the national register; which everyone would use as a starting point. I don’t believe there is an alternative unless prosecutions of assessors are going to increase massively.
-
I am a liitle surprised that Mr Liu got prosecuted, after all he relied on the competence of Mansfield Fire Protection. If I were Mr Liu I would think about an appeal. If I were Mr Liu I would argue that I am not a Fire Engineer and that is why I employed the services of Mansfield Fire Protection to carry out the process and instruct me accordingly.
It is interesting that the case law now suggests that the RP can not rely on the external consultant for absolution. It is also interesting that this prosecution is as a result of routine inspection not incident.
I think this indeed is a landmark.....I am impressed with Nottingham enforcement team.....there are plenty more where these two came from.
Jim
The way to avoid being prosecuted as an RP is to complete a very robust due diligence process and the use of accredited registers is normally held to be material evidence of due diligence. It is for the accused to prove that they couldn’t have reasonably done any more to avoid committing an offence. I don’t believe that in this case the hotel manager could prove that he took all due diligence in selecting his assessor.
-
A National Register just puts another beauracratic layer, increases cost and does not improve standards. Look at ordinary Health and Safety IOSH, NEBOSH and a practitioners national register but still problems with risk assessments. It is enforcement that improves standards so well done Nottingham......hope Essex can do the same......at arms length of course
-
Jim
Where is the money coming from for increased enforcement and prosecutions? It all costs, and as inspection is barely adequate now what will it be like in 12 month or 2 years time? Industry is going to have to self regulate I am afraid, and that can only be done through an effective voluntary system. The issue here is about offering the RP a safe way to select a competent fire risk assessor and to marginalise the cowboys by encouraging the RP to use the safe way.
One prosecution in five years isn’t an incentive for the bad assessor to improve or pack up altogether; hundreds of assessors maybe; but have the FRS got funds for the fight? No!
I know you wont agree Jim but those who ‘can’ need to demonstrate it, those who ‘buy’ need to know about it, so those that ‘can’t’; don’t do it any more.
Carrot or the stick?
-
I can see both sides of the argument.
I've spoken to numerous assessors / consultants who tell me that the cost of joining accredited schemes is astronomical, and indeed it was a consultant here on firenet who first explained to me the sheer work involved in becoming accredited, the beaurocracy, the numerous pitfalls and potential problems that could be faced along the way, and other dubious practices on the part of adjudicators. I do sympathise for assessors trying to make a responsible, decent living.
But if I want my gas boiler serviced I know I have to seek a Gas Safe accredited engineer. Fire Risk Assessments are just as life safety critical and must be undertaken by someone competent.
Would we allow gas engineers to be unregulated? The answer is no. So where do we go from here? Should we not just grasp the nettle and go for an independent accrediatation scheme like Gas Safe for risk assessors? Entry requirements should be fair and at minimal cost to the assessor, the simple goal being to prove the assessor is competent, and can be accredited.
-
A National Register just puts another beauracratic layer, increases cost and does not improve standards. Look at ordinary Health and Safety IOSH, NEBOSH and a practitioners national register but still problems with risk assessments. It is enforcement that improves standards so well done Nottingham......hope Essex can do the same......at arms length of course
I bet Essex love the result in this case; A RP with a FRA gets jailed!
Far better to use a FRA provider which is related by only a short arms length from those who enforce/prosecute! Bound to be OK - it's almost as good as Crown immunity!
-
Would we allow gas engineers to be unregulated? The answer is no. So where do we go from here? Should we not just grasp the nettle and go for an independent accrediatation scheme like Gas Safe for risk assessors? Entry requirements should be fair and at minimal cost to the assessor, the simple goal being to prove the assessor is competent, and can be accredited.
What is the average daily rate for an assessor?
Would you expect the accreditation to be more or less than this average?
Do you want the checkers checked?
Would you expect the assessment to conform to the ISO standard for competent persons schemes?
I think very few people understand what is involved in competence assessment; it shouldn’t be a token rubber stamp. It should do what it says on the tin, imagine you want a the services of a professional do you want a third party approval that says This guy looks ok on paper’ or do you want one that says ‘This guy is alright and will stay alright’?
I think I may set up the Rubber Stamp Approvals Company (RSAC) send me your CV and £50 quid and you’ll get your certificate….say no more!.
I think you may have been misinformed about third party approval by those who may not understand it or indeed may not have been through it. Independent audit of schemes is one reason they can be trusted.
-
Eli I believe it is not really possible to compare the registers operated by the professional institutions with the FRACS register which to my knowledge is the only one at the moment subject to independent audit? I am not convinced that any scheme run by peers and based soley on peer review can ever be the same league as one that has achieved UKAS accreditation. (and by the way I am a member of one of them).
As for daily rates for assessors that is entirely driven by market forces, overheads and margins. Provided costs and subsistence, travel and overnight expenses for the accreditation officers are reasonable and transparent there isn't a problem. I would not expect it to include first class travel and five star hotels though- they are not civil servants after all ;)
-
Hi Eli
Firstly for an accreditation scheme to work it has to be accessible to all, not just the bigger, financially flexible companies, but to self employed assessors too. I realise schemes dont come cheap, but if you make it too expensive you will simply price the smaller people out of the game, which is unfair.
Secondly the scheme must be IMHO independent and UCAS accredited. Peer reviewed schemes can be inevitably biased, whether we like it or not - those peers may well be people you are in competition with.
Thirdly it must never ever be a rubber stamped token accreditation scheme.It has to be a scheme which actually tests those being accredited. Ask them to risk assess staged scenarios perhaps, so that the examiner can watch how the assessor works, and what the assessor has or has not picked up. Then some sort of written test of theoretical knowledge of fire safety.
Im not saying I have the answers, Im just thinking of ways you can test competency without physically shadowing an assessor when he or she is out and about undertaking risk assessments.
Im also thinking of ways to negate the possibility of Joe Bloggs submitting three ficticious risk assessments for a panel to scrutinise.
-
I think if the Gov had the decision again it wouldn't have a gas safe scheme. However without wishing to belittle gas techs there is only so far their knowledge needs to go, with RAs there is a long way you can go and lots of different leagues.
There is the comment about these schemes being commercially viable for big and small companies, this is silly as it doesn't matter the size of your company. If you have one assessor you will pay one price if I have fifty I will pay fifity times what you have to but I should generate 50 times the income.
An independant audit of the auditors is a good idea but also has its pitfalls, with peer review at least the panel have a decent working knowledge of what you are talking about. If the auditors were any good they wouldn't be doing audits would they not? Whats the saying about teachers? failed at their career so they teach.
I also have concerns that the company offering a UKAS stamped accreditation owns a company offering Fire Risk Assessments, that just happens to be based in the same building.
There is no definative answer, you can argue every point. Prosecutions like todays should hopefully scare some cowboys out but Im a keen believer in keeping your own house in order. I can prove we are competent, we are ISO 9001, we keep ourselves up to date, we have access to the British Standards, we will introduce to clients for references etc etc its not all about a certificate.
I have never been asked to see a certificate.
-
I totally agree accreditation does not mean you get a good job. You can be third party accredited to ISO 9000 and still produce crap.....It just means it is consistent crap......accreditation are valid references from satisfied clients.
-
Jim does have a point, certain H & S accreditors are better than others
As from other threads, when you check the registers, the amount of topics they specialise in would make one believe you are employing a guru.
Someone ought to tell them a Nebosh fire certificate does not make you a fire risk assessor for anything bigger than a small enterprise or offices.
One of these days someone's ar*e will be hanging out due to the poor quality RA
davo
-
i suspect theres one or two very twitchy Assessors right now
-
I suspect that one or two of those twitchy assessors will be accredited and have certificates to burn
-
I suspect that one or two of those twitchy assessors will be accredited and have certificates to burn
Thats a silly comment
-
Good grief they be asking Brigade fire safety officers to be offically accredited next
-
Good grief they be asking Brigade fire safety officers to be offically accredited next
That's actually not a bad point! I get frustrated when we conduct assessments that are scrutinised over the most minor of points and deemed not suitable and sufficient when it is clear there is lack of knowledge and understanding of risk on the auditor’s part when the assessors have to jump through all the hoops. We all know they there are still fire officers out there thrown in at the deep end with little or no training and the experience that there is, is fast retiring. There should be a competency standard for the auditors as well in my view.
-
There is the comment about these schemes being commercially viable for big and small companies, this is silly as it doesn't matter the size of your company. If you have one assessor you will pay one price if I have fifty I will pay fifity times what you have to but I should generate 50 times the income.
No, not silly at all Piglet - you have missed the point completely.
How much do you think a self employed assessor can afford to get through accreditation? £500? £1000? 2000? 50?
Do you not realise that a large well established consultancy will have more financial mobility than Joe Bloggs to afford putting their people through accreditation. Im not saying they pay less per head.
Infact go and have a look at the thread discussing the jailed risk assessor, my point is proven fairly and squarely there.
-
There is a 3rd party accreditation for enforcers
-
There is a 3rd party accreditation for enforcers
Do you mean the IFE one? If so just look at how many Brigade areas do not have any auditors listed?
-
There is the comment about these schemes being commercially viable for big and small companies, this is silly as it doesn't matter the size of your company. If you have one assessor you will pay one price if I have fifty I will pay fifity times what you have to but I should generate 50 times the income.
No, not silly at all Piglet - you have missed the point completely.
How much do you think a self employed assessor can afford to get through accreditation? £500? £1000? 2000? 50?
Do you not realise that a large well established consultancy will have more financial mobility than Joe Bloggs to afford putting their people through accreditation. Im not saying they pay less per head.
Infact go and have a look at the thread discussing the jailed risk assessor, my point is proven fairly and squarely there.
I know your point but just because a company is larger doesn't mean it has more disposable income. I know alot of one man bands that are very good and they will have to pay 1 lot of fees, a larger company will have to pay say 50 times that fee as they are 50 times bigger. They do have 49 times more the income but the overheads are a lot bigger then the one man band, marketing, admin, accounts, vehical fleet, more insurance etc etc.
Its as much of a stetch for a large company to go through these schemes as a smaller one, I know both sides of the fence.
3rd party accreditation is a nice thing to have but why? Is it just for yourself? Clients don't ask for it, its not compulsory, we have a very good package to prove competence.
I can't really see your point being proven elsewhere! Its a massive cost for a larger company, just because you are bigger it doesn't mean we charge more likewise with being smaller it doesn't mean you get paid less, or if you do, you're not selling it properly.
If we look at the cost of accreditation as being 5% of annual turnover, that may be £500 for the small guy but £15000 for the larger company, its a lot of money to find!
-
There is a 3rd party accreditation for enforcers
Do you mean the IFE one? If so just look at how many Brigade areas do not have any auditors listed?
exactly so if the government/local authority have decided its not worth it, why does industry think it is?
-
CFOA are currently looking at standards and competencies for IO's in an attempt to compensate for the loss of formally assessed courses at FSC following the introduction of the marvelous IPDS system.
-
Are CFOA suggesting that IPDS doesn't work and shutting the stable door as the horse vaults over yonder fence???
Well, I , for one, am deeply shocked!
-
I suspect that one or two of those twitchy assessors will be accredited and have certificates to burn
Thats a silly comment
The organisation for which I now conduct FRA employed a fire safety consultantcy whose consultants were accredited and had lots of letters after their names. Yet the assessment that were carried out in the words of the enforcing officer were not worth the paper on which they were written.
Certificate do not make good fire risk assessors, niether IMHO does accreditation.
Having a level of accountability and prosecution of this nature may help to remove those who worry more about the fee than the safety of relavent persons.
-
I suspect that one or two of those twitchy assessors will be accredited and have certificates to burn
Thats a silly comment
The organisation for which I now conduct FRA employed a fire safety consultantcy whose consultants were accredited and had lots of letters after their names. Yet the assessment that were carried out in the words of the enforcing officer were not worth the paper on which they were written.
Certificate do not make good fire risk assessors, niether IMHO does accreditation.
Having a level of accountability and prosecution of this nature may help to remove those who worry more about the fee than the safety of relavent persons.
This is true, apologies i realise what I hadn't exactly read your statement properly.
-
I know your point but just because a company is larger doesn't mean it has more disposable income. I know alot of one man bands that are very good and they will have to pay 1 lot of fees, a larger company will have to pay say 50 times that fee as they are 50 times bigger. They do have 49 times more the income but the overheads are a lot bigger then the one man band, marketing, admin, accounts, vehical fleet, more insurance etc etc.
Strongly disagree I will say again a larger company can be more financially mobile than Joe Bloggs the individual. Im not saying they will pay any less for accreditation because of course it is going to be proportional.
Im merely pointing out that bigger companies can normally take the hit much better than your average self employed person. Bigger firms can call upon funds if they really need / want to, whereas Joe Bloggs will not have that luxury.
-
Chariot can you tell us any more? I am interested to know whether the problem was the competence or diligence of the individuals, the policy of the company employing them requiring them to work in a particular way or the format of the report document.
To me if a competent person applies a good system, eg such as PAS79 then there should be no problems.
If a company I was working for would not allow me to use my skills properly it would be my head on the block and I would walk away very quickly.
-
I wonder where we stand when the competency of a fire risk assessor is challenged and indeed the FRA as being suitable and sufficient if it has been audited by an inspecting officer without any third party accreditation apart from the obvious letters after their name and the fact that they may (or may not now!) wear a uniform???? ???
-
I know your point but just because a company is larger doesn't mean it has more disposable income. I know alot of one man bands that are very good and they will have to pay 1 lot of fees, a larger company will have to pay say 50 times that fee as they are 50 times bigger. They do have 49 times more the income but the overheads are a lot bigger then the one man band, marketing, admin, accounts, vehical fleet, more insurance etc etc.
Strongly disagree I will say again a larger company can be more financially mobile than Joe Bloggs the individual. Im not saying they will pay any less for accreditation because of course it is going to be proportional.
Im merely pointing out that bigger companies can normally take the hit much better than your average self employed person. Bigger firms can call upon funds if they really need / want to, whereas Joe Bloggs will not have that luxury.
We will have to disagree then, am I right in thinking you don't work for a "big" company? Where are you making this judgement? Are you talking about taking out loans? So again you are talking about taking out the same amount of percentage of loan as a smaller company accept this time you have a lot more peoples income to protect so you have a lot more risk.
A one man band could do it on an overdraft facility, a big company is taking a big risk.
A large company has massive overheads to be able to be that big, office space etc! People who work from home, wife does the accounts, then they have a bigger percentage of disposable income
-
They call this an arms length risk assessment, they do in Essex anyway.......having spent many hours talking about fire safety I am of the opinion that the profession is full of opinion....just that......some opinions are based on a deep knowledge base and some on a very shallow base, some are based on knowledge and practical experience bringing another dimension, some opinions are rigid some are more flexible.......my opinion is that they are all valid it has to be for the courts to decide....that is what they are there for......with words like suitable , sufficient and significant. I have probably read with interest something like 500 Fire risk assessments this year and while I obviously have questions by and large they are suitable and sufficient for the management of fire safety and definately satisfy the requirements of the RRO. The debate about accreditation is about money not bad risk assessments.....if it were bad risk assessments we would of had more prosecutions....now for facts.....just one since 1992 when risk assessments were introduced.
Risk assessment is a management discipline it is not rocket science......The maintenance of building components, fire safety arrangement and fire safety management systems are all policy, procedure and practice disciplines......Audit and Review are taught on the most basic management courses.....In my opinion the task at hand is to get ordinary business managers to own the responsibility and get involved. Maybe if we cut the scientific mystery out of it the process of good fire safety management would be embraced by more people.
-
William29 why do you think CFOA are looking at it? There have already been a number of instances where legal challenges have been made loosely questioning the Bona Fides of the IO and indeed their inability to follow their own national guidance.
-
Chariot can you tell us any more? I am interested to know whether the problem was the competence or diligence of the individuals, the policy of the company employing them requiring them to work in a particular way or the format of the report document.
To me if a competent person applies a good system, eg such as PAS79 then there should be no problems.
If a company I was working for would not allow me to use my skills properly it would be my head on the block and I would walk away very quickly.
The document used was fine and would be suitable for use following the guidance and methodoligy of PAS79.
The policy of the company at that time was pay someone to do our FRA's and they will be responsible, they now know better.
As for competence of these assessors they may have been competent to carry out fire risk assessments for some premises but they were definately not competent to carry them out on ours, as for diligence I am not convinced that some of the premises risk assessed where actually visited co-incidently nor was the enforcing officer when he conducted an audit and found that the assessor had recomended intumescent seals for the letterboxes for each individual flat when there were no letter boxes, there were no recommendations in regards to the wooden communal letter boxes stuffed with mail and free newspaper adjacent to the only exit from the building, which happened to be what was set alight.
I could list many more problems with these assessments some were possibly just typo's, unfortunately most would not be considered the sort of mistakes that would be made by those who were competent.
-
We will have to disagree then, am I right in thinking you don't work for a "big" company? Where are you making this judgement?
Agree to disagree it is then.My judgement comes from personal experience (I've worked for bigger companies and have also 'gone it alone') It is also based on discussions I have with risk assessors from all kinds backgrounds in the industry on a regular basis. But anyway we digress. Back to the main argument.
There seems to be mixed concensus with regard to accreditation.Some say its good, others say it is bad.
So what I'd like to know is where does this leave the RP? How on earth do they know how to pick a decent, pukka, competent Risk Assessor or Consultant ?
Ive never said third party accrediation is a good thing, it doesn't really mean that an accredited person is better than a non accredited person or that it offers any form of guarantee (although it should).
But why is it then I would select a a Gas Safe Engineer or NIC EIC Electrician to work on my gas / electrics and not just Joe Bloggs the handy man, down the road who has been recommended to me?
-
The difference is that the corgi schemes etc are for joe bloggs consumer not business.....the ordinary man in the street has to appear to be protected by government because they vote? Business people are fair game and are required to pick up the tab....Over the last 20 years I have heard stories from other people that have had terrible plumbers and electricians but all the companies were registered but on balance over the same period I have had excellent craftsmen . ....why because the penny finally dropped about 20 years ago I started asking the right questions like can you give me some people I could call that have used you before? Is there somewhere I can go to see the work you have done? In fact when they get down our road they never seem to leave as they get recommended from one house to the next. I am still of the opinion this is about money, if you want it cheap...businessman or consumer you get what you pay for.
-
We will have to disagree then, am I right in thinking you don't work for a "big" company? Where are you making this judgement?
Agree to disagree it is then.My judgement comes from personal experience (I've worked for bigger companies and have also 'gone it alone') It is also based on discussions I have with risk assessors from all kinds backgrounds in the industry on a regular basis. But anyway we digress. Back to the main argument.
There seems to be mixed concensus with regard to accreditation.Some say its good, others say it is bad.
So what I'd like to know is where does this leave the RP? How on earth do they know how to pick a decent, pukka, competent Risk Assessor or Consultant ?
Ive never said third party accrediation is a good thing, it doesn't really mean that an accredited person is better than a non accredited person or that it offers any form of guarantee (although it should).
But why is it then I would select a a Gas Safe Engineer or NIC EIC Electrician to work on my gas / electrics and not just Joe Bloggs the handy man, down the road who has been recommended to me?
Its a mixed bag especially when there are a number of different accreditation schemes and my personal opinion (although others may agree) is that they have set the bar at different levels.
You would hope a business should be used to analysing a companies worth by looking for things like ISO, insurance? proof of trading history, example work, references and 3rd party accred along with that lot.
It is strange though that you can have an electrician do certain works that require part P but they can then get the work signed off by a part P registered tech. So I can do the wiring in my house myself but just pay sparky ltd to come along and vouch for it.
Does this mean that fast forward a few years, this could happen to FRA?
I agree with you ( ;D) when you say about it being a mixed consensus, i'm a sit on the fence person. I see no reason why its not a good thing but its not all of the thing.
-
Several brigades have civilised to save enforcement costs, they then aren't going all to blow that money on IFE accreditation!
-
Thats the problem anybody who can afford it can buy accreditation.
-
Thats the problem anybody who can afford it can buy accreditation.
It's the price of a new TV not a new car!
The FBU have given a report to CFOA which recommends competent persons certification for all enforcement officers. I don't think they will go for that but they may instigate some core training modules across all forces to try and improve things. However the reality is that FRSs are going to struggle to maintain even the limited inspection service they offer now. Fire Futures dictates that an input from industry is now required to assist the FRS to fulfill this role.
Private enforcement officers could do a lot for a stretched service but that’s another can of worms. .
-
Thats the point most people can afford a tv and an awful lot can afford a car too this does not make them competent many cannot change the channel when something they find offensive comes on and as for cars!!!
You have licences for both.
-
Thats the point most people can afford a tv and an awful lot can afford a car too this does not make them competent many cannot change the channel when something they find offensive comes on and as for cars!!!
You have licences for both.
Sorry Chariot I miss read your quote. You think accreditation is just a rubber stamp and that you don’t have to do anything to get it apart from pay your cheque to the CB.
I think you must be talking about some of the schemes I am not familiar with. Have you been through assessment by a CB or are you just assuming that its easy to get if you pay the fees?
-
Hi,
I have been on the sidelines for a while, reading the posts and enjoying. Picking up a lot of info and of course enjoying the jokes. (well most of them.)
Here is the latest on the proscecution of the "Fire Risk Assessor", who services fire extinguishers and admits to not knowing much about fire risk assessments.
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/jailed_pair_put_profit_before_fire_safety_at_two_mansfield_hotels_1_3570739
Regards, DavyFire
-
Hi,
I have been on the sidelines for a while, reading the posts and enjoying. Picking up a lot of info and of course enjoying the jokes. (well most of them.)
Here is the latest on the proscecution of the "Fire Risk Assessor", who services fire extinguishers and admits to not knowing much about fire risk assessments.
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/jailed_pair_put_profit_before_fire_safety_at_two_mansfield_hotels_1_3570739
Regards, DavyFire
Good info DF and welcome to the Forum.
-
Mr O Rourke would have been better to mug a few old ladies on pension day. He would have made more than £150 and would have got community service carrying old ladies shopping bags and making them cups of tea, rather than 8 months in prison. He possibly believed the civil servants when they told everyone that FRAs would not be a burden on the RP as specialists would not be required. Wonder if he will appeal.
-
Good detail re this case
http://www.brownejacobson.com/resources/bulletins/first_successful_prosecution_o.aspx
-
Useful.
I wonder if the 'not sufficiently maintained' for the extinguishers was simply meaning more than 12 months since the last service, or that the servicing was substandard.
I only ask because the convicted assessor was primarily an extinguisher service person and normally these types of firms get their FRA work from people they already do extinguisher maintenance from.