FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: TallyHo on July 19, 2011, 10:42:54 PM
-
The link below states that three quarters of housing providers do not think their tower blocks have been assessed correctly.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/landlords-admit-high-rise-fire-risk/6516423.article
So who’s to blame?
1. Assessment companies carrying out assessments for next to nothing?
2. The F&RS Inspectors for not policing them properly?
3. The housing providers who want their assessments done for next to nothing?
In most tender contract awards the client chooses the contractor on 60% cost/40% quality; so what do they expect?
In a recent example a local authority tendered for 2,081 assessments to be carried out in residential properties; the contract was awarded on the following criteria.
INFORMATION ON VALUE OF CONTRACT
Initial estimated (by the housing authority) total value of the contract
Value 312 150 GBP
Total final value of the contract
Value 154 990 GBP
This equates to around £74 per assessment; these housing authorities want their assessments to be carried out for next to nothing then complain when they aren’t suitable or sufficient.
-
I wouldn't even get out of bed for £74.
-
Likewise I would never go so low as £74
you pay peanuts........
-
I'm not defending local authorities who want to pay peanuts, or indeed the assessors who are willing to put their reputations on the line for peanuts, but how may of you would agree that if 2081 assessments are carried out on this tender, approximately 2000 of them will be exactly the same content, with a different heading.
Cut / copy & paste has a lot to answer for.
-
So do you think assessors know they aren't up to it? Are the pressured into accepting it from their bosses? Do they actually think they have done a good job?
Do they think it doesn't matter? Are they worried about job security and so don't want to rock the boat by saying no?
-
It's easy to berate them for this, but if they've drawn up their requirements specification, put it out to tender, & the responses that come back credibly show that those responding are able to fulfil the stated requirements then they are more or less duty-bound to accept the lowest quote. They could be subject to intense criticism that they're not spending public money wisely if they don't.
The real trick is getting the requirements specification right, & then rigidly enforcing the technical & contractual requirements once the supplier has been appointed. If they do this, then it's the supplier who should suffer for going in at a silly price.
-
Was doing a student accommodation block in Islington today for a regular customer. Started at 9 and mid morning in walks a guy in a sharp suit to give a price for fire alarm maintenance. He asked me what i was doing- a fire risk assessment. Oh we do those as well says he, I will quote for that whilst I am doing. Fine says I.
I was still there at 4 pm when he came back to drop off his quote. "Gosh you still here" he said in surprise. "Our chaps would do a place like this in an hour or two".
-
Hi Prof
Hope you fed the horse on your way out, wouldn't want animal welfare after you, eh ;D
davo
-
With regard to who is to blame, I blame the English education system.
-
I blame Antoninus Pius. He should never have abandoned that wall.
-
Just as well he did or there would not have been so many Scots to rush to the aid of your ancestors Big Al, when Hitler invaded Poland.
-
I blame the English education system.
I am not sure that 'system' is the correct word. In fact using the word 'education' is stretching it a bit at the moment.
-
You are right, Civvy. I shall rephrase it thus:
I blame the English.
-
You are right, Civvy. I shall rephrase it thus:
I blame the English.
That's better Col ;) ;)
-
You are right, Civvy. I shall rephrase it thus:
I blame the English.
Funny how many Scots have a chip on their shoulder regarding the English, whereas most of the English can hardly work up enough energy to complain about how incredibly unfairly the Scots treat the English! A Scot in England is treated as well/poorly as anyone else. An Englishman in Scotland is liable to be treated to a 'Glasgow kiss'. :)
Anyway, it doesn't bother me, I'm British (or a United Kingdomite as some Americans insist on calling us), and so is my Swedish wife!
-
Have to disagree with you on that Wiz.
Every pub in the highlands is run by a Cockney it seems and all the tour guides are English.. ;)
Regards Scots being treated the same...Ever been on a night out in Kendal? :D
-
Graeme
Do tell, I am in Kendal early October
davo
-
Getting back to the point guys!
Recently I have lost work from block management agents due to price - I inform them that my overheads are a considering factor - for example CPD, PI & PL insurance, memberships to various organisations. The response I got back was "We're not interested in your qualifications and experience we just want a cheap fire risk assessment."
At this point I usually go into detail about the value of being registered with the IFE and how they can use this accreditation as part of their due diligence process, but you can see the eyes glaze over and their interest dull.
I personally think that not enough is being done by the government to promote the value of such accreditation and when I say government I mean the FRA. I know that referrals are made by FSO's (albeit on the quiet) for their ex-colleagues to be used - who haven't updated their knowledge since the day they left the brigade, and as for the register my own local authority didn't even know about the register until I informed them of it - amazing (maybe not!!). I find that when I am marketing saying that I was a fire fighter grabs the attention of far more out there than any accreditation. Albeit that I was retained and had never been involved in fire safety doesn't figure to most punters. Oh I forgot - I did do home fire safety visits - but I was never given any training in doing them, never shown what MOE should be like within a dwelling (flat or house) but off we went telling all what to do - stick up a smoke alarm that will do it! Still I here social workers are being trained to do home fire safety visits now - I'm thinking of taking up rocket science - I'm sure I'll get the jist after a day or two.
Rant over - but until the goverment (FRA) take responsibility for promoting fire safety law and those who can do it properly it will just be a mockery as it is now.
-
I couldn't agree more HT. The Government is wanting the Industry to manage itself and improve competence standards but it will have little effect without an awareness campaign for RPs and publicity.
I have heard the FRACS manager suggest that we should market competence but the vast majrity of the market is entirely cost driven. As Nearlythere said recently many risk assessments are cheap because they aren't very good. And apart from blue chip companies almost nobody has heard of FRACS, IFSM, IFPO or IFE nor do they want to. Never mind this bull about quality, cost is all they want to know.
Been in the North East today picking up the pieces for a care home who had appointed a cowboy to carry out their risk assessment. The Fire Service rejected it out of hand as not suitable or sufficient and served an enforcemetn notice on the RP to prrovide a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. Fair enough as the assessment only covered 5% of the fire safety issues, the company had simply used the FRA as a tool to sell more fire extinguishers. Scandalous.
I spoke to the Fire Officer to ask what acion they were taking aginst the company but they were not interested. They said if the report was not S&S this time they would take the RP to court though.
The cowboys fee was about 2/3 of mine so they won on price, but it was wasted money and they were lumbered with six more extinguishers they did not need.
Unless fire services sit up and take notice and do their bit things will not improve.
-
More and more brigades are at last serving notices for inadequate FRAs...it seemed to me when the RRO came in they would accept any old tickbox or side of A4 and focus purely on the physical general fire precautions.
We are seeing more work as a result and clients who followed the cheaper route including in house attempts are suddenly seeing the error of their ways.
Nottinghamshire (or at least certain officers) are in a crusade about this at the moment in particular, with several others starting to gun for the FRAs. None yet, other than Notts in the famous case, have gone for the assessors yet, just the RP, however this seems to be based on the life risk at the time of enforcement (as well as the use or not of other powers, several have said in relation to going for contractors/assessors, using 32(10) & other articles that they won't go to the hassle involved in these unless there was a real 7 imminent risk to life associated with it or indeed a fire had already occurred)
-
I recently enquired with my local brigade about how many prosecutions they had successfully made since Oct 2006. I was expecting a considerable list and was astonished when they said only 7. An average of 1.4 a year. So on that basis is the average person seeing that as a concern - I suggest not. In addition to that if the RP doesn't do their fire risk assessment and they get found out the enforcement notice that follows provides a choice (where possible) between different ways of remedying the contravention(s) - see FSO Guidance Note. 1: Enforcement, Para 141. So I suggest the best way to save money and time in this respect is don't do an FRA, wait for the FA to come round (if they ever do) and then at that time plead innocence, wait for their recommendations and then implement them at that time. I'm waiting for the first prosecution of the fire service on the fire service for inadequate recommendations - do you think that will ever happen - hmmmmmm. When I review new building plans that have been reviewed by the authorities with respect to App. Doc B. the things that get missed are shocking - what repurcussions are there!! One rule for one yada yada yada.
-
So I suggest the best way to save money and time in this respect is don't do an FRA, wait for the FA to come round (if they ever do) and then at that time plead innocence, wait for their recommendations and then implement them at that time.
You can't plead innocence regarding not having a risk assessment. You MUST do a fire risk assessment. We would simply enforce a fire risk assessment if this was the case. The RP also runs the risk of not spotting potentially serious problems, which could then easily lead to a prosecution, and the complete lack of a fire risk assessment will factor heavily in any such prosecution.
i.e. We turn up and find lack of an alarm, lack of EL, blocked means of escape, and no risk assessment. We would be taking pictures of the MOE issues, and getting some interim measures in place to make it relatively safe in the meantime. Then we give the premises a score of how we found it, and with poor MOE, no alarm etc, it is probably going to score high enough to warrant looking at a prosecution. We would serve an enforcement notice for a fire risk assessment, and probably turn the findings of that notice into either an action plan or another enforcement notice. If the risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient, then you haven't complied with the notice and would potentially get prosecuted for that too.
-
[quoteYou can't plead innocence regarding not having a risk assessment. You MUST do a fire risk assessment][/quote] but Civvy with a prosecution rate of 1.4 a year I think that many people will say what's the point. Yes they could have a fire and yes then be prosecuted but that's the standard 'horse has bolted' approach. I think that many out there firstly don't think they'll have a fire (it won't happen to me) and they don't think theres a realistic chance of being prosecuted for not having done an FRA either. The stats show this.
Your action plan will cover the points they need to undertake - just copy and paste to their own headed paper - hey presto a free FRA.
-
No, the action plan will only come out of the risk assessment which will be done by someone else. Other Fire Authorities may do this different, but we stopped for this exact reason.
And, they do not need to have a fire to be prosecuted.
-
[quoteYou can't plead innocence regarding not having a risk assessment. You MUST do a fire risk assessment]
but Civvy with a prosecution rate of 1.4 a year I think that many people will say what's the point. Yes they could have a fire and yes then be prosecuted but that's the standard 'horse has bolted' approach. I think that many out there firstly don't think they'll have a fire (it won't happen to me) and they don't think theres a realistic chance of being prosecuted for not having done an FRA either. The stats show this.
Your action plan will cover the points they need to undertake - just copy and paste to their own headed paper - hey presto a free FRA.
[/quote]
You would be stuffed in Nottinghamshire - they don't give you any solutions or detail of the faults in notices - they just quote the relevant article of the RRO that is breached.
You then have to play a little game of 'guess the answer' firing off proposed solutions (if it's not what they want you just get a simple 'no' off them) until you get a 'yes' off them.
-
You would be stuffed in Nottinghamshire - they don't give you any solutions or detail of the faults in notices - they just quote the relevant article of the RRO that is breached.
It sounds like a lack of clarity throughout the country - I'm not sure what is happening in the background to clear up these differences - is the home office giving guidance to the authorities as a whole?
-
I think that unless there is some form of compulsary penalty for not carrying out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment thats how the system will work. As HT says why not wait until the F&R Service carry out an audit and provide an action plan. When done the place will be perfect and money only spent on absolutely must do measures.
Afterall, the risk of a fire is pretty unlikely.
-
You would be stuffed in Nottinghamshire - they don't give you any solutions or detail of the faults in notices - they just quote the relevant article of the RRO that is breached.
You then have to play a little game of 'guess the answer' firing off proposed solutions (if it's not what they want you just get a simple 'no' off them) until you get a 'yes' off them.
What happened to the Enforcement Concordat or has that been consigned to the rubbish bin.
-
Intresting debate. I have a fantastic idea.
Scrap fire risk assessment and instead have a system where the local fire officer pops out and tells you what you need to do. Once you have done the work you get a certificate but if you dont do the work you get prosecuted.
...hang on a minute.... ::)
-
Intresting debate. I have a fantastic idea.
Scrap fire risk assessment and instead have a system instead where the local fire officer pops out and tells you what you need to do. Once you have done the work you get a certificate but if you dont do the work you get prosecuted.
...hang on a minute.... ::)
Your new idea will only happen as and when disasters occur. By 40 years we will have a full fire certification process instead of a FRA process.
But as you say "...hang on a minute..."
-
You would be stuffed in Nottinghamshire - they don't give you any solutions or detail of the faults in notices - they just quote the relevant article of the RRO that is breached
Didn't Nottinghamshire lose a prosecution case that cost them millions - is that why they now default to the relevant article only. Isn't that part of the trouble, the enforcement body are worried about bringing prosecutions that might not stand up in court - the best way to counter this is not to bring any prosecutions. I understand Manchester have now taken on a legal beagle who knows his stuff and is preparing and presenting cases that will/are standing up in court. I think clarification is needed for the FA of what they provide under the FRS Act 2004 and how that fits with their status as enforcing body. At the moment it just doesn't work, I don't think they know there role - adviser, enforcer or responsible person/brigade.
-
I'm not going to make any prejudgements on the M5 tragedy but one thing I think will be highlighted is that a FRA applies to places and not just buildings.
-
This says it all.
Six years ago we were appointed to carry out fire risk assessments on behalf of a local authority. Had a phone call today asking if I would help them out following a complaint of overcrowding, could I advise them on maximum numbers. I dropped everything and went to help out. I worked out the numbers for them and pointed out that a review was well overdue.
"Oh no" says he "we have regular reviews we use company XXXX to do it for us, their tender was cheaper than yours. But we would not trust them to work out capacities as you have just done".
-
This says it all.
Six years ago we were appointed to carry out fire risk assessments on behalf of a local authority. Had a phone call today asking if I would help them out following a complaint of overcrowding, could I advise them on maximum numbers. I dropped everything and went to help out. I worked out the numbers for them and pointed out that a review was well overdue.
"Oh no" says he "we have regular reviews we use company XXXX to do it for us, their tender was cheaper than yours. But we would not trust them to work out capacities as you have just done".
The benefits of CCT.
Like I say in my Signature "A cheap Fire Risk Assessment can be very costly".
-
Is the local authority in breach of the RRO?
It has a duty to employ a competent person to assist. It now has issues with the competency of the persons it has employed to assist.
To me that is a breach.
-
For what it's worth my opinion is the client is to blame when looking for contractors.
ALL thay want is the cheapest and will encourage the bidders have a bidding war to drive the cost down : "you've made the top ten but....."
Quality does not even enter the mix as long as the assessment is completed at their specification and to their timescale. Box ticking from top to bottom of the equation so all the targets are met regardless of report details.
This is happening thoughout all public and private arenas and as people move from one employer to the next they take with them their really bright ideas for kudos and bonuses.
As a service provider to this commercial you either jump on board :-X or give up, but rest assured, you'll never beat it :(
Gripe over.....