FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: alfi on February 03, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
-
Gents
I'm currently on the IFSM fire risk assessors register which is in the process of moving to the warrington scheme before it closes next year. I'm of course happy to go through the process having completed various qualifications in Fire safety management and been completeing FRA for numerous years. My question is how many of you guys are considering this?, is the IFE register going to go the same way?, I don't want to go through a protracted process to find its not really recognised in the big scheme of things. i have my formal qualifications and experience, and insurance so in the eyes of the law I can prove my competance should it called into question!, it won't really affect my work as all my cleints i have been working with for many years and all know my ability. So why should i go down this route,?. shall i join the IFE register if that isn't going to close?, what are you guys thinking of doing or done
cheers
Alfi
-
Hi Alfi, I'm not on any registers yet but have similar qualifications/insurance as yourself. For business purposes I intend to join both the IFE and the Warrington schemes which I believe will add some substance to my formal qualifications. I'm also interested to hear what others think - am I right in thinking this will help my business expand or am I wasting my time/money?
-
I am on the FIA register of fire risk assessment companies and because the FIA currently requires all fire risk assessors used by member companies to be on one of the four registers- FRACS, IFE, IFSM or IFPO we picked the IFSM.
It all depends why you want to enrol. If it is to generate new business there is no doubt that the IFE is streets ahead of the rest as most fire brigades recommend that one to RPs.
If like me you simply wish to register to have some credible verification of your competence then I have no doubt that the FRACS scheme is the best and most diligent. But its also the most expensive - and there is almost no publicity of it outside the industry.
I would have chosen the IFE but friends report that the scheme is run on a shoestring by volunteers and registration takes forever. One friend has been waiting 9 months for his application to be considered. Apparently they now are interviewing every candidate as well- previously it was only those of whom they were unsure from the application. This is delaying things even more.
So I went for the IFSM to meet the FIA requirements. It was a reasonably quick and cheap process at the time, though this route is now closed. On the other hand as a marketing tool it really is a total waste of time the register is very poorly presented on the website from an RPs point of view- no geographical indications, just a list of names. It has never yet generated a single business enquiry.
The FIA list has generated one job in two years.
Friends tell me the IFE register generates a great deal of work.
From my company's point of view I dont need new leads, my order book so far has always overflowing from client recommendations. So I will stick with the FIA and as BAFE SP205 comes on line later this year will probably go along that route. If I wish to remain on the IFSM register then I will also have to register through the FRACS scheme due to their new partnership. The IFSM say that they have negotiated special rates for members but so foar nobody at IFSM has been able to tell me what these are.
The new competency standard has prompted a change to the FRACS scheme, I have an open mind on whether to continue on the IFSM register and like most others I am just watching and waiting.
In my opinion the Authorities and Govt want a kick up the backside. All the good work on improving standards in the Industry, the outstanding work done by the competency council will count for nothing unless it is driven from the top, it requires fire officers to stop pushing just the IFE register and all fire safety publicity should push the wider issue of competence. Otherwise the cowboys will continue and the excellent FRACS scheme and SP205 will founder.
-
Thanks Kurnal, thats an excellent explanation. I also don't need to generate new work and i'm currently on the IFSM list, just don't want to go through a long winded process taking time off work to attend interviews etc, and find it isn't being pushed by the govenment such as they do with "gas safe" register etc. I'll keep an eye on things and make a judgement call in the future.Be good to hear of anyone who has gone through the FRACS process, how they found it etc
-
I agree with the majority of what has been said and can see the issue from Kurnal’s angle. It really depends on your outlook and what volume and type of FRA work you are looking for. If you are an individual assessor it may be that with the right recognised qualifications and experience you will get work without being on any register or being 3rd party accredited. I don’t think that will be the same for FRA companies (large or small). My understanding is that there is a Fire Risk Assessors Competency document that is going to be sent or made known to key businesses and stakeholders. I feel a time will come when SME’s, councils, housing associations, care home providers, schools etc will specify that anyone conducting FRAs on their behalf must be accredited with FRACS, BAFE or similar to a UKAS standard. To be honest when the Competency Scheme goes public they would be daft not too, unless they want a cheap FRA.
On a personal note I resigned from the fire service after 17 years to run my fire consultancy business full time so we really need these types of clients with several properties. I am in the process of putting my company through the FRACS company scheme where any of my assessors that go through the process will also be FRACS accredited. The main advantage here is that once we have the accreditation each FRA that we produce is issued with a certificate stating the FRA has been conducted by assessors that has been 3rd party accredited. Another bonus is that if one of these FRAs is challenged by a fire officer, Warrington Certification (FRACS) will take up the case and find out why an FRA by a 3rd party accredited consultant has conducted an assessment that is not suitable and sufficient in the Fire Authority’s view.
As far as cost go I think they are reasonable, we gained a 40% discount for being members of the FIA and IFSM. As far as a Company is concerned I see no alternative other than 3rd party accreditation. Time will tell though.
-
My understanding is that there is a Fire Risk Assessors Competency document that is going to be sent or made known to key businesses and stakeholders. I feel a time will come when SME’s, councils, housing associations, care home providers, schools etc will specify that anyone conducting FRAs on their behalf must be accredited with FRACS, BAFE or similar to a UKAS standard. To be honest when the Competency Scheme goes public they would be daft not too, unless they want a cheap FRA.....................
Another bonus is that if one of these FRAs is challenged by a fire officer, Warrington Certification (FRACS) will take up the case and find out why an FRA by a 3rd party accredited consultant has conducted an assessment that is not suitable and sufficient in the Fire Authoritys view.......
As far as cost go I think they are reasonable, we gained a 40% discount for being members of the FIA and IFSM. As far as a Company is concerned I see no alternative other than 3rd party accreditation. Time will tell though....................
I fully agree with your aims William they fully mirror mine. But I am sorry to say I am more cynical than you though, I fear the schemes may not drive the cowboys out of the Industry because the Govt has been absolutely clear from the outset that accreditation will NEVER be mandatory. I wish they would take a stronger line. I dont think the Govt are likely to find any money to promote the schemes either and fire brigades (fire officers on the ground) will continue to push just the IFE register. It takes years to push a culture change through the fire service as I am sure you will recall.
I am not sure that I would want Warrington "taking up the case". This is not in any of the literature I have seen and I think it could be a bad thing. They are a commercial company rather than a national institution and after all if we get it wrong there is a legal enforcement framework for any failure. I do support a complaints and mediation procedure, this is essential for any accreditation scheme. I fear that the process of fire risk assessment is fairly subjective and I am not yet convinced that the accreditation bodies could be be relied on to take other than a prescriptive view. If their HQ team incorporates mainly time served experienced risk assessors and not specialists within narrow disciplines of the fire sector I might feel more confident of this. But I fear code hugging may be the outcome.
Dont forget your costs were a loss leading special offer. If you do some maths on the numbers of man hours put into the FRACS assessment system and what would be a reasonable commercial hourly rate I think it is likely that prices will rise considerably in the future.
-
Kurnal
Warrington will only get involved if there is a formal complaint made by a client of a certificated assessor or company; as you correctly say it is complaint/mediation, but there is a legal requirement to certification too i.e. if it did end up in court Warrington could be called to explain themselves and the certification process. i.e. how do we know Kurnal is indeed competent.
Those certificated by Warrington will be assessed against the industry standard through an accredited competent person’s scheme; which is as assured as you can get. (Through a third party scheme and that doesn’t mean that others without it are not)
The costs are set at a level that reflects a professional approach, all the other registers rely on free peer review, hence the delay in being assessed and the reduced cost. The true cost to be on the IFE register (if you had to pay) would be approximately 3 times that of the FRACS scheme, if not more.
To accompany the new competence standard there is an RP guidance document which (in its last draft form) listed UKAS accredited schemes as the first thing an RP should look for to assure competence. Secondly the professional registers could give an indication of competence and finally if the assessor has none of the above the RP should complete a due diligence process. (But they often don’t) This document when finished will be publicised by all stakeholders on the council, who include CLG and CFOA plus the IFE (Wait and see). This should mean that fire officers no longer just signpost the IFE listing.
I actually did a survey of all FRS service websites in the UK and only 5 list any schemes in their advice to businesses, 4 solely mentioned the IFE and one mentioned 3 of the current listings. Therefore they must be making a verbal recommendation, which is not based on anything but a knowledge that the IFE register exists. This should now change and hopefully quickly.
In Scotland all the registers are listed, which I think is a good thing but a strong caveat should have been included i.e. ‘Should you intend to rely on any of these registers as proof of competence you should be satisfied that the assessment process is indeed robust enough to assure competence’.
Sadly fire risk assessors’ schemes do vary massively but people don’t see that; they just see the end cost and say, “I can get that cheaper elsewhere”. Surely that’s the exact same thing the RP says when finding a risk assessor. Isn’t that what we are fighting; the ‘slap dash, quick tick, cheap as chips cowboy!’
I don’t believe the BAFE scheme in its current format goes far enough to assure the competence of the fire risk assessors a company employs. It certainly doesn’t compare them against the competence standard (in the last version I saw and discussed with the BAFE coordinator) However people won’t care as long as the UKAS badge is there. I do think sometimes of setting up the ‘CCCC’ (Cost Cutting Certification Company) it would only cost you £200 for the 4C rubber stamp of competence.
I do hope that LPCB or IFCC or another accredited certification body offer a competitive scheme to FRACS; as you and others say, you are just waiting to see what develops and you would like some competition. Which I fully understand and appreciate; but just make sure the competition is like for like and gives you and your clients the same assurances as the FRACS scheme.
I personally would wait to see what happens if I was an assessor in today’s market; who needs certification anyway, the good the bad and the ugly fire risk assessors out there are all busy. Possibly the assessor in Nottingham will look for certification once he has finished his prison term. I dare say he would get on to 2 of the existing registers if he tried.
-
Hi Eli
Thanks for your input, I think this just shows how confused us assessors are about all these schemes, I'd like to know what the current pass rate is for the Warrington scheme, I must admit after kurnal mentioned it the BAFE scheme seems pretty good. Remember for us guys who have qualifications and experience it is just about belonging to a scheme, it probably won't improve our workload, and to be honest I know some people who are great when quoting txt and law but put them on site and ask them to use some common sense you'll find them struggling.
I would like to hear other opinions gents, I will join some new scheme when the IFSM discontinues but currently I don't see many running to join them
-
Hi Eli
..................... Remember for us guys who have qualifications and experience it is just about belonging to a scheme, it probably won't improve our workload, .......................
I think this is a dangerous comment if it is just about "belonging to a register" then I think you have missed the point entirely? As MD of a fire consultancy practice I want to make sure my assessors (myself included) undergo as rigorous a competency based assessment as possible, pass or fail. The FRACS scheme assesses competency against the recent document issued by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council, which provides a syllabus for assessors to work to and this forms the basis of the written exam, interview and desk top exercise. Also a percentage of my assessors will undergo an on-site building assessment, our clients are contacted, our company’s procedures and documentation including our FRA format are scrutinised, etc. etc.
To be honest I think the FRACS scheme scares a few assessors out there. For years we have been used to the Fire Service College and Fire Service internal exam system where we all knew what was coming up on the day of “assessment” to be off for the early Friday finish to get home! (My apologies to the non fire service assessors out there as that will mean very little!)
-
I put two of the very first assessors through the fracs scheme and promptly with drew after the minimum term.
It is expensive, I never got any work from it nor did I ever get asked by a client for it. Warrington are spending a lot of money publicising this scheme but its all to you guys the risk assessors. Not your clients.
I am also not happy about the same company having a risk assessment division in the same building.
It is not and I doubt it ever will be law to have a third party accreditation. I assess and track competency of my team more thoroughly than any scheme ever can and my clients will vouch for quality. So why do I need to give warrington any money?
That being said I am not against the idea of 3rd party but knowing some of the questions that are asked in the exam I would say it is a fire engineers thing not a normal risk assessment. I am sorry I am not completely sure what happens in the IFSM scheme so cannot comment but the IFE's coupled with the FIA seems a great way to go if you want to go down that route.
-
I put two of the very first assessors through the fracs scheme and promptly with drew them after the minimum term.
It is expensive, I never got any work from it nor did I ever get asked by a client for it. Warrington are spending a lot of money publicising this scheme but its all to you guys the risk assessors. Not your clients.
I am also not happy about the same company having a risk assessment division in the same building.
It is not and I doubt it ever will be law to have a third party accreditation. I assess and track competency of my team more thoroughly than any scheme ever can and my clients will vouch for quality. So why do I need to give warrington any money?
That being said I am not against the idea of 3rd party but knowing some of the questions that are asked in the exam I would say it is a fire engineers thing not a normal risk assessment. I am sorry I am not completely sure what happens in the IFSM scheme so cannot comment but the IFE's coupled with the FIA seems a great way to go if you want to go down that route.
The only thing I have ever been asked, and only once about a week ago, is for a copy of my professional and public liability certs.
-
Piglet.
As I know personally one of the fire risk assessors you put through and still keep in touch with him, I do find your first remark about removing them from the register as disrespectful!
Please amend and make it accurate or I will enlighten the forum members as to the accurate version.
On a separate matter I heard from the same assessor that a huge contract was secured on the back of the FRACS certification, mainly because the IFE would have taken an age to get, as it still does.
As for cost please do see my previous post re the true cost of the IFE scheme. The cost reflects the time effort and investment made to secure UKAS accreditation and deliver a professional service, I am sure you will appreciate that fact. Anyone who complains about the cost of your closers would get the similar answer.
I genuinely don’t know what your issue is regarding Exova having risk assessors if there is a problem why haven’t UKAS picked it up during the audit of WCL? Why not write a letter of complaint to UKAS?
The scheme has come along way since the first assessment went through and as you will have read in the fire press FRACS now uses the industry standard as a bench mark. I am sure all the assessors you use have all the competences identified in the competence standard. “Who says so”? Piglet! But doesn’t Piglet employ them? “Yes”. “Well that’s OK then”
Lets all use Piglets method of ensuring competence as a new national standard for fire risk assessment companies. Tell Bafe to knock it on the head get the FIA to sign up to Piglets method.
Piglet I appreciate you have a massive downer on FRACS and to be honest I can’t see why, but that is your choice and what ever I or others may say won’t change your mind.
Your experience however negative is certainly not that of others who have been through the scheme according to what I have read in the fire press.
-
Piglet.
As I know personally one of the fire risk assessors you put through and still keep in touch with him, I do find your first remark about removing them from the register as disrespectful!
Please amend and make it accurate or I will enlighten the forum members as to the accurate version.
On a separate matter I heard from the same assessor that a huge contract was secured on the back of the FRACS certification, mainly because the IFE would have taken an age to get, as it still does.
As for cost please do see my previous post re the true cost of the IFE scheme. The cost reflects the time effort and investment made to secure UKAS accreditation and deliver a professional service, I am sure you will appreciate that fact. Anyone who complains about the cost of your closers would get the similar answer.
I genuinely don’t know what your issue is regarding Exova having risk assessors if there is a problem why haven’t UKAS picked it up during the audit of WCL? Why not write a letter of complaint to UKAS?
The scheme has come along way since the first assessment went through and as you will have read in the fire press FRACS now uses the industry standard as a bench mark. I am sure all the assessors you use have all the competences identified in the competence standard. “Who says so”? Piglet! But doesn’t Piglet employ them? “Yes”. “Well that’s OK then”
Lets all use Piglets method of ensuring competence as a new national standard for fire risk assessment companies. Tell Bafe to knock it on the head get the FIA to sign up to Piglets method.
Piglet I appreciate you have a massive downer on FRACS and to be honest I can’t see why, but that is your choice and what ever I or others may say won’t change your mind.
Your experience however negative is certainly not that of others who have been through the scheme according to what I have read in the fire press.
I don't think its disrespectful. I paid for him to go through, he went through, I gave it a year, thought it was pointless so didn't pay again. I would welcome a more accurate version?
Interesting that you think a "huge contract" came from it as the consultant is retired and has been for a long time. Perhaps you are mistaken into who you think my consultant is?
With regards to cost, I said you were expensive. You are the most expensive out of all the schemes are you not?
My methods of ensuring competence obviously work as the two consultants I put through both passed.
I don't have a massive downer on the scheme at all. It doesn't affect me at all and that is the point. There are thousands of risk assessors and there are 14 on FRACs scheme.
Why do you care so passionately what anyone thinks anyway Eli?
-
Gents
thanks again for all the input, I'll suppose I'll just watch and see whats the best scheme to join, useful debate
-
Gents
thanks again for all the input, I'll suppose I'll just watch and see whats the best scheme to join, useful debate
Can I ask out of interest what has prompted you to look for 3rd party accreditation?
-
Hi Piglet
Yes of course, i'm currently on the IFSM register and have been for many years, this will be disbanded end of 2013 and they are encouraging us to go over the warrington scheme, so i just wanted to find out what other registers were out there and what the majority of assessors on the forum belonged to, if any?. my chain of thought so far (no disrespect to any scheme so please folks don't shoot me down) is that why when I have two lots formal qualifications including the FPA european diploma, various IFE accredited courses etc, and have 10 years experience which has never been questioned do i have to then sit a written paper and formal interview,surely like other professional bodies previous qualifications, experience and genuine references should go a long way to showing someones competance, even spend the day on a job.
-
I've voted for the IFE register as I'm an IFE member and believe it is a truly impartial third party in this case. My reason for applying for the register is to back up my formal qualifications and experience with a third party endorsement and use it as a source of work into my business which I would like to eventually expand, for this reason I shall also be keeping a close eye on the UKAS/BAFE accredited registers and may even go for the FRACS register as well if I have the time.
I don't believe the government will step into making any requirements as its not high profile enough - the only instance where they may get involved is if there is a high profile case and someone will jump up to close the stable door.
-
Hi Piglet
Yes of course, i'm currently on the IFSM register and have been for many years, this will be disbanded end of 2013 and they are encouraging us to go over the warrington scheme, so i just wanted to find out what other registers were out there and what the majority of assessors on the forum belonged to, if any?. my chain of thought so far (no disrespect to any scheme so please folks don't shoot me down) is that why when I have two lots formal qualifications including the FPA european diploma, various IFE accredited courses etc, and have 10 years experience which has never been questioned do i have to then sit a written paper and formal interview,surely like other professional bodies previous qualifications, experience and genuine references should go a long way to showing someones competance, even spend the day on a job.
Thanks for explaining, you obviously are an ideal candidate to sit and pass any of the accreditation schemes. Its just weighing up the financial benefit. It would no doubt be good to have an institutions stamp on your work but there is a cost that goes a long with that.
Its worthwhile keeping an eye on what the big players do, the chubbs etc as 3rd party schemes will really only work if adopted by the masses and they are the masses. It will work when everyone knows what to look for in an assessor, the marketing reach of the big companies can do that, the likes of Warrington etc cannot. Marketing is a poweful thing and currently the only people I see being marketed about the schemes are the fire trade.
-
Golden Can I ask if you see the IFE register as a useful marketing tool for your services?
I have never had a single lead from the IFSM register, not that I looking for leads but I would be interested in a comparison.
-
I've never had a lead from the IFSM either Kurnel, I'm on the list of consultants on the IFE (not the fire risk asssors list)and had plenty through them, always a lead via the local fire authoirty telling peole to look at the IFE, in fact recently i had a large local authority job via the IFE consultants list and got a glowing letter from there management once i completed, it said what a pleasure it was to work with such a helpful and knowlegable company :)
-
Kurnal I'm not on the register yet as I'm only in the process of applying having taken some time mulling over the options. A friend whom I often work with has been on the list a few months and he finds it very productive.
How can the BAFE scheme attract votes when we're not sure what it is yet?
-
Piglet/Eli can we cut the crap and stick to the issue and fire safety????
-
Couldn't agree more, I was just stating my experience with the scheme and why I stopped.
-
Just trying to get the facts correct; piglet still isn't factually correct nor is he explaining some very important detail; but 'Hey Ho' back to the debate!
I am not a salesman for anyone let alone Warrington; just to set the record straight.
The reality is that people need to be confident in their choice; to certificate or not, accredited scheme or not, company or individual.
That confidence is not there yet! I absolutely understand that, but since the issue of the competence standard more confidence is growing and when the accompanying RP guidance document is released that will again provide more confidence. I believe there needs to be one more change/initiative within the industry to really push through an improvement and marginalise the cowboys; which I think is what we all want. There are always going to be those that don’t want or need third party but as long as those people exist and are trading the incompetent can trade under their ‘shield of defiance’ (not sure what else to call it)
i.e. if the good don’t take a lead and set the bench mark the bad and ugly don’t need to follow. It happens in all forms of business, once a big player sets off and leads the way many more will follow. Hopefully with the Bafe scheme coming out soon it will stimulate one or two of the major players to start shouting about what they have and there will be a rush to follow.
-
There are always going to be those that don’t want or need third party but as long as those people exist and are trading the incompetent can trade under their ‘shield of defiance’ (not sure what else to call it)
I have another name for "shield of defiance". It's "I don't need it".
Is it OK with the accreditation industry if I can just exist without having to buy in to their wishes?
I have a question about accreditation anyway. Does anyone know how many have been deregistered, removed from or whatever else is done to someone who fails to maintain the standard?
-
There really aren't many facts to recall, we went through it, we gave it a go for year and when your next bill came through we judged it on its worth and stopped it. Simple really. Im not sure where the important detail part is.
-
Piglet My recollections don’t match yours; let’s just move on!
NT you are correct you don’t need it! Therefore no one else does either; so the debate that has been going for the last 4 or 5 years on competence of fire risk assessors is irrelevant. Everyone should accept the open market and stop bleating about crap assessors.
-
A little update. The IFE Register has far more risk assessors on it than any other register, which may be why fire officers refer people to it. From what I understand from people on the list, it brings in lots of leads. The IFE Register will not close, and there is absolutely no intention of it going down the IFSM route with Warrington.
The BAFE SP 205 scheme has been published, and it is no secret that it will soon be available from NSI once they are geared up, ready and UKAS accredited. There is at least one other CB very interested in running it. The BAFE scheme is a very good scheme, particularly for the small companies and one man bands. It is likely to be quite economic, though larger practices such as ourselves will end up with higher costs than the very small ones.
I enjoy all the in-fighting between Piglet, who works for Dorgard and is entirely open about the fact, and Eli, who apparently is not a salesman for Warrington. It is far more entertaining than all this fire safety malarky.
-
Thats good news about the IFE, i think if its staying open that will be the route for me, as the IFSM register has two years left it will allow me time to transfer over as theres no rush it doesn't matter how long the prcess is.thanks for all the advice guys its been a good debate
-
We might not need to go down the line of accreditation so much if we could control those churning out Fire Safety experts with monotonous regularity.
I have been referred a fire risk assessment for a three storey place of treatment following an inspection by a regulatory body. This was carried out by such a person who has successfully completed one of these courses in a matter of days.
It is one of those Assessments where there are a few extinguishers - dry powders, a front and back door, a stairway, no fire doors and domestic smoke detectors here and there and, taking all of this into consideration, the place is fine.
I thought it took years of experience for someone to be competent enough to be let loose with a clipboard and measuring tape.
I wonder is it made clear to those undertaking the course that they will not become fire safety experts by the end of the week, even when, not if, awarded a completion certificate?
Perhaps we could make good progress by stopping this creation of the overnight fire safety expert. Some poor AP or RP is going to fall some day because of it.
-
There could be a few reasons why you would want to join one of these schemes:
1. Because it’s mandatory;
2. Because customers ask for it;
3. Because you believe it’ll get you work, giving potential customers confidence in your abilities, or;
4. Because it’s become ‘best practice’ and all your biggest competitors have joined.
Forget 1) – it’ll never happen. The government currently has no appetite for tightening up H&S regulation & so far as they are concerned the 2005 Order is working pretty well. Not sure that 2) is happening? We’re probably a long way from 4)? So... that leaves 3?
The question I’d ask of all the schemes would be what are you doing to market your scheme to my customers? It’s no good to me if they are only marketing to the fire industry – if any scheme is to be really successful it has to market itself to the fire industry’s clients, so that it gets into requirements statements & invitations to tender.
-
Excellent points fishy
-
There could be a few reasons why you would want to join one of these schemes:
1. Because it’s mandatory;
2. Because customers ask for it;
3. Because you believe it’ll get you work, giving potential customers confidence in your abilities, or;
4. Because it’s become ‘best practice’ and all your biggest competitors have joined.
I am missing something here?? Surly it’s none of the above. It’s about attaining a 3rd party recognised competency standard from the formed body of the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council. This was established due to a lack of confidence in the industry due to the number of poor, inadequate or inconsistent FRAs that are being produced.
The most common breach of the RRFSO is under Article 9 – failure to conduct a suitable and sufficient FRA either by the RP or an external company. We all know there are good and bad assessors out there like there are good and bad builders, electricians etc. These schemes are an attempt at eliminating some of the bad and an attempt at ensuring a common competency standard to work to like so many industries have out there, why should the fire industry be any different?
It also ensures that skills are kept current and up to date as assessors are reviewed periodically. Assessors range from non-fire service backgrounds, retired fire officers that retired pre the RRFSO coming into force and have only known the FP Act right through to serving fire safety officers working part time. Whether we get any work from it or not is irrelevant and would not be my main motivation for going through the process. I would be more interested in achieving a recognised (UKAS accredited) competency standard that is independent of the risk assessors’ registers we currently have. I am on the IFSM risk assessors register but I don’t feel that goes far enough to demonstrate competence.
-
William I fully agree with you!
Colin It's the 'salesman' bit I object to!
If you are just a salesman for CS Todd (FIA, IFE, PAS 79) and Piglet is just a salesman for Fireco; then I am just a salesman for Warrington.
I welcome the introduction of BAFE SP 205; even with the issues I have with it.
‘Please note that this is my personal opinion and in no way reflects that of the company I work for’
To save me from putting this disclaimer on every post I make; Kurnal has kindly put on a very clear note at the top of the home pages to explain to those who are ‘hard of understanding’ why some people may wish to remain anonymous. I know that line sometimes gets a little blurry; but what you know is what you know and what you think may not meet the bosses’ approval.
Therefore I know some things which my job has provided the information about and I think some things which are of my own opinion. Right or Wrong! I think it’s the same for many of the serving fire officers on this site who don’t want to be identified. Regardless of how important Colin may think it is to ‘fess up’ a personal identity; I am not concealing anything more than many others on this site.
I would apologies to anyone who took offense about the article I highlighted about piglets certificated fire risk assessors. If you did read the full article you will have seen that it was very, very respectful to the memory of the assessor who passed away. It was only used to highlight some other points raised in the article; which countered piglets’ statement.
-
I'll add my two pennies worth.
I too will be seeking third party accreditation for all the reasons William gave. I'd make sure it was a UKAS certified certification body too, because otherwise I don't see any benefit to it.
I've said before that there is nothing in law stopping me setting up a third party accrediton scheme - certifying anyone from Uncle Tom Cobley to Joe Bloggs as competent risk assessors so long as they pay me enough.
The point is that the accreditors must themselves be accredited and monitored by UKAS in order to be taken seriously, a nd carry weight.
-
So you think only schemes with a UKAS stamp have benefit?
-
Im not saying non UKAS schemes any better or any worse than UKAS schemes.
But who accredits the accreditors so to speak? As per my post above it seems that legally anyone can start their own accreditation scheme, no checks or hoops have to jumped through to prove you are competent to accredit something.Atleast UKAS schemes have been audited / certified / or accredited in their own right
-
http://www.meansofescape.com/industry-news/news267.aspx
Looks like there is only one competent assessor in the whole country!
So if you have already done the scheme you can't say you're competent? Do you have to re-sit?
-
Midland the only checks you really need to become a 'competent' fire risk assessor are spelt 'cheques' and generally have a lot of 0's on the end of the number, nearly as many as if you want to get a diploma in fire doors!!
-
Now then Golden that is a very sceptical response .... I agree though ;)
-
Piglet there is indeed only one fire risk assessor in the UK who can demonstrate he has the competences identified in the new fire risk assessor competence standard; via independent third party certification from a body which is accredited by UKAS against BS 17024.
I am sure there are hundreds of assessors out there who have the competences identified in this industry standard but equally there are hundreds who haven’t got them. Which is exactly the problem the RP faces; how do they know who has these competencies and who doesn’t?
Currently they are not doing too well at differentiating them. Let’s face it; the incompetent don’t advertise the fact that they are incompetent, and I should imagine that there are less assessors operating who are knowingly trading as incompetent than there are assessors who think they are doing a good job but actually aren’t.
All the FRACS guys will be reassessed to make sure they have the competences identified in this new industry standard. This will be either through the regular surveillance or during their recertification evaluation. However assessors will be offered the chance to be assessed against this new standard at any time from now to their next surveillance or recertification.
Those certificated were not assessed against this new industry standard as it didn’t exist; taking two years to put together it can now be said to be supported by the vast majority of bodies involved in fire safety in the UK. However those previously assessed can claim to be ‘competent’ as they hold certification to the 17024 standard against the previous standard used, which wasn’t a million miles away. This was apparently good enough for you to rely upon, as you put some subcontractor assessors through it.
I dare say that the IFE will claim Grandfather Rights for all their registered assessors. Why wouldn’t they; no one audits them!
-
Only one Eli?
What about the other two on the NFRAR?
-
Only one Eli?
What about the other two on the NFRAR?
Those on the NAFRAR have BS 17024 certification from an accredited body; which couldn't use the new competence standard to assess them against as it didn't exist at the time they went through the process.
The industry standard will be the required standard by those RPs who do a little bit of research on appointing a fire risk assessor. (If price isn’t the only requirement) Therefore any register would be mad not to adopt this as the standard for assessment; I can’t imagine that the IFE would be that stuck in their ways, that they didn't adopt it as their technical reference. IFPO surely will do the same as they too had a seat at the table. What would be the point of writing an industry supported standard if the very bodies it was produced for, didn’t use it?
Perhaps Colin will know! Will the IFE be adopting the competence standard as the technical benchmark for assessing the competence of any new applicants for their register? They helped write it, so surely they should be promoting it for the good of fire safety in the UK.
-
Unfortunately you have hit the nail on the head Eli. We are hoping the RPs highest demand will be on quality not price.
In my experience people get 3 quotes and there are a number of factors involved in deciding but the overiding one is unfortunately cost.
I am with you in the point of trying to drive out cowboys but the gov won't help so we need to ensure we have extra benefits and not be too far out.
A serious concern is that we all try to add to the USP and 3rd party is a great example but by doing that you need to recoup the costs and therefore your prices go up.
-
Therefore any register would be mad not to adopt this as the standard for assessment; I can’t imagine that the IFE would be that stuck in their ways, that they didn't adopt it as their technical reference. IFPO surely will do the same as they too had a seat at the table. What would be the point of writing an industry supported standard if the very bodies it was produced for, didn’t use it?
Perhaps Colin will know! Will the IFE be adopting the competence standard as the technical benchmark for assessing the competence of any new applicants for their register? They helped write it, so surely they should be promoting it for the good of fire safety in the UK.
2 very good points well made in my view. I would be very interested in why the IFE is sticking to its own register? I wonder if Colin can tell us?
-
In my experience people get 3 quotes and there are a number of factors involved in deciding but the overiding one is unfortunately cost.
Agreed on the 3 quotes but also in my experience RPs will look at credentials, experience of the assessor and the quality of the documentation produced. I personally think that once the FRA Competency Scheme is known and the word spreads this will be a major factor as well as the fee for the FRA.
-
Willie, why would the IFE not stick to its own register. The Institution has been around and examining/accrediting since 1918. No one is asking for UKAS accreditation of the members or grad exam, which firemen all dearly love to quote in reports/cvs etc. It is a legitimate professional body activity, and competence of fire risk assessors was forseen by the IFE as a need before there was even such a thing as the DCLG and their disingenuous policies on the matter. That is why the register was set up- as a perceived need to keep the public safe from fire, not to line the pockets of commercial bodies, regradless of how well they may do the job. Its like fire resisting cable- beware imitations.
-
So are the IFE using the fire risk assessors competency scheme as the new bench mark when assessing people to go on the IFE register then?
-
Its to be discussed , Willie.
-
"Persistent concerns over fire risk assessors prompts new competency criteria
The UK Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council has released new industry-agreed criteria against which the competence of a fire risk assessor can be judged.
Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors sets out criteria that can be used by professional and third-party certification bodies to register or certificate fire risk assessors, and by organisations that provide fire risk assessment services".
Fire Risk Management Journal February 2012 (FPA/IFE)
'CAN' being the key word here. But why would they sit on the Competence Council and contribute to this; then not fully support it?
I don't think they have the infrastructure to change, adapt and move forward. Hence, the lack of public comment on the matter about this new standard and how it will affect their register.
Beware of limitations!
The IFE have been involved in the competence standard for the last two years, they knew the projected date of release, they knew the content before the general release; yet it is still to be discussed! I for one will be asking why they have a seat on the council if they can’t support what they have helped produce. All they will do is weaken the concept of the standard, if they as the ‘leading’ professional body who foresaw the issues with competent fire risk assessors, are not willing to fully embrace and support the industry standard; which has been offered as a solution.
The industry is trying to move forward, trying to improve standards and trying to marginalise the cowboys, yet the IFE are dragging their feet; WHY?
-
Maybe Eli, having written much of the stuff, it reflected their existing approcah, rather than having, as some people openly admitted, having to fix something that clearly wasnt right in the first place.
-
I dare say that the IFE will claim Grandfather Rights for all their registered assessors. Why wouldn’t they; no one audits them!
Oh Colin
The IFE just can't do it, and no matter how much you bleat on about it being fine as it is; they should at least publically confirm that their assessment does in fact cover the requirements of the competence standard. It is only right and proper that they as the 'leading' professional body do some leading for a change. At least if they make a public statement it would help support the standard; and lets face it they actually don’t have to do anything in the way of actually checking; they are the IFE and above all that nonsense.
Sorry to be so critical of the IFE as I know it does some things very very well, but the reality of this is that the IFE scheme is ready for an update, a freshening up. If they used the 17024 model to make the assessment the same for everyone and if they used the competence standard as their bench mark, I could quite easily live with them not being UKAS accredited and them not having that very important independent audit. It may be commercially streets ahead of any other scheme but technically it is light years behind, and with the introduction of the BAFE scheme and the introduction of the RP guidance document it is in danger of being left behind. The links with the fire service has been so strong for years and let’s face it; the uniformed guys have been an army of salesmen for the IFE register for years. That should change with the RP guidance and the CLG listing hopefully being updated. The FRS should follow on with the same standard of advice.
Change; because change is needed, lead the way IFE (Colin Todd) clear the deadwood that is stopping the IFE moving forward. I will happily come and sit on the fire risk assessors panel if that would help.
-
Have you sat any IFE exams? If not you can't say it is "Light years behind"
You are making some valid points Simon but you are making them all with a vested interest and to my knowledge you are not a risk assessor and have no experience in the business of fire consultancy. Correct me if I am wrong.
I hate people who advertise by picking faults in the competition. If you're course is of benefit people will use it, you lose credibility by making assumptions about a business you are not actually involved in.
Do exova warrington have plans to get their company UKAS accredited under your scheme?
-
Eli, I think you make some interesting points that would benefit us all if they were clarified by the IFE, although we should avoid our comments getting personal.
I do find it quite worrying and sad to see that even we in the industry have very strong and differing views over which body we should be 3rd party accredited with. I thought it was quite simple.
1. Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council established to which all the main players sit around the table and agree a competency standard.
2. Whatever fire risk assessors register is set up works to that competency standard when assessing persons to be on their register. Otherwise what was the point in developing the standard?
The IFSM have recognised that their own register does not go far enough in terms of competency standard (as it is not truly independent) and their register will cease in 2013. The IFE seem to be sticking to their guns and almost come across as arrogant in that the IFE way is the only way, which quite frankly I don’t get. All this makes a mockery in my view of what the Competency Standard and Council are trying to achieve. If we can’t decide a common competency route how on earth are the responsible persons out there going to decide, there are just too many options and variables.
My last point on the IFE register is that it needs to be more accessable in that the time taken to apply and get a person accepted just takes too long. I also think attending interviews at Morton is a joke for those of us that don’t live and work in that area. I have been MIFireE since 2000 and MIFSM since 2006 and have looked at all 3rd party accreditation routes; I am currently on the IFSM register, so I feel my comments are justified.
-
As with any council is the competency council suffering from the common problem that only the loudest voices get heard? Am I getting paranoid in thinking that this whole exercise is about getting rid of the IFE as they're not in the profit making club?
William I would be wary of a 'common competency route' - once an organisation gets a monopoly the smaller players in this 'game' are done for and the RP will be left with no choice.
-
William I would be wary of a 'common competency route' - once an organisation gets a monopoly the smaller players in this 'game' are done for and the RP will be left with no choice.
I don’t understand? Are the Competency Council making profit from organisations working to their standard? You can have as many organisations as you like IFE, IFSM, IFPO etc but they all work to a common standard of competency and not their own, surely that makes sense?
If I were to stick with the IFSM risk register or any other, I only have their opinion to say that I am competent. What I am saying is that I don’t think that goes far enough and the checkers need to be checked. In my view the FRACS systems as it will be UKAS accredited goes down that route.
I think they way to go is a UKAS national register of risk assessors of which there could be many routes to achieve that from the industry recognised bodies. If the IFE or any other did that then I would be interested.
-
Piglet you assume too much!
I am sticking to the topic and being critical of the IFE for not appearing to support the competence standard or at least dragging their feet on the support for it. Which William has picked up on nicely but you seem to want to twist things to your own agenda which is trying to make it look like I have a sales orientated motive; because you know me, and it’s getting boring. I am trying to contribute to the debate that’s all.
The IFE has a system of assessment that doesn’t use the competence standard.
The competence standard has been written and published for Professional and Certification bodies to use for the assessment of fire risk assessors. If they don’t use it I just think they weaken two years worth of work, and my personal opinion is that it is lack of resources that is stopping them with a tinge of arrogance and a commercial interest.
Now I know that won’t go down well with some, but just like I haven’t sat an IFE exam they haven’t sat in the same meetings I have, or spoken with the same people I have, or listened to the same primary source comments I have, or researched the schemes in detail as I have.
It would be better for all posters here if you could stick to the debate and not try to invent something that just isn’t there.
Just to make it crystal clear; the IFE in my opinion need to change what they are doing with their register and publicly and quickly come out in support of the competence standard by adopting it; as they helped write it after all. This will start a chain of support from other bodies including the end user representative bodies which will help focus RPs to look for competence over price. If this doesn’t happen the market place will not change and the poor cheap fire risk assessor will continue to thrive and survive. I think they should be doing it for the good of the industry. (There you are Piglet no advert no mention of it not even a subliminal message; mind you there wasn’t in my last post!)
-
William there may have been some differences of interpretation of your comment - I was reading into your post that a 'common route' was a common organisation through which to route your application rather than the common standard as you have clarified in your last post. Apologies.
I would like the IFE to state why they are not supporting the competence standard. If it is a case that they don't agree with it (this is possible even though the IFE sat on the body that published the standard they may have had objections that were overruled). If it is lack of resources/arrogance/commercial interest then the members of the IFE and their register deserve some explanation. I hope these reasons weren't invented!!
Lastly for Eli its not the 'poor cheap fire risk assessor' that is a problem for many - they are only a problem for the bigger players in the market. The problem is the 'incompetent fire risk assessor' and they come in all shapes and sizes, rich or poor, cheap and sometimes damn expensive.
Getting rid of incompetence will be good for the industry however I along with many others are not sure that a competency standard is the nirvana that the RP is seeking.
-
Golden very true, competency can be lacking in all shapes and sizes of companies.
Eli, Im not sure what I am assuming incorrectly so are you a risk assessor or have you ever run a fire consultancy company? I have no agenda everyone knows who I work for. I just think its unfair to pick holes in what others are doing when you have a vested interest, thats all.
Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.
I am not saying you don't have valid points about the IFE though, have you emailed them about your concerns?
-
Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.
As I understand it the FRACS system is going through the UKAS process.
-
Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.
As I understand it the FRACS system is going through the UKAS process.
Yes but thats now, they have been selling risk assessments for a while and the scheme has been there for a while. BB7 has it.
-
Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.
As I understand it the FRACS system is going through the UKAS process.
Yes but thats now, they have been selling risk assessments for a while and the scheme has been there for a while. BB7 has it.
So what is your point?
-
Its interesting to know the answer.
If its not good enough or worthwhile for its own company how can they honestly promote it as being of benefit for others?
If you sell cars, you can bet you drive a nice car, if you sell cakes you're probably overweight etc etc ;D
-
Golden, you are apparently being misled. Eli admitted that the Warrington scheme would not, in its original form, meet the competence standard. (I am not sure why, given that, when the standard was circulated round our staff for comment at the public comment stage, the consensus was that it was a doddle to meet and that those who could not meet it should not be doing FRAs.) Has anyone bothered to read it. Old Thomas Sutton could have walked it before he left the fire service years ago. Yet Eli had to change the scheme to meet the standard. It is not some counsel of perfection to which people will have to work hard to apire. It is just the basics of what anyone doing FRAS competently already knows.
Since the competence standard was only published at the end of the year, the Warrington scheme can only have been applying the standard for a matter of weeks. No one has said that the IFE do not support the competence standard so I do not know where you get that from, other than inuendos of those with a vested interest in promoting other schemes. The IFE were represented on the Council (by someone who received no payment and indeed LOST earnings by attending) while representatves of CBs were no doubt receiving a salary for sitting there.
The IFE have a meeting arranged to discuss what needs to be done. As they are not a commercial body, and have no commerical interest in selling the scheme , it may take a few weeks for volunteers, who do not receive a salary for modifying a scheme so it can be sold better to deal with the matter. Until they do, no more can be said. But what I can say is that two people on the IFE Panel sit on the Competency Council so I think they will manage without the help of Eli who is not a fire risk assessor and so does not qualify as a Panel membr.
-
I doubt it Colin my Alzheimer's was well advanced at that time. :'(
-
I regret that this thread appears to be developing into an increasingly bitter and personalised argument between two or three highly respected fire safety professionals, all with valid but opposing views and interests. In light of some of the openly hostile postings I have decided to lock it.
If anyone wishes to debate the subject further please let us start as a fresh topic and please no more personal attacks.
After all in the final analysis most of us have vested interests in the fire industry and who is to judge the morality of the opposing positions? We also have a right to express our opinion anonymously in accordance with the rules of this public forum.