FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: GeoffR on October 24, 2012, 05:21:53 PM
-
Dear Firenet members
You will all be aware of the ever- increasing interest in fire risk assessment. SSAIB is pleased to announce the immediate launch of the SSAIB BAFE SP205 UKAS-accredited certification scheme for firms or individuals offering fire risk assessment services. Achievement of this certification will entitle the holder to display the SSAIB/UKAS certification mark(including the “crown and tick” logo).
SSAIB is an independent, not-for-profit certification body, supervised by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).
If you would like further information, please contact SSAIB via its website http://www.ssaib.org/contact/ or telephone 0191 296 3242
Kind regards
Geoff Rendall
Certification Manager
SSAIB
-
Gosh Geoffrey, well done!!! You obviously have some expertise to obtain such an accolade. Are any of the other CBs UKAS accredited yet?? This is really ground breaking, as this is, as far as I know, the first UKAS accredited scheme in the UK for fire risk assessment companies.
You should post this in the fire safety section of the bulletin board too, as the fire risk assessment section is only visible to BB members.
-
Hello Colin
To answer your question ....'YES'
NSI, which is also an independent, not for profit, certification body has been accredited by UKAS for the BAFE Fire Industry Scheme SP205 with respect to a scope of work for Life Safety Fire Risk Assessment. NSI has been working with a number of fire risk assessment organizations during the past three months and three have successfully completed their initial assessments and were awarded BAFE SP205 Approval & Certification today. One organization is a well establised company employing a number of fire risk assessors throughout the United Kingdom and another is a sole trader based in the west country; the third is the first SP205 certificated company in Scotland.
If you, other Fire Net Members and observers would like more information regarding the NSI/BAFE Fire Risk Assessment Scheme please contact the NSI FRA Scheme Managers who are as follows;
John Davidson............. john.davidson@nsi.org.uk .............. Mob 07917 630086
Pat Baldwin................. pat.baldwin@nsi.org.uk ................. Mob 07771 956071
-
Gosh Patrick, well done!!! You obviously have some expertise to obtain such an accolade. By the way it was not a rhetorical question. I genuinely did not know who had got it at this stage and who had not!
-
Well done to both CBs not an easy feat to get UKAS in to your premises never mind get accredited on the back of their visit. Lots of hard work has paid off and the industry will start to feel the benefit of accredited certification being available by several providers.
-
Well said, Kel old chap. If football showed the same sportsmanship as you, the world would be a better place. Is it a relic of your PE teaching days? Did you note that one CB already has 300% more certificated firms than another scheme we know. Will it too be accredited soon? Anyway, now is not the time for invidious comparisons. As you say, it is really exciting news for our industry and for the raising of the FRA bar. Hope this finds you well.
-
As I’m sure you are all aware ECA Certification Ltd were part of the pilot scheme for BAFE SP205
I am pleased to announce that ECA Certification Ltd has received its UKAS Accreditation for BAFE SP205
This brings the list of CB’s offering SP205 to Three
If you would like further information, please contact ECA Certification Ltd via email certification@eca.co.uk or telephone 0333 321 8220
Will Lloyd
BAFE Scheme Manager
ECA Certification Ltd
-
Congratulations to Dennis
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/Information/Details/index.cfm/Fire-Isk-becomes-first-Scottish-company-to-deliver-UKAS-accredited-fire-risk-assessments
Fire Isk becomes first Scottish company to deliver UKAS-accredited fire risk assessments
-
We have been informed this week that we are the 4th company in the UK to be awarded the BAFE SP205-1 certification via NSI. ;D
It was a taxing 2 days of on site building and office audits. Overall I was very impressed with the whole process and it has raised several points in how we operate and how our systems can be enhanced and improved. There were also observations on our FRA template which we have taken on board and will review in due course.
There were some healthy "debates" over interpretation of some of the Articles in the RRFSO, which has given me food for thought and will be fed back and discussed with others within the company.
I am just hoping that this has been a worthwhile process in terms of the business out there being aware of the 3rd party certification process be in SP205 or FRACS. I haven’t heard much re the SP205 competency document that was being produced for the business sector? Does anyone know where this is up to? However what was interesting is that on the day we achieved certification we had a call from a large UK wide hotel chain that had searched the BAFE site for an SP205 company, so that was a positive start….time will tell.
If anyone is going through SP205 and would like further info about the process then inbox me.
-
Certificate just dropped through the door certifying us to BAFE SP205-1. Anyone interested in this scheme should contact Pat Baldwin at NSI - I found the whole process straight forward and Pat is great to work with.
-
Cracking scheme that BAFE SP 205.
-
You signed up yet Colin? Or maybe you are going for FRACS?
-
Congrats on SP 205 Colin.
-
Kurnal, the answer to your question is in the post of Lancs whatever (why is it when you do a reply you cannot see the names of the previous poster-apologies to Lancs man for not getting the exact name and thank you for your good wishes). We are certificated under the SP 205 scheme.
I advocate SP 205 to everyone. Available from 3 good and decent CBs (within which I am proud to call some of the guys good, long standing friends), all not for profit organisations with no shareholders pockets to be lined and no super salesman banging on about their schemes. Good luck to all three for the excellent work they are doing for our profession.
-
Your mates certificated you? :o
-
Your mates certificated you? :o
here we go again! ...(yawns)...
-
To be honest William it is a reasonable question.
Only yesterday I spoke with someone who gave me some shocking examples of a professional bodies registration scheme; lack of transparency, preferential treatment and some less than subtle lining of pockets through related training.
I would hate to see independent accredited 3rd party certification getting tarred with the same brush.
-
To be honest William it is a reasonable question.
Only yesterday I spoke with someone who gave me some shocking examples of a professional bodies registration scheme; lack of transparency, preferential treatment and some less than subtle lining of pockets through related training.
I would hate to see independent accredited 3rd party certification getting tarred with the same brush.
::) yawns again
-
No problem William you could alway not read my posts :'(
-
No problem William you could alway not read my posts :'(
Just stick to the subject matter, when you are constructive it's worth reading. When you and Colin are points scoring it's not. :)
-
Perhaps...but if I don't tell Colin when he is being an arse; who will?
-
http://www.shponline.co.uk/features-content/full/oshcr-register-of-interest
This may give us a clue where accredited certification may take us. 2 years on from the H and S national register, it doesn't look good and at one point the article suggest the very element the register was designed to remove are picking up more work as a result of offering cheaper services.
I can't see how fire won't go the same way unless money is invested in to the education of the duty holder. Possibly the weak approach to this by DCLG will perpetuate the current status quo. The regional assemblies may be the key to some improvement as they are willing to advise and legislate on fire safety matters.
‘Industry, heal thy self’ doesn’t appear to have worked here it seems. Perhaps the third party certification route may be a better option as it focuses on the can do element; but work is required by government as well as industry to make competence the norm and not an added expense to the duty holder.
Will is that better?
-
I don't think anyone is listening any more
-
Too bad! It is very relevant and quite original thinking to draw the two together as a possible lesson the fire industry could learn from H and S; especially as enforcement of the RRO is heading the same way as H and S enforcement. Still original thinking isn't something that people could accuse you of, eh Piggy? ;)
-
Plus it's not too hard to get on the OSCHR either which unlike the rigours of a BAFE examination does little more than check you are with the professional body you say you are, nothing about doing the job.
Whilst the BAFE scheme has many good points (we are going through it this year) it's predecessors in the fire alarm and extinguisher front have not stopped every man and their uncle doing work in that field, making a nice few £££, whilst doing shocking work. Because it doesn't stop the cowboys quite a few decent firms don't go down this route because the overheads aren't worth it as the passed on cost just means the undercutting short-cutters get more work.
Educating the client is the key and whilst everyone in the industry knows about schemes and registers, you don't get your work from the industry!
-
Too bad! It is very relevant and quite original thinking to draw the two together as a possible lesson the fire industry could learn from H and S; especially as enforcement of the RRO is heading the same way as H and S enforcement. Still original thinking isn't something that people could accuse you of, eh Piggy? ;)
Thats why people aren't listening to you, you cannot help but be argumentative and aggressive in your sales tatic to us all.
-
Piggy I put a link to something in this thread which is definitely worth reading and I made some comments about where I think we could learn from this register and what those running it and those on it have learnt.
There are sections in this well written article on; marketing of the register, its limitations, what problems are still out there. The article goes on to look at what issues haven't been addressed by this national register. The parallel with Bafe SP 205 and fire risk assessor certification is well worth looking at; influencers in the fire industry should try to learn from what the H and S sector are saying about the solution they opted for, thus trying to avoid some of the same mistakes. I am sure that those who have paid money for certification want to know they haven’t invested in a white elephant.
Piggy you put in a dig at me in this thread so stop bleating when I respond to your dig.
If you are not listening then start reading; try the article I sign posted and perhaps contribute to a legitimate discussion on the forum.
-
Educating the client is the key and whilst everyone in the industry knows about schemes and registers, you don't get your work from the industry!
Thats exactly the biggest issue. It is essential to create a demand for TPC through information and education of the end users if it is going to work.
-
Educating the client is the key and whilst everyone in the industry knows about schemes and registers, you don't get your work from the industry!
Thats exactly the biggest issue. It is essential to create a demand for TPC through information and education of the end users if it is going to work.
Exactly and that takes time and money to do. DCLG won’t do it for the fire industry that is a given.
The professional bodies for H and S have all tried and they aren’t small outfits, plus they talk to the right kind of people when promoting it ‘Duty Holders’ FMs, internal H and S managers.
I believe the work has now just started and two years down the line it would be sad if those who have invested time and money to demonstrate a level of competence are saying the same thing as the H and S guys.
Will price always triumph over substance? In this climate yes I believe it will. Hence government needs to do more. Colin mentioned in a meeting the other day that NI care homes are going to be required to use third party certificated fire risk assessors to complete a fire risk assessment; which will be required for their license. It is a start and one that the other regional assemblies may well follow. But not this government, they are planning to reduce enforcement and legislation. Until the next multi fatality fire death and then they will waste millions on an enquiry and a report and a consultation and a guidance document and so on and so on.
-
Yes, Kelsall, we did receive certification from a CB I know and trust. Will YOUR mates, in the consultancy arm of your organisation now be seeking certification from MY mates, I wonder, given that 15% of the people on YOUR register of fire risk assessors appear to work for a consultancy that is part of the same group as the body that certificated them. I would respectfully suggest that the proximity between our consulting practice and the CB we chose to use is much much less than the potential proximity between the CB you constantly promote on these boards and the consulting practice for which 15% of your registrants work.
The only difference between us is that this is something that has been obvious for a long time, but I chose not to be so unprofessional as to suggest anything improper about it, nor do I do so now. But perhaps you should check your own house, before you make scurrilous inuendos about the houses of others.
Ps your report of what I said at a recent meeting is inaccurate, but accuracy is not your strong point.
-
Ouch. There's never a smilie giving two fingers when you want one! :D
-
If you read 17024 the certification rules are very clear Colin. The checkers have been checked; in fact the checkers sat in for one of the interviews along with the independent witness we used. No ethical issues at all :D
Sorry if you feel I have the NI thing wrong, perhaps you could correct the mistake for the sake of the limited debate I still think is worth having.
As you well know Colin the views of Kelsall are the views of Kelsall and so opinion isn't always fact. If we can't get back to opinion based debate on this then perhaps Kurnel will lock it and yellow card the two naughty boys!
For everyone's sake. ::)
-
I have read the rules, Kellsy old chap. Thats why I like BAFE SP 205. The checkers (NSI, SSAIB and ECA Certification) have been checked. So, did you have a point to make. And can the right honourable person please answer the question, Mr Speaker, as to who is going to certificate HIS chums. Will it be NSI, SSAIB or ECA Certification. I do hope so.
I was not aware I was being naughty. You invaded Poland metaphorically by making innuendos about the integrity of one of the CBs with whom you are in competition-not great in terms of professionalism. All I did was drop a few bombs on your cities. Kurnal will forgive and forget a few bombs.
Re NI I will tell you more when there is something to tell. Let me have your mobile number, and I will make sure you are first to know.
-
I thought I had! No ethical issue at all as the process was done with an independent witness and the standard 17024 allows certification within the same organization never mind the same group; should there be no alternative available.
It would help if you stuck in a question mark now and then!
I can not answer for some other department within a group I work for, why would I be able too?
However depending on who actually did your audit there may be a conflict of interest with the relationship you described.
PS you would drop bombs on cities and avoid legitimate military targets; that’s how naughty you are. :'(
-
Aggressive salesman are always legitimate military targets. Piggy and I may go into a lend lease agreement to send warships to bombard your gaffe. If you see a battleship bearing a flag with the St Andrews cross on one side and a dorgard on the other, remember to duck.
-
Plus it's not too hard to get on the OSCHR either which unlike the rigours of a BAFE examination does little more than check you are with the professional body you say you are, nothing about doing the job.
Whilst the BAFE scheme has many good points (we are going through it this year) it's predecessors in the fire alarm and extinguisher front have not stopped every man and their uncle doing work in that field, making a nice few £££, whilst doing shocking work. Because it doesn't stop the cowboys quite a few decent firms don't go down this route because the overheads aren't worth it as the passed on cost just means the undercutting short-cutters get more work.
Educating the client is the key and whilst everyone in the industry knows about schemes and registers, you don't get your work from the industry!
That's the nature of the game unfortunately, buy a stack of badges and join loads of accredited bodies but the clients don't give a toss as long as the price is right.
There will always be an "i'm ex - "whatever" and can do it cheaper". It has merely brought all the income down for years and no schemes will ever stop that.
Only the real fear of prosecution for not checking and getting confirmation of genuine accreditation will stop it. Can't see that happening though, there's no money for Westminster in it.
-
That's the nature of the game unfortunately, buy a stack of badges and join loads of accredited bodies but the clients don't give a toss as long as the price is right.
There will always be an "i'm ex - "whatever" and can do it cheaper". It has merely brought all the income down for years and no schemes will ever stop that.
You've said it all. We were one of the first companies to offer UKAS accredited consultants, it got us zero work and it didn't help us pitch above any other companies.
-
Piggers, not to be pedantic, but the assessors were not UKAS accredited; they were CERTIFICATED by a UKAS accredited CB. Perhaps you could look at getting the company certificated under SP 205-it is growing in popularity virtually by the day!
-
Apologies, wrong terminology.
We are indeed going to go through SP205 in the summer as we want an easy way to show our competence on a company level.
I like the way SP205 was written for the trade by the trade.
-
Your are right Piggers. A classic case of the profession putting its own house in order through the good offices of BAFE. There are now 8 certificated firms under SP 205.
Good luck in your application for certification Piggers, if you need any advice or even some consultancy time in terms of getting yourelf up to standard for SP 205, you know where to come...
-
if you need any advice or even some consultancy time in terms of getting yourelf up to standard for SP 205, you know where to come...
He employs elves? ;D
-
Thomas is an equal opportunities employer and makes no discrimination agaisnt those who are vertically challenged.
-
The elves are only really required during the festive period. They are a good workforce as long as you can stop them bloody whistling.
-
Its the dwarves that get me. If I hear 'Hi Ho' one more time.
-
and 6 out of 7 are not happy. They need a 3rd party scheme to belong to!
-
and 6 out of 7 are not happy. They need a 3rd party scheme to belong to!
Good ideas - I'll set one up - membership to the scheme will only be £400 per person... roll up my little Dwarf chums
-
IFC have a new UKAS accredited TPC scheme for FRA companies http://www.ifccertification.com/fire-risk-assessment.html (http://www.ifccertification.com/fire-risk-assessment.html)
-
Quote from the IFC website in respect of the benefits of their scheme
" It gives you a head start when more legislation comes in for FRAs."
Do they know something we dont?
I have looked but have not found any details of the basis for their charges and costs. Have I missed something?
-
The three risk categories are a load of complete tosh, suggesting no input from the fire risk assessment industry as BAFE SP 205 received. Nevertheless, they only need two successful applicants and they will have 100% more certificated firms than Warrington have managed in the years their scheme has been running. They will have to go some though to catch up with BAFE SP 205 and its 14 certificated firms. Good to see that they assess against PAS 79 though. Well done that certification body!
-
The three risk catergories thing is exactly what the competency council decided not to do! I can't see why they would want to go in the opposite direction to the rest of the industry.
-
The IFE also have considered this approach on various occasions and always rejected it. Maybe its meant to be product differentiation, but I cant see it working or assessors limiting themselves (or stretching themsleves).
-
I've just had a surveillance visit letter come through (SP205-1) so thought I'd ask who considers this scheme to be worthwhile and if anyone has seen any work come from going through the process? Its not necessarily the cost that's making me doubt the validity of the scheme but the time for preparation, visits, etc. for a small company is disproportionate.
Any thoughts?
-
I have committed our company to achieve TPC by the end of 2014 but have been holding back to see how the system fared, to learn from the experience of others, the relative performance of the various certification bodies and above all the level of interest in the schemes in the market place. There are two tender invitations on my desk at the moment -one a large local authority and one NHS and neither mentions company TPC at all though one of them does ask for assessors to be members of the personal accreditation schemes listed by the competency council.
Unless Government backs company TPC with publicity and leads by example it will be a long and stoney road for the CBs.
-
Unless Government backs company TPC with publicity and leads by example it will be a long and stoney road for the CBs.
I had a conversation along very similar themes with BAFE at Firex- unless they (& Government) push the scheme with the end users who actually commission the FRAs, it will not have the impact it needs
-
Silver, BAFE SP 205 is the biz and it only asks for what you should be doing anyway, so if you are running a business (however small) professionally it should be no problem. We have got one large job in which all the competitors were selected specifically from the BAFE list, so of course the tender document did not mention BAFE cos they didnt need to. By definition, many people who keep repeating that they never see any tenders asking for it are dead right. If they dont have the certification, they will keep not seeing the tenders.
The same happens with fire alarm companies. They are always winging that they never see tenders asking for it. They will certainly never see any tenders that we manage because the companies selected to tender are pre selected on the basis of their listing.
-
Big Al, 2014????????????????????????????????????? For goodness sake what changes do you need to make to your company that it will take you that long to get it into shape??????????????????
Anyway, I was rather hoping you would be retired and walking on the Derbyshire Dales, recounting all your old fire brigade stories to fellow walkers long before that.
-
Hi Colin
No imminent retirement as I am, by a number of years, your junior and so will probably retire a few years after you. But when you fancy a stroll in the beautiful Peak District I would be delighted to show you round and have a few routes particularly suited to a bath chair.
Since you ask there is one particular area that we do need to change in respect of BAFE SP205. I do not currently keep the contemporaneous notes and sketches made during assessments and have no intention of doing so for as long as possible. Yes we could scan them in but what possible benefit does keeping them bring? If we get it wrong the final authorized risk assessment document as presented to the client will be definitive and the reference point against which it can be measured is the assessed building plus hindsight. What the assessor scribbled on his notes is irrelevant (and often semi illegible). That is one battle I have to fight and will lose.
No my main reason for holding back is caution, the relationship with a CB is very important and long term and I am waiting to find best match CB for me. I favour being assessed by a fire risk assessor trained in audit rather than an auditor trained in risk assessment. One thing is sure, we will meet the deadline set by the FIA.
-
Big Al, you are totally wrong in the value you attribute to contemperaneous notes. If it all goes pear shaped, these can be of huge value. We once saved one of our insurance underwriters an astronomic multi million pound claim, because it was clear from the notes that information contained in our report was based on misinformation provided by a representative of the Insured. The proof that, on the balance of probablities, that misinformation had been provided was really obvious from the notes made at the time of the site visit. it was clear that they were taken at the time of a formal meeting prior to the inspection of the building.
Who audits you should make no difference if you have done it all right.
-
The notes requirement was a bit of a bind as we had gone to great length to abandon keeping mountains of paper, and the prospect of now retaining a LOT of paper (we are a lot bigger since I started with the firm 15 years ago) was not relished, however scanning and storing electronically is our answer.
I can see why the requirement is there - in another law associated field I work in all paperwork right down to notebooks is retained even though process is largely carried out using a computer based system
-
Very good video starring CT as Richard Gere on http://www.ifsecglobal.com/author.asp?section_id=414
-
sorry folks forgot to say
click on the fire section of the ifsec website and then the link 'Video Guide to Fire Risk Assessments '
-
Actually I'll post it here, with a question 'Are all non accredited fire risk assessors incompetent?
Just like gas safe plumbers there needs to be national accreditation but may I make the following points to consider. there are many (mostly ex fire service fire safety officers) who meet the competency council criteria but are not third party accredited. Here is a scenario; so you leave the fire service or from another fire safety field of work and provide fire risk assessments for small companies say the local factory or leisure centre? for best practice you keep up to date by belonging to professional bodies (IFE,FPO etc.etc) at at least £100 a throw, then you need PI and posibbly PL insurance anything from £500 upwards, also the running a business from home costs and now depending on which accredited scheme you take up its going to be £300 upwards. So whats a reasonable fee for that local factory? well you tell me and I'll give you the answer! they are going to say 'no thanks' Remember the ethos of the RRO when the government of the day introduced it 'not a burden on business' 'cost neutral' and not a 'consultants charter' It's all fine for large consultancies doing work for national and multi national organisations but SME's make up the bulk of british business and they are not going to pay big bucks for fire risk assessments in the midst of a recession. So how viable a business is it to be a fire risk assessor? are these ex fire officers subsidizing their businesses with their fire service pensions? if so they are making an admirable contribution to Mr Camerons big society. We need to have third party accreditation,no doubt but Is there a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water in the drive to get rid of the cowboys?
-
No of course there are competent non accredited fire risk assessors but whoever wrote that piece misses the point.
The purpose of third party accreditation was to help the responsible person to find a competent risk assessor, that's all.
-
I take your point but although the plumber has to have his/her gas safe accreditation most work comes through word of mouth and reputation, I'm not disagreeing with the need for 3rd party accreditation.
-
Work will still come through advertising, word of mouth etc irrespective of third party certification (TPC.)
But for those responsible persons seeking to choose a fire risk assessor, the schemes are there to help them find someone competent.
Without TPC, unless they have a firm recommendation from someone else how else could the the responsible person be sure that they are employing a competent risk assessor?
-
Work will still come through advertising, word of mouth etc irrespective of third party certification (TPC.)
But for those responsible persons seeking to choose a fire risk assessor, the schemes are there to help them find someone competent.
Without TPC, unless they have a firm recommendation from someone else how else could the the responsible person be sure that they are employing a competent risk assessor?
ISO9001
Qualifications
Years on job
Case Studies
Method Statements
Awards
Meeting them
Previous examples
Levels of Insurance
Seeking advice from f&rs
I could go on Alan.
-
I agree Piglet but it is hard work for the RP to do all this whereas to pick from a list of companies with TPC should save much of this work whilst providing evidence of due diligence.
-
The concept of third party is to marginalize the poor assessor and allow the RP some protection when selecting a competent person. If they have selected the contractor from a scheme they have done a big chunk of what can reasonably be expected. There are other checks they need to make; but in the event of a legal case it is for the accused to prove they couldn’t have reasonably done more to avoid commissioning the offence. Is it reasonable to select your fire risk assessor from an accredited certification scheme? Yes I think it is!
There is little doubt that there are many good firms operating without third party certification but there is even less doubt that there are very poor fire risk assessors getting lots and lots of work. The RP, seemingly unable to complete due diligence and thus weed the cowboys out. The commercial benefits of certification will not be apparent for some time to come; the more the RP is informed about it the more those with it shout about it the better.
I do feel for those who haven’t got certification yet who are working at the industry standard. But if the good don’t take a leap of faith to third party, the bad and the ugly fire risk assessor won’t have to. There is a need to marginalize the bad and ugly fire risk assessor or little will change and RPs will continue to think one fire risk assessment provider is the same as the next. Price will always be important and when you are comparing apples with oranges and don’t know it; price often is the deal breaker.
Value for money is in the quality or competence of the service you pay for; if you spend a little you may not get what you paid for and the subsequent result may mean you lose a whole lot more. There should be little doubt about the technical delivery of those with third party certification and hopefully those on a scheme will work hard to keep their standard up. It can work the other way too with very expensive assessors producing poor risk assessments.
More does need to be done to make the RP select from those with third party assurance especially where public money is involved. How much have Southwark spent as a result of Lakanal? Millions and millions of pounds according to some press reports. Where does that money come from? What about the coroner’s inquest, how much did that cost? Where did the money come from?
Sadly the risk of not getting it right in the first place seems to be a commonly accepted risk. Lack of fires, lack of effective enforcement; pressure on budgets all contribute to a lowering of expected standards. It’s only when it goes wrong do we start looking at what went wrong and I would suggest that if you took most London Boroughs you could find similar conditions and practices as those in Southwark.
Sadly it is an industry problem created by government and it looks likely they will add to the issues with a reduction in red tape for ‘lower risk’ properties."Fire safety shouldn’t be a ‘burden’ and industry needs to be free to spend fire safety money on growing their business and thus growing the UK economy".
Thats fine, until it goes wrong and we have another inquest; if they haven't spent money on fire safety they will be hung on the back of the 'burden' they didn't take on. I have no doubt about that!
-
Should FRA policemen not have 3rd party accreditation also? Makes sense that they should have an equal competency a level. Perhaps there was a scheme in place for them we might a better quality of audit and enforcement.
-
in the event of a legal case it is for the accused to prove they couldn’t have reasonably done more to avoid commissioning the offence.
How many times has this happened?
If the government is backing businesses to complete their own FRAs without the need of an external consultant then its very hard to call a extinguisher company who have sent Jim Boggs away on one of Colins fine courses a cowboy.
-
It has happened quite a lot actually and in some very high profile cases. Lack of fire risk assessment or poor quality of fire risk assessment is an issue, and the RP does get fined for not having the foundation of fire safety completed correctly. Recently a North Yorkshire Landlord was sent to prison for the deaths of two people because he could have ‘reasonably’ done more to prevent the deaths.
How many times does it need to happen?
I think you will find that in all three of the major fatal fires in the UK more could have reasonably been done to prevent it happening.
The point is; those seeking professional advice need to have a safety net to allow for some form of self-protection, in the unlikely event of a fatal or serious fire.
If a landlord appoints a plumber to fix a boiler in one of his properties and he takes the plumbers word on him being on the gas safe register. In the event that the house blows up killing the family inside and it turns out the plumber lied, the landlord will be guilty of not carrying out reasonable checks. If the landlord checks and the plumber is on the register and the same thing happens; I believe the landlord would have done all that is reasonably possible to avoid the deaths.
The government may have wanted industry to do it themselves as far as fire risk assessments are concerned; but the reality is that loads and loads of RPs didn’t want to have a go at it and they have turned to outside experts to do the job for them. This created a real problem with cowboys, and for almost as long as the RRO has been in place the industry has been talking about a way to prevent the cowboy from ripping off the RP with substandard or dangerous assessments. Actually this ‘not a burden on industry’ was created by DCLG; but when the RP turned to the industry in thousands and thousands, it was suddenly an industry mess, that industry had to deal with. They have done that (not very well in my opinion) but none the less a system is in place; all the fire sector representatives contributed and the consensus is a recommendation to use firms with accredited third party certification. (If you want to appoint an external contractor)
Presumably this is to afford the best assurance against the risk assessor messing up and to assist in due diligence which is a defence in court; if an offence has been commissioned under the RRO.
So the above is a long winded way of asking piglet; what is your point?
-
It wasn't a point it was a question.
You referenced cases where the RP was asked "In the event of a legal case it is for the accused to prove they couldn’t have reasonably done more to avoid commissioning the offence"
I took that (as per the rest of the thread) you meant selecting of a risk assessor.
I see you mean in generic terms though.
-
Longjohn, you sure you quoted the right link. All I could find was a really boring video from some certification body salesman talking about the price of his Tv set.
-
Piggers the reverse burden of proof to which Kelsall refers does not apply to Article 9 and FRA. Just on a point of accuracy.
-
sorry folks forgot to say
click on the fire section of the ifsec website and then the link 'Video Guide to Fire Risk Assessments '
Excellent video longjohn; however it's a shame it won't reach the intended target audience; it is so difficult to get the message to RPs.
-
Longjohn, you sure you quoted the right link. All I could find was a really boring video from some certification body salesman talking about the price of his Tv set.
Aww bless you Colin, it's easy at your age to get confused! The nice man on the video you refer to wasn't selling TVs.
Come on forum guys, lets all chip in for one of those bracelet things; so when he gets lost again (like when he went to the empty cricket ground the other day and started talking to himself) some one can contact his loved ones to come and collect him and take him home.
-
It's funny, if Im going to listen to a speaker I want them to be an expert in their subject matter.
Sue Barker presenting MOTD just wouldn't do it for me.
Sometimes I do a presentation, and I include a TV, a flatscreen TV -- we bought one a couple of years ago. And what it narrowed down was that I could get a flatscreen TV for £200 or one for £1,500, but they're not the same thing. So when I narrowed it down, I actually got the same specification, where I was looking at same make, model, standards, same features. Then I could say, "Well, I can get one for £200 there or one for £300 there," and so I went for the £200, because it was exactly the same thing.
-
a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun
A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
A correspondence or partial similarity.
Synonyms
similarity - resemblance - likeness - parity - parallel
Don't be pig ignorant piglet! I know you love the old man like a dad, but please don't follow in his footsteps; I don't think it's in your nature. I hope not! I won't have a go back as Kurnal will shout; as it doesn't add to the debate.
The point is that I believe that the RP doesn't in many cases complete due diligence when appointing 'contractors' and therefore if they do get prosecuted under the order there is often more they could have reasonibly done to avoid commissioning the offence. That lack of diligence is a common factor in many of the succesful prosecutions and sadly that lack of diligence is also common in the multifatality fires we have had in the UK. Therefore if the RP is to be helped in their diligence the industry has to work a lot harder to help them. One vital area that will assist is to marginalise the poor fire risk assessor and eliminate them from the pool of contractors the RP has to choose from. That will allow experts like yourself, to operate in a semi regulated market place were the standard of advice facilitates high fire standards in many more buildings.
It's a bit like the new food labels introduced to clearly identify the food that is bad for you, in the hope that unhealthy food will not be purchased by the consumer and therefore it will disappear from the shelves; thus making the UK a healthier place. By clearly signposting the good the bad will fall by the wayside.
-
'By clearly signposting the good the bad will fall by the wayside.'
This is a fine ideal but the usual experience is that no matter what the label says, for some people a can of beans at 20p is preferable, to a can of beans at 50p.
The issue with FRA work is the people who are prepared to pay are probably not the people who run the risky establishments. The people who run the risky ones want a FRA that tells them God's in his heaven and all's right with the world and will pay peanuts for it, they don't want a comprehensive FRA that tells them they have to spend a lot of money to bring their establishment up to scratch. They are more likely to run on 'it will never happen to me'.
The real way to deal with it is to convince them that it will happen to them and the only way to do that is with more enforcement visits. How likely is that with reducing budgets and less onerous legislation speeches?
-
fire authorities could help themselves by recognising an FRA done by a registered assessor and not wasting time nit picking.
They could free themselves up to deal with the dodgy RPs.
-
I don't believe that 3rd party accreditation can necessarily maketh the man. If the F&R Service would just reject those Assessments that don't measure up word will get about that Acme Fire Safety Inc. and the like do not produce the goods. Market forces.
-
I agree with you nearlythere but it still relies on the Fire Brigades getting out there and pounding the pavements to pick up the dodgy FRAs. It comes back to the perception of the RPs. What is the chance I will get caught? and what will happen if I do?
If the answers are: 1 remote and 2 a slap on the wrist there is not much deterent. If the answers are: 1 quite likely and 2 having to get a proper FRA done and pay for two FRAs ( one cheap and nasty, and one more expensive but good) the word will get around and the cowboys will be weeded out.
But it still relies on someone policing the FRAs or making accreditation compulsory or both and our lords and masters in the Whitehall Ivory Towers are not inclined to do either! You only have to look at Eric Pickles reply to Lakanal to see that.
-
Regardless of TPA the word also needs to be spread that inaccurate FRAs although cheap may involve paying out more money in the longer term to upgrade doors, provide extinguishers, lighting and signs, etc, etc. that are actually not required. I hear what is being said about TPA not being the panacea but at least those on the list have had some sort of examination of their credentials and experience; or that the company is bound by some sort of code of practice.
Looking forward to my IFE register interview later this month - just sixteen months after applying!
-
If I ever want to buy a TV, I will definitely come to see Kelsall. He is certainly the biz in the TV field. Do these nice Warrington people do TPC of TVs?
-
We do but they have lots of different channels on them. The one you want only has CST TV on; 24/7 :o
-
Its a lot better than the shopping channel, where all you get are advertorials by people trying surreptitiously to sell the products of their sponsors.
-
Why don't you watch the clip again! This time take your I hate Kelsall glasses off. I formally challenge you to tell everyone on the forum what constitutes a sales pitch in that clip? You are wrong Colin! But you are so focused on 'loving Colin' that I dare say you will fail to post an apology! :-*
-
I dont hate you. I just wish you would tell everyone what you do for a living so that they can interpret your views accordingly.
-
I dont hate you. I just wish you would tell everyone what you do for a living so that they can interpret your views accordingly.
What has it got to do with you who I work for?
There are hundreds of members on this site with forum names who have opinions, why am I singled out?
Where was the sales pitch in that clip?
The Australians have a very good saying about people who have opinions about others but who fail to look at themselves with the same level of scrutiny. You are as they say down under 'up yourself'.
PS Where was the sales pitch?
-
You have one record that you play all the time, banging on about 3rd party certification. Even people who believe in third party certification find it tiring. Any one would think you were a salesman for a CB. The TV waffle was said much more eloquently by John Ruskin in the 19th century, and it was hardly rocket science even then, fascinating though your dissertation on the purchase of your tv was.
-
Doh! My mistake I thought this thread was about a new third party certification scheme.
Wait a minute, it is about a new third party certification scheme. What I am supposed to be talking about?
I believe on a vocational level that good third party certification can help improve standards within the fire sector. So yes I do tell people what I believe, but if I am selling the value of third party surely that benefits all third party providers!
Where was the sales pitch?
Still it's not as tedious as the blatant self elevation at the expense of others, that we get from you!
I expect your neighbours are sick of hearing Tina Turners 'simply the best' blasting out of your open windows. Actually I expect you do a better cover version on the karaoke , (in your opinion) ;D
-
Clearly, you are doing a sterling job in selling certification schemes, as the current score is BAFE SP 205 19: Warrington FRACS 1. I just hope NSI give you something nice at Christmas.
-
Where was the sales pitch in the video?
Must be all the hard work I have done around the country promoting the value of third party! Still I don't mind as long as they are certificated on a proper scheme, the more the merrier. :D
-
Sorry, I must have missed the point about the video then?? It was all about the television manufacturing industry?
-
::)
-
Sorry, I must have missed the point about the video then?? It was all about the television manufacturing industry?
All I could see was a 1940's film star. :-*
http://www.ifsecglobal.com/author.asp?section_id=414&doc_id=560163
-
Thomas, keep up. That's a different video. And young Ben wasnt born in the 1940s.
-
After a few weeks thinking about the issues and how much extra work (none) or calls (0) I have received I've now decided not to renew SP205; for a small company its expensive and time consuming. I don't seem to be short of work and am being undercut by people who have no certification or any intention of getting any so I can't see the point. It appears to me that there's no support for the companies on the scheme; we've been encouraged to go through the process and pay our money but left to our own devices once certified and most RPs have no idea about the difference. Maybe it will change in a few years but at this time its ineffective.