FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on February 02, 2013, 08:10:54 PM
-
At long last, and after much political infighting by some with their own agendas, the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council has published a guide for the RP and Dutyholders on where they can find competent fire risk assessors.
A critical aspect of this guidance is that the FRACC recommend the use of COMPANIES that are 3rd party certificated by UKAS accredited certification bodies (i.e. not just persons who are certificated as competent persons). This is because company certification includes not just use of competent persons but a quality management system in the company. This is also the policy of the Fire Industry Association.
The key quotation is outlined below:
The Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council recommends the use of fire risk assessment companies, including sole traders, which are third party certificated to appropriate schemes operated by Certification Bodies which have been UKAS accredited to certificate against such schemes.
The guide lists all sources of comeptent persons and of course competent COMPANIES. The only source of competent companies listed in the guide is the BAFE SP 205 scheme, which is available from the three certification boides, NSI, SSAIB and ECA Certification, all three of whom are doing a sterling job to raise standards in our profession.
The Guide will be hosted on the Fire Sector Federation website, but can be downloaded from the website of any stakeholder (or anyone else) who puts it on their website.
Thus, it can be found at:
http://www.fia.uk.com/en/info/document_summary.cfm/docid/E6479C4F-E267-4DD4-8B55A6930C685F13
and
http://www.bafe.org.uk/uploads/DOC510BF23245044.doc
-
Good news! At last....... glad we opted for BAFE SP205 and not FRACS now ;-)
-
Sometimes, Willie, even ex firemen make wise decisions. I bet Old Kurnawhatisnameski will be jumping on the bandwagon now.
-
;D
-
I should think old kelsall will be pretty orgasmic about this new publication too, as he has always maintained that only UKAS accredited certification means anything. He will be delighted to see that this is reflected in the recommendations of the competency council and that the BAFE scheme is the only one at the present time to which people can look in that respect.
-
So then you are only competent if you belong to one of these schemes. That is not and never will be the case. 3rd party accreditation can assist a decision making process whatever and whoever is behind it but there are many tradepersons who are able to undertake their work with due diligence and professionalism without such pieces of paper.
-
Whilst I agree with Jokar on the grounds that although a raven is a black bird, it does not follow that any black bird is a raven.
However the problem is there are many good assessors out there but ther are also a lot who are rubbish, how is the average responsible person able to destinguish between the two. Especially as the only criteria he has at the moment is price.
-
Its not compulsory - so the market will decide.
Enforcers could help by treating prems that have an FRA done by a registered assesor as lower risk.
-
I don’t see why we should be any different to any other industry out there?? 3rd party certification is nothing new, granted ours is not compulsory and to a point time will tell as to how the market goes. Personally it’s not just about ticking a box and stating we are certificated under this scheme or that, it’s about providing a quality service and document for what we do at a reasonable fee. Have I increased our FRA rates since becoming BAFE SP205 certificated?……..no. What it does though is give responsible persons the option whether to choose a non certificated company/individual or not based on the fee quoted.
Agreed there are many competent persons/companies out there that are not certificated but I feel there are more that are not, based on what I see. I see FRAs and get CV’s on a regular basis from ex fire safety officers with MIFireE, MIFSM and even fire engineering degrees but their 30 years in the fire service has been spent riding a big red truck, with little or no fire safety inspection experience (apart from the little they did operationally) they have not attended any specific fire safety courses but then set themselves up as fire risk assessors charging rock bottom fees. I hope the competency schemes weed this out in time.
I also have to question that if you deem to be a competent company/individual then why not apply for FRACS or BAFE SP205? I can’t speak for FRACS but the SP205 process is not just about individual assessors, it also looks at the sole trader/company quality management system, documentation, CPD records, complaints procedures, FRA templates, access to current fire safety guidance etc. etc.
-
Ive always said that unless a certification scheme is UKAS accredited it means nothing.(See my previous posts on similar threads)
I could set up my own scheme - lets call it "Midland Mayhem's Fire Risk Assessor Certification Scheme" or something more glamourous or important sounding and claim to be a third party accreditor.
I could then get all my mates to join it and they could proclaim themselves to be "third party accredited" which is cuckoo!
So I very much welcome this news
-
Ive always said that unless a certification scheme is UKAS accredited it means nothing.(See my previous posts on similar threads)
I could set up my own scheme - lets call it "Midland Mayhem's Fire Risk Assessor Certification Scheme" or something more glamourous or important sounding and claim to be a third party accreditor.
I could then get all my mates to join it and they could proclaim themselves to be "third party accredited" which is cuckoo!
So I very much welcome this news
I like the sound of this scheme, where do I sign? Do I get a logo when I've passed?
-
I like the sound of this scheme, where do I sign? Do I get a logo when I've passed?
Just sign here Piglet old fellow, and yes you get a very official looking logo to adorn your letterheads and vehicles etc.... and what this about "passing"? You don't have to pass any exam or entrance test matey just chuck me £150 and you're in seeing as youre an old Firenet chum! ;) ;) ;) ::)
-
Well that was painless
Kind Regards
Piglet MMfireA
*Approved Risk Assessor
-
Thankfully FRACC doesn’t stand for Fire Risk Assessor Colin’s Council
He seems to be setting policy for BIS these days. Competent person’s schemes offered by accredited certification bodies comply fully with the UK policy on conformity assessment. Those with certification are assessed against the competence criteria, which sets the technical level for UK and Republic of Ireland fire risk assessors; exactly what they need to 'conform' to. In what world is that not an appropriate scheme?
What is the fundamental quality assurance requirement for any technical document before it is given to the client? Would it be a peer review by any chance! And can a sole trader carry out a peer review? NO! Therefore a technical reference which assures the end user of the person’s technical knowledge and ability to deliver an accurate fire risk assessment is actually what is required. Many other sectors use competent persons schemes as support for due diligence and as I have mentioned to the FIA many times. They are forcing peoples hand and sending them down an expensive quality assurance route that offers no real value to the sole trader or his client. Quality assurance is all about repeatability and having the steps in place to make sure the product is accurate no matter who completes it. That need for repeatability is magnified with additional employees and therefore the quality procedures become more essential. Don’t get me wrong quality assurance is important but I don’t believe sole traders will benefit from putting in checks and balances on themselves for the sake of a quality assurance audit; when the technical accuracy of their reports is what it would be under a competent person’s scheme. However when there are multiple employees those checks and balances add value to the company and ensure the repeatability which may be lost by use of different employees.
The real and very clear danger here is that sole traders will not go for any certification, keep working from their kitchen table, and be so competitive that the certificated firms lose out over and over again to their substantially lower rates. This is the parallel from the OSHCR register I have already mentioned. The aim here is to marginalise the poor assessor not give them an advantage. So short sighted of the industry; another classic ‘big player’ mentality that the FIA have been criticized for before, by their own membership. Actually Colin you may want to check what your colleagues are doing at the FIA re training followed by competence certification; if as you suggest a competent persons scheme isn’t suitable they are probably barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps you better do it for them so they can get it right!
All company schemes will be listed when the CB operating them achieves scope extension to their 45011 accreditation. IFCC will be next and possibly the best will be last. Certification is only half the story and unfortunately the hard work will start now and it will be nice to have some other CBs working to improve standards.
-
35 stakeholders or so, including you, Kelsall, representing your CB, sat through meetings at which everyone bought into the FRACC guidance that I reproduced above advocating COMPANY certification, including for sole traders, many of whom, are by the way, going for the BAFE scheme, which provides them with a route to peer review. This included all the professional bodies that have PERSON registers.
Not quite sure why you are ranting about it now, unless of course the guidance does not suit you. Nor do I understand the FIA training references. For avoidance of doubt, the FIA are in a position to support members, including many sole traders, in their goal of achieving tpc.
-
The Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council recommends the use of fire risk assessment companies, including sole traders, which are third party certificated to appropriate schemes operated by Certification Bodies which have been UKAS accredited to certificate against such schemes.
FRACC could mean Fire Risk Accreditation, Colin Clueless!
I am sorry Colin but to say that an accredited competent person’s scheme is not allowed is ridiculous and unfortunately for you, the wording is clear; appropriate UKAS accredited schemes. You think it means only 45011 schemes because that’s the FIA stance and that’s actually what you said at the meeting. I don’t recall anyone agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. If you wanted 45011 you should have had it written in. But with UKAS in the room and DCLG that wouldn’t have happened in my opinion.
You can’t exclude a scheme that is written to comply with an international standard, the competence standard and is accredited by the UK governments own appointed accreditation body. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense to say it isn’t suitable. Next time there is a revision, just see if you can get that clarified and get the council only to recommend 45011 schemes. In fact, do it now ask the council to clarify that 17024 schemes are not appropriate and the statement above doesn’t include them.
The FIA are looking at a training scheme for fire risk assessors and on the back of that training they are looking at competent person’s certification. Hey go figure that one Col.
BANG! It’s a wonder you have any toes left.
Stop sniping Colin and look at the bigger picture!
The aim here is to make a difference and protect the duty holder from the bad and ugly fire risk assessors who are running around buildings with tick lists and have no idea what they are looking at or why. The most assured way of offering protection is through appropriate accredited certification schemes. To encourage people on to schemes that are appropriate there needs to be a choice of scheme and a unified approach, plus a hell of a lot of work by stake holders. To make a difference you actually have to make some tough decisions which I am afraid haven’t been made. Those who have certification need to be wary of Colin and the FIA who seem to think that their club is the be all and end all of fire risk assessment. Where I have seen that before, IFE perhaps! Whilst we are on to the IFE haven’t you just condemned their register to death? Whilst on that topic aren’t you still involved with that register? Isn’t your position with them now untenable? I know you are a thick skinned narcissist but even you can’t hold two so contradictory views.
-
All very interesting.
And Wee B makes an comment that gives more food for thought.
However, what would be really good is for 'competant' fire risk assessors to recommend third party certificated contractors. The rest of the fire industry could possibly then benefit from their own respective schemes that have been in place for some time.
-
I love it when you rant Kelsall. For you always make yourself look so silly. You reproduce something from the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council and then rant about how ridiculous it is and blame me for it. This would seem to ignore the fact that you were at the meeting that approved the wording, so by implication it is something that those employing you to attend agreed with that you are ranting about. How ridiculous is that.
And who said any scheme is not to use your words, allowed. Allowed by whom for what.
If YOU wanted something else, YOU should have said so at the meeting, but I recall you were uncharacteristically quiet.
Person certification is a half way house to company certiifcation. The IFE Register lives on and grows from strength to strength.
So, let me get this right, the IFE, who have been in the fire business since 1918, the FIA who have been around as previous trade associations for donkeys years (and I who haver been in the profession for 38 years)-everyone is wrong other than you who have been dabbling in the fringes of fire safety for five minutes. You even rant at poor Piggers, probably because he is my good chum. How arrogant is that. I keep apologising and sympathising that no one wants to buy your certification schemes but it is not all my fault, honestly.
Ps I didnt understand the reference to writing BIS policy-has something happened that I should know about.
PPs, no offence intended but your spelling is appalling. There is only one p in sniping and look up the dictionary before attempting difficult words such as narcissist (no s on the end).
-
Text book answer, absolutely text book; even down to suggesting inexperience and arrogance. The best one I think is drawing attention to a weakness; a couple of typing errors. Deflection, discrediting and a suggestion that I pick on piggy because he is you chum. Honestly you couldn’t be more narcissistic if you set out to post a reply that demonstrated the traits of a narcissist. I urge you to use a dictionary to look up the definition of narcissism actually it would be fun for other forum users to do it and see if they recognise characteristics from your posts. Regardless of my opinion of you or yours of mine the thread theme should be given some attention.
Fortunately when I did come in to the fire safety profession in 2007 I had the most amazing mentor who taught me many things. First and foremost was that you should be in fire safety to make a difference. Which is exactly what I believe in and your ‘sales’ tag is annoying only because it is so far from the reality.
One of the earliest lessons I learnt from him was that committees, councils and bodies don’t always deliver what they need to deliver because of the nature of the way they do things and because of the shear number of people involve. What you end up with is a halfway house, a semi solution, an acceptable to most, a non offensive solution that in the end doesn’t resolve the issue it was intended to resolve. I believe that what the industry has produced will not resolve the issue of ‘cowboys’ in fact it could make their lot a happier one. I don’t believe it will encourage the weak assessors to gain certification and I actually think that because some harsh decisions have been ducked by the industry; those who buy in to certification will be wasting their money. I may be wrong, but from six years of looking at this on a daily basis; I think what has been done is too late, too weak, has too little focus and it will not have sufficient additional support to succeed.
-
So at the competency council meeting
did you
A) Not mention your opinion in respect to wording
or
B) Mention your opinion but it was not accepted by the rest of the council?
There is nothing wrong with being inexperienced Kel, for a few years I had the pleasure of sitting on the FIAs risk assessment council chaired by the 24th most influential person in fire and security. My 9 years experience was not a patch on what most had achieved around that table so I listened to my peers. I didn't attack them on anything I felt was wrong, I offered an opinion and listened to their explanation which generally excelled my knowledge. Its not to say I didn't bring anything to the table, everyone has their place but when you talk about your mentor in such high esteem perhaps you should show the same respect to some on here. Especially as you are hoping they will be your customers.
-
I hereby confirm that Piggers always listened and was always extremely polite. The boy will go far.
-
Just had a meeting with the most influential person in the fire sector and there is definitely mutual respect between us; in fact he even gave me a couple of compliments for some of the work I have done recently.
Unfortunately piggers if you give 'it' you have to be willing to take 'it'. Regardless of experience or reputation; there shouldn’t be immunity on that basis.
Respect needs to be earned, which I have done with many in the industry; but unfortunately when there is a difference to be made there has to be a bit of honesty. I can fully see why a new person in the industry shouting loudly isn't welcome, albeit with very good intentions. But believe me when I say this, I am very confident that I have followed this issue closer than anyone else in the UK over the last 5 years; there has been no improvement in the issue of competence of fire risk assessors, in fact I would say it is marginally worse. Will the measures the industry has put in place help? No, the market forces will not change just with the introduction of these two documents. It won't happen in my opinion because the pull from the top (the duty holder) will not be created in any significant way. Therefore those who have invested in certification for possible market advantage will experience a marginal increase. Those with no hope of being certificated will not be removed from the service provider pool; especially in these tough economic times. If I am right the cowboy element will not suffer and the whole exercise was a waste of time and money. I appreciate there will be certificated firms to choose but those with it were not the cowboys in the first place. Thankfully for us all, the new hot topic in the fire industry will be unwanted fire signals and competence of fire risk assessors will be forgotten in a few months.
-
Closer than anyone in the UK?????????????? My goodness me. Self praise is praise indeed. Could the honourable genteman for the Wirral tell the House what objective evidence he has that FRAs are getting worse.
And with regard to making a difference, I respectfully suggest that many here have made more of a difference on a Sunday afternoon that you have made in your whole 5 years on the remote fringes of fire safety.
-
Just had a meeting with the most influential person in the fire sector and there is definitely mutual respect between us; in fact he even gave me a couple of compliments for some of the work I have done recently.
Unfortunately piggers if you give 'it' you have to be willing to take 'it'. Regardless of experience or reputation; there shouldn’t be immunity on that basis.
Respect needs to be earned, which I have done with many in the industry; but unfortunately when there is a difference to be made there has to be a bit of honesty. I can fully see why a new person in the industry shouting loudly isn't welcome, albeit with very good intentions. But believe me when I say this, I am very confident that I have followed this issue closer than anyone else in the UK over the last 5 years; there has been no improvement in the issue of competence of fire risk assessors, in fact I would say it is marginally worse. Will the measures the industry has put in place help? No, the market forces will not change just with the introduction of these two documents. It won't happen in my opinion because the pull from the top (the duty holder) will not be created in any significant way. Therefore those who have invested in certification for possible market advantage will experience a marginal increase. Those with no hope of being certificated will not be removed from the service provider pool; especially in these tough economic times. If I am right the cowboy element will not suffer and the whole exercise was a waste of time and money. I appreciate there will be certificated firms to choose but those with it were not the cowboys in the first place. Thankfully for us all, the new hot topic in the fire industry will be unwanted fire signals and competence of fire risk assessors will be forgotten in a few months.
Kel, please tell us all then what your solution to a competent assessor or company is and what scheme(s) and/or risk register(s) you are saying would demonstrate an accepted level of competence? ???
-
Willie, as a stakeholder in the FRACC guide he has implicitly already told us, surely. The answer (for the moment) is BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice, as selected by Willie's Fire Risk Assessors extraordinaire.
-
Willie, as a stakeholder in the FRACC guide he has implicitly already told us, surely. The answer (for the moment) is BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice, as selected by Willie's Fire Risk Assessors extraordinaire.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about then ::)
-
Neither do I William. There should not be a monopoly of company schemes - there is a choice in the extinguishing sector and in the alarms sector and it is right that there should be a choice of schemes in the fire risk assessment sector. A monopoly is always a bad thing even one underwritten by UKAS. We need choice and competition - not only in respect of CBs but also in respect of schemes. Unforunately compared to other sectors the market place is too small for more players at present - it shouldn't be but it is still early days. The whole thing needs to be driven and publicised harder from the top and from the bottom- Government, enforcers and by the companies themselves.
-
Willie, I think the fuss is about commercial considerations and selling certification schemes, and the majority view of the profession that the end game for making the difference that Kel purports to want is COMPANY certification. Does this help you to understand.
-
Willie, I think the fuss is about commercial considerations and selling certification schemes, and the majority view of the profession that the end game for making the difference that Kel purports to want is COMPANY certification. Does this help you to understand.
So nothing to do with the main talking point of competence then.
-
Closer than anyone in the UK? ? My goodness me. Self praise is praise indeed.
This coming from a man who has more self love than a catholic priest!
Could the honourable genteman for the Wirral tell the House what objective evidence he has that FRAs are getting worse.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence from many sources and evidence that price not competence is the driver for many recent tenders. I asked the question on the forum and some members suggested that 40% of their work is completing fire risk assessments when the initial assessment was unsatisfactory. The IRMP returns suggest that non compliance under article 9 is reducing however as the buildings are inspected on a risk based approach you would expect some reduction in the headline figure; although some have gone up. Factories are up from 1544 (09/10) to 1653 (10/11) Hospitals 118 to 127. Granted they did more inspection but still all those hospitals have been visited before
And with regard to making a difference, I respectfully suggest that many here have made more of a difference on a Sunday afternoon that you have made in your whole 5 years on the remote fringes of fire safety. I didn’t say I had made a difference; but that there was a difference to be made to protect the RP. This offering isn’t it in my opinion.
-
Willie, as a stakeholder in the FRACC guide he has implicitly already told us, surely. The answer (for the moment) is BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice, as selected by Willie's Fire Risk Assessors extraordinaire.
So what will make the less than extraordinary fire risk assessors sign up? What will prevent the cowboy from trading? What will make the duty holder ask for it?
-
Neither do I William. There should not be a monopoly of company schemes - there is a choice in the extinguishing sector and in the alarms sector and it is right that there should be a choice of schemes in the fire risk assessment sector. A monopoly is always a bad thing even one underwritten by UKAS. We need choice and competition - not only in respect of CBs but also in respect of schemes. Unforunately compared to other sectors the market place is too small for more players at present - it shouldn't be but it is still early days. The whole thing needs to be driven and publicised harder from the top and from the bottom- Government, enforcers and by the companies themselves.
Fully agree Kurnal especially with the last bit.
-
Wille no nothing to do with competence. The stakeholders of the fire safety profession have signed up to recommending COMPANY certification by a UKAS accredited CB. For the moment that means BAFE SP 205, as it is the only game in town and a very reputable game it is, as the scheme itself is STAKEHOLDER led.
Kel says : So what will make the less than extraordinary fire risk assessors sign up? What will prevent the cowboy from trading? What will make the duty holder ask for it? I dont know Kel cos I dont sell certification schemes for a living. Dont you know???????
-
Wille no nothing to do with competence. The stakeholders of the fire safety profession have signed up to recommending COMPANY certification by a UKAS accredited CB. For the moment that means BAFE SP 205, as it is the only game in town and a very reputable game it is, as the scheme itself is STAKEHOLDER led.
Kel says : So what will make the less than extraordinary fire risk assessors sign up? What will prevent the cowboy from trading? What will make the duty holder ask for it? I dont know Kel cos I dont sell certification schemes for a living. Dont you know???????
Why don't you ask your chums who sell 205 for their thoughts on this.
-
So will these members of the dream team be subject to regular monitoring to ensure they stay in line and keep their offices clean?
Is there a means where offenders can be "struck off".
I remember the time when Prince Charles visited Morton and asked what the failure rate was. Embarassment all around apparently.
-
As a risk assessor who originally came from a fire service fire safety back ground and a sole trader I have been interested to show that my assessments etc are up to the job and not just a tick sheet, I also like to give a good service and an old fashioned value for money. I am currently on two registers including the IFE but had been thinking of going for a UKAS scheme and have looked at a couple, SP205 looked ok and was suitable for sole traders.
So last week I spoke to one of the CBs and asked a few questions including how much? I was given a few figures and on monday received an email with costs which include Administration Fee £350 + vat, Auditor Days £460 + Vat, Annual Surveillance Fee £750 + vat and BAFE fee £230+vat making a total assuming accepted in the 1st year of £2148 with an annual fee thereafter in the 2nd year of £1176. I received a follow up call on Wednesday to see what I thought about my quote and gave a full and frank view of what can only be described as an horrendous cost for a sole trader, a review of the cost was promised but so far no update, I wonder why?
Larger companies can possibly afford the cost and I sometimes get the impression that some well known people want to push us small operators out so that they have it all to themselves. There are bad sole traders as in all professions but do not tar all of use with the same brush, a lot of us try very hard to do a good job and continue to learn and undertake CPD to keep up to date with new guides, equipment etc. By the way we are not the cheap back of a fag packet assessors, many of use have invested quite a lot in money and time. I have seen a number of assessments that would not be worth the paper they are written on from some very well known companies, one of which was taken on by an enforcing officer after a terrible risk assessment, with the threat of court action against them they withdrew from fire risk assessments completely nationwide.
I encourage my clients to use firms or individuals that area accredited and where possible to get recommendations from their customers, I have no problem with providing my information, accreditation's, qualifications and samples of my work. Client recommendations also works, one client unknown to me recommended me and now looks like 70 assessments coming my way.
In short, I have no problem with accreditation and review but will look elsewhere now I know how much SP2005 would cost me and guess who would pay if I did, my clients. There are many sole traders who are not in it for pocket money and take a pride in their work.
-
We signed up early and got an introductory offer from our CB to allow for any less than smooth experiences whilst they were going through the UKAS approval stage. However, as far as we were concerned, the experience was very smooth and straight-forward. We used NSI and would have no hesitation in recommending them at all. Don't think we'd have bothered at the prices you're quoting though. :(
-
Kelsall, I dont have chums who sell SP 205, cos I really dont like aggressive salesman; my chums are all technical people, who work for a non profit making organization that is there to improve standards within the profession not sell schemes to help the shareholders.
So now we have that straight cant you tell us all the answer to the conundrum.
Sergeant Major: BAFE SP 205, far from being written to push out sole traders, was carefully crafted to make sure they could be included. And I bet in your FRAs you recommend that the electrical installation is inspected and tested by an NICEIC contractor or a member of the ECA or SELECT. When you recommend fire alarm contractors you probably recommend an LPS 1014 firm or a BAFE SP 203 firm. When the client asks who will maintain the fire extinguishers you probably yawn and say oh go look at the SP 101 list. Many NICEIC firms and SP 203 firms and SP 101 firms probably make no more money than pensioned ex firemen, not least cos they dont have the pension. So everyone else is expected to have TPC or be recommended by fire risk assessors but the fire risk assessors can just waive their fire service demob papers and that should be good enough for anyone? I think not.
-
In response to Colonel I would make the following observations.
The scheme is still in its infancy, several of the CBs are completely new to the fire risk assessment sector and they are having to feel their way into the market. Pricing, as I am sure you found when you established your business, is very much a touchy feely thing as to finding the middle ground to make sure there is profit for yourself but also making your services attractive to the punters. Theres no point aiming for a fantastic profit margin if you have no customers. Thats where the CBs are at the moment, whilst they are essentially non profit making organisations they have to cover costs and the trouble is they have this other non profit making financial burden sitting on their backs called UKAS and their UKAS accreditation does not come cheap. UKAS has been established a long time, like any quasi government style organisation their staff expect posh offices, good salaries, long holidays and nice hotels when they are reviewing the CBs. So the CBs have to carry this cost and ultimately pass it on to us, before they make a penny in income.
I wager none of the CBs have made a penny from SP205 yet and neither has the other organisation from its scheme. They have to sell the schemes to us as their customers and the Government and enforcement authorites are not making it any easier for them because they are not adequately pushing the scheme to our customers to create a viable market.( apart from perhaps in NI) .
Most of those already certified have had the benefit of an introductory offer in which they only covered the UKAS overheads, I was offered one such deal but the offer was later pulled as the CB involved only wanted to use one man bands to obtain their UKAS accreditation, we with 3 associates were considered too big to be viable for the introductory offer.
Negotiate and push hard for the best price you can and as soon as the workload slows down a bit like you I will be seeking either SP205 or FRACS certification. But we just have too many customers to service at the moment to have time to go through the process. And not one customer has asked for any form of TPC yet.
I fear that unless more is done to publicise and push TPC to the Responsible Persons, the number of CBs will be too high for the market and some of the CBs will be forced to withdraw.
-
Kurnal. Does your backside never tire of doing all the talking. UKAS accreditation of a scheme is not expensive. Most technical staff work from home, so your crap about plush offices is just that. And how did you come by the salary and holiday entitelment. Hotels used have a price ;imit, and use of Premier Inns is commonplace.
About the only thing you got right is that the existing CBs are not for profit but that they havenot made any money yet.
-
NOW 9 FIRMS CERTIFICATED UNDER SP 205, WHICH IS 900% OF THE NUMBER CERTIFICATED UNDER THE NON-ACCREDITED WARRINGTON SCHEME.
CANT WAIT FOR IT TO REACH DOUBLE NUMBERS-HURRY UP BIG AL AND GET IN THERE.
-
Kurnal. Does your backside never tire of doing all the talking. UKAS accreditation of a scheme is not expensive. Most technical staff work from home, so your crap about plush offices is just that. And how did you come by the salary and holiday entitelment. Hotels used have a price ;imit, and use of Premier Inns is commonplace.
About the only thing you got right is that the existing CBs are not for profit but that they havenot made any money yet.
I think your tone and comments are completely out of order Mr Todd. I think a yellow card is in order.
-
I thought Kurnal's comments and tone were completely out of order, so I believe he needed to be advised of that.
-
Not so Mr Todd. You made it personal. There is no place in the forum for such comments. I hope and expect the forum members agree.
-
Colin I am repeating what I was told by one of the CBs when I, like the Colonel, queried the pricing structure. I am sorry you dont like the message. Thats the essence of what I was told. 1- I said its still in its infancy- it is.
2- I said the pricing structure is still immature and fluid- it is as you will see if you ask for a price.
3- I said a major factor in the pricing structure is the overhead of UKAS accreditation- which is what I was told by one of the CBs. OK posh offices and hotel bills may be gilding the lily but look at the UKAS website and there are clearly major overheads in running this organisation. Nothing wrong with that but the end user is inevitably paying for it. UKAS has a turnover of £20 million and made a profit of nearly £1 million which they re-invest in new schemes. CF BSI who made a profit of £1.5 million.
4- I suggested none of the CBs had yet made any money. This is not in dispute.
5- I said that most of those companies that had gone through BAFE SP205 so far were on the basis of the introductory offer to assist the CB to gain their UKAS accreditation. This is beyond dispute, I know many of them.
6- I repeated part of my own experience in seeking to partake in the introductory offer and have previously told you - and only you- about this.
7- I suggested that Colonel should negotiate to get the best price. I know from personal experience that prices are negotiable.
8- I said I fear for the future for some of the CBs if more companies do not register and that the Government and enforcers are not doing enough to promote the schemes. I think most people in the industry agree with this latter point.
So which comments and tone were out of order? You know full well I support the scheme and will be signing up as soon as time allows because I believe in it and that it will help to raise standards.
Is it an example of the thought police and not being allowed to question the party line? I have seen this attitude so many times in my fire service career.
-
The comments you made about UKAS staff having large salaries, long holidays, wanting to work in plush offices and nice hotels. This was fabrication based on nothing at all. You lose your point with such nonsensical hyperbole, which is personal comment about the UKAS auditors.
And I would imagine that their profit to turnover ratio that you quote of 5%, which is, as you say, simply ploughed back in, is much less than your profit to turnover ratio.
And as that nice kelsall always says certification without UKAS acreditation is meaningless.
-
What is important is that the Industry should embrace TPC and at the moment we have one scheme offered by 4 CBs.
I hope and trust that FRACS also achieves UKAS accreditation and brings a further element of choice to the market place.
BAFE SP205 did genuinely develop from the industry itself -members of the FIA getting together to create the foundations of a scheme that could be administered by others and persuaded BAFE to take it on , in the very early days before the competency council had first met. Parallel to this FRACS Warrington were developing their own scheme to offer as part of their commercial portfolio. Both schemes have merit and I for one wish FRACS well and success in their scheme too. But currently only SP205 has achieved UKAS accreditation as a company scheme, though the FRACS person scheme has had it for some time.
I have a bit of a personal dilemma. What should firenet do editorially? Should we promote free and open discussion, warts and all on what is potentially a public arena? If someone feels they have a criticism or concern there are few other places they can raise them, should we discuss and share experiences even if to do so may, to an outsider reading the thread, look like a disunited rabble undermining the good work the industry is trying to do?
I criticise Government and enforcers for not doing more to promote TPC and yet, as a supporter of the principle , it could be said that to not sell it hard here at every opportunity, I am not doing my bit either.
I accept that my own comments are sometimes ill informed or poorly expressed but above all I recognise that people who are passionate about the industry will from time to time get angry with the views of others but hope they will continue to share their passion with us, whether it be signage, fire doors, fire alarms or TPC. But please lets try not to make it personal. We all have one thing in common- the best interests of our industry.
-
Kurnal , now you are beginning to talk sense, other than that there are 3 CBs offering SP 205 not 4 unless you can advise us of a recent fourth).
The problem is the misinformation that gets spread here, which is to the detriment of the good work that has been done in the industry. I, alone, have had three calls from people totally confused by the rubbish that has been promulgated here, some of it by well meaning people who just get things wrong, some of it commercially orientated, some of it by those with axes to grind, some from people who simply want to sound knowledgable but clearly arent and some of it deteriorating to the level of "I was down the pub the other night and my friend told me he was on a bus and heard two people talking and they said that SP 205 audits are all carried out by window cleaners" ( There you have it. SP 205 audits are carried out by window cleaners. It must be true cos I just wrote it on Firenet.)
There are small companies, sole traders and the likes who are genuinely interested in TPC, but are put off by the confusion and misinformation. We have heard people here suggesting that TPC is promoted to keep some people out.
You should know very well that, when the FIA drafted the first version of BAFE SP 205, every single clause was tested to make sure a sole trader could not be precluded. But people read the allegation on Firenet so it must be true. In contrast, you were personally told by another scheme provider that it was not for you because your company is too small, notwithstanding its plush offices in Matlock Bath, the 23rd floor of which allows you to see to The Wash on a clear day. (That must be true because I wrote it on Firenet.)
If you really want to help people (which I know you waste a lot of time trying to do), why dont you explain properly in a rational logical and unemotive manner about the certification schemes, both person and company, to which people can look, explain why UKAS accreditation is important for commercial CBs and explain why 35 stakeholders in the profession, including the FIA, have concluded and advised the profession that the ultimate end game if you want reassurance that fire risk assessments will do what they say on the tin, is third party certification of companies, and explain why this potentially protects duty holders, such as RPs, from prosecution.
If the landlord who went to prison for 8 months for having, inter alia, duff FRAs had used a third party certificated company (had such a thing been available) would he have had the statutory defence incorporated in Article 33 of the FSO. DISCUSS. And I shall be marking your dissertation out of 100.
-
The landlord who went to prison at the time would not have looked further than the bottom line even if SP205 was around at the time. The person registers which were around at the time would probably have given him similar protection, but he did not look to those either.
Yes I could probably spend more time making the sales pitch for TPC on firenet and I might try (or more likely encourage others with the right skill set to do so) if I thought more RPs accessed the site for information and advice. But I dont think they do.
I think that firenet's role nowadays is as a bulletin board for those inside the industry. Sharing personal experiences and concerns and requests for a second opinion. Part of this is because of the site security requirements since we were brought down by hackers. It appears to have stopped requests for general advice from the general public dead in their tracks. Linkd-in has taken many of the general requests from RPs away from us.
-
Colin, I think you should go back and read my post again, its the high cost thats putting me off 205 and like most people I will exercise my right to shop around with care, I could negotiate with the CB but they don't seem bothered enough to get back to me. And where do you get that ex fire service officers don't need any TPC, not from me intact i support TPC why do you think I am seeking to use FRAC. You seem to have a downer on the fire service for some reason yet happy to pocket their money when it suits.
Back in the day my fire authority decided that if we were auditing fire risk assessments then we must know how to do them and see it from both sides, who did they employ your company, who do many fire authorities use for training and advice your company. When a number of ex fire safety officers leave the service with as you put it "Their demob papers" who has provided some of these papers, your company but all you seem to do is to be little hard working people if as stated earlier they don't tow the party line. I also understand you employ some as well.
I used to have a great deal of respect for your views and opinions but that is being affected you the way you seem to like to put people down if they don't agree with you, this is a site where views can and should be expressed without personal sniping.
-
Sergeant major, you seem to ignore the point I made about your allegation that it is about keeping small people out of the business, when in fact many people have given of their time unpaid to make sure that exactly the opposite is the case. If that groundless accusation was not sniping, I dont know what was.
There is competition amongst the SP 205 CBs, so if you arent happy with the quote you received you can get two alterntaive quotes. As it happens, it seesm to me that, even for a sole trader, the costs of certification are well worthwhile.
-
So what would be your view on the RQIA letter Mr Todd which specifically advises Managers and Owners of Residential Care Homes in NI that it "prefers" the use of a company rather that a person to carry out a fire risk assessment?
Any idea who guided the signator's hand when it was written?
-
Colin, thank you for your reply, let me correct a few things. I have not made any allegations merely expressed my impression of the scheme and process after reading a number of documents that are issued when applying for the process by BAFE and i may be wrong but that is my view on it. If unsure check a dictionary for impression and allegation. And no their was no personal sniping as I did not aim my comments at an individual
Let me asure you of one thing I believe that assessors should be encouraged to seek third party accreditation of their work and not to sit back on their laurels thinking they know it all and that applies to both large and small companies or sole traders, ex fire service or others
-
Sergeant major, then we are not very far apart, other than your paranoia arising from a misplaced suspicion of docmentation. So stop grumbling and stump up and get your TPC, you know it makes sense. There is still time for you to be the 10th certificated firm under BAFE SP 205. If times are hard, I will personally give you a loan at 0.5% per annum interest rate just so you can join we certificated firms.
Almostthere, if you recall what this thread is all about, you will appreciate that the RQIA are simply following, to the letter, the advice of the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council, in respect of the Council's recommendation for COMPANY certification. For avoidance of doubt, that advice was not the brainchild or axe to grind of any individual but was deveoped on behalf of 35 stakeholders, 29 of whom are credited with the document.
So just lets remind ourselves as to who it was that was responsible for the document that recommends unequivocally COMPANY certification:
Association of Building Engineers (ABE)
Association of Fire Consultants (AFC)
Association for Specialist Fire Protection (AFSP)
Awarding Body of the Built Environment (ABBE)
British Approvals for Fire Equipment (BAFE)
British Fire Consortium (BFC)
BRE Global Ltd (BRE)
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)
Chief Fire Officers‟ Association (CFOA)
Chief Fire & Rescue Advisors Unit (CFRAU)
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Construction Products Association (CPA)
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Fire Industry Association (FIA)
Fire Brigades Union (FBU)
Fire Protection Association (FPA)
Federation of British Fire Organisations (FOBFO)
Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE)
Institute of Fire Prevention Officers (IFPO)
Institute of Fire Safety Managers (IFSM)
International Fire Consultants Certification Ltd (IFCC)
Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH)
National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH)
Passive Fire Protection Federation (PFPF)
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
Skills for Justice
Warrington Certification Ltd (WCL)
United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS)
I suppose they and RQIA could all be wrong and you are right, though on the balance of probabilities........
-
Not so Mr Todd. You made it personal. There is no place in the forum for such comments. I hope and expect the forum members agree.
I agree but he has been getting away with it for years. That's why I lower myself to his level.
-
Kelsall, I dont have chums who sell SP 205, cos I really dont like aggressive salesman; my chums are all technical people, who work for a non profit making organization that is there to improve standards within the profession not sell schemes to help the shareholders.
So now we have that straight cant you tell us all the answer to the conundrum.
Sergeant Major: BAFE SP 205, far from being written to push out sole traders, was carefully crafted to make sure they could be included. And I bet in your FRAs you recommend that the electrical installation is inspected and tested by an NICEIC contractor or a member of the ECA or SELECT. When you recommend fire alarm contractors you probably recommend an LPS 1014 firm or a BAFE SP 203 firm. When the client asks who will maintain the fire extinguishers you probably yawn and say oh go look at the SP 101 list. Many NICEIC firms and SP 203 firms and SP 101 firms probably make no more money than pensioned ex firemen, not least cos they dont have the pension. So everyone else is expected to have TPC or be recommended by fire risk assessors but the fire risk assessors can just waive their fire service demob papers and that should be good enough for anyone? I think not.
The non for profit thing is nonsense! I had a price from one of the CBs for a sole trader. It was ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous for a sole trader to pay that much. I also know for a fact that the FIA bean counters want more training as it makes money! Granted it all goes on wages of the many staff they have but still it is a commercial venture.
-
Colin, I think you should go back and read my post again, its the high cost thats putting me off 205 and like most people I will exercise my right to shop around with care, I could negotiate with the CB but they don't seem bothered enough to get back to me. And where do you get that ex fire service officers don't need any TPC, not from me intact i support TPC why do you think I am seeking to use FRAC. You seem to have a downer on the fire service for some reason yet happy to pocket their money when it suits.
Back in the day my fire authority decided that if we were auditing fire risk assessments then we must know how to do them and see it from both sides, who did they employ your company, who do many fire authorities use for training and advice your company. When a number of ex fire safety officers leave the service with as you put it "Their demob papers" who has provided some of these papers, your company but all you seem to do is to be little hard working people if as stated earlier they don't tow the party line. I also understand you employ some as well.
I used to have a great deal of respect for your views and opinions but that is being affected you the way you seem to like to put people down if they don't agree with you, this is a site where views can and should be expressed without personal sniping.
I agree with you ; he should stick to the thread, he is more than capable of arguing his case without trying to put people down in order to make them seem inferior.
-
Kelsall, what has FIA (which is non profit making) training to do with the pricing of BAFE SP 205. The only thing the two organisations have in common is that you appear to always want to rubbish both. And werent you the one that told some small companies that they were so small your scheme would not be worthwhile for them.
-
I must be missing something here - what's this scheme you're running Kel?
-
As the most senior fire safety specialist working for a large RP, if I were to want to contract out fire risk assessment and if I were inclined to require TPC, I’d look for someone belonging to a relevant UKAS accredited scheme.
I really don’t care whether it’s the individual who’s registered or the Company – I’d trust UKAS to ensure that the ‘rules’ under which it accredits the CBs take the different circumstances into account, so that I have an equal degree of assurance in both cases (or what’s the point of the UKAS accreditation)?
I really can’t understand why anyone would wish to muddy the waters by recommending a particular ‘flavour’ of UKAS-accredited scheme – that’s just going to either confuse us, or more likely we’ll completely miss the distinction or we’ll simply ignore it. If they were going to recommend UKAS-accredited schemes then they should have left it as that.
-
Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused. UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin. But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.
Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???
Or put it another way. Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.
Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.
hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.
-
I must be missing something here - what's this scheme you're running Kel?
Gazza, the Coal: Oops, did you not know? Oh No!!!! Have I been a wobble gob again? heck I will be in trouble again. Oh well.
-
Gazza, the Coal
lol
Come on, don't leave me in suspenders.... spill, COmpany of ODD LINT. (I'm not good at anagrams!)
-
I cant Gazza , I really cant. Ive said too much already............. My lips are sealed. Wild horses wont drag it out of me. Never let it be said that I told you that.....No no I cant. Id have to kill you if I told you.
-
Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.
hence the sector has advised people to go for COMPANIES that are certificated under a UKAS accredited scheme.
SP 205 : PERSON CERTIFICATION but not by TPC but by the certificated company (or other verification of person competence). Individual FR assessors to be TPC would have to be on a register and if certificated under a UKAS is required FRACS would have to be your choice?
Not simple but unnecessarily complicated to my tiny mind, why not have it if you subject to one of the five alternatives in appendix 1 you are considered competent.
-
Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused. UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin. But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.
Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???
Or put it another way. Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.
Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.
hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.
But, to follow up on the Garage analogy - we're not talking about a one-off 'qualification' here - it's a certification scheme presumably involving both initial and on-going independent surveillance. I really don't see the difference whether it's a named individual (who will, presumably, have to have regularly demonstrated to the CB that he/she's working within the strict rules of the relevant scheme as regards all the factors you refer to), or it's a company's name on the certificate. To be honest, I'd instinctively feel more comfortable having the work done by an individual named and certified by an independent third party on a certificate with a UKAS logo on it, rather than trusting a company to give me someone (unnamed by any third party) whom they think I ought to be able to put my faith in.
Surely I should trust UKAS to make sure the scheme rules are right? If so, I really don't think it's helpful or even particularly useful for the industry to muddy the waters for the poor old RPs by saying only 'some' UKAS accredited FRA schemes are OK.
I have no axe to grind here - I don't do FRAs myself (though I have staff who do) & I'll likely never belong to any scheme - all I'm saying is that I've got about 25 years stacked up in the fire industry, & 10 years in Nuclear before that - I know this isn't a lot by some standards, but if I'm confused as to why I should be 'happier' with a Company-based scheme then I'm either a bit t'ick or the rest of the RPs are going to be just as confused as me!
-
As the most senior fire safety specialist working for a large RP, if I were to want to contract out fire risk assessment and if I were inclined to require TPC, I’d look for someone belonging to a relevant UKAS accredited scheme.
I really don’t care whether it’s the individual who’s registered or the Company – I’d trust UKAS to ensure that the ‘rules’ under which it accredits the CBs take the different circumstances into account, so that I have an equal degree of assurance in both cases (or what’s the point of the UKAS accreditation)?
I really can’t understand why anyone would wish to muddy the waters by recommending a particular ‘flavour’ of UKAS-accredited scheme – that’s just going to either confuse us, or more likely we’ll completely miss the distinction or we’ll simply ignore it. If they were going to recommend UKAS-accredited schemes then they should have left it as that.
I agree!
-
Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused. UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin. But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.
Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???
Or put it another way. Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.
Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.
hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.
Your spelling is not too good either!
-
Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused. UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin. But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.
Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???
Or put it another way. Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.
Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.
hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.
But, to follow up on the Garage analogy - we're not talking about a one-off 'qualification' here - it's a certification scheme presumably involving both initial and on-going independent surveillance. I really don't see the difference whether it's a named individual (who will, presumably, have to have regularly demonstrated to the CB that he/she's working within the strict rules of the relevant scheme as regards all the factors you refer to), or it's a company's name on the certificate. To be honest, I'd instinctively feel more comfortable having the work done by an individual named and certified by an independent third party on a certificate with a UKAS logo on it, rather than trusting a company to give me someone (unnamed by any third party) whom they think I ought to be able to put my faith in.
Surely I should trust UKAS to make sure the scheme rules are right? If so, I really don't think it's helpful or even particularly useful for the industry to muddy the waters for the poor old RPs by saying only 'some' UKAS accredited FRA schemes are OK.
I have no axe to grind here - I don't do FRAs myself (though I have staff who do) & I'll likely never belong to any scheme - all I'm saying is that I've got aboutandards 25 years stacked up in the fire industry, & 10 years in Nuclear before that - I know this isn't a lot by some standards, but if I'm confused as to why I should be 'happier' with a Company-based scheme then I'm either a bit t'ick or the rest of the RPs are going to be just as confused as me!
Exactly so; the aim should be to get as many people on schemes that conform to British standards as possible. UKAS confirm the scheme meets these BS requirements and those on the schemes are either competent or quality assured. That said there are more checks a duty holder has to make but with either a company scheme or an individual scheme, there is an independent reference to assist in due diligence. In my opinion it was a bad choice by the FIA to only go for company certification and sadly the competence council followed the same direction. The end result will be a boost for the cowboy assessor. Too few will take the plunge with certification to make a difference. Too few duty holders will ask for it; lack of sign posting. Too many non certificated assessors will offer cheaper assessments. Too few individuals will think company schemes are for them. Too few with certification will see a commercial benefit.
All that has happened is an addition to the existing registers and schemes and the duty holder will keep being ripped off by the poor assessor due to a lack of clear advice.
Ah that's better off my chest!
Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.
-
Exactly so; the aim should be to get as many people on schemes that conform to British standards as possible. UKAS confirm the scheme meets these BS requirements and those on the schemes are either competent or quality assured. That said there are more checks a duty holder has to make but with either a company scheme or an individual scheme, there is an independent reference to assist in due diligence. In my opinion it was a bad choice by the FIA to only go for company certification and sadly the competence council followed the same direction. The end result will be a boost for the cowboy assessor. Too few will take the plunge with certification to make a difference. Too few duty holders will ask for it; lack of sign posting. Too many non certificated assessors will offer cheaper assessments. Too few individuals will think company schemes are for them. Too few with certification will see a commercial benefit.
All that has happened is an addition to the existing registers and schemes and the duty holder will keep being ripped off by the poor assessor due to a lack of clear advice.
Ah that's better off my chest!
Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.
Sorry Kel but I think you are talking rubbish, way too early to make the asumptions you have made above
-
Sorry Kel but I think you are talking rubbish, way too early to make the asumptions you have made above
Sadly, not for the first time and with little sense of impartiality, but forgive him, Willie, cos he knows not what he does.
Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.
Kel, you never do listen. Forget my opinion and the fact that you blame me personally for the success of other schemes and the back turned on your wee scheme by the industry. Listen, try to focus, just forget my opinion and listen for a moment. I will speak slowly. The_ opinion_ of 29_ stakeholders of the FRACC, _including the Government department, CFOA, all the professional bodies in the fire world and everyone else on that list is that THEY got it right by recommending company certification. This would include a well known CB that is particularly well known to you though my good friend Gazza the Coal has not twigged that. And you were there personally when that decision was taken.!!!!!!!!!!!
And now you rubbish that decision and the buy in of the FIA to it, and the buy in of the RQIA to it.
SHEEZ!!!!!
-
Somebody had better inform "Gazza the coal" what it is I'm not privvy to or else wet tea towels will start to be used for ass whipping purposes. :o (Appropriate eye protection will be worn throughout said whipping.)
-
Gazza the Coal, I told you my lips are sealed. I will never tell you that, whereas I know you do your wee fire risk assessments, sell your wee extinguishers and so on, and you know I run a well known fire consulting practice that has been established for 31 years, Kel........ God I nearly told you. You tricked me into it. No, no no if I told you I would need to kill you and then who would feed the little Gazzas. Sorry, you will have to work it out for yourself.
-
Drink a bit do you Colin? ;)
-
Only when the British fire service drives me to it.
-
So that's all the time then?
-
William
The 'selecting a competent fire risk assessor’ guidance, is all over the place. I had an enforcement officer call me up the other day wanting to know what he was supposed to be promoting as it wasn't clear to him from what he read. How then is the RP supposed to get his head around it? Sign posting is going to be essential for the RP if they are to demand certification. Without demand what incentive is there to be in a scheme? How much demand will need to be created to force out the poor assessor? (Which was the intention behind this process when it was first started)
The national register of occupational health and safety advisors which has been going a year now has had the reverse affect to that which was intended according to some reports in the health and safety press. The intent was to provide consistent high quality advice to those seeking the services of a professional. That register is one source of providers with some serious promotion by the professional bodies involved. It apparently hasn’t worked; one or two suggested that those not on the register have flourished.
There are now 8 or 9 providers of some form of register many of which appear in the new guidance document, some are recommended as a minimum requirement when selecting a fire risk assessor. Some are given a recommendation from the competence council and all but 2 appear in the table at the end of the guidance. Genuinely not helpful and if the intent was to stop the cowboy assessor what will make that happen? Is it the existing registers? Is it the new registers? Is it this guidance?
My opinion is that what we have will not do the intended. Cowboys will continue as they do today. The certification should be there to protect the RP if it isn’t the norm how can it do that?
I may be wrong, I hope I am. Time will tell
-
Will the member for Wirral please answer the question that I have asked many times in this forum. Can he explain to the house why it is he sat through meeting after meeting, involved as he was in the preparation of the guidance, but he now rubbishes that guidance.
Was he :
a) asleep during all of the meetings.
b) writing his shopping list during all of the meetings.
c) instructed by those he represents to agree the document, but all along he hated it so he now vents his feeling here.
d) Other (please specify)
-
NO NEED TO SHOUT!
I am sick to death of telling you Colin! I am entitled to a personal opinion on this forum; it is you that is obsessed with trying to link my posts back to my day job. If you don’t agree with my opinion; that’s fine! But do it with one eye on what you have said on this forum about many a committee and many a standard developed by those committees. They don’t always get it right in your opinion. They can’t get it right all the time, can they? Too many people to satisfy, too many opinions, and too many compromises to be made! I think that this is the case here; it won’t get to the route of the problem it won’t do what it was intended to do. Not without a massive amount of extra effort by the stakeholders. It’s just an opinion and one you disagree with; we now have a debate. Can you make a better fist of your side of the debate and explain how it will work, how it will achieve the intention and how the cowboys will be removed from the supply chain? Or will we have more of the same? “You are so rubbish you are; don’t listen to him, vested interest, sales, sales, sales!
-
To be honest, Kel, I have no respect for someone who voices one opinion on his day job and then comes here and not only expresses a different opinon here, but rubbishes the opinion that by implication he held a few hours earlier.
You are right, you are entitled to your opinion. People who bang on about the earth being flat are also entitled to their opinion, but they tend to be people who dont understand the laws of physics and their views are to say the least marginalised by the view of the scientific community. And if one of the dotty flat earth people had sat through meeting after meeting while everyones views were expressed, and the community concluded that the earth was round, but came online a few hours later to say that the Institute of Physics and the rest of the scientific community, including the flat earth guy himself (in his"day job") were talking rubbish and that the earth was flat........Credibility might go out the window.
You stick to your view, or the one that suits you at the time whichever it is, but as the one you express here is so out of keeping with the opinons of the entire profession, including people who matter such as the government, enforcers and all the professional bodies, that, to be honest, it is really of no interest to me.
“You are so rubbish you are; don’t listen to him, vested interest, sales, sales, sales!
Yup, thats it sales sales sales, but no one is buying your flat earth theories, it would seem.
-
I for one am fed up with reading this - the thread appears to be going nowhere.
Please can we call a halt to the ping pong between two senior and respected members and instead focus on the issues.
From the perspective of the RP I dont see that it makes a great deal of difference whether the Certificaton Body is a commercial or a non profit making organisaton. All are in it to make a profit, all that is different is how that profit is used. That happens a very long way from the point of service and I think its the certification itself by a UKAS accredited scheme that is important to the RP.
Fishy made a very relevant point a few posts back that was nearly lost in all the bickering.
He said
"I really don't see the difference whether it's a named individual (who will, presumably, have to have regularly demonstrated to the CB that he/she's working within the strict rules of the relevant scheme as regards all the factors you refer to), or it's a company's name on the certificate. To be honest, I'd instinctively feel more comfortable having the work done by an individual named and certified by an independent third party on a certificate with a UKAS logo on it, rather than trusting a company to give me someone (unnamed by any third party) whom they think I ought to be able to put my faith in.
Surely I should trust UKAS to make sure the scheme rules are right? If so, I really don't think it's helpful or even particularly useful for the industry to muddy the waters for the poor old RPs by saying only 'some' UKAS accredited FRA schemes are OK."
One feature of the SP205 scheme is that whilst the work of all lead assessors is looked at,the larger the organisation, in proportion the less the scrutiny of what they do in the field. I say this because only the square root of the total number of assessors employed are actually subject to desktop assessment of their work during the initial review. If I employ 4 assessors then 50% will be have their work subject to desktop review. If I employ 400 only 5% of them will be. Yet I would suggest that the problems of consistency, quality control, training, currency are much greater with a larger, dispersed organisation such as may arise in our industry, in which a wide geographical coverage is likley to be delivered by local staff serviced from a HQ many miles away.
This is not a knock at the scheme, I think it a valid point for discussion.
-
I think Dorgards are the answer, them and Freedor.
They are great.
-
(Page3)
1. Be satisfied that the fire risk assessor providing this service is competent to do so. We recommend you check that those providing this service have independent registration with, or certification from, a professional or certification body and that they meet the competency criteria established by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council (see list below)
How to find a competent fire risk assessor (page 4)
2. It is important that the person who carries out the fire risk assessment is competent. There are two principal methods by which people can demonstrate their competence;
• Professional Body Registration schemes
• Certification by a Certification Body that is UKAS accredited for the activity.
3. It is also important that the company for whom the fire risk assessor works has adequate management systems in place, even if the fire risk assessor is self-employed. Competence of a company to deliver fire risk assessments can be demonstrated by third party certification of the company by a UKAS accredited Certification Body.
4. Appendix 1 contains a list of Professional Bodies that operate Registration schemes and Certification Bodies that operate Certification schemes for fire risk assessors and fire risk assessment companies
5. The Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council recommends the use of fire risk assessment companies, including sole traders, which are third party certificated to appropriate schemes operated by Certification Bodies which have been UKAS accredited to certificate against such schemes.
Para 1 Says use appendix 1 to be satisfied that the fire risk assessor providing this service is competent to do so.
Para 2 reinforces para 1.
Para 3 says it is important to use a company scheme (SP205)
Para 4 adds to 1 and 2.
Para 5 says it recommends the CB listed in appendix 1.
Is the council saying they recommend Certification by a Certification Body that is UKAS accredited (SP205) in favour of the Professional Body Registration schemes?
Because as a RP I would prefer to employ a FR assessor that was Third Party Certificated by being on a register and I would also like to see all the registers UKAS accredited. The ideal situation would be a company scheme and all assessors on a register, but this is extremely unlikely because of cost.
-
I think Dorgards are the answer, them and Freedor.
They are great.
I agree Piglet. i use them as paperweights to stop my copy of BS7273-4 blowing off the my desk. All these open doors exacerbate drafts.:D
-
Thanks Kurnal for reopening the thread and thanks for whoever requested it be reopened. There are very valid points to be raised about this subject and I agree it shouldn’t be taken over by personal opinion of the people posting but should stay on topic.
For the record however I didn't agree with the decision of the competence council, it was never put to vote and I had in the past put documents forward and suggestions of how the advice should look in the opinion of my employer. It didn't get majority support from the editing team and hence it wasn't included. I still stand by those suggestions and hence we are able to discuss this on the forum.
Fishy does indeed make a good point as does Tom Sutton.
There is official UK policy on conformity assessment and accreditation and this guidance doesn’t actually follow it.
The industry should have a choice of types of scheme, as unfortunately one size doesn’t fit all. Competent person’s schemes are a very good fit for the sole trader and small company. A technical reference is what they need and is what they can get without too much effort.(if they are competent) If we are looking at quality assurance for individuals who possibly work out of home then many won’t want to make the leap to a full quality system. It would help them in the long run but the added requirements for a few assessors aren’t of genuine benefit (in my opinion) because the deliverable has been tested thoroughly. I know it will put people off gaining certification from the many conversations I have had with fire risk assessors who are self employed. If the competent don’t get certificated the incompetent won’t have to!
Would they be better with a quality system? Possibly! However they shouldn’t be dangerous in the first instance, they will be up to date and they will be offering risk assessments that should meet the requirements at FRS audit. If the company is larger there are many more parameters that come in to play and as sub contracting is so very prevalent in this business the need for a consistent bench mark is essential. The need for UKAS accreditation is also essential as it adds that additional check, which helps enormously with demonstrated due diligence.
One of my concerns is that the document does not narrow the field sufficiently for the RP it merely adds an additional layer in to a complicated mix. Without simple sign posting of one ‘thing’ the RP will remain confused they won’t ask for the one ‘thing’ and the industry (including the cowboys) won’t need that one ‘thing’. Hence my view that it won’t actually do what it was intended to do and make the cowboy disappear.
Without the demand from those with money and seeking services of fire risk assessors; the need for any certification will be redundant. Piglet makes a very similar point to this on IFSEC Global (posted under his real name)
I fully appreciate that there are many good assessors working without any form of certification and they may resist the call to get certificated, but if it makes commercial sense then they too will follow. The bad risk assessors will not be able to make that leap but without a financial penalty for not making the grade they won’t have to do it anyway; so nothing changes!
-
One feature of the SP205 scheme is that whilst the work of all assessors is looked at- a desktop review of two fire risk assessments produced by each assessor is scrutinised- the larger the organisation the less the scrutiny of what they do in the field. I say this because only a the square root of the total number of assessors employed are actually accompanied on assessments. If I employ 4 assessors then 50% will be accompanied on assessments. If I employ 400 only 5% of them will be. Yet I would suggest that the problems of consistency, quality control, training, currency are much greater with a larger, dispersed organisation such as may arise in our industry, in which a wide geographical coverage is likley to be delivered by local staff serviced from a HQ many miles away.
This is not a knock at the scheme, I think it a valid point for discussion.
Yes agreed if the company certificated has 400 employees only a small percentage would have a "witnessed audit" under SP205. However the lead assessor(s) have to complete on site audits of all their assessors in a 12 month period. So you could say there is a reliance on the competency of the lead assessors, but don’t forget under SP205 the company systems, audit procedures and documentation is scrutinised, so I personally don’t have a problem with it. Also the company can choose as many named assessors as they wish as these will be given a witnessed audit during the next "surveillance visit" by the CB.
Re the costs I think these will come down, they’ll have to if the CB’s want to be competitive or the scheme will just die, at the moment I think the fees (or the ones we have been quoted) are reasonable. We have our first surveillance visit after 6 months of gaining BAFE SP205 and then if all is well every 12 months thereafter.
To add value to the debate and stay away from the arguments above! I am currently looking at 2 large tenders, one for a national UK chain. The RP has only asked companies listed as BAFE SP205 certificated from the BAFE web site to tender for the FRAs. On a separate tender the scoring system is very interesting.
The tender scoring is based on 60% price and 40% quality. The lowest price submitted will be awarded the full 60% score.
The quality will be scored against responses to 4 questions, each of the 4 questions are worth 10% One of the questions asks if the Company is a member of any recognised fire industry associations or certification schemes?
So it could be said that the first RP is giving a very heavy weighting to being part of a company certificated scheme in this case SP205 while the other RP is only given a 10% weighting to it.
As I mentioned above, way too early to make sweeping statements about all this yet, let the dust settle and see what happens.
-
Kurnal, are you spreading misinformation again??? The square root of N is NOT for accompanied assessments, it is for a dektop review. So I dont think you are right that people will need to subject the square root of N assessors to witnessed assessment.
Kel, there was no need for a vote on the FRACC final document because there was not a single dissenting voice.
Tam, Yes the FRACC ARE saying that company certification is preferable to professional registers on their own, though the latter may contribute significantly to company assessment.
If any of you are thinking of going for BAFE SP 205, please do not be put off by rubbish and scaremongering about management systems. It is little more than you probably already do, and to the extent you need to do more it is work that will enhance your safeguards in your systems and protect you better from liability. There is not a great deal of cost or effort involved in having proper systems in a compnay, and for a one man company it is simplicity itself. Willie will confirm all of this.
-
If any of you are thinking of going for BAFE SP 205, please do not be put off by rubbish and scaremongering about management systems. It is little more than you probably already do, and to the extent you need to do more it is work that will enhance your safeguards in your systems and protect you better from liability. There is not a great deal of cost or effort involved in having proper systems in a compnay, and for a one man company it is simplicity itself. Willie will confirm all of this.
agreed, apart from the one man Company bit at the end lol! ;)
-
Kurnal, are you spreading misinformation again??? The square root of N is NOT for accompanied assessments, it is for a dektop review. So I dont think you are right that people will need to subject the square root of N assessors to witnessed assessment.
Thanks Colin you are right to correct me and I will amend my posting. I had misread the BAFE download in my haste.
-
My main role in life, next to being a father, is to correct your misinformation Big Al, generated in your plush offices that dominate the skyline of Matlock Shower.
Every time I chide you, I feel like I have kicked the third and youngest of my three cats, who is sweet and loveable but rushes into everything before putting brain in gear and causes consternation.
It highlights the problem with Firenet. People would have believed there was this enormous burden of having lots of assessors accompanied by auditors, when, in fact, all that is involved in the aspect you highlighted is a simple desktop review.
-
Yes its a selfless act on my part- my little contribution to saving your soul Colin.
Without me you otherwise may not take the opportunity in your busy life to do any good deeds. You really should be more grateful.
I note that the IFSM have put back by one year the closure of their existing register and the transfer of assessors onto their new UKAS accredited NFRAR due to the slow uptake so far. They have proposed a change to the criteria for listing on the NFRAR and will now include those assessors who are named under the SP205 scheme- I guess this means just those authorised to sign off assessments for their company but am not certain that this is correct.
Perhaps this is an illustration that if the bar is set too high the scheme will not take off? Clearly the UKAS accredited FRACS person scheme is far more thorough and demanding than some other person schemes and RPs can have full confidence in those that have passed through it.
Ouch careful where you are putting your feet Colin.
-
I note that the IFSM have put back by one year the closure of their existing register and the transfer of assessors onto their new UKAS accredited NFRAR due to the slow uptake so far. They have proposed a change to the criteria for listing on the NFRAR and will now include those assessors who are named under the SP205 scheme- I guess this means just those authorised to sign off assessments for their company but am not certain that this is correct.
Kurnal, you are correct. But a Company may have more than one named assessor and they could apply to go on the IFSM NFRAR register.
-
Yes its a selfless act on my part- my little contribution to saving your soul Colin.
Without me you otherwise may not take the opportunity in your busy life to do any good deeds. You really should be more grateful.
I note that the IFSM have put back by one year the closure of their existing register and the transfer of assessors onto their new UKAS accredited NFRAR due to the slow uptake so far. They have proposed a change to the criteria for listing on the NFRAR and will now include those assessors who are named under the SP205 scheme- I guess this means just those authorised to sign off assessments for their company but am not certain that this is correct.
Perhaps this is an illustration that if the bar is set too high the scheme will not take off? Clearly the UKAS accredited FRACS person scheme is far more thorough and demanding than some other person schemes and RPs can have full confidence in those that have passed through it.
Ouch careful where you are putting your feet Colin.
One of the biggest influences for the IFSM was the loss of revenue that closing the register would result in.
Kurnal the FRACS scheme is no gold standard; it just about does what it needs to do to assure technical ability. There is an objective evidence gathering assessment that if the candidate can’t demonstrate they have the competence standards identified by the industry, they do not get through. i.e. they have a test to prove ability and that test is set at a level to gather enough evidence to cover the competences in the standard.
-
Gosh thats another big advantage then of the BAFE Sp 205 scheme. As well as company certification, the guys can go on the IFSM Register, which was clearly not getting people via other routes to registration.
BAFE SP 205 just gets better and better and is clearly the certification system of choice. I am glad that Willie and I chose it for our companies.
-
I look forward to seeing your name on the NAFRAR register soon. What a boost for them having you on their register. Bob will be made up!
-
Not just me. Looks like I can get the whole team on automatically without all this assessment and exam nonsense. Robert is the man for sure. He has done BAFE SP 205 a huge favour with the compliment he pays it.
In return if he pays me enough I might accept honourary life registration.
-
Can we just confirm that no cats were harmed in the writing of this thread.
-
No Piglet, all three of mine are in the kitchen even as I write looking for their wet food.
-
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-choose-sp205.png)
-
I think that looks better than the BAFE logo, I would do a poll. ;)
-
Love it! BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice for the discerning fire risk assessment. Beware of imitations. Now in double numbers of certificated firms, with 11 companies., and that excellent FRACC document beginning to appear on fire and rescue service websites, thanks to our very good friends in that fine body of men, CFOA.
-
thanks to our very good friends in that fine body of men, CFOA.
Of which you and I will soon be members Lord Todd
Piglet Im simply loving that Logo, top marks old chum.
-
Piglet please can you send me a copy of your outstanding 205 poster!
I want one on my wall at work and I have a presentation coming up which I can use it in.
Thanks in advance.
-
Bizarre ???
-
Of which you and I will soon be members Lord Todd
No Midland, if you follow my suggestions, you and Lord Todd will be CFOA ;D
-
Bizarre ???
Sorry didn't know you can right click and copy it without isolating it first with a left click. I have it now thanks.
-
Fill your boots but still ???
-
Piglet you seem to have little understanding of just how good your poster is. I have already printed of 1000 copies and attached to lamposts in my local area.
Its caught the attention of a local marketing company now want to produce merchandise, t shirts, mugs, and erm...
I might have made that up actually.
Note to self : Must learn to keep stuff in my head and not blurt it out loud in public.
-
I didn't realise it would catch on! ;)
-
Fill your boots but still ???
I have a spot at Firex this year and want to use it to illustrate just how popular 205 is with the industry. I want it for my office wall just to remind me of what a scheme for the protection of the RP should look like. :)
-
Yes, you missed a trick, Kel. When will you be running an SP 205 scheme.
-
As a risk assessor who originally came from a fire service fire safety back ground and a sole trader I have been interested to show that my assessments etc are up to the job and not just a tick sheet, I also like to give a good service and an old fashioned value for money. I am currently on two registers including the IFE but had been thinking of going for a UKAS scheme and have looked at a couple, SP205 looked ok and was suitable for sole traders.
So last week I spoke to one of the CBs and asked a few questions including how much? I was given a few figures and on monday received an email with costs which include Administration Fee £350 + vat, Auditor Days £460 + Vat, Annual Surveillance Fee £750 + vat and BAFE fee £230+vat making a total assuming accepted in the 1st year of £2148 with an annual fee thereafter in the 2nd year of £1176. I received a follow up call on Wednesday to see what I thought about my quote and gave a full and frank view of what can only be described as an horrendous cost for a sole trader, a review of the cost was promised but so far no update, I wonder why?
Larger companies can possibly afford the cost and I sometimes get the impression that some well known people want to push us small operators out so that they have it all to themselves. There are bad sole traders as in all professions but do not tar all of use with the same brush, a lot of us try very hard to do a good job and continue to learn and undertake CPD to keep up to date with new guides, equipment etc. By the way we are not the cheap back of a fag packet assessors, many of use have invested quite a lot in money and time. I have seen a number of assessments that would not be worth the paper they are written on from some very well known companies, one of which was taken on by an enforcing officer after a terrible risk assessment, with the threat of court action against them they withdrew from fire risk assessments completely nationwide.
I encourage my clients to use firms or individuals that area accredited and where possible to get recommendations from their customers, I have no problem with providing my information, accreditation's, qualifications and samples of my work. Client recommendations also works, one client unknown to me recommended me and now looks like 70 assessments coming my way.
In short, I have no problem with accreditation and review but will look elsewhere now I know how much SP2005 would cost me and guess who would pay if I did, my clients. There are many sole traders who are not in it for pocket money and take a pride in their work.
I find this very interesting
Can I ask if you got a quote from all three of the CB's? as I know I'm charging less than what you have been quoted
Looks like it pays to shop around or maybe I should put my price up
-
Willie, you and the other 2 CBs are worth it, whatever you charge. The cost is negligible compared to a years earnings from
fire risk assessments, even a sole trader.
-
Will, no I haven't been in touch due to a bereavement, things have some what slowed up work wise but I will do.
Colin, thank you for your kind offer but as you may see above there have been more important things on my plate for the last 3 weeks, but no decision has been made yet the jury is still out.
-
Sorry to read that. Best wishes.