FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Fraudley on August 15, 2013, 03:40:03 PM
-
I recently inspected a premises (I wont go into detail but it is one of over a thousand owned by the parent company) that had been risk assessed by a reputable company that employs over 40 consultants and is connected to, or endorsed by the industries largest health and safety organisations. As well as fire risk assessments, this same consultancy manage the health and safety for this company. I was disgusted at the FRA. It was full of innacuracies and untruths, and painted a completely false picture of the building and the management. Sadly, as a consequence of this incompetence, the manager has been ignorant to the many hazards, and was blissfully unaware that he was infact responsible for a potential death trap.
I spend most of my time speaking to RP's on inspections about the poor quality of their risk assessments and the knock on effect it may have had. So many reputable risk assessment companies still believe that providing a check list is the same thing as an assessment. How can the RP learn if they are simply ticking boxes?
If I didn't act professionally on the station or on a job, my 'Guv' soon pulled me in to the watch room and hauled me over the coals. If I'm unsure on an inspection, I have more guidance to refer to and a great team to ask advice. I am accountable. Yet I have no powers to act when I come across such poor practice and ultimately the wrong person ends up suffering the consequences. I'm not interested in a them and us on this, but I would like to know what the 'real' RA experts on here think about these self proclaimed experts and what could be done to knock them into shape?
-
Third Party Certification would help- the use of companies registered under the BAFE SP205, FRACS or equivalent schemes?
But in an industry driven by cost and RPs always looking to save a few bob the lowest common denominator will prevail. I do sympathise and come across similar situations all the time including one last week that sounds exactly as you describe conducted by an IOSH register member. Like yours there were dangerous conditions in respect of means of escape, compartmentation, fire alarm, fire emergency plans. The consultant had approved the removal of a gaseous suppression system in a plant room and its replacement by two 100lb dry powder extinguishers that were to be applied through holes that had been knocked in what should have been a two hour compartment wall!
The enforcers and Government are leaving it to the industry itself to push the TPC schemes. The enforcers and Government agencies need to be much more proactive in creating a demand for these schemes. I have just failed to win a tender for a local authority where the contract was awarded purely on cost without regard to competence. Companies offering £75 per assessment - The RP will get what they pay for.
I just take issue with two of your comments. These are NOT reputable companies if they are not giving a competent service. They probably show the badges and probably are not even members. Was the "industries largest Health and Safety Organisation" in the fire sector or the general H&S sector? Could you or the RP not make a complaint to them?
And I assume you are an enforcer- if you don't act when you come across poor practice then who do you think will? I would suggest that the cards are in your hands to do something about it. If the assessment was not S&S then only those responsible for enforcement are in a position to do something about it!
Sorry if this response reads a little harsh Fraudley I did not mean it to read as a condemnation, your points are very valid and worthy of discussion at length!
-
Whats really scary Kurnal is that the £75 FRA will possibly be even be subcontracted; what do they think they are getting for that sort of money? I'm assuming its a tick box assessment with no explanatory text - possibly even the 'drive-by' FRA where the assessor carries out the work from Google maps!! I know I've mentioned it before but the reminder for SP 205 is still on my desk and at the moment I'm really not inclined to spend £750 and waste another day on renewing/maintaining the registration.
-
I not sure if you are an inspecting officer or not but if you are then you must do something about such a poor FRA. A former colleague of mine who is an enforcer viewed a FRA on a care home that was so poor that he took the company to task by writing to the company to inform them that they were considering prosecution of the company and the consequences. Shortly after receiving the letter a director of the company was dispatched to meet the enforcing authority, as a result of the meeting and after due consideration the company gave up getting their health and safety consultants to do FRAs. The health and safety company put the lives of residents of a care home at great risk due to their lack of knowledge.
These companies must not be allowed to carry on with such poor work that puts people at risk and without being told how poor they are they will just carry on regardless. I know its difficult but they must know when they are in the wrong and you have a right and duty to tell them so.
-
I agree with the Colonel. The whole system must work on checks and balances. The only people who have the power to drive out the poor companies are the enforcing authorities, and they to have to do it by enforcing against poor FRAs.
The problem to a large extent is the system is driven by market forces and the accountants will tend to go for the lowest quote and they will get the FRA they disserve. If the enforcing authority then comes in, finds a poor FRA and does nothing about it, they are condoning the FRA.
If they enforce against the RP on the grounds of the FRA not being suitable and sufficient, then the RP will have to have the FRA redone and will have to make sure the new FRA is suitable. The lesson will be pushed across that if the RPs go for the cheapest quote and not for a proper outfit then at the least they will have to spend more money getting a proper FRA done, either that or chase up the person who did the FRA to come back and do the job they were paid for.
The government is not going to do anything, so it has to be up to the enforcing authorities to act. Don't feel sorry for the RPs they ar the ones who made the decision to go for the cheapest in the first place.
I am afraid the only worry I have is the quality of some of the enforcing officers and the attitudes of the brigades. There is some very good work going on out there but there is also some which is terrible.
-
It is common to find FRA companies flying all sorts of flags and banners but produce very poor work and I think they source contracts by giving an impression of excellence. I too have come across an outfit which had a contract to carry out assessments for a national care home provider. I was approached to provide the employee training in a number of locations. I had obtained a copy of the FRA and their evacuation strategy from each manager. On scrutinising each I could only conclude that these were all a cut and paste of a master assessment and strategy as it gave no information on the specifics needs of each site and indeed made mention of sprinkler systems of which there were none in any of the relevant locations.
In another case a FRA carried out by a chartered surveyor working for an insurance company produced an Assessment which was not short of 50 pages of waffle, twaddle and bovine excrement which was more a condensed version of the guidance to PPAs rather than a specific assessment of fire risk for the premises.
This assessment posed questions for the client rather identifying and assessing issues and why would you need to mention the standards in a factory in an "assessment" for a PPA?
I don't necessarily agree that any kind of accreditaton will resolve the issue but enforcement authorities should be more critical of poor assessments. Until proper enforcement is carried out we will continue to have cowboys, be they competent or accredited, producing inadequate assessments. They can be dangerous and a complete waste of money.
-
Interesting thread , I read lots on here about rubbish fire officers, but there are lots of poor assessors etc out there as well. However rather than go down that route of yah boo sucks you are worse than us I would like to pose a question, if a FRA is not in itself s&s what in reality can be done about it?
-
Interesting thread , I read lots on here about rubbish fire officers, but there are lots of poor assessors etc out there as well. However rather than go down that route of yah boo sucks you are worse than us I would like to pose a question, if a FRA is not in itself s&s what in reality can be done about it?
If a fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient the EA can include it in an action plan or serve a notice on the employer or AP/RP to have one carried out. The requirement on the AP/RP is to provide a suitable and sufficient FRA. If it isn't then a FRA has not been carried out.
-
I fully understand what it says NT I deal with this on a daily basis , what I am asking is in reality what can be done about a FRA that is not in my opinion S&S but the person who carried it out states that it is? The person who paid for it is stuck in the middle, says i paid for it in good faith & just wants to carry on there business. Would you suggest that a court case could be won on this basis?
-
I would have thought it depends on how far the RP went to establish the competency of the competent person they used - having chosen a third party accredited firm would presumably aid a due diligence defence more than if they had chosen some random joe who has a connection to fire but not necessarily risk assessment (such as a certain extinguisher service man who will have been released from prison along with the RP who employed him by now)
-
Enforcement Officers need sufficient training experience and managerial backup to recognise when action needs to be taken and the confidence and courage of their convictions to take the appropriate steps when necessary. The Industry is doing its best to play its part by getting behind the work of the competency council and TPC. The enforcers need to back us up.
Its simple and all in the Order. Is the risk assessment suitable and sufficient and if not are relevant persons put at serious risk as a consequence? If they are then enforcement action needs to be taken. Serve an enforcement notice to identifiy the shortcomings and steps that need to be taken. This will help create the necessary impetus to improve standards.
-
'The person who paid for it is stuck in the middle, says i paid for it in good faith & just wants to carry on there business.'
I am afraid it is a case of "caveat emptor" let the buyer beware. In all seriousness if I am approached in a pub and offered a watch valued at £1000 for £50, there are two possible scenarios either it is a fake or it is stolen.
In the same manner if a business wants quotes for an FRA and one quote is for £750 and another is for £75, someone should be asking the question why? what am I getting? and who is doing it? As it is, the accountant or financial director, will say go for the cheapest quote.
If the EA then says 'there, there we know the FRA is c**p but we understand you paid for it in good faith, so it is alright' what is going to happen. Businessman A who paid £75 for his FRA turns to businessman B who paid £750 for his and says 'you idiot, I got mine for a tenth the price of yours and the Fire Brigade says its OK.'
On the other hand if the EA says 'the FRA is c**p, get a proper one done' the business either has to get hold of the person who did the FRA and get them to do a satisfactory one (if they can) or get someone else in. As in the scenario above Businessman A now has to pay out £75 for the rubbish and then £750 for the competent one plus a lot of time and worry getting it sorted, next time Businessman A will go for the better FRA.
What happens then is the business community starts to ask how can we tell who is competent and who is not? The answer is, the various registers.
In the natural world a herd of grazing animals needs predators to kill off the weak and sick members of the herd and promote a health herd.
In our case we need the EAs to penalise the bad FRAs to encourage the good ones and drive the standard up. If they don't all that will happen is businesses tend to go for the cheapest and the standard will fall.
-
Mike I fully agree with what you say but would also like to add some other cost to employing the wrong assessor. I have seen many examples of additional signage, extinguishers, unnecessary fire detection, fire stopping, replaced fire doors and even luminous stair nosings etc. installed as part of fire risk assessments that are carried out by incompetent assessors. Looking at other whole life costings for these items with respect to maintenance and servicing then the RP has soon paid out more than the cost of a good/competent assessor. I was recently approached by an agency to do FRA for a London housing association at £100 a day (2 assessments and reports) and when I told them it wasn't enough they stroppily said they have plenty of firemen coming down from the north of the country who will do it for that!
I often wonder if these guys actually know what they are letting themselves in for and the implications of a poor assessment?
-
How many assessors have had phone calls from clients with the words "Hey you, this fire risk assessment you did for me is crap. The fire officer said I had to do a proper one." (or words to that effect). If not is that not a fairly good measure of your competence?
-
I just take issue with two of your comments. These are NOT reputable companies if they are not giving a competent service. They probably show the badges and probably are not even members. Was the "industries largest Health and Safety Organisation" in the fire sector or the general H&S sector? Could you or the RP not make a complaint to them?
And I assume you are an enforcer- if you don't act when you come across poor practice then who do you think will? I would suggest that the cards are in your hands to do something about it. If the assessment was not S&S then only those responsible for enforcement are in a position to do something about it!
Sorry if this response reads a little harsh Fraudley I did not mean it to read as a condemnation, your points are very valid and worthy of discussion at length!
Thank you kurnal. It is indeed worthy of a debate. I'm an inspecting officer, and on the incident I referred to, I did just that. And more. My frustration is that this is not an isolated case. As an IO, all I am able to do is reject the RA as being S&S, instruct the RP to get another one done, but on occasion, the same company is used, but this time it's slightly improved. But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient. And to take the point to another level, I believe it's an industry issue that the industry should be combatting. I was just hoping for ideas outside the box. Being a member of a body, as is the case of health and safety bodies, in many cases means nothing in the way of competence, it simply means they have paid their subscription fees. A fact that is being proven every day. Isn't it about time there was an association that had the powers to scrutinise and assess the RA's being provided, and take the necessary action against these fraudsters? In todays economic climate, I'm not sure tax payers would appreciate their money being spent on FRS departments specifically set up to police the fire safety consultants.
-
'But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.'
If you can't, who can? You as an IO are representing the Enforcing Authority and have the law behind you. A body set up by the industry has no power unless it is enacted by Parliament and that is not going to happen as the FSO already gives the Enforcing Authority that role.
Without going over all the old arguments about the rights and wrongs of the FSO, the fact of the matter is that the Law is in place, it states the roles and we all have to work within the framework of the FSO, whether we like it or not.
The problem of insufficient and inadequate FRAs is not going to go away unless the Enforcing Authorities grasp the nettle and start enforcing.
-
But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.
Why not?
Isn't it about time there was an association that had the powers to scrutinise and assess the RA's being provided, and take the necessary action against these fraudsters?
There is. Its called the Fire and Rescue Service
-
'But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.'
If you can't, who can? You as an IO are representing the Enforcing Authority and have the law behind you. A body set up by the industry has no power unless it is enacted by Parliament and that is not going to happen as the FSO already gives the Enforcing Authority that role.
Sorry Mike I should have been more clear. What I meant by that, was when I look at an improved RA, I can either accept it, or reject it. Of course if it is still not sufficient I will reject it. The point I was trying to make is, if we as IO's keep going back over FRA's until they are S&S, the impact on the RP would rightfully be seen as harassment in some cases. For businesses that are otherwise compliant, the constant bashing of their FRA would be unfair. I totally agree that as IO's we should be in the position to remedy this situation, but it isnt feasable. I'm sure if it was, then there would be another FRS in the country taking action on a grand scale?
-
http://www.labc.uk.com/Media/Default/library/Technical%20Outlook%20Articles/Ol090911%20A%20timely%20warning_Fire%20risk%20assessor%20and%20hotel%20manager%20jailed%20for%20fire%20safety%20offences.pdf
That's the way to do it!
You cant fix them all overnight but the power of publicity means that you only need to make an example of the worst few and the message will soon get round.
-
NIFRS has a public register on its website which details current offenders including the full Notice issued. I'ts empty at the moment but there has been a number listed ijn the past.
-
Nearly There and Anthony,thank you but I am fully aware of the powers granted to inspectors .However what Fraudley has said is exactly what I have been trying to say in my clumsy way, its often my opinion against yours, I cannot imagine any Fire Authority prosecuting solely for a insufficient FRA no matter what you may say and think, I doubt very much if it would pass the public interest test and trying to prove that in itself it put "person(s) at risk of death or serious injury" would be an herculean task.
I will accept that a poor FRA is often be symptomatic other problems at a premises and in the event of a fire may form part of a case against the premises.
However in the meantime a lot of shoddy FRA'S and the people doing them will continue to slip through the net.
Despite what we would like to be the case fire safety is often item 101 on the list of 100 important things a business has to do.
-
Oh god a load of building control officers who havent got enough work because of the recession doing FRAs. Just what the world needs.
-
Fraudley and Steven N I would agree that immediate prosecution is not the best way forward. If it is just the FRA and the rest of the building is compliant then surely what is needed is guidance and maybe a notice of deficencies which could be extended if necessary.
I suppose the real issue is what is suitable and sufficient? Back to the Fire Brigades wht do they expect to see in a FRA, personally I look for some mention of all the headlines from PAS 79 but using my common sense, for example I would excuse the absence of a comment on lightning protection for a terraced shop in Manchester but not for a 10 storey building in the middle of the fens!
-
I happen to agree with you Mike horses for courses perhaps and using common sense and professional judgement?
-
I hope these people sleep well at night.
First thing I was taught 20 years (20 OMG) ago was "know your limits"
Apparently rule 101 was missing from their textbooks
davo
-
No it has been replaced by 'cash in my pocket' followed by 'it will never happen anyway' and finally by ' I deal with it when it happens and I'm a limited company so who cares?'
-
Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.
Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.
-
Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.
Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.
Thanks for that Demon. Not sure either. Probably is somewhere.
-
Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.
Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.
Thanks for that Demon. Not sure either. Probably is somewhere.
Yes there it was is. The Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
-
Just reading this thread and I see both sides of the argument.
Are there two separate issues here? - a fire safety issue and a trading standards issue?
As Steven N said to bring a dangerous risk assessor to book for a poor risk assessment someone would have to be hurt or killed I would suggest (rightly or wrongly) before the public interest test would be satisfied and thus prosecution allowed to be taken forward.
However in every other scenario (no one hurt / killed) where the fire authority highlights a dodgy assessment they will advise the RP to pursue the dodgy assessor for their money back as its not suitable and sufficient, but in the meantime tell them they still need to get another fire risk assessment done at possible further expense!
Regardless of whether the RP pursues them or not, the dodgy assessor is still allowed to trade elsewhere, ripping clients off, and putting people at risk. Who can stop them? The fire authority? For the reasons above I'd suggest not unfortunately.
Were people put at risk? Yes - the dodgy assessment didn't highlight the correct fire safety measures required to keep relevant people safe! That clearly put them at risk
Was anyone hurt or killed? No! That puts the Fire Authority in limbo on whether they can take action - Therefore I'd argue that perhaps this falls more into the jurisdiction of Trading Standards who could bring the assessor to book.
-
As Steven N said to bring a dangerous risk assessor to book for a poor risk assessment someone would have to be hurt or killed I would suggest (rightly or wrongly) before the public interest test would be satisfied and thus prosecution allowed to be taken forward.
That was not the case in David Liu and John O’Rourke; relevant persons were only potentially at risk. http://www.notts-fire.gov.uk/E82166F5397D4F13AC31AB7F54E4CFB4.asp
-
Indeed Tom, but this involved a case where the assessor and the RP were prosecuted, and there is a difference between that and the debate on this thread where it is suggested that action is taken directly at a risk assessor, and not the RP.
-
Midders my point was the RP or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) ( Assessor) only has to put relevant persons at risk and they would not have to be hurt or killed for a prosecution to be considered.
32. - (1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—
(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;
-
Retters, Old Tam is right on this occasion. It did not matter that Notts also went after the RP. If they felt like it they could have gone after poor old Mr o'R in isolation. Now that they dont go to fires unless you can assure them that there are flames coming out of all the windows and can see them from your ARC 500 miles away, they will have even more time on their hands to chase after prosecutuons.
-
No he is not Sir Col read Tams quote again and then when you are ready ill be more than happy to accept your offer of apology by agreeing to supply me with a years worth of Talisker.Simples.
-
'(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;'
Oh boy, how are you going to prove that? I can see hours of argument in courts as to exactly what is serious injury and whether the failure placed anyone at risk. The lawyers will love this one.
-
Mike they did in Nottinghamshire and they both defendants got 8 months.
Please explain further Midders for an old fart like me, I mean nobody else. Incidentally the charge against Mr John O’Rourke read,
Is responsible under Article 5(3) failed to comply with Article 9(1) failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to which relevant persons were exposed. (same charge for both hotels)
-
Hi Tom
Sorry I should point out you were both legally and technically correct in your post which referred to Article 5(3) / 32(1), however proving such an offence has been committed is a different kettle of fish for several reasons.
In the Nottingham case the RP was prosecuted along with the assessor. However I do not believe you would ever get a prosecution solely against a risk assessor without the RP getting collared too.
This thread is talking about shoddy assessors who keep winging it, and keep trading, churning out poor assessments, and the question was asked "Why aren't fire authorities tackling poor risk assessors?" The answer is how would they do it? Particularly where no one has been injured or killed?
If we play arm chair lawyers, the answer should be simple "of course fire authorities can and should chase after these dodgy assessors" because the RR(FS)Order says they can.
But is the spirit of the Order to have fire officers chasing after dodgy assessors in this manner or is this type of enforcement fall more into the Trading Standards camp, because the lines are somewhat blurry. Also you have to ask would fire authorities have the resources to chase after every dodgy assessor they came across.
The fire officer's primary role is to ensure premises comply with fire safety legislation, not catch rogue traders, thats more Trading Standards territory.
I would suggest Trading Standards teams would be more effective at combating dodgy or reckless assessors in the way that many on this thread would want. They would I am sure secure a better hit rate on dodgy assessors, in cases of course where no one was injured or killed.
-
Hi Tom
Sorry I should point out you were both legally and technically correct in your post which referred to Article 5(3) / 32(1), however proving such an offence has been committed is a different kettle of fish for several reasons.
In the Nottingham case the RP was prosecuted along with the assessor. However I do not believe you would ever get a prosecution solely against a risk assessor without the RP getting collared too.
This thread is talking about shoddy assessors who keep winging it, and keep trading, churning out poor assessments, and the question was asked "Why aren't fire authorities tackling poor risk assessors?" The answer is how would they do it? Particularly where no one has been injured or killed?
If we play arm chair lawyers, the answer should be simple "of course fire authorities can and should chase after these dodgy assessors" because the RR(FS)Order says they can.
But is the spirit of the Order to have fire officers chasing after dodgy assessors in this manner or is this type of enforcement fall more into the Trading Standards camp, because the lines are somewhat blurry. Also you have to ask would fire authorities have the resources to chase after every dodgy assessor they came across.
The fire officer's primary role is to ensure premises comply with fire safety legislation, not catch rogue traders, thats more Trading Standards territory.
I would suggest Trading Standards teams would be more effective at combating dodgy or reckless assessors in the way that many on this thread would want. They would I am sure secure a better hit rate on dodgy assessors, in cases of course where no one was injured or killed.
Midders. Would you not need the enforcement authority to consider the assessments not suitable and sufficient first? How would TS know if they were S&S unless they had a competent person or body to advise them?
Do you see the use of TS by way of a complaint from the RP if his FRA is rejected by the EO as not being S&S?
-
Yes that's how I would see it working, also Fire Authorities could send through referrals to TS (Although I think the RP would have to be asked if they want to pursue it before TS would take any action / make investigations!)
-
Something else to throw into the mix is that at least one brigade, which inspects small premises (where the owner was more than competent to identify the risks within their building and provide the strategy for dealing with them) and then tells the RP that their evaluation is rubbish and that they MUST buy an online assessment which tries to cover every available building type from a market stall to the headquarters of GCHQ. The cynic in me says that the brigade gets a cut of the price of this annual ripoff.
-
Something else to throw into the mix is that at least one brigade, which inspects small premises (where the owner was more than competent to identify the risks within their building and provide the strategy for dealing with them) and then tells the RP that their evaluation is rubbish and that they MUST buy an online assessment which tries to cover every available building type from a market stall to the headquarters of GCHQ. The cynic in me says that the brigade gets a cut of the price of this annual ripoff.
If that happened Auntie Lin then whoever gave that "Must" advice was completely out of order. I know that IOs do, by way of friendly advice, point RPs towards a means of resolution which can be either online or by using an Assessor. I also know that IOs do want the matter cleared asap so that they can get on with meeting their monthly targets and not spending endless hours chasing RPs for a proper assessment. Hence why some will suggest those assessors that can be trusted to produce the goods. IOs like to go in, tick the appropriate boxes and leave happy - job done.
-
Hmm don't quite agree with you there NT but Ok the I/O and Brigade you refer to Auntie LIn is completely out of order, and frankly ought to be taken to task over it, if its true.
-
Hmm don't quite agree with you there NT but Ok the I/O and Brigade you refer to Auntie LIn is completely out of order, and frankly ought to be taken to task over it, if its true.
Why don't you agree Midders?
-
Just that the process of audit takes as long as it takes there has to be due process otherwise the authority can get blasted in court, and risk assessments get chased all the time, its just the way it is, they'd prefer not to but they don't go round saying "Go to Joe Bloggs he will get you an assessment done quick
Inspectors shouldn't recommend any particular company individual or product.
The only time inspectors leave happy is when they prevented imminent danger of death or serious injury.
-
Retters, I have read Old Tam's post and I reiterate that he is right plus I am aware of a case where it was indeed the line the FRs took. Could the bottle of Talisker you supply please be the 57 degree North version if that is ok.
-
Nope it could not unless of course you give me the detailsof the case you speak of Uncle Col inwhich case I'd be pleased to stand corrected
-
The only time inspectors leave happy is when they prevented imminent danger of death or serious injury.
Yes and that's done when all the boxes are ticked.
-
Not necessarily NT, there may be other works still required and the Inspector has simply been able to organise temporary measures.
-
Middy I agree it’s not the EO job to catch rogue traders but when she/he find on an audit, a FR assessor has put relevant persons at risk of being seriously hurt or killed, a prosecution should be considered. I accept it will not happen very often but when it does the FRS should act, which will at least put a shot across the bows of the cowboy assessors.
I also accept when you go after a FR assessor the RP is involved as well, because he/she is responsible for all articles 8 to 24, but the RP could invoke art 33 which could mean you may have to let the RP off the hook but that doesn't mean the assessor cannot be charged alone.
As for Trading Standards I am not sure about that but if it did work it would be worth considering.
-
Fraud Squad, Take a look at most English so called Unwanted alarms policies and all will be clear. You could do worse than start at that of Merseyside, but to be honest you can take your pick other than Bucks and London.
-
The problem with the "tick box" approach which I come across often is that it does not require the assessor to then demonstrate any actual knowledge. So you get the question "is the means of escape adequate for the the type of premises?" and the assessor has blindly ticked "yes". Then I come along to review it some years later and I haven't the faintest idea how they came to that conclusion. If I were answering that question I would go on to describe the means of escape, say why it is judged adequate, then identify any possible issues that might jeopardise it, etc, etc. My way takes about 6 times as long. Maybe that's how the cowboys get away with charging £100 for a FRA... :o
I totally agree that when such inadequate assessments are found, the assessor should at the very least get their cage rattled, otherwise what's to stop them going blindly on the same way for ever?
-
The problem with the "tick box" approach which I come across often is that it does not require the assessor to then demonstrate any actual knowledge. So you get the question "is the means of escape adequate for the the type of premises?" and the assessor has blindly ticked "yes". Then I come along to review it some years later and I haven't the faintest idea how they came to that conclusion. If I were answering that question I would go on to describe the means of escape, say why it is judged adequate, then identify any possible issues that might jeopardise it, etc, etc. My way takes about 6 times as long. Maybe that's how the cowboys get away with charging £100 for a FRA... :o
I totally agree that when such inadequate assessments are found, the assessor should at the very least get their cage rattled, otherwise what's to stop them going blindly on the same way for ever?
Is it not a requirement in the 2005 Order that existing fire safety measures have to be identified and included in the assessment? And something a bit more that a "yes" tick. I feel I have to blame the tick sheet culture for the decline in standards and certainly yes, this is reflected in the price. Is it not also the case that some of those providing fire risk assessment courses are at the heart of the problem by churning out insta fire safety experts in a matter of a few days? I do know of people whose current businesses are not doing so well have mentioned going an a short course and getting into fire risk assessments. So much for the drive for accreditation.
-
NT
surely you cannot criticise tick box FRAs ::)
davo
-
[Is it not a requirement in the 2005 Order that existing fire safety measures have to be identified and included in the assessment? And something a bit more that a "yes" tick. I feel I have to blame the tick sheet culture for the decline in standards and certainly yes, this is reflected in the price. Is it not also the case that some of those providing fire risk assessment courses are at the heart of the problem by churning out insta fire safety experts in a matter of a few days? I do know of people whose current businesses are not doing so well have mentioned going an a short course and getting into fire risk assessments. So much for the drive for accreditation.
[/quote]
If the powers that be ammend the legislation to include a paragraph on tick boxes NOT being acceptable, and to support the fact, any information leaflets or guidance notes state the same, then those commissioning risk assessors will know to expect better. If the legislation stated clearly that a risk assessment MUST detail the whats, the whys and the hows, then many of these cowboys would soon become unstuck, and it would be far easier to hold them accountable.
As always these are just my personal thoughts and not those of my employer.
-
NT
surely you cannot criticise tick box FRAs ::)
davo
Yes I can.
Don't do it. Have never done it. Will never do it. But those who do can carry on.
-
Middy I agree it’s not the EO job to catch rogue traders but when she/he find on an audit, a FR assessor has put relevant persons at risk of being seriously hurt or killed, a prosecution should be considered. I accept it will not happen very often but when it does the FRS should act, which will at least put a shot across the bows of the cowboy assessors.
I also accept when you go after a FR assessor the RP is involved as well, because he/she is responsible for all articles 8 to 24, but the RP could invoke art 33 which could mean you may have to let the RP off the hook but that doesn't mean the assessor cannot be charged alone.
As for Trading Standards I am not sure about that but if it did work it would be worth considering.
Totally agree Tom, there will absolutely be cases where the FRS should (and must) act, but in the context of the issues discussed within this thread the FRS can not routinely be responsible to catch the "Rogue Trader" element who rip RPs off by charging thousands for meaningless assessments. And you are of course absolutely right that an assessor can be prosecuted alone without the RP being collared too but in any event an investigation will involve the RP initially.
-
Just reading this thread and I see both sides of the argument.
Are there two separate issues here? - a fire safety issue and a trading standards issue?
As Steven N said to bring a dangerous risk assessor to book for a poor risk assessment someone would have to be hurt or killed I would suggest (rightly or wrongly) before the public interest test would be satisfied and thus prosecution allowed to be taken forward.
However in every other scenario (no one hurt / killed) where the fire authority highlights a dodgy assessment they will advise the RP to pursue the dodgy assessor for their money back as its not suitable and sufficient, but in the meantime tell them they still need to get another fire risk assessment done at possible further expense!
Regardless of whether the RP pursues them or not, the dodgy assessor is still allowed to trade elsewhere, ripping clients off, and putting people at risk. Who can stop them? The fire authority? For the reasons above I'd suggest not unfortunately.
Were people put at risk? Yes - the dodgy assessment didn't highlight the correct fire safety measures required to keep relevant people safe! That clearly put them at risk
Was anyone hurt or killed? No! That puts the Fire Authority in limbo on whether they can take action - Therefore I'd argue that perhaps this falls more into the jurisdiction of Trading Standards who could bring the assessor to book.
I wish i was as eloquent as you :) perfect!
-
We'll then, why don't you experts come up with a FRA template that would require a descriptive response rather than a tick box? it wouldn't be too difficult to base it on pas79. Promote it as an exemplar from a consolidated panel of experts and perhaps the 75 quid FRA will go away. I am involved in electrical installation inspection and testing. I kicked the industry-standard tick box forms in to touch long time since. My reports are descriptive and presented in a clear understandable way. Yes I have to deal with the 75 quid opposition. Sometimes I lose out but so what.
-
Interesting thread.
Maybe the answer is that ALL fire risk assessments have to be sent to the local fire authority (with a fee of course to cover the admin) then a department could be set up containing some of the self-righteous holier than thou sorts (assessors and IO’s who appear on this site) who could spend their time going through the assessments and rejecting the crap ones in an instant and you could sit and talk about the good old days when fire certificates were the baby of the fire authority and you all had such control and things were so much better then!
-
Another good day in the office then? ;D ;D ;D
-
Do what my employers are doing, tying in with a local authority fire service to 'approve' my individual risk assessments. Its been a long process for them, started before I joined them in June this year, but seems to be a sensible approach in the long run. They inspected some sample FRA's recently completed by myself, and, apart for some wording changes, were generally happy with the content. I have used the bum basic PAS-79 2012 version, with very few changes apart from a few corporate logos; their view was, as its the 'industry standard' form, they would be happy to back it.
Tin hat on!!
;D
-
Do what my employers are doing, tying in with a local authority fire service to 'approve' my individual risk assessments. Its been a long process for them, started before I joined them in June this year, but seems to be a sensible approach in the long run. They inspected some sample FRA's recently completed by myself, and, apart for some wording changes, were generally happy with the content. I have used the bum basic PAS-79 2012 version, with very few changes apart
from a few corporate logos; their view was, as its the 'industry standard' form, they would be happy to back it.
Tin hat on!!
;D
Industry standard?
-
then a department could be set up containing some of the self-righteous holier than thou sorts (assessors and IO’s who appear on this site)
No offence taken!
-
Ouch!!
-
Not aimed at any one in particular, I just sometimes find it almost amusing how over technical and complex some contributors get over a piece of legislation that was supposed to be DIY fire safety that the RP could do themselves for the vast majority of premises (SME’s), too much fear selling in my view.
-
The reason it hasn't worked out as DIY Fire Safety that the RP could do is that it hasn't worked and quite a few SME's have ended up being prosecuted precisely because they couldn't or wouldn't do it yourself.....just like the enthusiastic home DIY bod who ends up spending a fortune on contractors when his work falls apart!
To be fair I have seen some more than adequate in house FRAs by smaller organisations that put some third party reports to shame, upset sometimes by over zealous advice from the suppliers of their fire protection equipment.
-
Would agree on both points Anthony, although on some occasions the prosecutions are borne out of the ill informed and uneducated SME's learning the hard way. For those outside of the 'fire bubble' surviving the recession etc. fire safety isn't high on their snag lists, we may think it should be and it needs a higher profile but that should have been backed up with better government publicity, lets face it 7 years ago the RRO didn't come in with bells and whistles did it? was it on the telly? were there large bill boards in towns and cities? most companies probably did what most of us do with leaflets through the door. The only people who made a big splash about it were those from certain sectors of the fire industry selling fear and trepidation to the SME's. I've lost count how many times I've been to seminars where some speaker from a fire industry firm has blurted out 'far reaching implications' and 'serious consequences or 'end users need to be aware of the implications' to name but a few. I've got to the point where I scribble these phrases on the back of a piece of paper and entertain myself by ticking them off as they come through, you should try it sometime!! fire bingo, sadly I get a full house each time so if anyone can give me some others to add?
-
In my view the major part of the problem was an over simplified view taken by the government at the start of the whole process. They seemed to think that Fire Safety could be dealt with in the same way as Health and Safety. The problem comes that with Health and Safety the majority of the issues tend to be in front of people every day, very few people have close experience of fire (those that have are usually in the fire industry).
That combined with a political agenda to reduce the cost of the fire service got us into this situation.
-
Interesting thread.
Maybe the answer is that ALL fire risk assessments have to be sent to the local fire authority (with a fee of course to cover the admin) then a department could be set up containing some of the self-righteous holier than thou sorts (assessors and IO’s who appear on this site) who could spend their time going through the assessments and rejecting the crap ones in an instant and you could sit and talk about the good old days when fire certificates were the baby of the fire authority and you all had such control and things were so much better then!
I was going to reply longjohn, but I really don't think I should. Maybe you should go back to the beginning and read my initial point.
Regards,
A Holier than thou sort!
-
Go down the page to Mike Buckleys comment
'I am afraid the only worry I have is the quality of some of the enforcing officers and the attitudes of the brigades. There is some very good work going on out there but there is also some which is terrible'
people in glass houses and all that.............
-
No, I am quite happy to admit that there are a large number of people carrying out awful Fire Risk Assessments but there are also people carrying out some excellent work.
It is the same within the enforcing authorities, there are a lot of very good people but there are also some where you read their reports and you wonder which planet they are on!
And yes I have been round sites where it is obvious that a previous FRA was carried out by a salesperson from fire extinguisher/alarm companies.
-
No, I am quite happy to admit that there are a large number of people carrying out awful Fire Risk Assessments but there are also people carrying out some excellent work.
It is the same within the enforcing authorities, there are a lot of very good people but there are also some where you read their reports and you wonder which planet they are on!
And yes I have been round sites where it is obvious that a previous FRA was carried out by a salesperson from fire extinguisher/alarm companies.
What do you think of a pest control person offering to do a FRA for a restaurant free if it gave him their pest control business. I kid you not. This happened in a shopping centre in Newry, County Down. And to coin it all he got the job.
-
What do you think of a pest control person offering to do a FRA for a restaurant free if it gave him their pest control business. I kid you not. This happened in a shopping centre in Newry, County Down. And to coin it all he got the job.
Does not suprise me - I've heard a gas engineer for quite a well known company will also do you a nice FRA once he has serviced your commercial heating equipment.
-
and the fire officer who will do one for you................ as long as it's outside of his Brigade
-
Do what my employers are doing, tying in with a local authority fire service to 'approve' my individual risk assessments. Its been a long process for them, started before I joined them in June this year, but seems to be a sensible approach in the long run. They inspected some sample FRA's recently completed by myself, and, apart for some wording changes, were generally happy with the content. I have used the bum basic PAS-79 2012 version, with very few changes apart from a few corporate logos; their view was, as its the 'industry standard' form, they would be happy to back it.
Tin hat on!!
;D
I'm afraid I couldn't do that with one local authority I deal with, they are so anti consultant they have sent a letter to one RP stating quite clearly they do not deal with consultants!
-
Do what my employers are doing, tying in with a local authority fire service to 'approve' my individual risk assessments. Its been a long process for them, started before I joined them in June this year, but seems to be a sensible approach in the long run. They inspected some sample FRA's recently completed by myself, and, apart for some wording changes, were generally happy with the content. I have used the bum basic PAS-79 2012 version, with very few changes apart from a few corporate logos; their view was, as its the 'industry standard' form, they would be happy to back it.
Tin hat on!!
;D
I'm afraid I couldn't do that with one local authority I deal with, they are so anti consultant they have sent a letter to one RP stating quite clearly they do not deal with consultants!
Ooo that's very naughty - if of course it's true... I'd advise your client to politely ask the Fire Authority in question why they won't deal with consultants and then see what response they get back - no fire authority (as you know) can say they won't deal with consultants (and if they have they really done so) they need to be named and shamed and written to.... do address the letter to the Chief of the brigade the Chair of the fire authority, and local MP - I'm sure that will get a big reaction. BIGGG reaction. ;)
-
Back in the 1980s, I was engaged in a research project for the Department of Health on alarm receiving centres. We asked for information from all F&RS in the UK. Nothing controversial, just routine stuff that, today, you would get easily under the FOI.
The then CFOA lead on fire safety. a chief officer, met with us and assured us of all assistance. Strangely while some F&RS were extremely helpful, we could not get anything out of others in England. Then my good friends in the then Highlands and Islands F&RS explained why. The CFOA **** (synonym for gentleman deleted) we met with had allegedly written to all F&RS telling them not to cooperate. H&I said they would be ignoring CFOA advice as did many other of our chums in the F&RS. One refused point blank to help because (and I quote) they were not pleased with the NHS as they refused to use the (subsequently discredited) Harwell smoke detector tester. Humberside's comms officer said that it was a uniformed service and he had to do as he was told and would not be cooperating. He also said there was no point in talking to the CFO as (and I quote) his chief officer did not talk to consultants. An ACO somewhere, when I tried to reason with him that we were all on the same side, said we were not, as I (and I quote) made money out of fire safety. I asked whether the job of ACO was an honorary post for which he did not receive a big fat salary and whether his kids ate from soup kitchens, at which point he said he was terminating the call.
I have never fully trusted CFOA or chief fire officers in England since. It is a principal that I feel has stood me in good stead.
As it happens despite the best efforts of some F&RS to be obstructive, we got all we required and our recommendations for ARC response times are incorproated in British and European standards today, so it was ground breaking stuff, funded by the Department of Health.
-
They will Midders, I'm just biding my time at the moment
-
Back in the 1908s, I was engaged in a research project for the Department of Health
Blimey Sir Col...1908?? I knew you were not in the first throws of spring, but I didn't think you were that old
[/Quote]
I have never fully trusted CFOA or chief fire officers in England since. It is a principal that I feel has stood me in good stead.
Can't say I blame you, if the type of behaviour you mentioned went on.
-
Well, Retters, perhaps we live in different times today (but perhaps we do not). Anyhow, we Scots are not big on forgiving or forgetting. If we can still remember Culloden, we can still remember the two faced nature of some of the higher echelons of the fire and rescue service in England. Is it not time you left the FRS and got a proper job anyway.
-
Yes, I remember Culloden, if I recall correctly wasn't it a Scottish army being defeated by a Scottish and English army? Wasn't there something about the various scots having to wear different coloured cockades in their bonnets so they could tell which side they were on?
-
Not bad at all, Michael!! Very close to the truth.
-
Well here is an extract from the particular fire authority concerned when they communicated with an RP
'The Fire Authorities Enforcement Team's guidance for Fire Protection Officers is not to communicate with Professional Fire Risk Assessors
with regards site specific queries.
However Fire Risk Assessors can contact the Fire Authority's Fire Protection Support Team for general guidance on Fire Risk Assessments'.
So how many of us need 'general guidance' from them then?
-
Hi LJ.
Check your messages.