FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: CWEENG on January 10, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
-
When you think the Fire Officer is wrong,,,,,,,
When you think / know the fire officer is wrong, and what he is asking of the “Responsible Person” is wrong, and he is not for budging.
Any tips and tricks, how to deal with them without rocking the boat "to much" and coming out with a “ win win “ situation. In the end of the day we all have to work together in the industry?
Any thoughts, experiences useful tips ?
-
When you think the Fire Officer is wrong,,,,,,,
When you think / know the fire officer is wrong, and what he is asking of the “Responsible Person” is wrong, and he is not for budging.
Any tips and tricks, how to deal with them without rocking the boat "to much" and coming out with a “ win win “ situation. In the end of the day we all have to work together in the industry?
Any thoughts, experiences useful tips ?
A word you have used is "asking". He could be right or could be wrong. You first have to establish if the "ask" is reasonable. Is it? Experience is important here as some IOs act like style policemen. Sometimes IOs are right. They may just have poor people skills.
-
Any IO worth their salt should be happy to explain the measures they are asking the RP to implement .They should not become hostile when asked to explain or justify their requirements.if the IO won't explain or won't budge you should:
a) Ask the IO about the RPs right to appeal or challenge their requirements
b) Ask what level of enforcement is being applied (formal or informal)
c) Ask IO for name of his direct line manager as you may want a second opinion
At the end of the day the IO may be right, may be wrong, however that said they should be open to discussion and engage with the RP in a professional and polite manner. So long as you do likewise with the IO I would hope they reciprocate. If they do not a complaint should be made to their line manager / officer in charge.
-
I agree with all of the above and as we are all human and occasionally subject to misperceptions I would also recommend confirming your own standpoint by asking a friend for a second opinion. If trusted peer agrees with you then proceed down Fairy Fellows route.
-
Plenty of experience of this up and down the Country with differing IO's. A bit more on the specific details would help but in general unless the "request" is in an enforcement notice I tend not to get too involved as it just makes matters worse. If an FRA has been completed then I simply get the IO to refer to that, if he/she is not happy then they can discuss alternatives but the burden in my view is on the IO to explain and/or justify why the approach in the FRA is not acceptable and the associate risk. This tends to be something they are reluctant (or can't do) as the notices I come across provide very little detail other than stating which Article of the RRO has been breached. If an FRA has not been conducted you haven't got anything to negotiate with.
-
Any IO worth their salt should be happy to explain the measures they are asking the RP to implement .They should not become hostile when asked to explain or justify their requirements.if the IO won't explain or won't budge you should:
a) Ask the IO about the RPs right to appeal or challenge their requirements
b) Ask what level of enforcement is being applied (formal or informal)
c) Ask IO for name of his direct line manager as you may want a second opinion
At the end of the day the IO may be right, may be wrong, however that said they should be open to discussion and engage with the RP in a professional and polite manner. So long as you do likewise with the IO I would hope they reciprocate. If they do not a complaint should be made to their line manager / officer in charge.
This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.
Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.
Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.
-
This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.
Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.
Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.
Good points DD, but how does this approach fit with the enforcement concordat and being helpful, open and transparent? If the FRS took this approach to community fire safety or operational advice I think they would be inundated with complaints.
-
This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.
Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.
Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.
Good points DD, but how does this approach fit with the enforcement concordat and being helpful, open and transparent? If the FRS took this approach to community fire safety or operational advice I think they would be inundated with complaints.
Well, my approach fits in with the concordat or the Regulators compliance code. Not sure how the generic type notice does.
But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken. Personally it doesn't help anybody, but by the nature of this forum the ones that are willing to help will offer advice/opinions on here the one that won't keep away.
-
I think Big Al should run a competition, for the best punchline to "When you think the fire officer is wrong............" First prize a half hour counselling with the old boy. Booby prize, living with him in Bathmat Lock for a week.
My first offer is:
"When you think the fire officer is wrong.................. you are probably right, unless you are in Scotland."
-
But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken
I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.
If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!
-
But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken
I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.
If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!
Agree Mike. Just like an MOT you will get a report of a particular defect but nothing officially as to how to fix it. The defect may not actually be caused by something that is broken.
-
But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken
I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.
If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!
Agree Mike. Just like an MOT you will get a report of a particular defect but nothing officially as to how to fix it.
The defect may not actually be caused by something that is broken.
My notices always give one acceptable solution. But they also indicate that other solutions may be acceptable but discuss first.
-
As a BCO we were warned that giving specific advice on solutions was not our job and so any liability from doing so could fall on us and not our employers.
I think the fire service do have a stat duty to advise so its a different situation but you still have to be a bit careful.
An over zelous EHO working in the same borough as me was brought to task by a restaurateur (who had got some advice) and the council ended up paying for all the unncessary work that had been "required" by said EHO.
-
Ok, but by the same token anyone in an advisory or enforcement role should be competent and thus able to justify their actions should there ever be cause for them to be questioned.
-
As a BCO we were warned that giving specific advice on solutions was not our job and so any liability from doing so could fall on us and not our employers.
I think the fire service do have a stat duty to advise so its a different situation but you still have to be a bit careful.
An over zelous EHO working in the same borough as me was brought to task by a restaurateur (who had got some advice) and the council ended up paying for all the unncessary work that had been "required" by said EHO.
That the danger WB. Much better to leave to consultants.
-
Ok, but by the same token anyone in an advisory or enforcement role should be competent and thus able to justify their actions should there ever be cause for them to be questioned.
Is "because it says so in the book" adequate justification?
-
There is H + S case law following an accident in a tyre repair shop where the inspector specified what remedial action was required - he was subsequently sued by the company as a cheaper alternative was available. I have the details somewhere if really required.
What the fire officer should be doing in my opinion is telling the RP/consultant what is wrong to save all the guesswork and be prepared to listen to alternatives. Unfortunately its not a black and white area and there can be differences of opinion from both sides but it should be possible to come to a solution; the fire officer obviously has most of the legal clout initially.
-
As a BCO we were warned that giving specific advice on solutions was not our job and so any liability from doing so could fall on us and not our employers.
I think the fire service do have a stat duty to advise so its a different situation but you still have to be a bit careful.
An over zelous EHO working in the same borough as me was brought to task by a restaurateur (who had got some advice) and the council ended up paying for all the unncessary work that had been "required" by said EHO.
WB, if your not encouraged to give advice and playing devils advocate here - why is it that this week I have said to a BCO that a single direction of travel in a self storage warehouse of 32m is excessive and he said that it meets the functional requirements. Is that advice or just acceptance and where does one become the other?
This week I have also become aware of a HO who has advised/enforced/ suggested that lady in her 90's should have escape windows in her flat. The warden said he was wrong because she would kill herself using it. His response was you will also need to provide a chute!!
If the FSO gives the RP advice taken from a BS/Government Guide or other published relevant guide where is the harm. The only rider I put on it is "this is one solution others may also be acceptable" generally I try to give the least expensive option.
Finally, would you as. BCO when you see over-provision i.e. An L2 fire warning system specified when an L5 will do do you ask why or accept?
-
Golden
The info on the tyre case would be appreciated
Ta
-
I've found it! The case was BT Fleet vs McKenna (HSE) where a notice was issued following an accident regarding the manual lifting of tyres where the HSE inspector issued a notice requiring a machine to lift the tyres; although the the HSE accepted before the ET that it was not reasonable to direct that BT provide mechanical lifting aids. The ET nevertheless affirmed the notice with a modification referring to provision of training and supervision as an alternative to mechanical aids. I believe the issue was with the notice and that BT asserted that it could only be interpreted and satisfied in one way - i.e. the provision of a mechanical lift - and if none was provided then BT would be breaching the general duties of the HSWA. BT appealed and won - the court decided that this went beyond what was required to comply with the MH regulations under H + S. There are some articles about this on the interweb.
The FS and H + S law course that I recently attended implied that the same provisions apply to the RRO in that if an inspecting officer served a notice dictating what the RP had to do to comply and other methods were available the notice could also be challenged as being beyond what was reasonable to comply. My opinion is that the old ways of discussion and agreement were beneficial to both parties but obviously sometimes there is a failure to agree which is when it gets a bit difficult. I see some similarities between this case and the smoke seals on hotel doors determination.
-
All this confirms my view that - enforcement officers need to be profesional, know what they are talking about and understand where to draw the line on advice etc.
Many don't quite fit the bill. Many do.
-
Whilst agreeing with most here, why didn't the tyre company communicate the alternative in writing?
Most of the HSE inspectors I have dealt with will listen, this should be the same with the FRS chaps
davo
-
Whilst agreeing with most here, why didn't the tyre company communicate the alternative in writing?
Most of the HSE inspectors I have dealt with will listen, this should be the same with the FRS chaps
davo
Thats correct. Enforcers will follow benchmark guidance, but if the RP can think of another way that will achieve either an equivalent or better level of safety the enforcers should (read as must) accept it.
-
My gripe is the IO who likes to express his views to a client which may include matters raised in a fire risk assessment without advising them to discuss the matter with their consultant before taking any action.
What is left is a client questioning an adequate assessment solely based upon an opinion by an IO who in my experience tends to 'code hug'.
I cannot see the situation improving until enforcing authorities:
a. Improve staff awareness and training in applying what is 'reasonable'
b. Ensure FS staff remain in place long enough to gain sufficient experience in the role.
c. Acknowledge consultants and TALK to them.
-
I cannot see the situation improving until enforcing authorities:
a. Improve staff awareness and training in applying what is 'reasonable'
b. Ensure FS staff remain in place long enough to gain sufficient experience in the role.
c. Acknowledge consultants and TALK to them.
I acknowledge what you are saying Steve but let me answer your three points -
a. Look at the threads on here much discussion takes place what is reasonable. Put two fire safety consultants or inspecting officers in a room you will have difference of opinions. They will all think they are being reasonable.
a. I agree it takes time, but how long does it take. My typical week will involve some operational commitment. Maintaining operational competency. Budgets are tight and will get tighter. With the cut backs we will experience in the next 5 years, if we made every non operational position redundant we would still run out of money.
c. Why would any IO not want to talk and acknowledge a consultant. You clearly have had some bad experiences. Happy to talk and listen to the views of any consultant.
-
I cannot see the situation improving until enforcing authorities:
a. Improve staff awareness and training in applying what is 'reasonable'
b. Ensure FS staff remain in place long enough to gain sufficient experience in the role.
c. Acknowledge consultants and TALK to them.
The only thing I'd say about that is:-
a. Depends on how the assessment is laid out and how much info is given / salient points are easy to find without ploughing through lots and lots of pages
b. Fair point
c. Sometimes RP doesn't invite their consultants to audits / meetings with IO - first IO knows a consultant is involved is during the audit. Is it up to the IO to talk to the consultant? Depends. Is the RP still engaging with that particular consultant? Should RP be liaising with consultant who can then contact IO if there are an contencious issues following audit ?
-
My comments are based upon my previous experience as an IO and now as a consultant for the last 13 years.
My two responders are clearly the type of IO that consultants would be happy to work with.
I would also point out that I have a very good relationship with the majority of IO,s I come into contact with. It is just that more often than not the IO cuts the consultant out in his/her conversation with the client.
In a number of cases this has lead to the client questioning a RA and on occasions spending time and money on work that in my opinion pays scant attention to the risk.
On my next visit I am confronted by an upset client who has spent time and money on work that if contested the FA would not REQUIRE .
Why is is that clients still think that they MUST do everything that the the IO says.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that I have moved on but perhaps some fire authorities have not. It is perhaps not what they say but what they don't say.
-
Fair comment Steve and I take your point - and certainly if I'm aware a consultant is involved I suggest to the RP that they are included / invited along to any audits of meeting (some RPs say they won't pay for consultant to attend )
I must admit if the RP can't / won't get their appointed consultant to site I recommend they discuss what I have said with their consult, and that their consultant is more than welcome to contact me to discuss further. I won't necessarily contact the consultant on behalf of their client and repeat what I have said, as I feel its not my place to do so, however I do make it clear I am happy to discuss anything further.
For any I/O to cut out a consultant either during a face-to-face meeting or from a distance, so to speak, is totally unprofessional and it's dissapointing because we are all supposed to be on the same side to achieve the same - to protect people and property from fire at the end of the day.
I've always found that when you work with people rather than against them you get favourable results.
-
Retters, you will get nowhere in the modern fire service with all this namby pamby be nice and reasonable and talk to people rubbish. Kick the doors in Retters and drag the innocent out and flog them. They are bound to have done something wrong, even if its only lying when they claim their innocence. Unless you go to work for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but then they would not understand your accent. No no no, there is no hope for you I'm afraid Retters.
-
Kick the doors in Retters and drag the innocent out and flog them. They are bound to have done something wrong, even if its only lying when they claim their innocence.
A few things in response to your comments Lord Col
Firstly I do the beshht Shhhean Connery impreshion this shide of Hadrian's Wall, so no issues over the language barrier chummy, secondly my grandad was Scottish - so just like with football I'm sure I could easily transfer and go and work for our Scottish brothers. Thirdly your depiction of fire officers kicking down doors is innacurate - you are confusing us with Trading Standards, unless there is a fire of course, in which case we use a "Birmingham key" to access buildings, not our boots.
-
And just for good measure kick in the neighbour's door first by mistake just to get the message across of what can happen when they get the address right. Nothing like a dose of shock and awe to focus the mind.
Think they might take me back Dotty now that I'm a cranky pensioner type?
-
Retters, I didnt know you were American! They are usually the only people who crave to find Scottish ancestry.
AlmostHere, You will not be going back, but as summer approaches ( I can tell because the water level next to the vlillage bridge is only 6 feet above pavement level) you could get a job on the Parades Commission. With you on the job it will be 1969 all over again.
-
Retters, I didnt know you were American! They are usually the only people who crave to find Scottish ancestry.
AlmostHere, You will not be going back, but as summer approaches ( I can tell because the water level next to the vlillage bridge is only 6 feet above pavement level) you could get a job on the Parades Commission. With you on the job it will be 1969 all over again.
I'm sure you meant to say 1966 Dot as the year the troubles started. By 1969 a lot had happened but that could be regarded as the year when the "troubles" started proper with bombs.
But I suppose you could also say the troubles started in 1690 with the Battle of the Boyne.
Gosh, how far back in history should one not go?
-
Is there something special with the 9 and 6?
-
Retters, I didnt know you were American! They are usually the only people who crave to find Scottish ancestry.
AlmostHere, You will not be going back, but as summer approaches ( I can tell because the water level next to the vlillage bridge is only 6 feet above pavement level) you could get a job on the Parades Commission. With you on the job it will be 1969 all over again.
I'm sure you meant to say 1966 Dot as the year the troubles started. By 1969 a lot had happened but that could be regarded as the year when the "troubles" started proper with bombs.
But I suppose you could also say the troubles started in 1690 with the Battle of the Boyne.
Gosh, how far back in history should one not go?
Know something? Never noticed that before. Creepy.
-
Almost, I always regard 1969 as the big kick off. Though of course you could equally say it was 1972 (bloody sunday). Anyhow any thoughts about your new role on the parades commission.
-
Almost, I always regard 1969 as the big kick off. Though of course you could equally say it was 1972 (bloody sunday). Anyhow any thoughts about your new role on the parades commission.
Yes Dot. Going to make them compulsory every Sunday. One unequivocal condition is they must all end with a leap off the cliffs at the Giants Causeway. Might exclude primary school fancy dress walks around the town at Halloween. Yes, they also come under the remit of the Parades Commission.
-
What about the wee kiddies who walked up/down to/from the Ardoyne?
-
What about the wee kiddies who walked up/down to/from the Ardoyne?
Well no Dot. For humanitarian purposes I would have to exclude those non political type parades.
-
Yup, suffer the little children, Almost, suffer the little children------- unless JC qualified that by reference to the foot with which they kicked. Not sure, as I dont have a HB to hand, being an agnostic jewish catholic wee free church of scotland. (As a dyslexic -you can probably tell from my posts-hope that covers all bases, just in case there is a dog.)
-
So what's on your bucket list Dot?
-
Almost, the list is endless. Grade 8 drums would have to be top of the list, with enforcement taken away from the English FRS as a close second.
-
Grade 8 drums?
-
Reaching and passing grade 8. I have passed grade 5 and am currently studying grade 6
-
Well, we all now know that when Colin's banging his own drum he's qualified to do it!
-
For some reason Animal from the Muppets springs to mind.....
-
When the fire officer is wrong.....
When he informs vunerable residents that a disablement on a fire alarm panel in their residence means the fire alarm no longer works....
Muppets.