FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: JT on October 16, 2015, 09:44:28 PM
-
Inspecting Officers always get criticised for inconsistent enforcement and lack of competency/training.
Today I've received several FRA's of the same premises, from "decent" fire safety companies as part of a trial for tender.
The action points/significant findings/tasks (I think there was a few other terms), were all different.
How can one simple premises throw up so much variation in outcomes.
We had the fd30s everywhere, to the tick box everything was OK, and one that couldn't make a decision on the fire resistance of a door or ceiling so asked for a competent person to check!!
Is this an industry thing of tick boxes, cover yourself and poor quality FRA's?
-
I've done a similar exercise as part of a primary authority partnership. I had the same results I'm afraid. Lots of tick boxes and no judgement.
I've had a company insist that the office corridor walls should be extended to full ceiling height, whilst another stated that the false ceiling was FR. The corridor had two way travel so neither is correct.
In another building they insisted that the mains electricity hadn't been tested, if they had asked they would have been shown the certificate. In one building I happened to be there when the assessor was there, he never took any notes relied on memory. I checked the signing in book at a large premises the assessor was there for less than 2 hours.
-
I've seen the 3 or 4 FRA a day companies with their apps!! Rush around and spend no time engaging with the RP.
I suppose even as a client, I'll have to put a training course together for the competent risk assessors!!
-
Apparently 'some experts' say that if you give monkeys enough paper, pens and time, they will eventually write the works of someone called Shakespeare!
-
This problem has been discussed at length on this forum particularly over accreditation of assessors.
The issue originated with the aims of the government would thought fire safety was the same as health and safety and that following that pattern anyone could assess it. Hence there are a large number of organisations and individuals set up claiming to carry out FRAs which include a number of health and safety companies that just expanded into the market.
The next part of the issue is price, if you have an assessor spend the day with you it will cost more than an assessor who just stays for 2 hours. If an assessor stays on site for a day and then spends a day writing the report up he will make less money than an assessor who rolls up with a tick box app and goes off to do six more jobs over the same time it takes the first assessor to do the full job. The second assessor can charge half the price of the first assessor and still make more money. Guess who the finance guys will go to.
As for the course to create competent assessors join the gang everyone is doing them.
-
This problem has been discussed at length on this forum particularly over accreditation of assessors.
The issue originated with the aims of the government would thought fire safety was the same as health and safety and that following that pattern anyone could assess it. Hence there are a large number of organisations and individuals set up claiming to carry out FRAs which include a number of health and safety companies that just expanded into the market.
The next part of the issue is price, if you have an assessor spend the day with you it will cost more than an assessor who just stays for 2 hours. If an assessor stays on site for a day and then spends a day writing the report up he will make less money than an assessor who rolls up with a tick box app and goes off to do six more jobs over the same time it takes the first assessor to do the full job. The second assessor can charge half the price of the first assessor and still make more money. Guess who the finance guys will go to.
As for the course to create competent assessors join the gang everyone is doing them.
I understand the economics of it but my guy isn't charging ?150 or two hours, more like ?700.
-
This problem has been discussed at length on this forum particularly over accreditation of assessors.
The issue originated with the aims of the government would thought fire safety was the same as health and safety and that following that pattern anyone could assess it. Hence there are a large number of organisations and individuals set up claiming to carry out FRAs which include a number of health and safety companies that just expanded into the market.
The next part of the issue is price, if you have an assessor spend the day with you it will cost more than an assessor who just stays for 2 hours. If an assessor stays on site for a day and then spends a day writing the report up he will make less money than an assessor who rolls up with a tick box app and goes off to do six more jobs over the same time it takes the first assessor to do the full job. The second assessor can charge half the price of the first assessor and still make more money. Guess who the finance guys will go to.
As for the course to create competent assessors join the gang everyone is doing them.
Actions such as this are cheapening the industry.
Its really frustrating to provide any decent quote, when companies will do it for half. Still, you get what you pay for! (most of the time).
-
Absolutely - I've had to help a client who was being stung for tens of thousands of pounds of work on properties he was selling as the buyers maintenance and risk assessment provider had blindly applied the latest codes and standards willy nilly (& quoted to do the works), when many of the items could either be mitigated, phased in, or saved for redevelopment if a decent reasoned assessment was made. Some stuff did indeed need more immediate attention, but by no means everything!
The company has no TPA for any service (yet criticised the competency of the sellers contractor who does & was carrying out a suitable job) and the risk assessor had only done one of the very short FRA courses.
-
and the risk assessor had only done one of the very short FRA courses.
Clearly sufficient to be let loose on the world as an expert then.
-
Actions such as this are cheapening the industry.
Its really frustrating to provide any decent quote, when companies will do it for half. Still, you get what you pay for! (most of the time).
Welcome to my world .... lack of regulation in the industry since the burning bush has allowed electricians, security firms, fire extinguisher companies, plumbers, Tom Cobley and his philharmonic orchestra to undercut / under value / de-rate the design, installation and servicing of FDAs ..... and some even go on to be consultants !! ;D
-
Actions such as this are cheapening the industry.
Its really frustrating to provide any decent quote, when companies will do it for half. Still, you get what you pay for! (most of the time).
Welcome to my world .... lack of regulation in the industry since the burning bush has allowed electricians, security firms, fire extinguisher companies, plumbers, Tom Cobley and his philharmonic orchestra to undercut / under value / de-rate the design, installation and servicing of FDAs ..... and some even go on to be consultants !! ;D
I called a company today as the fra didn't appear to be suitable & sufficient. They answered the phone "asbestos consultants".
-
I did a risk assessment of a large sports centre a while ago as part of a contract. I was there for a whole day then returned next day in 'dirty' clothes and ladders to start inspection above fire doors to look at the fire stopping etc, so including travel etc nearly two days on site and about a day to put it all together with all the pics etc. Apparently the bloke they had the year before was there for one and a half hours!! Also I recently lost out on a job for a tenant within a building that I look after for the management company and have been doing so for a number of years, so I know the building inside out. My quote was too high even though it was nearly at my bottom price. I recently was sent a copy of the assessment, all tick boxes and a lot of the info of the building in the assessment was incorrect.
-
Actions such as this are cheapening the industry.
Its really frustrating to provide any decent quote, when companies will do it for half. Still, you get what you pay for! (most of the time).
Welcome to my world .... lack of regulation in the industry since the burning bush has allowed electricians, security firms, fire extinguisher companies, plumbers, Tom Cobley and his philharmonic orchestra to undercut / under value / de-rate the design, installation and servicing of FDAs ..... and some even go on to be consultants !! ;D
I called a company today as the fra didn't appear to be suitable & sufficient. They answered the phone "asbestos consultants".
I remember reading one tenant's FRA that was not s&s and full of (major) errors about what was provided, let alone needed - they were Employment Law specialists.
Another recent one was from an extinguisher firm and was effectively 2 pages, the main FRA bit being an audit check list of the sort that an RP would use to carry out for a routine check of their workplace....
Like with the extinguisher trade where everyone now get's involved resulting in some very low prices and standards, the FRA trade is the same these days, in some cases I've seen RP's who have sat down with the DCLG FRA Guide (or even the entry level booklet) and produce a far more s&s FRA than the ones other RP's have paid a lot of money for!
-
We all have examples of being undercut by less competent people, and of seeing FRA reports that are clearly not suitable and sufficient. And while I would point a finger at Governments refusal to regulate the industry in anyway, we are to some degree our own worst enemies.
Basic fire risk assessment does not include climbing through voids, lofts, and above ceilings. It is restricted to that which can be seen and observed, primarily without the use of tools and access equipment. If there is a need, or a desire, to go further, then we need to start looking at intrusive surveys. But intrusive surveys are a specialist job involving; ladders, scaffolds, task lights, endoscopes, the removal of electrical fittings, grills, wall panels and floor boards and the like in order to appraise the construction techniques and materials.
Therefore, in addition to setting out very clear competency requirements for Fire Risk Assessors, in my opinion, we should also set out very clear scopes of work, method statements and descriptions of the final out puts. At least that way the RP can see what they are getting for their money and where the additional costs arise.
-
I've done some work this week for a company who are just changing from one company to another for their assessments, due to a misunderstanding both companies have carried out an assessment of the same building.
One identifies a disabled employee, the other one doesn't
One identifies the AOV in the stairs, doesn't ask about maintenance, the other doesn't mention it.
One gives dates for PAT, periodic test of the main electricity and gas, the other says the info wasn't available.
One says escape lighting isn't adequate one says it's ok.
The list could go on, but you get my point. The situation is worrying, the company pays good money and expect to get good advice.
Is the answer regulated risk assessment? No - That doesn't fit within the Governments agenda of reducing burden on businesses.
But we all know that there is inconsistent risk assessments and inconsistent enforcement.
-
A recent question from Joe Public,
Hi there, I wonder if you could help me. I live in a purpose built block of 10 flats, 6 of which share the same door and stairwell. I arranged a fire risk assessment for the communal area by a recommended company but as soon as the guy arrived he didn't know why he was here! He explained it's very unusual to get them done in blocks of flats it's mainly for office blocks and schools etc.
He did the assessment anyway but recommended we don't need it again! A quick Internet search tells me otherwise and I'm now very confused!!
-
Assuming the premises are in England / Wales you should advise Joe to appoint a competent assessor next time. I would look very carefully at the findings and / or ask for my money back.
-
I wouldn't even attempt to defend risk assessors missing aspects of the built or installed fire safety systems. That is clearly lack of attention to detail. But missing information on any aspect of the soft systems that are in place is a different matter. Much of this information has to be provided by someone on site. Lots of buildings that are under the control of a managing agent, don't have anyone on site. Where there are people on site then their understanding and knowledge of the managed systems and arrangements is what the Assessor has to base their report on. Surely, if the assessor was unable to obtain evidence of training, maintenance, servicing, and procedures, then so long as significant findings and an appropriate actions were recorded, then the FRA is suitable and sufficient. Isn't it?
-
Should be - I give up to a months notice of what I need to see, both physically and on paper, by including a check list when booking the site visit so that even if unstaffed the agent has time to get the information and access arranged.
If they don't then it gets noted as significant finding and/or limitation, e.g. no fire alarm servicing or testing info = action to carry it out as no evidence of a system of Maintenance under Art.17 was available at the time of visit, usually accompanied with a recommendation to operate a system where evidence of maintenance can be collated, with the advent of e-logbooks it shouldn't be difficult even on unstaffed sites with nowhere for a paper log book.
-
Just to pick up on Ruby's point about some info not being available. In my post I mentioned that one assessor gave dates of mains electricity periodic test one said not known. The one who gave the date also inserted a photograph of the mains board showing a label with the date on.
Ruby you are also right when you say that the missing information doesn't make the assessment not suitable ans sufficient the action plan does state that the company should ensure that it is maintained in accordance with........
But they both met the same person on site. I think my main point is some people need to try harder.
-
Cardiff
Don't get to hung up on how a company answers the phone, I know of at least two that undertake both fire and asbestos surveys. One company has 95% of their fire risk assessors on the IFE register and the company is BAFE accredited. The two assessments never mix.
-
A recent question from Joe Public,
Hi there, I wonder if you could help me. I live in a purpose built block of 10 flats, 6 of which share the same door and stairwell. I arranged a fire risk assessment for the communal area by a recommended company but as soon as the guy arrived he didn't know why he was here! He explained it's very unusual to get them done in blocks of flats it's mainly for office blocks and schools etc.
He did the assessment anyway but recommended we don't need it again! A quick Internet search tells me otherwise and I'm now very confused!!
Perhaps the Fire Risk Assessor in question was trying to explain that it is only a requirement of the FSO (Article 11(2)(c)) to record significant findings if the responsible person employs 5 or more employees, a licence is in force in relation to the premises, or an Alterations Notice requires it. He might have considered some fire risk assessors unscrupulous for wanting to take money for doing unnecessary written FRAs each year every year. #justsaying
-
Well it looks like he failed in basic communication skills if thats the case! ;)
-
Cardiff
Don't get to hung up on how a company answers the phone, I know of at least two that undertake both fire and asbestos surveys. One company has 95% of their fire risk assessors on the IFE register and the company is BAFE accredited. The two assessments never mix.
They can answer the phone however they like - but the fra was awful.
I havent personally seen a jack of all provide a suitable fra yet.