FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jasper on October 25, 2005, 06:40:35 PM
-
Hello all, I have a question for you all -
Does anyone know who will be providing training for serving fire safety officers in the correct format of assessments they inspect to comply with the RRO?
The area I am mainly talking about is the north-west of England as I have heard (or probably misheard) the Mr Todd will be making an appearance and providing instruction.
If it is you Colin, will you be insructing them on the fomat outlined in PAS79?
The reason I ask is because a coleage of mine has been told to rewrite 50 fra's of public houses due to there not being a clear 'description of each escape route'
I have attempted this today on a town hall building and the description ammounted to 1500 words.
This obviously takes more time when undertaking a fra and will incurr more costs to the client - is this right?
-
There is no correct format for FRAs. Even Colin accepts that PAS79 is only one possible approach.
Describing each escape route sounds like a waste of time to me.
-
Jasper, You are opening a whole big can of worms, as this is a well known chestnut. There will no doubt be contention over what I am about to write, but here goes anyway:
1. Officers of FRSs have received, are receiving and will receive training from various sources. Many now receive training from consultants. This includes not just ourselves but several other consultancy orgainzations, most, or probably all, of whom are just as competent to provide the training as we are. Happily, most of us, I think, sing from a similar hymn sheet. The others are simply not as young and good looking as me.
2. There is NO such thing as a ''correct'' format. This is the view of the ODPM, and more or less universal view of all professionals in the business. PAS 79 also makes this clear (I hope).
3. PAS 79 is based on the course we have run for some years, and not the other way round. We use the example format in PAS 79 as an EXAMPLE of a suitable format for the WFPL, stressing that there are many other equally suitable formats.
4. This issue of description is contentious, and usually stems from the Management Regs requirement to record the preventive and protective measures. There are those who think that game set and match this means describe them in detail. It does not. In fact, the requirement does not take you down the road any further at all in terms of definitive requirements. If you record that there is adequate emergency escape lighting, you are recording a protective measure. Look at it this way. The Regulations in question come from H&S Directives. If you record in a H&S RA that there is a suitable number of first aid boxes throughout the building is that not a record of a protective measure? Where does it say you need to write a 1500 word essay on where they are and how many Band Aids they contain? There was an ADO in legislative fire safety in a large met brigade (No Not yours messey, this time) who insisted that this meant that the significant findings included a schedule of each and every FRSC door in the premises. None of the inspecting officers in the FRS seemed to take a blind bit of notice of this, but he was permitted to tell employers this until he retired, when his boss then cheerfully admitted that it was never the case.
5 Carrying out an FRA saves lives. Writing beautifully scripted essays does not.
6. Be careful in terms of pubs as they need a plan showing fire precautions for licensing applications.
Hope this helps.
-
Brian, I was not ignoring your post, but I started typing mine before you posted yours, so didnt see it until I pressed the submit button!!! Seems as usual we agree in any case.
-
I agree that it comes down to which definition of suitable & sufficient and significant findings you choose to adopt.
Surely detail should be proportional to the risk, i.e the the more complex the building/process more detail is required.
I believe the significant findings should include a record of the preventitive & protective measures...I also believe that in complex buildings the best way of doing so is by use of a plan. I know Mr Todd disagrees.
What does concern me is that some FRS are training IOs soley within the framework of PAS79. I think inspecting officers need to know about the diversity of methods out there and how to audit them.
Many methods are pure tick box types and I do not think they are suitable and sufficient. Means of escape satisfactory-tick!!!!...what does that mean?
PAS79 templates are based on tick box but have space for commentry which is I believe necessary but sometimes not sufficiently completed. I also question whether PAS79 demonstrates due process....i.e. reasoning to support conclusions particularly if little commentry is provided....but lets remember proportionality.
What I believe is most important is that the assessor is competent to assess the building...unfortunately in many cases he/she clearly is not.
Jasper to answer your original question many FRS are sending their inspecting officers on courses run in house or at other training establishments. So there is no national recognised methodology or framework that will be used.
-
PAS 79 is not prescriptive. Youc an use any template you fancy, or indeed not use a template at all.
-
I never said it was prescriptive Colin, if your templates are used by competent persons they may be suitable & sufficient.
I just do not understand why some SFSO's want to train their IOs in only one framework when there are many out there.
-
Phil,
I don't disagree with anything said on this thread, but in answer to your last question...time and cost. Oh and most CFO's don't know we exist.
I could provide training for FSO's almost every day on some technical matter but ultimately they have to do some 'imperfect' inspecting.
-
Yes Val I appreciate time and cost that is my point. As funds are limited SFSOs should send IOs on a course that develops delegates ability to audit a variety of templates, methodologies & frameworks. Not just PAS79.
I can supply details of such a course that many SFSOs use again & again.
-
It just seem to me that it would be easier for all parties if there were a few prescriptive 'this must be included in a fra for it to be acceptable', as personally I have written my company fra template which took me 3 weeks in total reading closely the regulation itself and trying to incorporate all requirements.(the fpo was happy with the assessment format with the exception of 'not enough detail on describing the moe and description of the building)
The thing is the friend of mine (glad it's not me) has been told to re-write 50 assesments which is about 2 months work without pay, the client won't pay untill the fire officer is happy with the assessments, which to me is like blackmail 'do it my way or don't get paid'
Has he a leg to stand on in court over this? as he has asked the fire officer for an example of he want, but the resonse was that he dosent have it.
p.s. I have nothing against fpo's,I think they do a great job, but this guy appears to want to make a name for himself.
-
Ultimately it is unimportant if a given training course chooses to use a particular risk assessment method as a framework for training providing that over methods are acknowledged and the essential elements of the process identified.
Albeit a matter of contention, the risk assessment need only record the significant findings. However this probably misses the point as the RA will represent only one element of complying with the RRO. Regardless of what emerges from the RA there will be a requirement for the responsible person to manage fire safety at the premises. This will be difficult if there is not some understanding of how the fire safety "system" is meant to work at that premises. Prudent that this is recorded somewhere for the puposes of due dilligence - recall under the Order the burden of proof is on the responsible person to prove compliance!
-
Jasper ACOP to management regs clearly explains what should be included. It explains what suitable & sufficient means and explains that significant findings are:
1) A record of the preventitive & protective measures
2) An action plan for remedial work.
3) Proof of due process
The problem is that many people are unaware of or choose to ignore this guidance.
-
Yup, courses should not just teach a particualr mthodology for recording fire risk assessments. Thats why PAS 79 is a useful benchmark , as it has no particualr methodology associatred with it. I can provide details of such a course that many SFSO use again and again and again and again.
-
Yes I'm sure you're right Colin. Delegates who attend your course will be competent to carry out FRAs carried out to framework promoted by PAS79. That's good for many out there but not much good for FRS IOs whose role is to enforce legislation and audit premises and RAs.
If those RA's fit with pas 79 then SFSOs have spent wisely....but what if RA they audit is to another framework??
-
Oh Phillip, PHillip, how many times do I have to tell you. you can audit anything against PAS 79. Virtually any suitable and sufficient FRA will comply with PAS 79. It was written to be so. It is the benchmark that the IOs are looking for. And most SFSOs seem to think they have spent wisely as they nearly always come back for more. Some even act as references for us, having spent their money wisely trying different courses to see which suits their IOs the best.
-
Collin Collin your course concentrates on PAS79 only can we agree on that?
My humble point is that FRS IOs need to see the wider picture.
-
When the new legislation comes into force and if I was an enforcement officer would I need to conduct a full FRA and compare it against the one produced by the responsible person to ensure the standards meet the current guidance and legislation?
-
No of course not, but to carry out your role you need to know what constitues a suitable & sufficient risk assessment and how to audit it.
So I think IOs should attend a course that looks at a variety of risk assessments rather than just one framework.
-
Phil I do not have a roll just an interested onlooker. Surely one national framework instead of a variety of risk assessments formats would be far less complicated.
-
Yes I agree, I just don't agree that PAS79 is the answer. There are better frameworks out there. Perhaps ODPM should have provided a national framework to aid consistency but they didn't.
You can appreciate why Mr Toddd saw a gap in the market and produced PAS79.
-
I have no knowledge of PAS79 and at a £100 a time I will not be finding out. It is a pity pressure is not being applied to the ODPM by FRS,s and other fire safety profesionals even if they use PAS79 and modify it to meet all critics.
-
Well TW I personally think you are right to save your money..£100 to use a template!!!! I will provide you (and any one else who needs one) with a template free of charge. It has been audited time and time again by competent persons and it has been deemed to provide a suitable and sufficient assessment in line with ACOP for MHSW Regs...contact me for further details.
Alternatively join Colllins fan club.......and hang the expense! Unfortunately the use of my template will not get you on the IFE register of approved risk assessors...to do that you have to submit risk assessments for approval by a panel......spookily enough Mr Todd is on that panel...and they only recognise one framework....PAS79.....no conflict of interest there obviously...hey ho!!
-
PhilB,
As one who has also been lamenting the failure of Government to provide an adequate description of what a fire risk assessment should look like, I should be most intertested to see your free template.
Is it time for the Home Office and the HSE to revise or issue a supplement to 'Fire Safety: An Employers Guide' with reference to the RRO and an example assessment template?
-
No problem Ken send me an e-mail and I will reply with attachments. What may be of more use to FRS IOs is a template for auditing risk assessments. I can supply one of these too if required.
Yes I think new guidance on RA is needed, I know the proposed new guides go into risk assessment, but I think a nationally acceptable template should be made available to assist responsible persons and enforcing authorities.
-
Phil I have no wish to be on any register I hung up my clip board many moons ago. I am familiar with most fire safety matters except fire risk assessment which was being introduced as I bowed out and I would like an understanding of the subject for my website.
It looks like the government is making a hash of it as they did in my day.
I will email you for those formats .
-
No, Phillip, you still have it the wrong way round. The course is generic and it came first. PAS 79 came later , and is based on the course notes. Its approach was subject to comment by CFOA and many other interested parties, knowledgable on fire risk assessment. It is not a template, as you well know, so why mislead people? It is an approach to carrying out a fire risk assessment. The template given is an example of one that is suitable. It is not even a recomendation that the example be used. If you take the trouble to read it properly you will find that the template is not even part of the recommendations of PAS 79, as it is in an informative annex. Further inaccuracies, not uncommon in your postings on this subject, include the fact that I did not recognize a gap in the market, and to the extent there was one, it would suit consultants very nicely if you think about it. Others recognized it and asked us to write the PAS, which we were prepared to do to assist the fire safety community. Next inaccurate information promulgated by you is that to get on the IFE Register you have to do FRAs in accordance with PAS 79. Ask all the people on the register, few of whom have used PAS 79. If someone's template cannot be used by people applying to go on the Register, it can only be because it is a useless template. I not only serve on the ''Panel'' , but have just been appointed to chair the Professional Group (to give it its correect title). If you want to send me a congratulations card, the address is on our website. Could I suggest you withdraw the conflict of interest allegation and the incorrect alleagtion in relation to the Professional Group's requirements re PAS 79 to save me the trouble of passing your scurrilous allegations on to the IFE.
-
No scurrilous allegations Collin and my I suggest you use a spell checker for the rest of your post.
I have made no false defamatory comments. Unlike you previously have. Answer me these questions please
1) How many risk assessments completed to the PAS 79 format would someone have to submit to get on IFE Register?
2) How many if they used another suitable framework?
3) Would you be part of that decision making process?
4) Do you profit personally from everyone who choses to use PAS 79 as their framework?
Over to you Mr Todd...Oh and so nice to know you produced PAS79 to assist the fire community...very noble...like me then you will be offering copies of your framework free to all.
-
1. and 2. The answer is the same, regardless. (I will use spell checker when you learn to spell the word licence (the noun) as opposed to license (the verb) -see your other posts.) The format used for a template has no bearing whatsoever on the number of examples required. So if you are trying to make a point of some sort, a) I cannot imagine for the life of me what the point is, and b) you have yet another hole in your foot.
3. I am not clear as to the decision process you are talking about. If you mean the decision process as to whether someone is registered or not, the decision is taken by a randomly selected group of 3 people from the Group (some of which are your good friends the SFSOs, or similar, about whom you have made your views entirely clear in the past). The membership of the Group has been widely publicised. Sometimes I am selected to be one of the 3, sometimes I am not, in which case I would have no part in the decision making process.
4. No I dont. What a curious question.
Yes, the framework is indeed free to all who purchase PAS 79, thereby paying BSI, much as one would for any publication. Moreover, the inspecting officers of one fire authority like the EXAMPLE template so much that they want to issue it free to all employers within the area of their F&RS. Ourselves and BSI have just given them written permission to do so.
Anthing else you want to know Phillip. Always pleased to advise representatives of other training organizations who so clearly need advice and clarification of so many matters. No charge to you at all.
-
Collin
Now you are misleading people...but I will not labour the point. Yes your template is free...to all who spend £100.....nice one! I cannot of course comment on the FRS who have recently adopted your template.....many have adopted mine...who knows who's right?
-
Notice you didnt have much to say about the other points, Phillip. I will not labour the point. I think it is clear to you that they were non -points.
-
Oh I have Collin but you never listen...let others decide ..ok?
-
Delighted old chap. Always pleased to be of assistance to you, Phillip.
-
I hate to do this but I have to side with Colin I have done this course and PAS 79 is hardly mentioned he does not try to sell it or even say its the only way just a way.
-
Does he show you how to audit other frameworks & methodologies..if so great..but I have been told different, but unlike Colllin I could be wrong!
-
yes but not every type because that would be impossible
-
No it's not!!!!!! and that is what FRS IOs need.....please SFSOs take note! Their inspectors need to be able to determine what constitutes a suitable & sufficient risk assessment...spend wisely!
My open offer to all to supply a template and method of auditing free of charge still stands.
-
Can I have one please. Address as per the website.
-
Sorry Colin, only for competent persons. I must point out that I have nothing personally against PAS79. There was no lead from ODPM and a massive need for some direction. For responsible persons and consultants it may be suitable. For FRS IOs I think PAS79 is of limited use, unless of course Collllin the whole planet choose to use your framework.....but I somehow doubt that.
-
Phil thanks for the RA format and check list and I could see myself conducting an audit using them. I have another one produced by an online fire safety journal which I have some doubts about. So back to my previous point the ODPM should produce a National Format which could be modified if cracks appear and everybody would be singing from the same hymn sheet.
A further point has come to mind, is an enforcing officer auditing a document or the building. If some time later the enforcing officer is before a judge and people have lost their lives. If he asked "was that building safe when you had finished your inspection" can he say yes?
-
I believe both, sometimes the document alone may be audited to see that it contains all the relevant info and appears suitable & sufficient, but the only real way to check compliance is to visit the premises. How far to dig when inspecting will be down to FRS policies.
As for things going wrong later when they have left building...in my opinion there is no longer a problem as responsibility lies with responsible person not the enforcing authority.
Ios could say that the parts of premises audied at the time of inspection appeared satisfactory..but they may not have looked at all of the premises and there is no legal requirement to do so.
Consider a policeman stopping your vehicle and pointing out a defcetive brake light, you promise to get it fixed and drive off. Around the corner you plough into a bus stop killing ten people because you also have defective steering & brakes. Would Mr Plod be held responsible because he didn't check all safety matters when he stopped you..I think not.
-
The advantage of pas 79 IS That a client knows what he is paying for.
I can ask some consultant to do me an FRA and have no idea what I will get for my money.
If I ask for a PAS 79 FRA I Know what I am getting and I also know that CFOA were happy with the approach it uses.
-
CFOA also believe significant findings are defects only...according to the draft audit guidance. "The record should include all the identified significant findings and the measures taken to deal with them." so don't put too much reliance on CFOA Wee Brian.
-
Wee B,
If you asked me to carry out a FRA I would provide example work. So you do know what you are getting.
Anyone who does not know what they are getting before they buy basically deserves what they get in my opinion!!
P
-
I rely on CFOA Philip. And like it or not, you will have to as well, until a Judge tells them they were wrong.
-
unless of course Collllin the whole planet choose to use your framework.....but I somehow doubt that.
The document is BSi's, not Colin's.
-
My open offer to all to supply a template and method of auditing free of charge still stands.
I'll accept your offer.
Much appreciated.
-
Thank you Christopher. Maybe he will listen to you.
-
I have spoken to Colllin today and he has cleared things up for me... I wrongly suggested that to get on IFE register templates submitted according to PAS79 would provide a quicker route to approval.
In fact in order to be approved by IFE quickly....you have to attend and pass an approved course....there is only one approved course...and guess whose it is....answers on a postage stamp!
But as my now dear friend Collin explained that is not his fault and in the future other course may be approved.
To be fair IFE website explains all...I don't think Mr Todddd and I will ever agree but if I mislead anyone I apologise.
Hugs and kisses Collllin xxx
-
Close Phillllip, definitely close. But to add to the detail (as I am sure as my new friend you will not mind me doing), it is true that our excellent course on fire risk assessment was approved by the IFE and listed on their website as such for several years, having been observed in its entirety by two members of the IFE, representing their education committee, long before the Register was even conceived. And as I explained, there is not ''may'' about approval of other courses. One is about to be approved, and there are applications from others, who have EXAMINABLE courses. As I glad to see you correctly pointed out, all the relevant info is on the website ( and a new super dooper website is soon to go live). And as I also mentioned, most people applying to be registered have not done an approved course, but had no difficulty being registered. For those who have been carrying out fire risk assessments for some time (or auditing them as an I/O), the approved course probably does not get them there any faster. But if their experience is less, the approved course provides a fast tracking, as it counts, in effect, as 3 months experience. Can I have my copy of your template now, so that I can, as your new friend, advise you as to whether it is any good (and, as a special favour, tell you if it complies with PAS 79).
-
damn, an argument that i'm not involved in!!
lol
dave bev
-
Bring the bruvvers out anyway Davey.
-
Without wishing to stray too far from the original thread of the submittion
I am confused by the following statement from Colin regarding the IFE register.
Colin wrote:
And as I also mentioned, most people applying to be registered have not done an approved course, but had no difficulty being registered. For those who have been carrying out fire risk assessments for some time (or auditing them as an I/O), the approved course probably does not get them there any faster. But if their experience is less, the approved course provides a fast tracking, as it counts, in effect, as 3 months experience.
Do I read into the above that even without the approved course but has a wealth of experience over many years as an I/O plus 6 years as a fire risk assessor in a respected fire consultancy an applicant should have no difficulty in being registered?
Steve
-
you can apply to be auditor and or assessor but your assessments must pass the scrunity of the commitee your previous history is taken into account.
-
Not 6 years Steve, 6 months. The approved course(s) provide a slighter faster route sometimes, for those with less experience since, in effect, the IFE count an approved examinable course as substitute for part of the experiecne requirement. The full details are on the IFe website, but if you have more detailed queries do revert and I will try to advise.
-
I have read this article and felt I should add a comment to this, because if an outsider was looking in it seems to be my systems better than yours arguement, which I feel does nothing to give confidence to a prospective client or person needing information on FRA.
Over the last 5 years I have tried numerous different templates and systems and to be honest most are alike in some way. The one I use at the moment is the new PAS79 and the main reason for this is that my local fire officers are aware of it and seem to like the format, the otherside of this is again with any system you can alter this to fit your client or your personal style.
However, and this goes for all systems! They are only as good as the knowledge and skills of the assessor.
I have recently quoted for a fire alarm system for a small conference facillity, based on the recommendations of the local fire and rescue service fire risk manager (as they are now called) and then a Ex Chief Fire Officers Fire Risk Assessment.
Both were talking of a BS5839-1-2002 system and wanted a LD3 category!. It was not untill I challenged both on which standard they wanted it to BS5839-1 or BS5839-6 as they both made reference to a part 1 system and a part 6 category that they both conceeded that they had to look up fire alarm standards and had very little knowledge of fire alarm systems. To my suprise the fire officer asked me what I thought she should recomend because she was new to the job, and very well versed with BS5839.
Another example was, I was recently fire risk assessing a building for young adults and I asked the sparky what fire alarm he had put in he said BS5839-1-2002 Category L1. Great I could look at his certificate and copy the details down on to my risk assessment and tick the boxes. Or could I?. No because when I checked the roof voids and lofts there was not any detection in them even though some of these were 3m high. I informed the building owner and the sparky that it did not comply with British Standards and both agreed to sort it out. Had I not known this is required I may have passed it off and then who would be liable should a fire start in the roof space.
In my humble opinion the fire alarm and detection system is a massively inportant part of the fire risk assessment and very few of the risk assessors or even fire officers actually seem to have any indepth knowledge of these systems.
On a personal note a few year ago I did a BSI course with Colin and found him very proffessional and not in anyway pressuring anyone on the course to buy his systems or books, To be honest I would have thought that Colin by now does not need the few pounds he makes from the odd few extra sales he gets from people on his courses.
-
I have read this article and felt I should add a comment to this, because if an outsider was looking in it seems to be my systems better than yours arguement, which I feel does nothing to give confidence to a prospective client or person needing information on FRA.
Over the last 5 years I have tried numerous different templates and systems and to be honest most are alike in some way. The one I use at the moment is the new PAS79 and the main reason for this is that my local fire officers are aware of it and seem to like the format, the otherside of this is again with any system you can alter this to fit your client or your personal style.
However, and this goes for all systems! They are only as good as the knowledge and skills of the assessor.
Blimey that was a blast from the past Thomas.
PAS79 is not my favourite document as you are probably aware but it is better than many out there. As you correctly point out any methodolgy is only as good as the person using it.
I would point out that Guidance Note No.1 now recognises that in some complex buildings a fire risk assessment will not be suitable and sufficient without the use of plans, another point that Mr Todddd and I had differing view points on.
-
Someone's been reading the old threads. Anyway Phil, don't think I ever saw your form. If the offer still stands, I'd be very happy to see how others do FRAs. And anyone else if they want to share. Cheers.
-
Hi Phil
Would be grateful for a copy too if I may!
-
Me too if possible
-
I did Colin Todds course at the joint training centre in Avonmouth and PAS 79 was banded about. There isn't a form or tick box to be seen in my FRA's but I think I've got a system that works for me....we are all different
-
I always used to say I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I think PAS79 is is a good system but I find the report form 'orrible.
And Phil I have never yet found a hazard that I cant describe in writing that could be better indicated on a plan. Plans have value in giving a simple overview of the layout and arrangements but thats as far as it goes. Plans make it too easy for the fire officer. I say give em some bedtime reading.
Yes there is great value in exchanging ideas and methods. I admit that I put together my template from another firm I did some work for but have developed it hugely since then. I do find a tick box checklist the best way of meeting the requirement to record the significant finding ie article 9.7 (a) "including the measures which have been ... taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order" . For example the checklist may say
At the time of the assessment there was adequate separation between the assessed premises and adjacent buildings or structures. Tick.
That makes it easy doesnt it?
-
And Phil I have never yet found a hazard that I cant describe in writing that could be better indicated on a plan. Plans have value in giving a simple overview of the layout and arrangements but thats as far as it goes. Plans make it too easy for the fire officer. I say give em some bedtime reading.
Yes there is great value in exchanging ideas and methods. I admit that I put together my template from another firm I did some work for but have developed it hugely since then. I do find a tick box checklist the best way of meeting the requirement to record the significant finding ie article 9.7 (a) "including the measures which have been ... taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order" . For example the checklist may say
At the time of the assessment there was adequate separation between the assessed premises and adjacent buildings or structures. Tick.
That makes it easy doesnt it?
Tut tut Prof you know very well that it is more than the SFs that need to be recorded, once you have decided which definition of SFs you are going to use of course.
Plans are, in my opinion the easiest way of recording the preventive and protective measures, not for recording hazards. A checklist or template is a good way of promting you to look at everything you need to look at.
Whatever method used is irrelevant, the prescribed information that must be recorded remains the same and that is where in my experience many assessments fail.
and many just record a load of information but do not have any conclusions. Surely there must be a conclusion saying either everything is ok or more needs doing and justifying why that is so.
-
Interesting this...as I said we are all different...
the way I do mine is in the form of a report under different headings such as introduction to premises...occupants...previous fire history... risk classification...fire hazards and their removal or reduction..fire protection measures..arson prevention etc etc..very similar I suppose to PAS 79 but in my own way...with no tick boxes
within that I put the body of the report
At the end I put the significant findings under headings...Hazards...People who are at risk...Existing Measures....Action required
I ask the owner if I can take photos and everyone so far has said yes...and I take snaps of the hazards and put them in my report to highlight them
There is more to it than that put it's a precis of what I do
" I'll show you mine if you show me yours" :D
-
Plans make it too easy for the fire officer. I say give em some bedtime reading.
I agree, make us earn our money. However I reckon if you make it easy for 'the fire officer' then they will be able to tick all the boxes on thier audit sheet and go back to the office (or probably home) very happy of a job well done.
The alternative is they dig around in the body of the report and find something to make a fuss about.
I cannot count how many designs of FRA I have seen. Some consist of half a dozen pages which are excellent Others maybe made up of 100+ pages of drivel- including plans, cartoons, photos and pop up models of the building (OK I made the last one up!!) - but fail to adequately record anything they should whilst simutaneously winding up the IO.
I have devised a FRA report format (for when I make the transition into the real world) and intend to have the very first page(s) entitled 'A Note to FS Enforcers'
In this 'note' I list what information the FS Order says needs to be recorded, and where in my FRA report (what section/page no) the specific information will be found.
This helps the IO find exactly what they are looking for without the need to speed-read the entire document.
-
PhilB
Could you please send me your template and method of auditing.
Regards
JohnI (your old boss)
-
sounds like a good idea messy
-
i like messys idea too
-
and me!
-
Yes Messy spot on...that would saves everyone's time... and as far as Im concerned would demonstrate the assessor knows what they are talking about.
It is interesting to note that some of us get concerned about the lack of consistency between Inspecting Officers (sometimes rightly so) and yet assessors / consultants can also be inconsistent as this thread has shown.
A Risk Assessed legislative regime can never truly be consistent because each individual situation will always be different.
If. as Messy suggests, however there is clear methodology behind how certain answers or findings were arrived at it certainly helps the Insp Off. audit the legitimacy and relevance of the content of the FRA
To me clear communication, using the format of your choice, is the way forward to help the Insp Officer and RP or assessor understand each others viewpoint.
-
I have devised a FRA report format (for when I make the transition into the real world) and intend to have the very first page(s) entitled 'A Note to FS Enforcers'
In this 'note' I list what information the FS Order says needs to be recorded, and where in my FRA report (what section/page no) the specific information will be found.
This helps the IO find exactly what they are looking for without the need to speed-read the entire document.
Have you completed this project if so any chance of a copy?
-
Sorry TWS I did get your PM but have been run off my feet just lately (honest)
As far as the report format goes, no I have yet finalised it. I intend to trial the pilot by testing it on a couple of FRAs for friends of mine that run businesses - one a small high st shop, the other a large industrial concern.
It's the first page of the document I am struggling with which will point the IO in the direction of where in the body of the report s/he will find those items which are required to be 'recorded'. (namely, items in Article 9 & 11). Until I have perfected the full report, it's not possible to point to any specific section.
I have copied the draft wording of the document. The point of sharing it here is for others to comment whether such a note (at the front of a FRA) is useful, and whether it could be improved
_______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE TO ENFORCING (FIRE SAFETY) AUTHORITY INSPECTOR
Introduction
With no standard format for Fire Risk Assessments, Inspecting Officers (Fire Safety Officers) often face the daunting task of interpreting a range of differing styles and formats of reports when completing a fire safety audit.
This page is designed to assist the Inspecting Officer complete their fire safety audit by providing a summary of the design of this specific fire risk assessment, in order that key areas which the Fire Safety Order requires to be recorded (such as the significant findings) are easy to locate.
The design of this report follows the UK Government’s 5 step plan for risk assessing as set out on the DCLG website.
----------------------------------------
Items which must be recorded under The FS(RR)O
RR(FS)O Article 9 (6) (Fire Risk Assessment) requires, where necessary, the Responsible Person (RP) to record the following ‘Prescribed Information’ after carrying out, or Reviewing the FRA.....The ‘Significant Findings’ of the FRA, including measures which have been or will be taken by the RP.... Article 9(7)(a)
A summary of the main significant findings are given in SECTION A3
Details of all significant findings are given throughout SECTIONS A to D
--------------------------------------
RR(FS)O Article 11 also states that the RP, where necessary, must record the arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventative and protective measures... Article11(1)
Details of effective planning, organisation and control of the preventative and protective measures are given in SECTIONS (A BULLET POINT LIST WILL BE INSERTED HERE BUT IS NOT YET WRITTEN AS MY REPORT FORMAT IS NOT YET FINALISED AND/OR TESTED)
Details of , monitoring and review of the preventative and protective measures are given in SECTION E - Review
---------------------------------------
Your thoughts????????????????????
-
Looks good to me, many seem to forget that significant findings includes the measures that have been and will be taken.
To be really picky I would use preventive rather than preventative because that's what the Order says.
-
if you need any help on this give me a shout and I will if I can in any way
-
Its a great idea Messy, remember to include in your Article 9 to record "any group of persons identified as being especially at risk" where the 5 or more etc comes into play, etc.
I have made up some POCMR bullet points for my own use, so if I by any chance you would like to see/use any of them I can forward them onto you if you want.
-
Thanks Messy I am on a steep learning curve when it comes to this area of fire safety and I don’t think I can be of much use but I would hope the more experienced contributor on this forum will join in. I think it sounds a great idea and I hope it doesn’t fall by the wayside.
-
Hello all,
does it really matter the type of proforma used as long as the information required to carry out the FRA is included. This can be in tick box reminder type with comments sections or fully written reports.
I know which I would prefer to do and I am sure FSO's would rather Audit the former. Whether it is PAS 79 or other type similar.
More important, is the knowledge and understanding of the FSO to interpret the FRA without quoting the prescriptive standards as seen in the benchmark standards of The Practical Guidance. (Sorry Scotland only)
I have what I would call disagreements leading towards training sessions often with FSO's and they show a complete lack of understanding the concept of FRA's without the comfort of The Benchmark Standards. In fact letters sent to RP's quote the Benchmark Standards and ask for compensatory features if they cannot be met.
What is that about??? Do an assessment for goodness sake.
Hello Phil. You and Colin still not made up?
-
Hello Phil. You and Colin still not made up?
Hi Dennis
Toddddy and I are the best of chums!!
I do agree with all you say in your last post. Too many code huggers, it will take a while for everyone to come to terms with a risk appropriate regime. Some FSOs are very very good...unfortunately some still cling to their prescriptive guidance.
But also, as I'm sure you've noticed, there are many incompetent assessors out there and some do it for a living. It must surely only be a matter of time before such incomptence is exposed, let's hope it doesn't involve too many deaths.
-
This can be in tick box reminder type with comments sections or fully written reports. Whether it is PAS 79 or other type similar.
I feel I am stepping into to the loins den but here goes. Firstly I believe a good FRA template is important and the one in the original PAS 79 is not a good example and does not fully meet the requirements of article 9. I have seen some good ones and an auditor would have no problems understanding the risk assessor solution, PAS 79 does not fall into that category. I cannot speak for the latest version of PAS 79.
-
TW
Absolutely!
Bought first version, didn't like it so haven't bothered with the update.
Have seen many tickybox templates, hated the lot.
They are all right I suppose for someone with a small premise but for the professional and me the keen amateur its the meat on the bone that matters.
Whether you codehug or not, risk matrix or not all boils down to the need to get some semblence of clarity in FRAs that the punter can understand.
davo
-
Agreed Davo
To go on from that a good risk assessment should identify how certain decisions or judgements have been arrived at by the assessor. In other words the assessor should be able to show the auditer a "Logic " trail in what theyve assessed and the measures they have proposed to rectify failings or to lower risk levels. I don't think tick boxes can do that.
-
I am with you 100% on that MR I would consider that is the main purpose of the report, communicating with other interested parties.
-
I agree with you but to be honest I have found quite a number of enforcement offices who dont want to bother reading my rather verbose reports and say all they want is a plan and a one page report in the format of the one liners on the sample presented on the DCLG website. This peeves me somewhat- I understand where they are coming from but if I am trying to justify why my proposed solution represents ALARP despite not fully meeting current best practice guidance I think it warrants full consideration.
-
Kurnal I would also be peeved I do not believe you can have too much information providing it’s relevant and well indexed. The sample presented on the DCLG website is possible the worst example I have seen and even with a plan it would be woefully inadequate.
Incidentally I agree with plans but they cannot take the place of good reports but are of mutual benefit if used correctly.
-
I agree with you but to be honest I have found quite a number of enforcement offices who dont want to bother reading my rather verbose reports and say all they want is a plan and a one page report in the format of the one liners on the sample presented on the DCLG website. This peeves me somewhat- I understand where they are coming from but if I am trying to justify why my proposed solution represents ALARP despite not fully meeting current best practice guidance I think it warrants full consideration.
Absolutely correct Prof.
Admitedly when carrying out an audit i do like to see a "brief overview or roundup"of the significant findings mainly because the RP hasn't got time to watch me sit and read through a large risk assessment.
What I then do is come back to the office and go through the whole document at my leisure rather than hold up the RP. I can then make comment if required following the audit, normally by phone call to assessor or RP and followed up in a report.
-
I have devised a FRA report format (for when I make the transition into the real world) and intend to have the very first page(s) entitled 'A Note to FS Enforcers'
In this 'note' I list what information the FS Order says needs to be recorded, and where in my FRA report (what section/page no) the specific information will be found.
This helps the IO find exactly what they are looking for without the need to speed-read the entire document.
MR I think messy idea would fit the bill I hope he precedes with it. A question from me, when you do an audit do you use the guides, standards and any other relevant guidance to set bench marks and if you do does that make you a code hugger?
-
Naughty boy TW, Matron will get you for that!
davo
-
Naughty boy TW, Matron will get you for that!
davo
Yes very naughty boy Mr Sutton!
No Im quite open to ideas / alternative solutions that achieve a common goal or objective.
Wherever possible yes I do like to see comparisons made to benchmarks, and Ill happily accept deviations when suitably justified - I only very occasionally bring out my Phil Barry issue Anorak and hug my guides on cold mornings
-
Not intentionally MR I promise, I think I have a handle on the FRA side now I am trying to understand the audit side.
I have considered how I would conduct an audit and it would be how you have described. First have a good understanding of the legislation, guides and standards and use them as benchmarks. If any aspect of the premises did not meets those benchmarks I would ask the question why.
First I would check out the FRA report see if a satisfactory answer was there and also check the situation during my walk about, as it may be obvious. If I still could not find a satisfactory answer I would contact the RP for his response and if I was still not satisfied I would then consider further action.
To me this is not a prescriptive response so what are enforcement officers doing to warrant the description code hugger.
-
Not intentionally MR I promise, I think I have a handle on the FRA side now I am trying to understand the audit side.
I have considered how I would conduct an audit and it would be how you have described. First have a good understanding of the legislation, guides and standards and use them as benchmarks. If any aspect of the premises did not meets those benchmarks I would ask the question why.
First I would check out the FRA report see if a satisfactory answer was there and also check the situation during my walk about, as it may be obvious. If I still could not find a satisfactory answer I would contact the RP for his response and if I was still not satisfied I would then consider further action.
To me this is not a prescriptive response so what are enforcement officers doing to warrant the description code hugger.
Yep pretty much spot on TW
There are unfortunately the odd code hugging dinosaurs out there.
Just liek anything really - there are some good inspectors, some bad, good risk assessors some bad.
-
TW. That in a nutshell is how I go about an audit.
To give a definition of a code hugger:
It's an IO (or his line manager) without the knowledge, competence or balls to be able to veer away from a benchmark standard or the strength of character to ask if he doesn't know. This is usually caused by poor management, lack of training, or too much experience in FPA and unable to convert to a risk based approach.
-
TW. That in a nutshell is how I go about an audit.
To give a definition of a code hugger:
It's an IO (or his line manager) without the knowledge, competence or balls to be able to veer away from a benchmark standard or the strength of character to ask if he doesn't know. This is usually caused by poor management, lack of training, or too much experience in FPA and unable to convert to a risk based approach.
I'd go along with that.