FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Tadees on June 15, 2017, 05:35:06 PM
-
I am sure it's not the case that the fire risk assessor has to check every fire door, cable penetration etc. as part of his FRA, but where did I get this idea from? Surely suitability and sufficiency does not require lifting every ceiling tile, checking every cable penetration and every fire door?
-
I am sure it's not the case that the fire risk assessor has to check every fire door, cable penetration etc. as part of his FRA, but where did I get this idea from? Surely suitability and sufficiency does not require lifting every ceiling tile, checking every cable penetration and every fire door?
You could Tadee, if they would pay for such a service. But all most want is a thick document with the word "Fire Risk Assessment" written across the front all for ?50 + Vat and not too big so it will fit at the back of the filing cabinet.
-
I was looking at this from a legal standpoint. Does suitability and sufficiency entail as thorough checks as those mentioned in the opening post?
-
I would expect all to be checked with a note to state any lack of access or limitations of assessment.
It depends on what premises you are inspecting and the scope of assessment.
-
If the initial inspection finds lots of issues, with fire doors, obvious omission in fire protection etc., surely one of the actions in the assessment would be to suggest the RP engages someone to undertake a passive fire protection survey? I've never seen a fire risk assessor turn up with a ladder, screw drivers, saws or wearing a boiler suit ready to crawl into the most inaccessible places (which is where a lot of the problems probably are). Most risk assessors I know show up in a nice suit....
-
Yes, I'll agree with PGTips. You have to ask yourself what would be deemed reasonable by that bloke on the Clapham omnibus. Inspecting every square inch of the place seems over the top, especially if, after the first few hours, everything has appeared satisfactory. Inspecting nothing is negligent. So there has to be an acceptable middle way. Inspecting a sample of all relevant aspects of the building is the best way to conduct these. If the sample shows that there are some unsatisfactory elements then it would be reasonable to extend the sample. If everything in the sample is perfect then it would be reasonable to accept that the whole premises is satisfactory with respect to that element.
For example, if I'm inspecting a hotel with 200 bedrooms, I do not check every fire door. And I might lift a few ceiling tiles but if all is fine above those tiles then I extrapolate my findings to cover the whole premises. If everything is not fine, then that is where the fun starts and a recommendation might be to have a full survey carried out.
-
Another quick point with regard to sampling. Don't ever take your lead from the person showing you around, choose the locations of your samples using your own judgement.
-
Wouldn't it be good if Building Inspectors were given free reign to inspect everywhere? Not just the nicely finished risers on the ground floor!
-
PGTips
I remember Prof up a ladder when his senses told him to (not a pretty sight, but one I miss :'()
davo
-
Another rule. Never wear a short skirt when up a ladder I guess.
-
PGTips
I remember Prof up a ladder when his senses told him to (not a pretty sight, but one I miss :'()
davo
Was he wearing a short skirt at the time Davo?
-
nearlythere
I covered my eyes after the first eyeful, bless him he was very thorough (and paid for the liquid lunch)
davo