Phil B, Difficult I think for you to give an unbiased comment without seeing the FRA's and you have assumed a lot (wrongly) in your comments which I feel has detracted from my original posting. It is also difficult to comment unless you are operating in the commercial sector trying to give RP's the best advice and the FRA's possible without charging the earth. I HAVE read the Order and in my view it is how best to communicate the legal requirements of the Order within the document that is in a readable and understandable format that is very important.
If we are to use your line of thought how on earth would a lay person ever understand or conduct a suitable and sufficient FRA. I assume that if you audit them that very few would be acceptable?
I do audit fire risk assessments and many I see are acceptable because they are suitable and sufficient. Many however are not.
William would it be possible to e-mail me a copy of your assessment to remove my bias and "wrong assumptions" ? (P.S you've made some too!).
My line of thought quite simply is that anyone who conducts, records or reviews the findings of a fire risk assessment should do so in accordance with the law........there are various sources of information and guidance documents available to assist and advise assessors in that task.
The fact that it becomes rather complicated in more complex premises should not mean that we just muddle through and record what is easy and what the responsible person understands.
In the past an experienced fire safety officer would inspect the building and then tell the owner/occupier exactly what to do to comply with the law. This was a complex process that was usually completed by someone with considerable specialist knowledge.
That has now changed.............the responsible person must now determine what is required by carrying out a fire risk assessment, often he will not be competent to do this and will need to appoint a competent person to do the assessment on his behalf.
That assessor must be competent and use a suitable methodology, if he is not competent, and produces a document that does not record the prescribed information he should be challenged, either by the responsible person or the enforcing authority, and in my opinion should not receive his fee.
Thankfully this is happening more and more and long may it continue!!
Whoever conducts the assessment, and however complex the premises, the prescribed information remains the same, the detail required will of course be proportional to the risk.
Are you suggesting William that if the lay person finds this too problematical he can ignore the statute and perhaps just use a tick box checklist that is not suitable or sufficient and does not record the required information.
?
........and that auditors should turn a blind eye because it might be difficult to prove that an assessment is not suitable and sufficient?
?
In all the premises that I have come across where a risk assessment is not suitable and/or sufficient I have easily been able to prove that it is not suitable or sufficient by identifying deficiencies that the numpty assessor has failed to recognise.
I make no apologies for this and I look forward to exposing as many cowboys as possible.
The quote you included is about suitable & sufficient, and whilst this is important, it was the term 'significant finding' that prompted me to stick my oar in.
All good stuff William and it's good to discuss issues like this on this forum where we can all learn from each other and hopefully maintain and raise standards.
I do apologise if you feel I have detracted from your post regarding when the assessment should be reviewed, perhaps we should start a new thread.
