Serving Fire Officers conducting fire risk assessments

[William 29]

I would be very interested in opinions on serving fire safety officers or operational ones conducting fire risk assessments either in their own Brigade areas or outside.  I note that several advertisements recently state “current/recent fire safety experience would be an advantage” indicating serving officers would be acceptable.

I am not aware of any Fire Authority allowing their officers to conduct FRA’s anywhere.  My concern is that my company is using a very small number of serving fire officers to conduct assessments outside of their Bridge areas only.  I had 2 phone calls this week one from an officer saying that he could no longer do any FRA’s for us due to him feeling that his Brigade was “actively seeking officers doing FRA’s and to make an example of them” The other phone call was from a serving officer seeking work, when I explained the potential conflict of interests and possible consequences he said that out of all the companies he had phoned I was the only one that had reservations about employing him.

I am wondering if the terms of our Professional Indemnity insurance could be invalidated by knowingly employing someone when they are in breach of their employer’s contract and why some companies don't seem to mind if their is a conflict of interest by using serving officers.

I am hoping that a number of you will have views or experience of this…………thanks.

[kurnal]

In my opinion being both gamekeeper and poacher in the same area is a recipe for problems and corruption from either side.

Personally I dont see a problem with gamekeeping in one area and poaching in another - its the conflict of interests that bothers me. I am not sure that brigades have the right to say what you do with your spare time though?

The lead authority system may create  problems and conflict of interest on a wider scale.

 There was some  comment on this forum not long ago about senior officers in one brigade running fairly large businesses but I dont know if there is any substance in it.

I dont see it as any different to the local fire service selling risk assessment services in their own patch- that is wrong too in my opinion. Am I right in thinking the Fire College were marketing consultancy services at one time staffed by officers on secondment - and being paid by brigades?

[Mike Buckley]

Have a look at the topic "Is carrying out a FRA as a serving FRS auditor a conflict of interest?" which debated this point last year.

[The Colonel]

There was an occasion when still working for the service that a local business had thier fire risk assessment undertaken by staff from the FS college, not sure about seconded officers though

[black arts]

My Brigade allows secondary employment, but I certainly would not work within my own county boundary,

[slubberdegullion]

Just to clear up a point, the FSC does risk assessments but the team that conducts these contains no seconded officers.  This team may discuss certain matters with seconded officers but how are you going to stop that amongst people that work in neighbouring offices.  Also note that seconded officers are paid by the College and not by their brigades.

Stu

[kurnal]

Thanks for that Stu. Just for interest sake, is this a completely independent business unit running within the college - where are profits directed- presumably as a source of funding to support the other good work of the college? Or back to the Exchequer?

[messy]

Essex Fire Authority continue to actively canvass for FRAs in the London area trading as 'Essex Trading' or similar. I don't know if they do them in their home county

However, on publicity material I have they do make a big noise about the fact they're part of Essex F&RS!!

I know we've debated this before, but it's still dodgy

[Chris Houston]

http://www.thefssp.co.uk/

[Kali]

Hi Guys - a newbie but had to post

I was working as a fire safety inspector until October last year, so can give my opinion. Secondary employment within my brigade was ok, so inspectors could do FRAs in other counties, but not many did. I only know of one for definite, out of 21. However it is far from the case elsewhere. I remember a discussion at the college about a year ago when about every point of view was aired! Some brigades allowed FRA work regardless, some only out of county and some were not allowed at all. In terms of a conflict of interest, I guess it depends who is prosecuting and for what reasons. Is it not the RP who would be accountable? I have asked this question before, and was told that someone contracted to do a FRA would not be held accountable for it.

In terms of the FSC undertaking FRAs, the team who do this are construction, chemical, engineer professionals who work for the college and are not and have not been fire safety officers. They are very experienced in their field, and having had lectures etc under their tuition I would not hestitate to recommend their expertise. However they would be best employed in a more complex environment - petrochemical for example - as the fees are upwards of £1000. I believe this money goes back into the college.

I don't mean to be out of order here, but i would be more concerned about former operational fire service employees who have set up themselves as specialists in FRA. They often don't have the training that is necessary, yet so many people have said to me that the FRA should be fine as he was done by 'one of yours'! They trust that the FRA will be ok because of their background.

[PhilB]

Good points Kali.

I can offer further info on FSC carrying out risk assessments because I was part of a team that occasionaly did them..as a seconded officer. I was told that the FSC obtained permission for me to do that from my then employer...and it was agreed that I would not assess premises within my brigades area.

I also do not wish to offend but many retired fire service personnel without the necessary knowledge, experience.......competence are emerging as fire safety consultants. Riding a red lorry for 30 years does not necessarily make you competent in this area.

I would advise them and all the new fire safety consultants to famiarise themselves with article 32(10) of the Fire Safey Order if they think they are not in danger of being prosecuted when the sh*t hits the fan.

[Midland Retty]

Good points Kali.

I can offer further info on FSC carrying out risk assessments because I was part of a team that occasionaly did them..as a seconded officer. I was told that the FSC obtained permission for me to do that from my then employer...and it was agreed that I would not assess premises within my brigades area.

I also do not wish to offend but many retired fire service personnel without the necessary knowledge, experience.......competence are emerging as fire safety consultants. Riding a red lorry for 30 years does not necessarily make you competent in this area.

I would advise them and all the new fire safety consultants to famiarise themselves with article 32(10) of the Fire Safey Order if they think they are not in danger of being prosecuted when the sh*t hits the fan.

You've hit the nail on the head

The fact remains that too many assessors out there still don't have the relevant experience and or qualifications /competence to carry out a satisfactory FRA.

Anyway, the point of this post is regarding the subject of  Inspecting officers doing FRA's - I work for two brigades. Both allow FRA's to be conducted by inspecting officers and firefighters so long as it is done in other counties and not their own.

Doing FRA's in the same county would definately be a conflict of intrests but doing FRA's off your own patch shouldnt be an issue.

Infact could it could be seen as "maintaining competency" - afterall IO's are supposed to be able to audit FRA's done by punters, they cant audit an FRA unless they know what risk assessment is, and how it should be completed (?) or am I talking rubbish?

[Ricardo]

I also do not wish to offend but many retired fire service personnel without the necessary knowledge, experience.......competence are emerging as fire safety consultants. Riding a red lorry for 30 years does not necessarily make you competent in this area.

I would advise them and all the new fire safety consultants to famiarise themselves with article 32(10) of the Fire Safey Order if they think they are not in danger of being prosecuted when the sh*t hits the fan.

Tottaly agree, unfortunately I have witnessed some of the people you describle Phil coming out of the woodwork since 1997, both retired and serving on operations, carrying out FRA's, and to be blunt, what I have seen is shocking, I do believe many think that because they are either "in or was in" the job, it'll be a doddle.

Responsible persons be aware who you get as competent assistance if thats the road you intent to follow.

[lambie]

The subject of this thread seems to highlight that there is some doubt with regard to competence, to the degree that we all should beware. The phrase where the words gamekeeper and poacher come together springs to mind. The majority of posters here have vast experience in fire safety. Even though the changes are recent, they still have years of seeing it for real. Pity those poor RP's who must somehow learn about FRA's and strugle with which way to turn, and then when convinced they have found the right route it turns out that they have chosen Ricardos rejects.

[slubberdegullion]

Thanks for that Stu. Just for interest sake, is this a completely independent business unit running within the college - where are profits directed- presumably as a source of funding to support the other good work of the college? Or back to the Exchequer?

Sorry for delay in replying kurnal.  Phil (and others) have updated on this now, but I must say I don't really know where the money goes.  Into a big hole I always assumed.