Plz clarify the difference between Assessor and Responsible Person?

[val]

Hi Kurnal,

This sort of scenario has been exercising us for some time, it equates to the FRS policing its own premises. We have asked our solicitors for an opinion but not much has come forward.
It boils down to the need to be whiter than white to avoid such an embarrassing situation. We peer review our neighbouring fire and rescue services' assessments to add a further layer of 'defence'.
In theory the FRA can prosecute its own Local Authority as they are statutorily (??) different.
Greater Manchester FRA prosecuted Salford Local Authority following a fire in a school even though Salford had a member on the Fire Authority.

[Jim Creak]

Exactly, it is the job of the risk assessor to record the significant findings that alter the risk matrix. The Risk Assessor reports to the RP and the RP must decide if the risk matrix is acceptable, appropriate and or reasonable. A risk assessor must seek assurances from any one that can be deemed to have control of any assessment area or indeed any contract associated with the maintenance of any safety equipment that best practice is maintained. Obviously if anyone that can be deemed to be in CONTROL has difficulty in providing the necessary assurance then the risk matrix changes, regardless of whether it is building component, building management or fire safety management. The RP must be advised, if the RP asks for recommendations this may require the services of a number of suitably qualified people but not necessarily the risk assessor.

[PhilB]

Exactly, it is the job of the risk assessor to record the significant findings that alter the risk matrix. The Risk Assessor reports to the RP and the RP must decide if the risk matrix is acceptable, appropriate and or reasonable. A risk assessor must seek assurances from any one that can be deemed to have control of any assessment area or indeed any contract associated with the maintenance of any safety equipment that best practice is maintained. Obviously if anyone that can be deemed to be in CONTROL has difficulty in providing the necessary assurance then the risk matrix changes, regardless of whether it is building component, building management or fire safety management. The RP must be advised, if the RP asks for recommendations this may require the services of a number of suitably qualified people but not necessarily the risk assessor.

Unfortunately Jim you do not appear to understand the meaning of significant findings, quite an important definition in my opinion only of course.

I think a RP would be unwise to appoint a fire consultant who is only capable of pointing out deficiencies.......the RP has a duty to record the "prescribed information"....he may of course appoint a consultant to record that on his behalf.

Hopefully that consultant will understand what must be recorded and advise accordingly.

[Jim Creak]

Significant is defined as having importance,this can mean positive and negative things that alter the risk matrix. This is where we can accomodate compensatory features. Again in my opinion the process of collecting this data is not necessarily the job of a professional fire engineer. The job of the professional fire engineer is to set the datum lines (For schools the datum must be BB 100) so that when audited exceptions which are of significance can be recorded. Again in my experience after looking at over many 100's of risk assessments the majority of the significant findings that are really dangerous could be found by any office supervisor given the right questions to ask.

What I do concur with is that the office supervisor would have to seek professional advice on the best way, most effective, economical and least disruptive to the organisations to reduce the risk associated with the significant findings.

[PhilB]

Perhaps it may be better to use the definition of significant findings given in the ACOP to the management Regs, as advised in Guidance Note No.1. Also prescribed information is adequately explained in the Order.

Spookily enough there is no mention of 'risk matrix'. Presumably this refers to the methodology you use Jim.

I would advise all consultants to read Guidance Note 1, the ACOP to the MHSW Regs and the Fire Safety Order to make sure your assessments are suitable and sufficient, and record all the precribed information. I have seen 100's of assessments that don't do that.

[PhilB]

Again in my opinion the process of collecting this data is not necessarily the job of a professional fire engineer. The job of the professional fire engineer is to set the datum lines (For schools the datum must be BB 100) so that when audited exceptions which are of significance can be recorded. Again in my experience after looking at over many 100's of risk assessments the majority of the significant findings that are really dangerous could be found by any office supervisor given the right questions to ask.

My wife and can read a book....so can my children...and my mates down the pub!!! This is marvellous I'll send them all out risk assessing...should be millionaires by Christmas!

[jokar]

BB100is a design guide for new schools.   You can not make it apply retrospectively to existing builidngs, that is what the educational guide is for.  It is the reason that the guides were issued as although many of us wanted to risk assess from ADB or BB5588 it was thought it is too prescritive to be of use.

I agree with PhilB you have to understand what has been written and to understand what suitable and sufficient means by reading the correct documentation.  Again, I have seen many average FRA's and many average enforcement notices which do not do either side justice.

[Jim Creak]

It would appear to me then that the fire professionals cannot agree with what is or is not relevant. Why is current requirements only good for new schools? What are the significant requirements that are not required for old schools and why? I think this is where we differ in view because one expert or competent person is using a different set of criteria. That cannot be correct. It is for the Risk Assessor to bring the significant findings to the RP and for him to make the judgement of what is reasonable acceptable and appropriate.

In my opinion any risk assessor that ignores current upto date knowledge,code,best practice and does not record that as significant does so at his liability. European legislation requires the RP to consider new technology and implement where necessary new provision for the collective protection this is why Fire Certification that maintained the status quo was required to be changed.

New guidance, New Technology has to be embraced in health and safety management...the cost obligation is a fact of life... Remember the furore about the decision not to have  Automatic Train Protection on the railways, when it was found out that cost was put on a life?

[jokar]

Simple, cost.  The order places the onus of responsibilty on the RP and to that extent they have to use ALARP.  Therefore, if something is overtly expensive then the RP does not have to apply it.  However, as in your example above, if it is a cost effective startegy then they would.  The true test will be in a court of law where the witnesses for Regina will given factual evidnce and the Rp will explain why something was omitted or not done.

E & W did not go for retrofitting sprinklers in care homes afetr the Rosepark disaster but Scotland has, the same for schools.  Whilst BB100 discusses the sprinkler issue for new schools, the RP does not have to retrofit.  Financial resources are a commodity as well and they can only be spent in a small number of ways.

[wee brian]

Absolutely -  If we upgraded the building stock every time the building regs changed then the cost would be so high that we wouldnt be able to raise our standards for new buildings.

You should consider where an exisitng building varies from the latest standards and consider what the implications are.

[Jim Creak]

I agree entirely but that is not the job of the Risk Assessor that is a decision for the Responsible Person. the Risk Assessor has an obligation to identify significant findings. a Significant Finding may be a deviation from current guidance, not old guidance. A Risk Assessor must seek assurances from any contractor who has to any extent responsibility for the maintenance of any fire safety arrangement that the system meets current best practice. If it does not this is significant as it may change the risk matrix.

If the Risk Assessor cannot receive adequate assurance, documentation ,conformance certification or accreditation from the Responsible Person or nominated Person within the organisation then that finding has to have significance. A competent person is then required to inspect,test and report this is not the role of a risk assessor, simply because this is a requirement of other parts of the Regulatory Reform Order on an ongoing basis and not simply as part of the formal Risk Assessment.

In my opinion the RP must first decide on an objective for Fire Safety and create a vision that includes Business Continuity, Environmental Impact and Legislation Compliance. The RP must then allocate, seek and secure the proper resources to do the Job.

As for Sunny, he has an important role to participate, to record,to get informed and to campaign for the very best protection for the school, early detection, instant suppression, excellent security, best of integrity to protect the resources,intellectual property and important work place for our future. Sunny must participate and his collegues must be trained, educated, informed and carry out their obligations to cooperate with the employer to deliver the Fire Safety Strategy.

It is not just for the bloke who came round with a clip board.

[PhilB]

But Jim you seem to be advocating just checking a building against the latest guide.

You may remember that FRS used to do that and it was called prescriptive enforcement. Thankfully that has changed and anyone assessing a building should not stick rigidly to a guide.

There will often be occassions when the recommendations in the guide are not relevant, not required in a particular circumstance or wholly inadequate in another circumstance.

The job of the competent assessor must be to interpret the guide and apply common sense to achieve a safe building.

Your suggestion that anyone can do that with the current book and a checklist is quite frankly frightening!

I hope Sunny seeks further guidance before following your advice.

[Jim Creak]

Any deviation from Building Regulations are still recorded, any fire engineered solution is still recorded and requires maintenance. If the reasoning is still sound and the alternative remedy maintained it is a significant finding but does not change the risk matrix. This is just a question to be asked and assurance given. All this information is readily available from the old Certification process. It is not that complicated, it is just a logical management process.

It maybe that you feel you are doing a better job by knowing everything about building construction, fire modelling,fire engineering and I would not ever deny that the more knowledge you have makes you more valuable. However for the majority of buildings Risk Assessment as required by the RRO is a logical uncomplicated process of audit.

As far as a school is concerned BB 100 is the latest recommendations to meet current risk data and would be the reference document for deviation in my opinion.

The only reason behind this opinion is that for the process to be successful in achieving good fire safety we have to get everyone that is in control involved in the process. Otherwise we would still be needing our parents or a crossing person to help us cross the street. As in pure risk assessment terms we are more likely to die this way than in a fire in the work place.

[PhilB]

mmmmmmm ok Jim let's agree to differ.

If only it was as simple as you make out, unfortunately it is not.....and most of us understand that.

Unfortunately many out there also think that their employees can assess with little or no training....and they are usually mistaken.

[Jim Creak]

Lets agree on one thing, and you sound good at it...There are many people out there that require teaching, I believe the fire safety profession has a real job to do to educate, inform and instruct about the process of fire risk assessment not for the Reglatory Reform Order but for when these employees get home. Thats really why I want Sunny to get involved and he or she can.