Fire Authority "Arms Length Companies" FSOs referring business

[William 29]

I would be interested in your comments or experiences on this and if it could be challenged in any way?

I am aware of several “arms length” fire safety consultancy/training companies that have been set up by some Fire Authorities for some time now.  Generally serving fire safety officers have been prevented form conducting fire risk assessments and training within their own authority area and in some cases not even outside that area.

Recently the goal posts have been moved and serving officers have been allowed to do work for the arm length companies (and get paid of course).  I am now told that the fire authority in question is allowing serving officers to do FRAs out side of their own Brigade area, I presume as it would be difficult to challenge given they are allowing work for the arms length company?

What concerns me is that serving fire safety officers have been asking for the Fire Authority to produce an approved list of companies that they can recommend to the public for fire training and fire risk assessments etc.  The response has been that FSOs can only recommend companies that are non-profit making, which funnily enough is the arms length companies they have set up (they state ALL the income generated is redirected into fire authority resourses, which I find hard to believe)  Essentially this means an approved list with one company name on it!

It just doesn’t seem right that a serving fire officer audits a premises and concludes that fire training is required or that the FRA they have conducted needs to be audited and then recommends it is done by the arms length company.  That same FSO (potentially) on their day off does this training.  Are the Fire authority not using an unfair advantage here and if so can it be challenged??

[Midland Retty]

Hi William

I totally agree with you. It is very underhanded in my opinion.

Fire Authorities should simply enforce, and nothing else. They  should not be touting for business, and they certainly should not be inspecting a premises, pointing out deficiences or threatening to take action on one hand and then offer to remedy the failings for a nice 'little' fee on the other.

It would almost be like PC Plod stopping me for having a bald tyre only for him to turn around and say "pssssst the Police are doing a special offer at the moment. I've got a lovely stock of tyres in my police van, give me sixty quid and ill fit a new tyre for you and I'll also waiver this fixed penalty fine that Im about to give you. If you dont agree I'll book you for having a bald tyre"

I dont see so much of a problem with a fire safety inspector doing private consultancy work outside their brigade /county area, however problems could arise if they did work for a national organisation which has properties in the officers enforcement area. This would be, defacto, a conflict of interest

[colin todd]

Willie, Alas some F&RS have not heard of competition law.......yet.
All Hallowed Retty, you can at least sleep in the knowledge that PC Plod will not sell you tyres, as there still remain ethics and integrity in the police service.

[terry martin]

Fire authorities shouldn't be recommending anybody... at all... ever. Approved list! utter nonsense.

why does the fact a company is 'non-profit' have any relevance?

does that make them more proficient? more able? more affordable?

I'm with Colin on this. I think someone should educate the FRS in question.

[William 29]

why does the fact a company is 'non-profit' have any relevance?

does that make them more proficient? more able? more affordable?

I'm with Colin on this. I think someone should educate the FRS in question.

I agree.  I am just coming from the angle that if an approved list does exist then other fire consultancy companies should be able to apply to go on it.  What’s the difference in where local councils etc have an approved list of contractors?

In reality irrespective of whether you agree with a referral list on not in the real world it goes on.  I think the FSO should be able to offer the public advice on in their opinion what companies are considered competent.  Some FSO are just pointing them to the IFE risk assessors register or similar, some of those listed are individuals but most are associated or employed by a company, again I don’t see the difference?

[Midland Retty]

Hi William

The Fire Authority has a duty to give advice and guidance to those who want it.

So if you asked them where you could find a competent, decent Fire Alarm Installer they should reply by recommending that you search for a BAFE accredited installer, for example, or to look in the yellow pages (as some fire authorities do!).

They shouldn't however recommend specific individuals or companies for what I hope are obvious reasons. Trade Associations and Accredited Schemes can be recommended so long as any competing schemes or TAs are also mentioned.

I sort of agree with your point about the fire service recommending the IFE register as being slightly biased or atleast unfair to other trade associations who may offer similar services. But that is much better than the fire service simply saying " Use Joe Bloggs Fire Alarms - they're the best - we like them!!"

You mentioned that some local authorities have an approved list of contractors. This normally relates to contractors who have been trialed and vetted and then subsequently deemed competent to work on the local authority's property. This is perfectly above board and a seperate issue to what we are talking about here.
 

[CivvyFSO]

Some FSO are just pointing them to the IFE risk assessors register

This is probably an old habit from when the IFE register was pretty much the closest thing to any sort of accreditation for risk assessors. Especially in the early days of the RRO when the likes of Chubb used to send their extinguisher 'engineer' out to do crap fire risk assessments.

I find one of the best places to point people towards is the LPCB red book. (For everything apart from Risk Assessors.)

[kurnal]

Yes this does wind me up too. The Essex arms length organisation for example are very aggressive on the marketing front, push their credentials very hard referencing their fire brigade foundations and their being a non profit making organisation ploughing all profits into their good works.

One of my clients in Leeds showed me a whole stack of marketing from them- repeated hard sell mailshots. Now what possible benefits would Essex's good works and fire safety initiatives have for my client in Leeds? Come to that I wonder how  they would  feel if West Yorkshire started the hard sell in Essex?

Do they really operate as an independent business with overheads costed and apportioned to the business?

And in any case their "one size fits all" training worked out about six times more expensive than my bespoke tailored course so my customer stayed loyal.

[Tom W]

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

Ive had alot of run ins with Essex's arm. I am assured they are acting completely legally. Owned by the Fire Service, run by the fire service, taking your clients.

[footieboy]

I agree that FA should be enforcers only however they should all be reccommending third party accreditation schemes that assist the RP under our duty to give advice.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Oh now I understand - A stand alone company accessed through Essex FRS website.

I assume nobody within this stand alone company has access to any incident information or premises databases to allow targetted advertising.

Just me being a Cynic