Grenfell Tower

[nearlythere]

Confused.
Mr Stokes website implies that he is registered/connected in some way with the IFE.
He states 'IFE Assessor/Auditor (Fire Safety Order)'
What does this mean?

Not saying it happened here but I know someone who went on a risk assessment course and then anointed himself as a qualified fire risk assessor.

[Owain]

There are plenty of "Fire risk assessment" courses which are IFE Recognised. They may be useful courses in themselves but possibly are intended for someone doing in-house assessments which may be of a more limited scope than an external independent assessor would encounter across a range of businesses and premises.

[stevew]

Owain

You are absolutely correct, that was the original intention of such courses.
The loophole, wide enough to drive a bus through, was who was going to stop the individual with other ideas in mind.
Why after over 10 years of the RRO are we only now SERIOUSLY questioning the abilities of those who carry out assessments?
Who from the fire service advised the Government prior to its introduction because the shortfalls we are talking about now were clearly known then.

[Fishy]

OK I know I've retired, But there is one question that puzzles me. It the external cladding was on fire, how come the lobbies and the escape staircase in the center of the building were smoke logged and impassible? Surely the stairs should have been a place of relative safety?

Puzzles me too Mike but I have a thought on why this would happen. We'll all have to wait until the official enquiry provides the answers.

With a fire that large, smoke may have been drawn in via the make-up air path for the staircase ventilation / pressurisation.

[Owain]

Who from the fire service advised the Government prior to its introduction

People who were expecting to leave the fire service and looked forward to a lucrative career in the private sector?

[jayjay]

If I remember right the Regulatory Reform Order was born from the Workplace regulations which were a European requirement.

At the time of the consultations with the fire services regarding the proposed Workplace Regulations I remember distinctly the concerns and fears of allowing responsible persons to undertake their own fire risk assessments as the knowledge and experience was not available.
At that time the workplace regulations did not apply to certified (by the fire authority) premises. The introduction of the RRO was intended to de-regulate fire safety and place a duty on the responsible person. This self-regulation unfortunately in many cases became financially driven and was used to provide cheaper methods/solutions not always with the best results.
When consultants provided guidance or advice to responsible persons that were considered to be expensive responsible persons could simply find another assessor who would be willing to provide a cheaper alternative, even though the protection may not be as effective.
The birth of the so called consultants and assessors with a few days training has in my opinion considerably reduced the level of fire safety in the UK and this not only applies to the private sector but the fire authorities who gave similar short training to personnel then sent them out to audit fire risk assessments. The regulations require that persons not only have relevant knowledge but also experience. Experience cannot be given in a classroom but must be obtained by supervised and monitored practical application of the standards over a considerable time.

My view may be considered cynical by some but it is born from experience and practice of 30 odd years in fire safety seeing many shortcomings, errors and bad practice.

[nearlythere]

If I remember right the Regulatory Reform Order was born from the Workplace regulations which were a European requirement.

At the time of the consultations with the fire services regarding the proposed Workplace Regulations I remember distinctly the concerns and fears of allowing responsible persons to undertake their own fire risk assessments as the knowledge and experience was not available.
At that time the workplace regulations did not apply to certified (by the fire authority) premises. The introduction of the RRO was intended to de-regulate fire safety and place a duty on the responsible person. This self-regulation unfortunately in many cases became financially driven and was used to provide cheaper methods/solutions not always with the best results.
When consultants provided guidance or advice to responsible persons that were considered to be expensive responsible persons could simply find another assessor who would be willing to provide a cheaper alternative, even though the protection may not be as effective.
The birth of the so called consultants and assessors with a few days training has in my opinion considerably reduced the level of fire safety in the UK and this not only applies to the private sector but the fire authorities who gave similar short training to personnel then sent them out to audit fire risk assessments. The regulations require that persons not only have relevant knowledge but also experience. Experience cannot be given in a classroom but must be obtained by supervised and monitored practical application of the standards over a considerable time.

My view may be considered cynical by some but it is born from experience and practice of 30 odd years in fire safety seeing many shortcomings, errors and bad practice.

In my part of the world JJ the FRA approach was sold on the basis that it would be very cost neutral in that, through the rose tinted glasses of politicos, all businesses had to do was manage their fire safety as the infrastructure was already in place because of the good work of building control and by self policing under previous legislation.
Light years from the real world self regulation was not enforced by proactive auditing by enforcement authorities and BC seemed to make up FS on the hoof.
The standard of building construction in NI is pathetic and a plasterboard ceiling hides a multitude of sins going on the basis that if fire risk assessors cared to have a good old poke around above suspended ceilings or in service shafts they would see the real world construction methodology.
I have not doubt that, despite the fire safety input from other authorities, for what it was worth, the cock ups have been concealed and a lowly fire risk assessor will be expected to see through plasterboard or crawl through a nail hole in search of the defects or omissions of fire safety standards when those ultimately responsible, but not legally, move on to their next car crash.

There is to be an enquiry and maybe a criminal investigation but be very very sure that those ultimately responsible will not be.

[lyledunn]

My experience of construction in NI, which straddles more than forty years, is that it is of a good standard, supported by good designers, professional tradesmen and a solid inspection regime. Having said that, there are occasions when " pathetic" would be a good descriptor of some aspects of the work produced. All fire safety professionals should be on the look out for such works and where observed, reported to the relevant persons.
If out of politeness, you tell the chef that the meal was very nice when it was, in fact, pathetic, how will he ever know to put things right?

[Tom Sutton]

Why in ADB vol 2 a firefighting lobby is required for a firefighting shaft in all building requiring a firefighting shaft except flats (17.14)?

[Mike Buckley]

Why after over 10 years of the RRO are we only now SERIOUSLY questioning the abilities of those who carry out assessments?

If you delve back into the older posts on this forum, the abilities of those carrying out assessments has been questioned. Third party assessment schemes are in place but there is no requirement for an assessor to belong to one of these. In general the reported experience is that membership of these schemes did not appear to provide any significant benefits to the assessor.

The attitude of the government appeared to be that if legislation required set qualifications this would lead to a monopoly of trained consultants with a corresponding effect on the price.

The end result is that anyone can call themselves a fire risk assessor and there is a wide spectrum of people doing it. The people who are doing it range from experienced fire engineers who may or may not have a fire service background to Health and Safety consultants who want to add another aspect to their business, not to forget the fire extinguisher salesmen.

The saying 'as you sow, so shall you reap' comes to mind.

[FireNet]

Dear Members
This thread has been locked
This is due to a criminal investigation which is now in progress and a public enquiry to be started in the very near future on all aspects of the Greville Tower incident
This action has not been taken lightly as it has always been a sounding board for the Fire Safety industry to share and learn from
However some statements on this tread are airing assumptions as fact and this cannot be left open ended.

I have only had to take this action once before again with a criminal prosecution pending

I am sure that you will understand my action as the owner of this forum

Colin S
FireNet