Fire Risk Assessment Audits

[Mike Buckley]

kurnal get him to put it in writing and keep it on file.

[Tom Sutton]

I have come across several recently that have been regularly inspected and letters were sent out saying that all was well. I can understand why some RPs are asking why it was never mentioned before.

I agree, however two letters would have to be sent one headed “FPA” stating the premises was satisfactory, providing the fire alarm was the only problem. A second letter headed “Goodwill Advice” recommending an upgrade of the fire alarm. Amazing how the second letter would go missing when it did not support the employer's case.

If it came to the crunch, in most cases, I am sure the FA would be able to produce that letter from their files.

[PhilB]

No there were no other letters, inspected under FPA and WP Regs, both satisfactory and no goodwill advice. The RP understandably is not impressed.

[messy]

Offering goodwill advice whilst inspecting under the FPA was a tricky issue.

Some punters would get confused and think we were 'telling' them to do it, whilst others would know their legal position that as long as they maintained their cert, they were in the clear and would adopt a "Am I bovvered?" approach..

There was a case where a hotelier (I think) acted on godwill advice believing it to be a requirement, made expensive AFD improvements which they later found was above the requirements in the fire cert and thereby unenforceable. This went to court and cost the FRS in compensation.

As a result, it was policy for IOs to always offer goodwill advice when requested during FPA visits, but to be very careful when offering unsolicited advice in case this confusion arose again.

[kurnal]

On the other hand I am aware of a couple of other situations where a FRS has paid out compensation to owners of care homes as a result of an  inspector for many years accepting low standards, for many years issuing satisfactory reports when he should not have done. Eventually an audit and review led to improvement notices and the FRS was advised by its legal team to pay compensation in a couple of cases - equivalent to the cost of the work.

[Tom Sutton]

I think the problem was with the legislation and the concept of the "one bite of the cherry" attitude of the legislators which meant FRS had to find ways of getting around it to maintain a satisfactory standard (Bluff and Persuasion Act widely used .
They appear not to have realised that standards would change over the years hopefully the RR(FS)O will resolve this.