Is this allowed?

[jakespop]

I understand that Cornwall FB send out letters signed by ACFO advising that someone will call them to assist with FRA. The assumption is that this will be someone from the FB. When the call is received, most people assume they are talking to the Fire Brigade when in fact they are talking to private independent company. Surely this is misleading and inappropriate for a local authority.

[hammer1]

Are people missing the point here. It says not in law because the Government wanted employers to small businesses who may have only 5-15 employees in a 2-3 storey office block to conduct the FRA themselves with the assistance of the guidance available. As we know, it says over and over again in the guidance documents if things are slightly complex then consult competent/specialist advice.

Obviously if the environment and building is complex, then a outside competent person should be called in.
Under the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regs a competent person should already be in place providing competent advice. These people should assess if the working environment requires a level of competent advice or a simple FRA course and the guidance documents will be enough (and would cost a lot less).

[Phoenix]

Does anyone know if any member of Hants FRS has any kind of interest in the risk assessment company being promoted?  It wouldn't surprise me.  I believe a 'Freedom of Information' request might be able to unearth the fact.  Same in Cornwall.

[hammer1]

Cannot see a massive problem myself, if it raises awareness and potentially save life's then it is good for me.

[nearlythere]

I take it then hammer1 that you would have no massive problem with a Fire & Rescue Service sponsoring one of your competitors on it's website?

[Steven N]

Spot on nearly there. This is fraught with problems cant believe it was allowed to happen.

[davio1960]

I've heard that the sponsored company have been or are being used by other FRS to carry out research any one know if thats right?

[alfi]

How would someone without experience and knowledge deal with things like compartmentation issues i.e in risers or inner rooms!, yes, they could tick boxes to say they have fire extinguishers, or Fire wardens, but how many times i get a blank looks when i ask a client about 5 year electrical testing!, or even the basics such as PAT testing, often we take the time to explain what it is and why is should be done, even down to Lightning protection etc......I really can't see how an online checklist is suitable and sufficient, when the person completed it maybe under pressure from his boss to say the right things!!.sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous and if it goes wrong have these people the correct liability insurance or expertise to back it up in court because an insurance company spots a loop hole?

[Tall Paul]

"Who Should Use This Guide?"

"It has been written to provide guidance for a responsible person, to help them to carry out a fire risk assessment in less complex ...premises... If you read the guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice of a competent person.  More complex premises will probably need to be assessed by a person who has comprehensive training or experience in fire risk assessment."

CLG appear to be of the opinion that the owner/occupier of smaller businesses should start with the guidance document on its own, regardless of their level of competence, and that for most cases the book will provide a sufficient knowledge base.  Only when they recognise that they are out of their depth should they seek expert help.

Competency can therefore be achieved, for a small business, by reading the book.  And there are a lot of premises for which this is true.  The difficulty arises when the owner/occupier does not recognise that they are straying beyond their depth level...

[partymarty007]

[quote author=Paul Turnbull link=topic=4310.msg46178#msg46178 date=1249577998

Competency can therefore be achieved, for a small business, by reading the book.  And there are a lot of premises for which this is true.  The difficulty arises when the owner/occupier does not recognise that they are straying beyond their depth level...
[/quote]

Paul,

Is this your opinion?  I disagree, as reading a book does not qualify as being competent.  Any book written for enforcers and RPs/Duty Holders will not achieve anything other than confusion.  I would in no way attempt to do a risk assessment on a electrical installation as I am not a qualified electrician, no matter what books I have read. 

Consultants with no experience of MOE or Fire Safety should not be carrying out FRAs.  Training, knowledge, experience and aware of limitations show competence, not book reading. 

[Tall Paul]

PartyMarty007

My opinion is that the world of Fire Safety Consultancy is so vast that many experts are still a million miles from understanding all disciplines completely.

However Her Majesty's Government's view is outlined in the opening paragraphs of the guidance documents, in which it states that the book provides a sufficient knowledge base for the less complex premises and should be used until the responsible person starts to feel out of his or her depth.

Do I agree with this?  Not at all.  I work with both inspecting officers and fire consultants who can't agree on what the book says.

However if CLG firmly believe it, with the support of CFOA, then my opinion becomes less meaningful (except when I am in consultation with either CLG or CFOA) and I must view risk assessments completed by those with no knowledge or experience other than that found within the book.  The job of the inspector is to take that FRA and determine whether it is suitable and sufficient and assess whether the significant findings have all been found and all addressed appropriately.  Only when the FSA is found to be lacking does the competence of the assessor come to the fore.