So this joins the IFSM, IFE, IFPO,RICS and any other money making scheme on fire risk assessors.
You say the difference is the UKAS accreditation, however it is only the body that is UKAS audited and not like the fire risk assessors are as it is in asbestos etc.
What about the people who have done 5 day fire risk assessor courses at the fire college and other places, does this mean they are no longer competent until forking out dosh for this or similar schemes??
What does this mean for SMEs?
Will they need to employ a consultant to this level for a small office building with 6 employees. What is the point of the Government Guidance documents for RP if they are no longer competent to conduct FRA. As it says if things become complex, then consult competent advice not get consultant in first.
Thought the whole point of the FSO is to lessen the burden of companies.
I can see all you lot seeing the pound notes.
Surely the fire authority assess if FRA are suitable and sufficient, therefore checking the competence of the person producing such a document.
I totally agree where medium/high risk environments are concerned and the level of competence needs to be at a certain level.
Will this process have different levels of acceptance, for example someone who only does small office businesses that may be low level, low occupancy might be more than competent in that field but not in a industrial chemical environment.
You most defo do not want a IOSH type situation on your hands, where even persons who have done Uni and have vast experience in a field may not be deemed competent because they did not do it the IOSH way (paying more money) and IOSH having a monopoly on H&S.