Is Sir Ken hinting at a change to the Fire Safety Order?

[Midland Retty]

Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum...

There are some interesting comments in Sir Ken Knight's latest update on the blaze at Lakanhal House, Camberwell.

In it he states:-

"There is a requirement in the Fire Safety Order (FSO) to appoint one or more competent
persons to assist the responsible person in undertaking the preventable and protective fire
safety measures within premises. However, there is no similar requirement for a competent person to be appointed to assist in making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
It is important that assurance be given to both the responsible person for the premises
and the enforcing authority that a risk assessment has been undertaken by a competent person, particularly in relation to high risk premises."

He then recommends that:-

"Consideration should be given to conducting a review as to how the responsible person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, can be assured that their assessment of risk is suitable and sufficient, particularly where the premises is of a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the risk assessment

Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be
amended accordingly."

Source and full document available here:- http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/1307046.pdf

[wee brian]

This is the report that was published over a year ago.

It did act as a catalyst for the cross industry grouop looking at a competency standard but thats about it.

[Midland Retty]

I read the document again yesterday and it made me wonder if ever discussed it on the forum - but obviously we did , sorry about that folks

[BLEVE]

Theme tune to the twilight zone.................spooky

[colin todd]

Ah yes, that's right, ever keen to cover their useless fat situpons (wee B excluded) and having no competence themselves, the CLG squandered taxpayers money on govenrment consultants to review what the profession was doing, only to find that it was already sorting itself out, and if they had simply asked or known their  fat uselss situpon from their humerous it would have been clear to them at no cost.
As I recall the consultants' previous claim to fame was to produce a report on fishing rights. Funnily, I learned a lot from my involvement- I had seriously and genuinely never understood why cynics say consultants are people who borrow your watch, tell you the time and send you a bill. Now I fully understand.

[Mike Buckley]

Colin,

You fail to grasp the essential part of a government review. The more it costs, the more likely it is to be right. Hence looking at a site like Firenet which can be done at no cost has nothing like the gravitas of hiring a team of consultants to ask the same question. particularly when the team of consultants is run by a sound person.

Second the CLG can now say it was right in not taking any action, because the industry is sorting itself out! Similarly any criticism of the original legislation is ill founded because things are now running better and all it was was teething problems. CLG manderins pat themselves on the back and look for the next area to be improved.

For a good insight watch Yes Minister.

[Stinky]

Take this document with a pinch of salt. The report says that detection in flats should be connected with an external call centre!!!!!!!!!!

[SeaBass]

I recall being at a meeting in 2005 where a gentleman from the ODP, when asked why the government did not require fire risk assessors to be qualified or registered when legislation requiring many tradesmen to be registered was being extended, stated that fire risk assessment wasn't a complicated matter and the government were determined not to create a consultants charter.  A view that I think the venerable Mr T.  also supported if I remember correctly.   

Now I'd be the first to except that paying a professional to undertake the FRA of a simple hall way which leads to two flats is a bit excessive. In fact I'd go as far as to say the FRA is unnecessary in the first place. So I can understand that there will be occasions when a DIY approach is absolutely the correct way to go.

However,  I carry out FRAs and I audit FRAs carried out by others, and to be frank, I'm often very alarmed at the unbelievably low standards that I come across. I won't bore members with the details, I'm sure you all have you're own horror stories, but I will say that the problems extend right across the board, from one man fire extinguisher servicing  companies and delusional H&S practitioners with a NEBOSH Fire safety qualification through to well known national organisations.   And the problems are wide, everything from being wholly inadequate to hugely over the top. Some are completely incomprehensible, others, particularly when assessing a range of buildings, are frighteningly inconsistent, and many lack any form of quality control.

Still on the plus side, the clients rarely seem to read them or implement any remedial action, so all in all no harm done.

Rant over, back to the arm chair. "NURSE! my blood pressure tablets if you will" 

[Mike Buckley]

"Still on the plus side, the clients rarely seem to read them or implement any remedial action, so all in all no harm done."

Rather like the H&S Risk Assessments, just wait until something goes wrong and listen to the screams!

I agree that some FRAs would appear to be OTT, however I have been into communal hallways that are full of rubbish, dark etc. On the other hand I have also done public toilets for a local authority who on being told it wasn't really necessary replied they still wanted it done to guard against litigation!

I am afraid that as has been said elsewhere the whole thing was ill thought out and based on assumptions. As soon as the ambluancechasers'r'us brigade get involved it gets messier and messier.

[Steven N]

So much sense spoke , no wonder the powers that be wont take any notice. I'm sure sir Humphrey can explain why 

[SeaBass]

Mike,
What makes you think that writing an FRA report which highlights the dangers of obstructing a small hallway or improving the lighting levels will make any difference?   Housing associations are spending a fortune for inadequate FRAs of hallways of ordinary traditionally built homes, just because the house has been divided into two by the installation of a couple of front doors and a small fire wall. And yet, thee is no way of knowing whether the fire separation between floors is adequate, and that will be critical in the event of a fire. And it’s not as if the residents will be unfamiliar with the hall way. It’s a nonsense.

[Mike Buckley]

Ruby,

It depends on the recipient, some find the FRA a revelation because the assessor is looking at the situation from a different angle and seeing things which were under their noses all the time but they couldn't see them. Some can use the FRA as a justification to get the tenants to keep the hallways clear etc. As far as familiarity goes, how many people die in fires in places they are familiar with (like their home)?

I would agree that there is no way of knowing whether the fire seperation between floors is adequate however there are times when it is obvious that it isn't. If was a case of major alterations that is a case for building control.

At the end of the day it is an imperfect world and we just have to do our best.