Guidance for Enforcing Authorities for RR(FS)O

[jokar]

The guidance for Enforcing Authorities written by CFOA SE appears to be pretty bland in its messages.  Basically just re-writes the Order and lacks detail, it is nothing like FPA Circular 28 which it will replace.  Has anyone been asked what should be written into it or will this be another fudge attempt at enforcement?  The document leaves both the enforcing authority and the "clients" in a difficult position with no real guidance and therefore Fire Authorities will again do their own thing.

[fred]

You mean it has actually been published ?

Quick - get the defibrillator !

[val]

Jokar

The CFOA guidance doesn't seek to replace FPA Circular 28. It does present a new way of measuring relative risk,  thereby giving FRS a chance of developing a quantifiable and defendable risk based inspection policy. The data is supported by the ODPM and means that FRS can direct their resources, (if they have any left that is) at those premises presenting the highest risk. (Mostly life risk but now incorporating some aspects of societal risk). CFOA, who have no real power, have indicated that all FRS should adopt this guidance and tweak for local conditions 'where necessary'. It is true that maverick CFO's (or finance managers) may ignore it but that's local democracy for you.

The enforcers guidance will be published by the Fire policy Division of the ODPM 'shortly'. CFOA, (or rather a group of pretty experienced FSO's from around the country) have had a hand in this. It is still being refined by an extremely capable civil servant. I have no doubt it will help FRS understand some of the more tricky aspects of the new legislation.

[kurnal]

Val

"It is true that maverick CFO's (or finance managers) may ignore it but that's local democracy for you."
This seems to be a contradiction in terms somehow!!
Paints a nice picture though.

[wtfdik]

I have to agree with JOKAR there is no substance in this apart from disputes procedure. Val I am at a lost where you say this new way of measuring risk is in this document. Enforcers are looking for guidance on how to interept the articles as FPA 28 did for the workplace regulatuions.
Maybe we are looking at 2 different documents. On the subject of the cFOA stuff on Hampshires website am I alone in thinking its of a poor standard.

[fred]

On the subject of the cFOA stuff on Hampshires website am I alone in thinking its of a poor standard.

No .....

[steve walker]

I have to agree with JOKAR there is no substance in this apart from disputes procedure. Val I am at a lost where you say this new way of measuring risk is in this document. Enforcers are looking for guidance on how to interept the articles as FPA 28 did for the workplace regulatuions.
Maybe we are looking at 2 different documents. On the subject of the cFOA stuff on Hampshires website am I alone in thinking its of a poor standard.

I assume that the new way of measuring risk is the  "risk rating calculator" at:

http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives/tfs-risk-rating-calculator.htm

Looks interesting.

Fire frequency - 10 fires per million schools per year - is that right? Sounds low to me.

[wtfdik]

I dont think so as the risk calculator is in the audit proceedure not the guidance to enforcers. Also if you do the calculator and the audit you can make a dangerous building seem normal risk. Also the fire stats they use put shops as a higher risk than hotels or hostels which I dont understand.