Electronic recording of FRA

[messy]

Is it permissible, when recording a FRA, for the FRA document only to be recorded/available electronically, or is there a requirement for a paper copy to be available?.

I have come across a number of occupiers who record their FRAs electronically. Whilst I recognise that it makes reviewing the FRA easier, I personally prefer reading a good old fashioned paper copy.

As a LA IO, I am more interested in the significant findings and whether they've been addressed, than scrolling through dozens of digital photos of: yukka plants in protected corridors, peeling fire exit signs and poorly attached self closers.

I do take an interest in the method of how the FRA was completed, but prefer to flick through a paper document. picking sections to read, perhaps randomly, to get an idea of how thorough/detailed the process has been. This tends to become rather labourious if one has to scroll thru pages of text and risk matrixes.

So does there have to be a paper copy or is only an e-version (word doc etc) acceptable??

[kurnal]

As far as I see it the requirement is to record the significant findings, but the method of recording is not prescribed.

I see no problem with an electronic copy only as far as the requirements are concerned but agree that to an old timer a paper copy is more user friendly for an on site audit.
(no offence intended old man)
I believe that legally a mischievous responsible person could get away with a voice recording on a dictaphone.

Other regulations for example those relating to reporting and recording accidents in the workplace and the Riddor Regs are much more specific and require either a written record or the use of a prescribed form- rather like the old FP Act required the FP1 form. But for general H&S stuff  its left open and ths is probably a deliberate policy to promote the use of new technology- If I recall even the Fire Service have a BVPI (175?) to measure their performance in the use of new technology. The Government strategy is to offer an IT friendly gateway to all services.

At least if its an IT based record you could request an e-mailed copy to browse through before visiting the site, in the calm quiet ambience of your office over a few coffees, take the phone off the hook, put your feet up and have a thorough read for a day or two and appreciate the artistry of the document.

Some of my clients do treat the work with the respect it deserves though and take great care to protect it by locking it away in the safe and never letting it become contaminated by the light of day.

By the way I do put  one chapter in the document that may be of interest. One section has a heading " The significant findings of the risk assessment" and can be found by casting the eye down the index and noting the page number. hope this helps.

[PhilB]

Please note that it is not just the significant findings that must be recorded. Article 11 requires fire safety management systems to be recorded also. There is no problem with keeping records electronicaly as long as it can be retrieved when required by an inspector in accordance with by article 27 (1)(c).

(c) to require the production of, or where the information is recorded in computerised form,
the furnishing of extracts from, any records (including plans)—
(i) which are required to be kept by virtue of any provision of this Order or regulations
made under it; or
(ii) which it is necessary for him to see for the purposes of an examination or inspection
under this article,
and to inspect and take copies of, or of any entry in, the records;


If it is not retrievable the responsible person may be guilty of obstructing an inspector which is an offence by virtue of article 32 (2)(d). A defence would be that he had shown due dilligence and I would argue that failure to have a suitable back up is not showing due dilligence.

[kurnal]

But Phil
Would you feel so strongly about the lack of a backup that you would persue the responsible person in the courts? Because surely only a court can decide what is due diligence.

Interesting reference to plans in article 27. I think these can only be relevant if the responsible person has chosen to use plans as a tool in carrying out  or recording  the findings of the risk assessment.

Or do you see it extending to require copies of architects plans, "as built" plans and the whole CDM file  because these are the foundation of the design, use, structure, layout and nature of the building which will ultimately have an impact on the basic fire precautions to be taken?     I think that would be pushing the RRO too far. But this is the reason for many of the wordy risk assessments that messy finds too time consuming to read. It is a summary of all these issues to describe the benchmark against which the building has been assessed.

Some risk assessors only report on problems, often through a checkbox system, and give a very short report.  I believe that approach constitutes an audit not a risk assessment.
In a perfect world of   type approval an audit would suffice- just like the motor trade. Cars manufacturers have to achieve  type approval  so the MOT can be just a checklist.  But you modify a car and full engineers report is required for roadworthiness.

[PhilB]

No Kurnal I would not pursue it through the Courts but I would use this explanation to encourage the use of a a suitable back-up syst em.

Plans are not a requirement as we know but if the responsible has used them as a wayof recording the preventive & protective measures, an inspector could require copies.

I know some people use tick boxes and then only record defects. I have mentioned on here before the lack of understanding out there of what constitiutes a suitable & sufficient RA, and what is meant by the term significant findings. The new RRFSO guides confuse the matter and give various definitions that conflict with the ACOP for MHSW Regs.

I believe that in the not too distant future the Courts will provide some answers when one of the many so called consultants out there are found to be neglegent and taken to task for giving inappropraiate advice which causes death or injury.

[Martin Burford]

hello PhilB

I have followed your narratives relating to the RRO, at some length...and it seems to me that far from releasing the employer/occupier from" [onerous fire safety measures. ODPM representative at Bristol seminar  19th January 06]", you are suggesting that, and I must say reading a  lot of postings om this site. this RRO will become increasingly over restrictive, resembling nothing like the existing FPA, an act that I worked with for many years and found it totally satisfactory....how many people died in fires in  Hotels, Offices & Shops and Factories... each year from 1972.
Furthermore, it appears to me that fire Authorites, if in fact you are a member of such an Authority, are intent on making life increasingly difficult.
I will be interested to read your reply.
Conqueror.

[PhilB]

Conqueror
FPA served us well in the places to which it applied but many places fell outside its scope. The main problem I feel is that FPA was not risk appropriate but purley based on numbers present regardless of risk.

Life will be more difficult for some people as the responsibility for ensuring compliance has shifted to the responsible person rather than enforcing authorities. But it will be proportianate, small premises can easily comply without specialist advice.

Most responsible persons will have to do very little else to comply, if...and that is a big IF.....they have been complying with Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation since 1997. That, in my opinion, is the main problem.

When 97 WP Regs. were intoduced government thought there would be little impact as employers were already doing risk assessments to comply with 92 Management Regs. In fact many were not. The WPFPL was introduced very gently and quietly so as not to put undue burdens on industry. As a result many people are unaware of their existing responsilbilities let alone those imposed by RRFSO!

Yes I am a member of a fire authority and in my experience most of us try to assist persons to comply. But the days of inspecting officers spending hours solving fire safety problems by prescriptive methods are gone. Even if we wanted to maintain such prescriptive methods, the number of premises covered by RRFSO would make that approach impossible particulary as many FAs have drastically reduced the number of inspecting officers as part of the modernisation agenda.

[kurnal]

Conqueror / Phil

You both make good points and I agree with you Conqueror- The FP Act did a good job for many years.
But it was out of tune with the EU workplace and framework directives on  the management of H&S in the  workplace. My take on it goes something like this:

The whole philosophy of the EU is that the employer creates the risk, and should therefore be best placed to manage that risk. Employers can be trusted to comply as it is not in their long term interest to have an unsafe workplace, in which accidents disrupt production, bring in consequential costs, insurance costs, damage, losses and compensation claims.

So the enforcement agencies do not need to mollycoddle the employer - they should have an expectation that the employer will comply and only become involved in enforcement when something goes wrong. Then enforcement and penalties should be robust as a deterrent to others. There is no need for the Govt to employ large teams of enforcement staff, just a hit squad to investigate their failures and the whole team should be funded by costs reclaimed following prosecutions.

The old FP Act did a good job but was contrary to this EU philosophy and was very expensive to adminster as a high level of supervision was needed. Furthermore it took no account of the European principles of prevention- eliminate the hazard if at all possible rather than taking control measures to mitigate the effects of the hazard.

The UK Govt had not really taken these messages on board in 97 when they were directed by Brussels to incorporate the EU directives and philosophy. They wished to protect the existing tried and tested UK approach and so the launch of the FP (workplace) Regs was very low key. In any case the Fire enforcement structures were all in place and there was little appetite at that time for a large restructure of the Fire Service. But Brussels forced the issue leading eventually to the 99 relaunch and only in 2005 with the RRO do we really come near to achieving the EU philosophy.

I recognise also the other work that had been going on in the industry and the contribution of the FBU in driving the reform of fire safety over many years for all the right reasons before finally the disputes of 2002 sealed the fate of the  Fire Service as we knew it. For better or for worse? Only time will tell

[Bluefire1]

the industry and the contribution of the FBU in driving the reform of fire safety over many years for all the right reasons

All the right reasons ? .... what the FBU and CACFOA wanted went the same way as what the enforcing authorities originally wanted for DSEAR and MSER. From my experiences on the various working parties involved in all three sets of legislation, the Gov has bowed down before the giants of industry like the CBI and the RC who wanted rid of the precriptive legislation like the FPA, the Exp Acts and the HFL Regs and said quite happily that they are capable of self-regulation, which we all know is about as far from the truth as you can get. I am dealing with people now that as an FSO I told what to do (within the remit of the certificate) and they did, it now it's a case of give me 1000 good reasons why.. I've never had a fire... no one has been hurt.. so why should I spend money.

The original intention of the EU Directives was to make a safer workplace and no one can disagree with that, but through FP(W)Regs, MHSWRegs, DSEAR, MSER and now RR(FS)O almost carte blanche has been given to employers to do as little as possible.... but there again that is as they say reasonable and practical in the circumstances.

[Big A]

Not only was it low key it contained an exception for certificated buildings thus giving fire brigades (mine certainly) an excuse to  ignore it for two years until the Regs were amended.