What/who is a RA consultant

[Bluefire1]

picked from another topic

"You could contact one of the many so called consultants who appear to be emerging"

So... what qualifications and or experience are deemed to be right.. no point in going to the Regs or ODPM... having suitable etc etc... what do you o n here feel is right ? A Fire Engineering degree (or similar) from within an FRS, 10 years as an FSO, 30 years as a FF or no FRS experience just a degree in some fire subject with say a sprinkler company.. what ?.. Interested to see your comments.

[Chris Houston]

I am not sure that Qualifications alone make a good consultant.

I am not sure that being able to fight fires guarantees that you are able to advise on legal, safety or property protection matters.

I am not sure that experience ensures competence, or lack of experience in years prevents competence.

The important things, I think, should be being an expert in ones field, being intelligent, knowing the relevant legislation, guidance, standards and best practice, knowing your limitations and knowing where to find things out.

For a lot of consultancy work, being charismatic and confident is also important too, if one needs to convince others of the importance of certain issues.

I think it is important also for clients to challenge consultants to prove their ability.

[kurnal]

I go for the management regs definition each time. A combination of training, knowledge and experience. But dont get bogged down in the detail. Each job requires different mixes of different skills and the key to it is to recognise your own limitations and know when to call in someone with a different mix of skills and the additional competence in that particular area. This thread runs throughout H&S but is expressed most clearly in the management regs, and IIR also repeated in the RRO ( because the RRO dissaplies S2 of HASAWA as far as basic fire precautions are concerned)

[shaunmckeever]

I think to be able to call yourself a consultant in a specific field such as fire safety you have to have an in depth knowledge of the subject. As Chris has indicated, passing an exam or serving in a FA for several years does not necessarily make you a good consultant.

In giving advice in preparation for the RRO, DCFO Andy Marles gave his defintion of what he considered a competent person in relation to fire -

‘They have to have an understanding of fire, the way fire behaves, the way that building reacts to fire, so they can understand the risks that are created’

I would think anyone who calls themselves a fire consultant would have to be able to meet this defintion of competency before they can advise on fire safety. I think, as has already been said, you must recognise your limitations and know when to seek advice. Nobody would expect you to be an expert in every aspect of fire safety.

The trouble is someone appointing a consultant has no way of assessing the competency of a consultant without having some knowledge of the subject themselves. Although I have not personally applied for it myself the IFE do maintain a list of registered risk assessors. As I understand it those on the list have had to prove a level of competency before being allowed on the list. Perhaps someone from the IFE responsible for acceptance onto the list should respond to your question.

[Bluefire1]

Andy (South Wales if I remember right) has his head screwed on and his thoughts are good, as are the replies so far.. but all this MHSW Regs and ODPM stuff.... without trying to start any arguments, can an ex-FSO from a busy (FS wise) Met be better than an FSO from a quiet county or has the county guy had more time to look at things rather than rush round missing certain points. But as the original poster of my quote points out anybody can do it.... whilst I was serving.. we had a couple of run ins with so called consultants on the FP(W) Regs who turned out to be nothing (no disrespect) firefighters who had done a 2 week FF FS course and 30 years in the job.... that for their clients was magic....  Chris has a good point "I think it is important also for clients to challenge consultants to prove their ability", but how does joe public know.. maybe time to start a national register with some actual standard.... maybe the IFE has started something towards the right way,  but anyone who can put GIFE/MIFE and maybe BSc after their name good or bad can say they are a Fire RA consultant.

For those who have read some of my other posts, they may know... I did 15 years in FS ending up as DOIII, have my FE degree and IFE but I still find myself wondering am I right or is there more to this consultancy game than I am thinking... experience, knowledge, exams, qualifications plus things like insurance (how many have that ?), VAT and the other business matters... but when I see some others out there undercutting people I know are good because they can say to poor joe public I have (as I have said above) the experience, it makes me wonder.

The USA has a licence scheme based on the NFPA code of practice for consultants, no exam pass.. no licence.. no consultant.. maybe that is the way to go ?

[kurnal]

Its not only important for clients to verify the competence of contractors- its a legal obligation, and due diligence,  to appoint COMPETENT assistance (management regs again). Oh dear  looks like Ive just gone round in another circle....

I was on the long course with Andy, wish I had managed to stay awake like he obviously did.....

[Bluefire1]

I was on the long course with Andy, wish I had managed to stay awake like he obviously did.

Nice thought.. but one had to catch up on the bugs somewhere .... but it's that one word competent ?

[jasper]

As well as the above I think that ''having eyes like a toilet house rat'' is helpful

[jokar]

I would have thought that Public Liability Insurance would be top of the list, followed by at least £10,000 readily available to shell out if. God or whomever forbid, something goes wrong.  That surely would at least bring to the attention of some that a degree of competence as described by DCFO Marles is a necessary requisite.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I have a question........

If one of you consultants provides advice to a client and then sometime later it all goes horribly wrong, where does that leave you? Obviously the client would have a case against you and hopefully you'll be insured, but I'm talking in a prosecution scenario....... how do you demonstrate to a court that you are competent, the advice you gave is relevant and applicable etc etc?

I'm not trying to start a battle of words and have nothing against consultants, (despite the fact I have upset a couple while auditing risk assessments), I'm merely curious.

[PhilB]

Under Article 32(10) a consultant could be prosecuted if the failure to comply can be attributed to his act or default.

The responsible person would have show due dilligence, I would suggest by satisfying himself that the consultant was duly competent.

I have nothing against consultants either but I welcome a prosecution of this nature so that incompetent consultants may be put off.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

But the question remains of how do the consultants demonstrate competency?

My point is that I could set up as a consultant tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm competent to walk into a premises and carry out a full fire risk assessment and make all manner of recommendations to the owners does it?

[PhilB]

No you're quite right. It is the responsibility of the responsible person to check the competence, and that competence I would suggest should be proportianate to the risk.

So for a simple premises like a corner shop little specialist knowledge would be required other than a basic undersatnding of fire growth, building performance and occupant charactersistics of that particular occupancy.

For a nuclear power plant a tad extra would be required.

Now if the manager of the nuclear power plant appoints his mate Bob who's just come off a big red lorry and did a one week basic fire safety course in 1972,...I would question if the manager has shown due dilligence when appointing a competent person to assist.

How far a responsible person has to check competence must surely be proportionate to the complexity of the premises.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Now that I agree with, but how many consultants from a non fire service background have a full understanding of fire growth and building performance etc?
I would like to think that after 20 years of putting fires out, I have a fairly good idea.

Also, should consultants  provide accreditation without being asked?
I notice that many have letters after their name from exams such as Graduate or Member of the IFE.

I have already informed a couple of responsible persons to request accreditation of the consultants they have used following the audit of what, in my opinion, was a poor risk assessment.

[Chris Houston]

Now that I agree with, but how many consultants from a non fire service background have a full understanding of fire growth and building performance etc?

There are other way to learn about fire than from having to extinguish it, although I accept that having to deal with fire is a great way of knowing this.

Obvioulsy, being a consultant is a lot more than simply understanding fire growth and building performance.

To look at it from the other side, how many of those from a fire fighting back ground understand the various issues facing profit making organisations, how many know about legislation other than fire safety (general health and safety, complexities of Tort or Delict, Occupiers Liability).  It could also be argued that those from a fire service background may focus simply on compliance with legislation, as opposed to considering matters beyond what is required in law, including property protection issues.