Suitability of Fire Risk Assessment

[kurnal]

Hi Sarahjayne
Welcome  to the forum!
I reckon you have hit the nail on the head  in the first paragraph, but I think that both suitable and sufficient relate to the level of detail proportionate to the risk and its the level of potential risk that will determine the  required competency of the assessor

[PhilB]

Currently under the WP Regs an employer or responsible person can only be guilty of 2 offences:  Failure to comply with the WP Regs and failure to comply with an enforcement notice issues under the WP Regs.  Therefore by conducting an assessment in what ever format, they have complied with the requirent to conduct a fire risk assesssment, ....

To be precise the offence under regulation 11 is to fail to comply with the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation(Not the WP Regs).

Reg 3.1 of Management Regs requires the assessment to be suitable & sufficient......so if the assessment is not in a suitable format they have not complied with the legislation.

[John Webb]

Having looked through the FPA site, I have to agree with those who feel it is more of a checklist than a risk assessment (RA). While checklists can form part of an acceptable RA, they cannot be the principle means of complying. Comparison with "Fire Safety - an employer's guide" quickly shows up the holes in the FPA document. While the FPA document will encourage some thought, I do not think it will provide sufficient thought for the higher-risk premises, as does the above guide. I understand that the RR(FS)O guides will be similar in standard to the above guide, so at present we need to follow the existing guidance?

[Sarajayne]

In response to PhilB, I am surprised being new to the forum and given the original question regarding suitable and sufficent that there seems to be a hint of "putting people correct" on minor issues, I was merely making my point and attempting to add contsructive points to the debate.

With reference to your comment the term WP Regs was just used for convienence and Regaulation 3 (1) 3rd paragraph links back to Part II of the FIRE PRECAUTIONS (WORKPLACE) REGULATIONS 1997 (AS AMENDED 1999)
I also still feel that by conducting the assessment they HAVE complied with the legislation, an enforcement notice would have to be served  stating that the assessment conducted was not S or S. You would then have to argue or prove that it was not suitable or sufficient and at present this would ultimatly have be determined by a court of law.

[PhilB]

Sarajayne please don't take offence. It's not a question of putting people right on minor issues it is an important point of law.

You may have used the term WP Regs for convenience but many people miss the point that FRS enforce the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation not the WP Regs on their own, see Reg 10.

By virtue of Reg. 3.1 of Management Regs the assessment must be suitable and sufficient....if it is not they have not complied with the law.

An enforcement notice would not have to be served, although that is one option. If the failure had placed one or more employees at risk a prosecution may also succeed under Reg.11.

Also by virtue of Reg.5.2 the arrangements for managing fire safety must also be recorded.

And I agree totally that ultimately a Court would need to decide what constitutes a suitable and sufficient assessment. Presumably they would refer to the Approved Code of Practice to MHHSW Regs for guidance as this does explain quite clearly what is required.

However many enforcers and practioners have not read this ACOP, perhaps they should.

[Sarajayne]

Phil B, Thank you for your reply, no offence taken, of course there would be several options to an enforcement notice the point I am making is that the suitability and sufficency of the assessment is open to opinon by whoever audits it as there are so many bench marks to use e.g PAS 79 - 9 step method , HSE 5 step approach, 7 step method etc, etc, etc

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

We have people calling themselves Fire Risk Consultants because they spent 30 years sitting in the back of a Fire Engine.

I find that comment insulting.

I'm not a consultant but have spent 20+ years "in the back of a fire engine". I do not consider myself qualified by any stretch of the imagination, in fact with my time in Fire Safety, I'm only beginning to scratch the surface of a vast subject area.

I would also point out that (and no offence meant here) that there are consultants who have never seen the back of a fire engine, yet alone a fire.

[Martin Burford]

Baldyman.........absolutely correct......I too find novascot's remarks insulting.....and I agree there are far to many who call themselves consultants who have never seen a fire let alone sit in the back of a fire engine for 30 years....perhaps you would like to enlighten us all of your fire service experience novascot ?
Conqueror

[novascot]

Baldyman, if you find that comment insulting then I make no appology for it.

 There are too many retired Fire Officers who have never set foot in a Fire Safety office never mind learned the "black art". Fire Safety is an ongoing learning experience and to offer yourself as a consultant without       any Fire Safety background is   quite frankly....dangerouse. Remember the meaning of competent is:" a person with suitable training and experience or knowledge and other qualities."

[kurnal]

But Novascot  why get wound up about ex firefighters putting their operational experience to good use? There are also many young graduates out there working as fire engineers who have never seen a fire other than on the news. They produce fire strategies and fiddle about arguing the toss about hot smoke layers and tenability, pinching a degree here and  a metre there and justifying designs to approved inspectors with a 200 degree smoke layer at 2 metres above the floor. I would rather listen to most firefighters who may at least have scorched their tabs a time or two in a fire than someone whose only understanding of what its all about is from computer graphics.

But I must also point out there are some pretty excellent chappies out there too who do understand the real world.

[novascot]

Kurnal,
I am not speaking through ignorance. I spent many years in all seats of a Fire Engine. I know what practical Firefighting is all about and the exoerience is invaluable.  The point I am trying to make is that many people retire and see the Fire Risk Consultancy field as a way of supplimenting their pension without having the neccessary qualifications and experience.

I have seen FRA's completed which are embarrassing. If we had third party accreditation this would, hopefully, raise the standard.

[jokar]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entilted to work in any field they wish to.  The opinion may or may not be valid and they may not have sufficient experinece in their work. However, that is their inalienable right, we all try to do our best, whatever that is and wherever that takes us.  The best deterent for will be under RR(FS)O. See PhilB's thread from today, if those out there get it wrong they could suffer the consequences.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Novascot..... I'm astounded that you have managed to insult me and possibly other people on here within 4 posts.

You are obviously retired from the fire and rescue service whereas I'm still a serving member.

I do not consult, I offer advice and guidance while enforcing fire safety workplace legislation.
From your comments, I will assume that you are a consultant.

What is this "Black Art" you refer to?

[Ashley Wood]

Before this turns into a great bun fight let me have my pennies worth.

I am a consultant and I have also spent time on a fire truck. My abilities when I assist a client come to the fore and the benefit of both knowledge gained from books and experience enhance the level of service I can provide. To be a consultant you not only need experience that is gained from the sharp end but you also need to have very good communication skills so that you can get your point across to your clients. No matter how much you know if you can't transmit that knowledge to your client orally then you will fail!

I know fire-fighters that are very good at there job but will never be consultants because they cannot communicate effectively. I know consultants who have degrees and work for large fire consultancy companies, again they lack communication skills so would never make it on there own. However, you will always get good and bad in any profession. The only way to be sure that the 'consultant" has the experience and knowledge is to become registered, i. e BRE, IFE, etc. Even this will not be fool proof but it is a start.

Without a doubt, my experience on a branch has given me a different perspective than perhaps a university graduate may have. I am now constantly immersed in legislation, books, technical manuals and the like but that is the nature of the beast.

[novascot]

Baldyman,

what is your problem? I made a valid point regarding people setting themselves up as Fire Safety consultants without the knowledge or experience required. The point I was making was; you cannot gain the neccessary skills to be a Fire Safety Consultant if you spent your whole career as an operational firefighter.
How can you disagree with that? Or did you agree and you were just insulted?