The New Guidance Documents

[PhilB]

How are you all getting along with the new guidance?

Let me raise an old point now that the new guides, well some of them, are out.

As most of us know there is sometimes a requirement to record the significant findings of the risk assessment.

How then does the new guide define significant findings……..

•   A feature of the premises, from which the fire hazards and persons at risk are identified.
•   The actions you have taken or will take to remove or reduce the chance of a fire occurring or the spread of fire and smoke.
•   The actions people need to take in case of fire.
•   The necessary information, instruction and training needed and how it will be given.

If the responsible person uses that definition many things will not be recorded. For example…the means for detecting fires…that does not fit in with any of the above bullet points………but some of us may want to know what is provided when auditing premises!

If you look at the RRFSO ….it defines general fire precautions…and they include…..means for detecting fire…….etc.

It also defines preventive & protective measures as the measures that have been identified by the responsible person as a consequence of a risk assessment as the general fire precautions he needs to take.

I would argue therefore that the means for detecting fire is a significant finding!

Some of you may also notice that there is no longer a need to show any reasoning to support your conclusions…….the ACOP to MHSW Regs. addressed both these issues.

My point is the new legislation is not bad, however the supporting guidance for responsible persons leaves a lot to be desired.

[John Webb]

I would have thought that fire alarm/detection systems are covered by your third bullet point 'The actions people need to take....'. After all they will need to respond to the alarm whether raised manually or by a detector.
I also think that any Risk Assessment needs some form of introduction/background such as building construction, fitted equipment and general use of the building being assessed. I agree that the Guides perhaps do not explicitly state this clearly enough.

[PhilB]

No it doesn't state it clearly enough...what was wrong with the definition in the ACOP. i.e. a record of the preventitive & protective measures, a remedial action plan & proof of due process.

Some of us pointed out this and many other problems when the guides were in draft format...unfortunately we were mostly ignored.

However from what I have seen so far why should we worry.........most SFSOs dont realise there is a problem or dont seem to care.....CFOA don't seem concerned..........many FRS are reducing the number of inspectors and the training that those remain receive...the Fire Service College has slashed the number of seconded officers so there is no one left to develop or deliver the necessary training.........the future is scary!

[wee brian]

Phil they didn't ignore you - they just didnt agree.

[PhilB]

mmmmmm...good point Wee Brian...I think......perhaps you could explain why they didn't agree....was the ACOP wrong? Is it not important to show reasoning to support conclusions?......is means for detecting fires not a significant finding......is it ok to have sleeping accomodation on upper floors with AFD in corridors only on floors below?...I could go on but perhaps some of you can add your observations of problems identified...and then perhaps Wee Brian can educate us all as to why we are wrong. Where is my dear friend Collin..I do miss him. x

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

How do you assess a Fire Risk Assessment's suitability when there is no evidence to support that a dure process has been undertaken?

I've raised this point before, and apart from asking the Responsible Person loads of questions to ascertain that they have been through a process in order to arrive at conclusions and that they understand what they have put.

The Responsible person must be able to understand what they have put and ultimately defend that in a court of law when it's all gone the shape of a pear.

[wee brian]

Phil - I can't explain why they disagreed - you would have to ask them.

I personnaly think that it would be pointless and unreasonable to expect somebody to record all the preventative and protective measures that exist in a premises. This would have to include a lot of built in measures that they may not be aware of.

The point of the order is to ensure that the premises is reasonably safe it's not about producing even more pointless papaerwork. Rather than reading a 500 page document an enforcement officer could just look at the premises and see for himself.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

But thats just a look ............... what about how the premises are managed?

Poor management, poor maintenance, poor housekeeping .................. recipe for disaster?

Or should we do the job properly and actually check how things are managed?

[PhilB]

Wee Brian I am not for one minute advocating massive pointless documents. Indeed I have seen a few that attempt to bore the auditor into submission. However I do not think it un reasonable to record the preventive and protective measures,...that is best done with a plan in all but the simplest of buidings. And there must be proof of due process i.e.reasoning to support conclusions.

In my humble opinion the authors of these new guides don't really understand what constitutes a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. But as I have said before, not many people do. Interesting times ahead. It won't belong before some incompetent consultant or responsible person is found wanting in a Court.

[Paul]

The guides appear to be aimed at a certain reader.  Perhaps  with the same target audience that read 'an employers guide' ??

I must admit I was expecting something with a little more meat on.  As Phil points out the definition of what purports to be suitable and sufficient does not resemble anything like the MHSW Regs supporting ACoP.

I would like to know who was consulted in writing this document. How can something so significant as Fire detection not be a significant finding?

The 3rd item in Phil’s original post

•    The actions people need to take in case of fire.

Surely if the occupants are not made aware of the fire occurring in the first instance then they will have little opportunity to put these predefined actions into action.  

Surely a significant finding??

[Gary Howe]

PhilB

You raise some very interesting points as usual, I have helped to jointly develop a new FRA format for my company, one of the interesting conversations arising from the working group, is the validation of the 'YES' answers within the assessment.

Having used the document in anger recently, I have been very careful to qualify the 'YES' answers with balanced and reasoned argument.

This does make the task of writing (and thinking about) the assessment that much longer, however the plus side is that you are not only recording the signifcant findings but you can walk away confident knowing that the FRA is 'suitable and sufficent' (as laid down in the MHSW ACOP)

Playing devils advocate (I like doing this) what does this mean for a great many FRA assessors who are operating on a very tight budget for the FRA, are they going to be spending the necessary time to make it 'suitable and sufficent' I doubt they will backing up the FRA with constructive argument, balanced reasoning and making sure it will stand up in court. There again I could be wrong?

Regards

Gary

[val]

I think we may be getting a little retentive about MHSW ACOP's which are hardly a riveting read for professionals let alone the average jack.
My practical view is that a risk assessment, written in mandarin on the back of a donkey. is by definition suitable and sufficient if the assessor cannot identify any significant hazards.
If there are no significant hazards then by whatever means they have arrived at said position must have included a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
Phil, are you on commision from the HSE, whoops, I mean the HSC?

[kurnal]

Val
If as a responsible person wearing my usual rose tinted glasses  I see  and report no significant hazards and later someone gets hurt or dies as a result of a fire in my premises, I guess I am on pretty secure ground.

My duty may or may not have been met, the fire may have been enemy action or as a result of incompetence by me and in the absence of evidence in my risk assessment of matters taken into account I guess the enforcement authority will have very little evidence and will have to construct a case against me starting from scratch. Whereas if I have recorded my methodology the authority will soon get a measure of my competence and diligence? So I think the lack of a decent definition will lead to lower standards and will undermine the ability of an authority to bring prosecutions.

[Paul]

Val,

I'm afraid I don't agree.

If the guidance is aimed at the average Jack then surley avergae Jack needs some guidance.  If average Jack or any other person carryng out the assessment, can not identify that there are no significant findings does not mean by default there are non, merely that he could identify any.

And I think this is the point.  suitable and sufficient??  yes but in who's eyes??

P

[PhilB]

Val, thanks for demonstrating my point that many people don't really understand the fire risk assessment process.

The requirement is to record the significant findings...not just significant hazards. A person could not carry out an assessment...find everything is ok and claim there are no significant findings to record!!!

Is there a fire warning systsem?...yes...that is a signifcant finding....is it maintained?.....yes...another significant finding.....etc.

And if there are no significant hazards..where is the reasoning to support that conclusion?