Requirement for written fire risk assessments

[BikerJohn]

Am i missing something here? are we suggesting because he has a key cutting operation in another town he adds those employees to these and that makes him require a written risk assessment? I do not believe that is the spirit of the law and that what should be happening is that the tennant has to do a written risk assessment if he employees five or more in that building and the landlord/agent has to do one for the common areas. They then have to look at ech others to see if there are any conflicts etc.  Am i alone with this thinking?

[jokar]

That is exactlt it.  A recorded, not written assessment is required on numbers of employees not numbers of employees in a particular workplace.  Therefore, as Oxfam have more than 5 employees worldwide, then every shop has to have a recorded FRA, volunteers aside.

[PhilB]

Am i missing something here? are we suggesting because he has a key cutting operation in another town he adds those employees to these and that makes him require a written risk assessment? I do not believe that is the spirit of the law

Apparently John yes you are missing the point. The requirement to record the significant findings if you employ 5 or more has been statute law since 1992.

[BikerJohn]

I am almost speechless! i will have to get the white paper out this cannot be right, will respond tomorrow.

[PhilB]

It is correct John, trust me. If you employ 5 people, regardless of the location you employ them, it is reasonable to expect a greater degree of acountability and control. This is easier to audit if it is recorded. Good luck with the white paper.

Hopefully no professional fire safety consultants out there in the big wide world are also under your misconception...surely that could never happen!

[BikerJohn]

Ok, i have just read a few bits and yes i accept that is what the guides say but i am still struggling with the principle. I hear what you are saying in that a bigger organisation should have more detailed or stuctured systems in place but i cannot see how that increases the risk to the two employees in the cafe or whatever. I am quite happy to hold my hand up and say that is how i thought it should be interpreted and i can assure you there are a great many consultants and Fire Authorities who think the same. I still think the spirit of the law was not meant to be like this. Lets take a scenario, i employ four people accross England all working alone running a small unit in a mall seling ties, i employ a fifth in another mall and you tell me i now have to record the FRA. Where is the logic?

I am not trying to be funny here it just interests me with regard to the definition.

[PhilB]

Dont take too much notice of the guides John, they're not too good, in my opinion of course.

Hopefully most FAs have sent their inspecting officers on suitable training courses that deal with this issue and hopefully most fire consultants already had that knowledge before setting themselves up as consultants.

FPA Circular 27 expalined this point when the 97 Regs were first introduced. Legislation may be boring but it is important that enforcers and advisors understand exactly what the law requires rather than trying to give their interpretation of the spririt of the law.

[Tom Sutton]

PhilB new law is all about interpretation and only the courts can decide. Fpa Circ 27has no relevance to the RRFSO and I think BikerJohn has a good point.

[PhilB]

The requirement is quite clear, if five or more persons are employed the prescribed information MUST be recorded. You are of course welcome to your opinion but this has been a requirement of the MHSW Regs since 1992 and Courts have never interpreted it the way you and John do.

[Pip]

I would suggest that the regs were based on what is reasonable for a company to resource.5 or less employees means you are a very small business, but if you have tens or hundreds spread around thinly, there would be a reasonable amount of support/structure.I suppose they had to draw the line somewhere.Lets face it, it is not that hard to do an assessment on a small place any way.

[jokar]

Lets be quite clear here, the requirement/absolute duty of an RP is to undertake an FRA.  In certain instances:
a. where there are more than 5 persons employed
b. a licence under any enactment is in force
c. an alterations notice is in force

then the RP must record the significant findings. (as many have stated before the SF are not a list)  
Nothing difficult, just record the bits you had to do as an RP anyway.

[PhilB]

Lets be quite clear here, the requirement/absolute duty of an RP is to undertake an FRA.  In certain instances:
a. where there are more than 5 persons employed
b. a licence under any enactment is in force
c. an alterations notice is in force

Not quite true Jokar should read

a. where there are 5 or more employed....not more than 5
b. Correct
c. an alterations notice requiring the information to be recorded is in force.....not just any alterations notice

And you are spot on when you say this is an absolute duty........not a duty that you can interpret some other way.

Sorry to be picky

[Ken Taylor]

This is like a re-run of the arguments we had back in the 1990s. There was a 'general principle' in operation that, if you employed less than 5 people, you could simply tell them all things whereas, if you had 5 or more, you had to write the important things down - like safety policies and risk assessments.

[kurnal]

If article 48 of the RRO disapplies the HASAWA and the Management Regs, which is my understanding, is it appropriate for us to keep quoting precedents and case Law decisions - such as the argument over 5 employees anywhere versus 5 at anyplace?

Surely under Article 48 we are starting with a clean slate and need RRO specific Case Law before we can be sure?

[Tom Sutton]

I think there is no disagreement if an employer is the RP of a single workplace and if he employs 5 or more people then he has to record the significant findings.
It is when he is has multiple separate workplaces employing less then 5 in each should he aggregate these employees to decide if he needs to record the findings in each. This could mean two shops next door to each other, one with one employee is required to record the findings the other next door with four employees not required.
Justice, not only has to be done, it has to be seem to be done.