Requirement for written fire risk assessments

[Pip]

Bear in mind that the significant findings are not just the faults, but the proper measures as well, so that fire extinguishers properly mounted and in  the correct position is a significant finding as well as not enough fire extinguishers provided.

However I can see conflict coming up as an RP, especially if they have hired or employed an expert arguing, with an inspecting officer over the risk assessment. Alternatively what is the position of the expert if having done a risk assessment the IO disagrees and lands an enforcement notice?

The IOs have lost the protection of the FPA and the 1952 Fire Services Bluff Act!

well the RP could appeal an enforcement notice-and let a magistrate decide.I would welcome this as an IO, because then the law might define some of the guidance.Remember IO's have the same guidance documents as a RP/consultant-after that its down to perception,experience of the IO and their Boss!

[Richard Earl]

I have recently undertaken a fire risk assessment of a small shopping complex which included a key cutting company in a small unit.  As they only employed two persons I advised that a written fire risk assessment is not required, although recomended.

However I have subsequently found out that this tenant has more than one shop in the area and employs more than five persons in total for all the shops, although no more than two persons per shop.

Will a written fire risk assessment need to be produced for all shops individually or collectively??

Thanks,

Rocha

hi as far as im aware the risk asssessment is for the building not the company as a whole.
the main head office will have a risk assessment for them and i would recommend a written risk assessment be done just to cover the individual location.  but according to RRO they dont need to keep written records,  (stupid i know)  :/

[kurnal]

Yes they do need to record the significant findngs of the risk assessment for each seperate location because the key cutting company employs 5 or more.

And as it is a shared workplace all responsible persons need to co-operate and communicate with each other the significant findings of their own risk assessment, with the landlord responsible for co-ordinating this especially if anyone is using hazardous substances, and for the risk assessment of common areas.

[Ken Taylor]

Yes, you can have a separate risk assessment  relating to each premises - including all the significant risks within the building and of the work carried out by the employees there - but, whilst the risk assessment is not covering the entire operation of the employer, it still needs to be recorded, as Kurnal says, for the reasons given. This has been the interpretation given to the same duty to record significant findings in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and to the duty for a safety policy in the 1974 Health and Safety at Work, etc Act.

[PhilB]

The inspector carries out the inspection and tells the RP what he's missed and what he needs to do to put it right.  Goodbye 5(4) Notice - hello Enforcement Notice.

So much for self compliance .... or am I missing something ?

No Fred shouldn't happen as long as it is enforced correctly but you raise a good point. It is not the role of the enforcing authority to tell the responsible person exactly what to do...if it was we would be back to 5(4) OR 8(5) notices.

It is usually quite obvious, in my opinion of course, if a risk assessment is suitable and sufficient...there should be no need to inspect the whole of the building to determine this fact.

If it is not suitable or sufficient...just tell them that fact...why it is not.......and tell them to do another. But I know that many FRS are still trying to come to terms with this culture change.

[ian gough]

PhilB the Lawyers are already sharpening their pencils!

[PhilB]

I don't know Ian!! The way you rant on about lawyers anyone would think you've been involved in a high profile case or something x!

[ian gough]

once bitten maybe you kinda get a feeling for these things.

Seriously though Phil, I'm dealing with quite a few problems posed by fire officers doing (to some extent) what you suggest. Others might call it 'setting hares running' -because after the 'responsible person' has worried a bit, spent a bit and then asked for advice - there's really nothing wrong with the buildings or management. This irritates I can assure you.

I can see litigation increasingly being taken against F&RSs when they become a nuisance; with little sympathy from any Court.

At least if they put their cards on the table early it can save a lot of hassle.

[jokar]

I agree with Ian, the IO's seem to want to go back to the prescriptive days, that is their comfort zone.  Whether they are any good at fire safety is another issue but to blatantly state you have to do this is not true anymore, there is more than one way and realisation of this could cost FRS a lot of money.

[PhilB]

I agree Ian, interesting times ahead. I can also see problems when fire officers are asked to justify what they are asking for in Court. In your case the Judge constantly referred to 'The Blue Book'. It is entirely appropriate to move away from such precription but the new guides are very poor in my opinion.

Couple with this the fact that many FRS are not providing sufficient training for their inspecting officers there will no doubt be some long winded court cases where consultants and fire officers try and work out the square route of a jamjar while the lawyers tills are ringing.

I think we are in the wrong profession!

[Paul2886]

Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me.  I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy.  If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff.  After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others  blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?

I hear what you are saying about H&S legislation BUT until this legislation gets sounded out in court i think you are wrong to say MUST.

I think we should leave it there as we are obviously not going to agree but it has been good to hear what you and others think.

Bikerjohn..You're right on your thinking. Otherwise would be ludicrous

[firelawmac]

I think we are in the wrong profession!

PhilB,

I completely agree!!! The life of a defence lawyer is the way ahead!!

Happy Days!

[Dinnertime Dave]

Your Shell garage example is an interesting one. If you work on your principle, the Shell garage on one side of the street needs to record whereas the lone operator running a garage on the other side does not and yet there are still four employees in each garage, that just does not make sense to me.  I believe the principle rotates around the level of occupancy.  If you start having more people employed in a single location you worry that they may not all know the problems in the place and what the emergency plan is hence you record it so that consistency of message gets round to all staff.  After all, this is all about looking after the employees safety (and any others  blah blah) so why would you have more robust systems in your Shell garage than my lone operator?

Sorry, but both garages need to record - they both have a Petroleum Licence. Article 11 (2)(b)

Interestingly, I once had the fire consultant for the biggest food retailer in the UK, who also have petrol stations tell me they only employed two people in the petrol station so they didn`t need a FRA.

Also, PhilB, stick to fire safety, my better half was a criminal defence lawyer take it from me there is more money in firefighting, unless you are a partner.

[nearlythere]

Question for discussion.

If a significant risk is identified and effective control measures are applied to the extent that the risk has been reduced to a minor one, does it lose its significant risk status at the next review?

[CivvyFSO]

I would say 'no'

It is still a significant risk, but one with a control measure that lowers it's risk. So the control measure should also be recorded as part of the significant findings. (Since the control measure is a preventative or protective measure)