Article 15 of RRO

[jokar]

Whilst the Audit form is supposedly standardised across Brigades, some have adapted it slightly.  It is used for the auditing process and is spoken about as the contemperaneous notes of the IO.  They are not secret copies and are available under FoI.

[wee brian]

I went looking on the CFOA website

http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives/tfs-audit-procedures.htm

Looks like a lot of bean counting to me

[PhilB]

So can anybody get a copy of this dodgy form or is it a secret?

Wee Brian you can download it from Hamphire FRS website http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives.htm

[PhilB]

Yep........hopefully soon some FRS will recognise this and start enforcing the Order rather than wasting their biro ink.

[jokar]

Biro's, some Brigades are in the present and are using palm pilots to do this work, only a couple mind you.  The form is connected to some nice flow charts and links with the Enforcement management model.  This gives standardisation across Brigades and enables consistency to be a good point.  Ok, its crap but it is what the Government and CFOA came up with to pursue their agendas.

[CivvyFSO]

I went looking on the CFOA website

http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives/tfs-audit-procedures.htm

Looks like a lot of bean counting to me

We are doing alot of data collecting as part of the process. Some data is for risk levels that may affect turnout. i.e 2 buildings on fire at 3am, 1 generally has 1000 people in at that time of day/night and 1 is derilict. If we have the data we know where to send more resources.

Alot of it is making more sense now as the problems are being ironed out. I am sure you are all aware that different enforcement officers have different methods and views on fire safety, this is supposed to make it less based on personal opinions and more equal across the board.

I guess the thought behind it is you should be able to put 2 different officers in the same building, and they should come up with the same enforcement expectation. It quite obviously won't quite work like that in reality, but it will be a much closer decision than before.

In my opinion the worst part is that we are supposed to give people 5 weeks notice of the inspection/audit. This can give a false picture of the level of compliance. If inland revenue gave people 5 years warning of the year they were going to audit their tax returns I doubt they would catch many people evading their taxes.

[wee brian]

Interesting. Its always good to hear from the guys actually doing the job.

I can see the sense in gathering firefighting intelligence. I just worry that it all takes too long. As for giving people notice, what kind of a daft idea is that. I'm all for the enforcement concordat but blimey......

How long does it take to do this in a "typical" premises?

[Mike Buckley]

Depends on how you look at it. Is the aim of the audit to catch people out or to ensure that they are complying to the order. If you want to catch people out, serve enforcement notices etc. then yes you want an unannounced visit. On the other hand if you want people to comply with the order then five weeks notice serves as a wake up call and the audit should show everything in order and you may only need to give advice.

In a way, do you want to be the friendly local bobby who makes sure everything is running smoothly and legally on his patch who people come to for help or the policeman who judges his success by the number of arrests, bookings etc. he makes and people steer clear of him? Which is the better role model for the Fire Service?

[terry martin]

I agree with the friendly bobby approach. there are a lot of small buisnesses out there who are willing to comply they just don't have a clue (in the nicest terms). Giving them the opportunity to get their house in order is the only fair way of Auditing/enforcing in my opinion.

 bearing in mind, although there is a period of notice recommended prior to carrying out the Audit, this does not always need to occur. If a member of the public was to raise concerns about a premises it would be acted on immediately

[messy]

Terry will have witnessed, as I have, the difficulty of the more dinosaur IOs who were weaned on the FPA and seem incapable of letting go of the prescriptive 'jobsworth' approach.

For instance, with regards to the bullet point lists on the LH side of the audit forms, they are supposed to be 'aide-memoires' to help the IO. However, I have heard experienced IO's quoting them as if they are law. The maintenance section refers to 'records' being kept. It's already been discussed here that records do not need to be kept (although it's best practise etc). These IOs will issue enforcement notices if FPA style records are not in place.

My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.

It will all end in tears

[CivvyFSO]

Assuming that when we left the premises people followed the advice given and fire safety was dealt with as required by the legislation then the 5 weeks notice would be good.

The large companies with specific H&S managers etc tend to be almost faultless. Chances are if you have enough interest in fire to be in this forum you are either an I/O or work in the industry. If so then I am sure that wherever you work is run very well. We also have to deal with the smaller companies who generally couldn't care less about fire safety until something happens to make them care. Giving them 5 weeks to unblock their exits etc, and then leaving them to block them up again in the knowledge that they get warning of a visit, is not ideal. (IMO of course)

[CivvyFSO]

My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.

It will all end in tears

It is all supposed to eventually point us towards inspecting the premises where the higher risks are. That should all come out in due time.

What is the point in me going to inspect some company who has a dedicated team running H&S and fire safety and is doing a good job of it? I could waste 5 hours going through their documents and walkng the building and not finding a fault. Big pat on the back for the company, and the H&S people tend to like showing how good they are, but me being there has not reduced their risk.

[jokar]

FRS are supposedly directing their resources at high risk premises and not every one.  This will ensure that the targetted premises continue their compliance and that advise can be given to the medium and low risk premises demonstrating how to comply.  The compilation of data is for  IRMP, the new fire cover,  and will have an effect on the Government Modernisation agenda for the Fire Service.  I would have assumed that most Brigades have done a workload analysis for their inspection programme and that it meest the needs of the National Framework Document and IRMP Guidance Note 4.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.

Isn't that depending on the database being used?

It is possible to bring forward the date of next inspection so it throws it out way before the 5/6 years are up by manually programming the date of next inspection ....... or altering the date.

With regard to the large companies with H&S teams ...... I seem to find the ones that are not particularly well managed, or have issues surrounding maintenance, training, poor risk assessments etc ........ or is that just my bad luck?!!

[zimmy]

Nothing I have seen dictates inspection frequencies. Guidance note 4 and the draft enforcers guidance specifically state that individual Brigades should target their inspections at high risk premises, taking into account not only the inherent risk of occupancy type, size, etc determined by the risk rating, but also the management compliance level determined by section B of the form. Brigades will therefore lay out an inspection programme in this manner but can only do this with the available resources.

My Brigade has started a process as above which will give, for example, a hotel that scores highly on the risk rating and also highly on the management compliance a reinspection frequency of 12, 6 or even 3 months. Alternatively, a low scoring hotel on both counts may well attract a reinspection of 60 months.

For lower risk premises such as offices shops etc, if audits are carried out and the scores are low enough, they may never be visited again as in practice, we will never have the resources to inspect every premises.