RRO vrs FPWPR

[jasper]

Has anyone done an in depth analysis of the differences in the Reform Order and the Workplace Regs? i.e. like when BS 5839 was amended

[PhilB]

Yes!!!! I should hope so. the main difference is the reform order takes account of the safety of all relevant persons...not just employees.

There are three new duties..

1) To reduce the risk of fire
2) To mitigate the effects of fire
3) To maintain facilities that have been provided for fire-fighters

Apart from a few other twiddly bits nothing else has changed.

[jasper]

I always thought the workplace regs (in a roundabout way) aimed to reduce the risk to occupants and mitigate effects

[PhilB]

The Workpace Fire Precautions Legislation, to use the correct term made no requirement to reduce the risk of fire or to mitigate the effects. The offence occured only if employees were placed at risk of death or serious injury.

Now relevant persons have to be taken into account and that includes persons in the vicinity so sacraficial buildings will not usually be acceptable.

The old legislation did reduce risks and mitigate effects in a roundabout way but now there is an absolute duty to do so. A first in the history of fire law.

[CivvyFSO]

There's the shift to the 'responsible person' as opposed to just the employer, although most of the time it will be the same person. (You fire professionals should get paid more now if you are ending up designated as a responsible person. If I could go to prison for doing my job wrong I would want more money anyway! )
The burden of proof has changed. Guilty until proven innocent. (So keep those records!)
Self employed people now come under the legislation, as it was just 'employers' before.
Almost all premises apart from single private dwellings come under the legislation now.
And all the stuff mentioned by PhilB.
The whole relevant persons part changes quite alot on it's own.

[ian gough]

There's not enough room in the prisons.

[CivvyFSO]

Then they would be ringing up the Fire Authority complaining about the means of escape.

[Ken Taylor]

Perhaps that's why they are letting so many out early these days, Ian.

I can recall that a few health and safety advisers got themselves into trouble with the law a few years ago for not doing their job properly - so, presumably the fire profession will not be exempt either.

I wonder whether any employers did deliberately disregard occupants other than employees when they did their fire risk assessments under the FP(W)Regs? Now they will need to consider anyone who may be at risk from the operation of their businesses and not just those within the building at the time.

[Mike Buckley]

Don't get mixed up with the responsible person and the competent person. The RRO is quite clear the responsible person is the employer or any other person having control of any part of the premises e.g. the occupier or owner. Whereas the competent person is appointed to carry out the preventative or protective measures. So unless the fire safety advisor is the employer, occupier or owner of the premises they will only be the competent person.

As I see it a fire safety advisor cannot be designated as the responsible person unless they are in full charge of the premises (hiring, firing, buying, selling, the lot) and not just in charge of the fire safety aspects. If their role is limited in any way then they can only be a competent person.

[Pip]

Then they would be ringing up the Fire Authority complaining about the means of escape.

yeah but they can keep them locked anyway!

[PhilB]

As I see it a fire safety advisor cannot be designated as the responsible person unless they are in full charge of the premises (hiring, firing, buying, selling, the lot) and not just in charge of the fire safety aspects. If their role is limited in any way then they can only be a competent person.

Quite so Mike but look at article 32(10). If the offence is the fault of some other person...that person may be prosecuted. That could be the competent person who advised the responsible person.

[jasper]

One thing I have always said is that we cannot be held responsible for the actions or inactions of clients after the fire risk assessment has been undertaekn i.e. wedging fire doors etc. as we only have a snapshot of the state of the premises at the time of the assessment

[CivvyFSO]

The only issue there would be if an inspecting officer challenged something that was blatantly missed from a risk assessment that a company had paid a fair amount of money for. Unlikely to happen with someone who is competent though.

If I owned a company and paid someone who claimed to be competent to do my risk assessment. If that risk assessment is deemed to be insufficient due to something the person missed then does the assessor become responsible? Or is that more of a trading standards issue?

Article 5(4) seems to comment, but IMO doing a risk assessment brings no responsibilty onto you for the safety of the premises. In simple terms it is pointing out where the premises can be made safer. Preventive measures are for the RP to introduce. So, in the instance mentioned above, I should be able to claim due diligence if I needed a defense, and take the assessor to trading standards for not giving me what I had paid for?

[Mike Buckley]

PhilB I see that article as a catchall and the competent person could be prosecuted as well as the responsible person.

As far as CivvyFSO's point about someone claiming to be competent as I understand it from the H&S legislation side the onus is on you as the responsible person to satisfy yourself that the person is competent. In the simplest terms if you employ a sixteen year old kid fresh out of school who claims to be competent you are asking for trouble.

I would think that if something is missed then it becomes more of a civil matter ie you would be suing the assessor for negligence, as far as trading standards go they would probably only get involved if there a definite standard involved. So if there was a recognised qualification ie a certificate in Fire Risk Assessment and you had to have that certificate to carry out a FRA, if you go around saying you have the certificate and dong FRAs when you haven't then trading standards may get involved.

The rest of it is payday for the legal profession, taking Jasper's point about the fire doors, even if you did not see any fire doors wedged open on your visit, if you fail to note in your report that fire doors must not be wedged open then the client may turn rounmd and say they were not told.

I may be cynical but the job of the lawyers is to get their client off not to see justice done.

[CivvyFSO]

Would you expect that as part of a RA the possibility of doors being wedged open should be considered and included as a risk? I have seen some RA's where all things like that are included and taken into account by risk rating. i.e. Likelihood vs severity of harm, with suitable suggestions/control measures, i.e. Don't wedge the doors, risk after control measure = low... Those RA's seem more suitable as they do actually assess risks, as opposed to what sometime seems to be a simple fire safety checklist with generic advice. (The online ones)