Who are Competent to Carry Out Fire Risk Assessments?

[Geoff]

I've been told that there are a couple of organisations out there that supposedly competent fire risk assessors can join one being the IFE, another is IFSM and I believe there is some Eurpoean one that the FPA is allied with.  I assume they all have hoops which you have to go through to become a member but my question is are they any good and how would a lay person have any confidence that an assessor they might contract who is a memeber of one of these is actually competent?

[Jim Creak]

Competency is defined as the sum of knowledge and experience.....not a certificate. My advice is to take up references,seek examples of previous work and testimony from previous consultation with either approved inspectorate or enforceing authority. If you ask for this information it will automatically seperate the wheat from the chaff.

In my experience you can normally get an idea of competency by the proposed charge. If you want a cheap job you will get one.

[jokar]

To my knowledge, there are only 2 bodies who currently IFE registered trainers for FR.  They are the NI Fire Liaison Panel with our friend Colin and the FPA.  The London Fire Brigade have had a course assessed and are awaiting the outcome.  As noted above, the only true way is the definition of competence and references.  Mind you, those FRA's who are not utilising the DCLG's 5 steps may get into trouble in the future.

[fred]

Quite so Wee Brian, that was the point I was making to John. The Order says the Responsible person must do it. Article 18 requires him to appoint competent persons "to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures."

Can't resist it - must get in my twopenneth

Much depends on the interpretation of the word "undertaking" in the above extract from Art 18 - and not surprisingly there is no defintion of "undertaking" in the RRO

If it means 'to implement' then it suggests that the preventive and protective measures have already been identified by the Responsible Person in his risk assessment - the RP has done it on his own - and the competent person shouldn't do it for him.

(The defintiion of 'preventive and protective measures' is clearly defined as those "identifed by the RP")

If "undertaking" means 'in identifying' then it would infer that the competent person can assist the RP in carrying out his RA.

If "undertaking" means "duty" then there's a personal pronoun missing - it should be "his undertaking" (the most likely intention - I think!)

and if it means "promise" or "assurance" it doesn't make sense ..... like most of it I'm afraid

[Ken Taylor]

Is the risk assessment itself a preventive or protective measure?

[wee brian]

Of course not - unless you have it printed on fire proof paper and can hide behind it in an emergency!

Undertaking, in this context means doing something or getting it done. However hard you try you can't turn "undertaking preventative and protective measures" into doing an FRA.

Unless you write your own dictionary......

[Ken Taylor]

I do agree Wee B. I was just being rhetorically flippant following on from the proposed alternative meanings of 'undertaking'.

Unless specifically defined, words in legislation tend to be interpreted as would be generally understood (eg 'man on the Clapham omnibus') and the term 'undertaking' has been well understood in general health and safety legislation. There is, of course, no reason why the employer shouldn't use the services of a competent person to assist him with his risk assessment but it will still be his. Should the assistant subsequently be proved not to be competent and the risk assessment inadequate he may well have grounds for civil action against the 'assistant' - but this would be more difficult if it was one of his employees.

[Dragonmaster]

What about the fire safety guides issued by CLG? Surely they are designed for the RP to carry out their own FRA, the inference being that "if I follow the guide - I must be right!"

[fred]

There is, of course, no reason why the employer shouldn't use the services of a competent person to assist him with his risk assessment but it will still be his. Should the assistant subsequently be proved not to be competent and the risk assessment inadequate he may well have grounds for civil action against the 'assistant' - but this would be more difficult if it was one of his employees.

Not really Ken - it's covered in Article 32(10)

"Offences and Appeals
Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Order, is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is guilty of the offence, and the person may be charge with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this paragraph whether or not proceedings are taken against the first mentioned person."

.... cowboys beware !!

[Ken Taylor]

Yes, but the 'first person' is still said to have commited the offence in the words of the order. In fact this has to be the case before the assistant can be judged to have commited an offence by act or ommision. I take it that this is the point where you consider whether the dutyholder did what was reasonable in securing a competent assistant.

[PhilB]

Yes Ken, the responsible person may have committed an offence but he will have a defence by virtue of article 33 if he has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due dilligence to avoid the offence.

In plain English the responsible person must take all reasonable steps to ensure that any person he appoints is competent.

If he does that and something goes wrong he has still committed an offence but an enforcing authority would not take proceedings against him...it would be the cowboy in the dock.

[messy]

I am so pleased that the Govt have rationalised all the various pieces of fire safety legislation into one simplified Order. It makes things much easier to follow!!!!!

All you need now is a Doctorate in semantics, and you're home and dry!

Seriously, what chance does the average man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus RP have of getting his head around the FS(RR)O if even the collective fire safety brains here come up with diferent interpretations?

[fred]

In plain English the responsible person must take all reasonable steps to ensure that any person he appoints is competent.

Don't you think FRS's should be a bit more proactive in highlighting the situation that RP's may find themselves in they opt for the 'here today - gone tomorrow' competent person ?

[PhilB]

Possibly Fred but it is the RP who has ultimate responsibility for getting the job done not the FRS.  If the RP chooses to appoint a cowboy and then cannot show that he exercised due dilligence when making that choice he's failing in that duty.

The FRS should give advice when requested and in my opinion that should include emphasing the need to appoint competent persons.

[Mike Buckley]

Ok so the FRS has given advice and emphasised the need to appoint a competent person. The RP then asks who is a competent person? Have we gone round in a big circle?

As far as the RRO goes, I remember happy hours at the FSC where 30+ of us dealt with the same premise and came up with 40+ different answers, how on earth did anyone think that an ordinary employer was going to cope?