Is carrying out a FRA as a serving FRS auditor a conflict of interest?

[Ken Taylor]

I've carried out a lot of inspections of various types within my areas of employment, offered advice, 'suggested' where things should be located and even carried chairs around and helped tie them together at tented events to make sure they went in the best positions to retain escape routes - but wouldn't dare or even dream of doing their risk assessments for them. It's one thing to be helpful but another to take someone else's responsibility and set yourself up for the 'firing line, when things go badly wrong!

The earlier point about uniformed advice is a good one. Advice given from such sources seems to have sometimes been based upon the fact that the occupants will be able to escape and the FRS will put the fire out - rather than following published guidance and seeking to prevent the fire in the first instance.

[Redone]

If the off duty folks have professional indemnity insurance and their employers are aware of their ‘off duty’ employment I don’t have a problem.

[Wiz]

The comparison with the medical profession is not relevant. There is no enforcement role.

Following this line of logic you could argue that a soldier keeping the peace in one of the worlds trouble spots is entitled to go and fight for the enemy when off duty.  

I would not have a particular problem with fire safety officers doing a bit on the side if it is open and up front, if the fire authority is aware of it and they do not enforce standards in the premises that they cover as a private consultant. But most who do this work do it in a surrepticious and underhand way without the fire employers knowledge and so may be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time. This is wide open to corruption,  just like those notorious gangland cases in which police officers were given an inducement to turn a blind eye.
For this reason most enforcement officers are required by law to declare all inducements offered or hospitality received and record it officially in a document that is accountable and open to public scrutiny. I suggest that offering a service for a fee is exactly such an inducement that should be recorded.

So I would say, to do it right and protect yourself,  apply for permission, provide a list of your clients to the fire authority, declare vested interests,  keep your business and enforcement roles completely seperate- Never never tout for business whilst wearing your uniform or as part of your  enforcement duties.  

If theres one thing that does frustrate me its that poor advice given by a recruit firefighter on the trucks with no experience or knowlege of fire safety enforcement or standards has 100% more credibility with the public than good advice from an independent consultant with 35 years in the industry but wearing a suit.

I don't really have an opinion on the matter of serving firemen also working privately as fire risk assessors, other than to agree with Kurnal that I too have experienced, on many occasions, customers slavishly following the incorrect information given by an inexperienced fireman rather than the correct information given by an experienced fire alarm engineer just because the former was 'a fireman and therefore must know everything about anything as long as it is even slightly 'fire' related'

I was also once informed by a fire officer of many years service (and I quote) ' that most firemen have an overestimated opinion of their own importance and ability which is entirely based upon, and continually reinforced by, the fact that, when they are driving around in their big red lorry, very small boys wave to them excitedly, and that 'slappers' in mini-skirts want to have sex with them'

I must admit that I almost choked with laughter at his words, then thought about applying for a job as a fireman and now just believe that he must have been exaggerating!

[kurnal]

I never found a slapper in a mini skirt that ever wanted to do anything but slap me.
So I used to keep them away from the good looking guys (looking after their best interests of course).

[Chris Houston]

If the off duty folks have professional indemnity insurance and their employers are aware of their ‘off duty’ employment I don’t have a problem.

That seems a little bit simplistic.  Surely you would additionally expect them to be competant and free from comflicting interests?

Again, I suggest that we don't allow HSE inspectors to undertake health and safety fee work, police officers to provide fee based legal services or customs officers to provide fee based imigration or customs services.  The normal rules are that those who enforce legislation are not also who who are paid to comply with legislation.

It seems that only when it relates to fire, is this even a subject of debate.

[jokar]

The whole subject is about conflict of interest and competence.  You can not enforce and undertake paid assessment work in the area you operate and just as important you can not be an assessor without the relevant competence.  I heard that a retiring fire brigade personwith no FS experience has purchased the guides and set herself up as a risk assessor.  She is probably setting herself up for a big fall but until that work is completed or challenged who knows whether she is competent or not.

[Redone]

I assume that without the relevant experience you could not obtain the insurance required and the FA would not permit you to work within your own brigade area.

[Tom Sutton]

You cannot enforce and undertake paid assessment work in the area you operate and just as important you can not be an assessor without the relevant competence.

I cannot see any person argue with that statement. But instead of different groups sniping at each other they should get together and form an association of fire safety specialists or lobby either the IFE or the FPA to form such an association. The present situation of two or three registers of competent personnel is not an ideal solution. Companies and individuals would have to prove there was no conflict of interest, they had the necessary insurance and were competent to undertake the relevant work.

I am sure RP`s would be delighted if they could go to a one stop shop for any fire safety advice and be confident that any services they received would be of the highest standard.

It has worked for other professions so why not the Fire Safety Profession.

[nearlythere]

I think this whole issue will be sorted out when the first fatality occurs because some untrained, unqualified, incompetant ex firefighter makes a testicles of a risk assessment. Thats the way it usually works.
I'm in Fire Safety in a F&R Service and if it were up to me there are existing safety officers who I would not want anywhere near a single room doll's house in the middle of a desert to fire assess.

[Tom Sutton]

From the BRE/LPCB

We are drafting a scheme for the certification of Fire Risk Assessors at the moment and hope to be able to launch in the next month or so. It is our intention to then list certificated Assessors in the Red Book.

Angela Richards
Special Projects Manager
LPCB/BRE Certification
Bucknalls Lane
Garston
Herts WD25 9XX
Tel: +44 (0)1923 665136
Fax: +44 (0)1923

[Fishy]

I'm not in the fire service; neither am I a consultant.  If I were a consultant, I would find the whole concept of employees of fire authorities (whose wages I, as a taxpayer, pay) using knowledge gained in that employment to compete with me (whilst they remain in that employment - it's a completely different matter if the leave and set up in private business).  If they were using their position as a public servant to directly promote and support the private business they run concurrently, I would be going to the Competition authorities.

This must be up to the employers to deal with; either allowing it (and being able to publicly justyify that position), or prohibiting it.  A joint, open letter to CFOA may be a start?

[kurnal]

Whilst I agree entirely with you fishy (from my point of view as a consultant), what would be your view if a fire authority itself set up a unit marketing consultancy services to private companies offering risk assessments etc inside or  outside its own area?

[val]

Fishy,
If a serving fire safety officer, (or worse), was using their primary employer's name and reputation to gain work and/or credability then I would find that wholly unacceptable. However, using experience gained on fire safety matters is not wrong or unethical. Many professions, such as doctors, lawyers and H & S use their accumulated experience to do private work. It seems to me that there is a little whiff of professional snobbery here. The higher up the food chain you go the more you 'can be trusted' to maintain the chinese walls that allow, for example, partners in legal practices to represent both sides of a dispute. Additionally as employment practices become ever more fragmented, with part-time or fixed term contracts proliferating, how is your position tenable? The issue of conflict of interest from a legal point of view only really arises if the individual has a statutory enforcement role and a privately remunerated advisory role to the same client. (Although the position of approved inspectors in the building proffession doesn't seem to have a problem with this!)

On Kurnals point of fire authority's and trading companies, look at EFA(T) Ltd. (clue Essex Fire Authority (Trading) a wholly owned arm of Essex Fire Authority with links from the Authority's home web site advertising fire risk assessments on a commercial basis. The legal fig leaf of this being an arm's length trading company is really a bit of fiction. If this is not trading on a publicly funded reputation, I don't know what is?

[messy]

Forgive me for a moment while I take this argument down a blind alley for a moment: But should Fire Authority staff be allowed to conduct FRAs on their own Authority's premises and then (perhaps even the same person or an IO from the same team) audit them? (ie judge & jury??)

This is happening across the UK. Perhaps it's not much of a problem compared with other current FS issues, but it does fit in with the 'conflict of interest' subject matter of this thread.

Some bigger Authorities have scores of buildings and across the UK, hundreds of buildings, housing 1000s of relevant persons are involved. Some of these buildings (for now!!) have sleeping risk. Others include workshops, offices and other support infrastructure - all assessed and audited in-house.

The 'proverbial' hit the fan some years back when I made a fuss about my own Station which-at that time- had numerous problems that we (the Authority) wouldn't have permitted elsewhere. This included pole houses which directly connected the appliance room to the sleeping accomodation with virtually no compartmentation. Inadequate fire doors, No AFD -not even a manual fire alarm system and much much more......

I was threatened with disciplinary action and was told 'off the record' that "We would never prosecute ourselves" and "What's the risk? - we are all firefighters".

So, in the interests of impartiality, should neighbouring Fire Authorities be used for auditing & enforcement fire safety of buildings belonging to a specific Brigade???

And lastly, although I agree that there should be some control of IOs to avoid conflict of interest, how dare my fire authority ban me from doing anything fire related off duty - including voluntarily helping my daughter's Guide group get a safety badge (yes, I have had that verified!! - & then ignored it)- whilst they continue to Police themselves in relation to the RR(FSO)?

[val]

Messy,
I agree with most of your sentiments. As a bit of a wishy washy liberal, I take increasing objection to being owned, body and soul, by an employer. I can live with the blackberry, the causal changing of working days, the almost obligatory 'take it or leave' attitude, but this 'we own you' and 'you cannot be trusted to act professionally' is really getting to me.
By the way some Fire Authorities are now going down the peer review route to audit the assessments carried out in their own premises.