Time Scales

[CJ]

Hi we have just had our risk assessments done by an outside company and they have given us a time scale of
High Risk - 1 to 3 months
Moderate Risk - 3 to 6 months.

These time scales are to tight for a large organisation as ourselves.

Is there anywhere in the RRO that sets down these or any other time scales or are these just there time scales, and do we need to adhere to them?

[CivvyFSO]

If you are a large organisation then why are timescales too tight?

What work is down as high risk?

There is nothing in the RRO regarding timescales. But that is because the RRO does not say "Where necessary you should have suitable means of escape within 6 months" (Sorry if that sounds a bit sarcastic)

A visiting fire officer, if presented with an action plan of the work you are dealing with, and evidence of that action plan being completed will more than likely be happy with that. He/she would take a dim view of it if there were serous deficiencies that have been pointed out to you that you have not dealt with.

[Les Potter(elementalfire)]

If you are a large organisation then why are timescales too tight?


A visiting fire officer, if presented with an action plan of the work you are dealing with, and evidence of that action plan being completed will more than likely be happy with that. He/she would take a dim view of it if there were serous deficiencies that have been pointed out to you that you have not dealt with.

i think the timescales are there to give you an indication of the priorities in which to complete the deficiencies you have.

with out wanting to sound to aggressive, while your large company my find the timescales to tight. what of the brave me an woman who have to attend a fire at your premises,,  they have families too

[terry martin]

the assessor has provided these timescales to help your company set out an action plan for the works required, and also to state that in his proffessional opinion these outstanding matters should not be left longer than this.

1-3 months is not unreasonable for a high risk. let me give you an example;
 If an inspecting officer where to visit your premises to carry out an audit and he considers the risk too high, he has the power to prohibit the use of the building or even prosecute the responsible person. i do not want to appear as if i am scaremongering that is not my intention, i just want to show that in perspective, 1-3 months is not an unreasonable time frame.
i recommend you speak to the assessor and try to understand why he has indicated these timescales.

 Pleas bear in mind if something where to happen at the premises, that was directly related to the assessors'recommendations, and your company chose not to implement them within the recommended timescales. it is likely your company would find it's self in court explaining to a judge why a professionals advice was ignored.


i hope this helps

[jokar]

Doesn't it just go to show that both risk assessors and Inspecting Officers know very little about business or the way business is conducted.  The arbitary strategy of timescales is just that there is very little background sense to the way time scales are implemented and if the assessor has not bothered to explain the rational and logic then they are being paid for very little.  There is very little chance of getting a fire alarm system installed in London within 1 - 3 months and that is the contractor.  Then you have the business case to put to directors and then the contracts and tenders process to go through.  Please don't forget that other legislation applies to business and that Companies must meet that legislation as well.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't think the timescales given by the assessors can be enforced. Your company has employed the assessor to carry out the assessment and it is up to the Responsible Person take what precautions are needed. It is a whole different matter if an inspecting officer issues an enforcement notice.

The Responsible Person can argue "Reasonably Practical" for carrying out the work. The priorities suggested by the assessment should guide you as to the order in which to carry out the works. High priorities first etc.

The assessor should have warned if there were any matters that would lead to a prohibition order and have told you to take immediate steps to rectify it.

As far as court action goes I think that provided you can show that you are taking action and the basis on which you have prioritised the action you will have a good defense. "Yes we realise that the FRA recommended this action be taken as a high priority and we have engaged XYZ Co. to carry out the work but work cannot commence until...." or "Yes we realise that this action was given a high priority by the FRA however we judged that it was of greater importance to carry out another action first due to ........."

I have often said I can make any workplace 100% safe and guarentee no accidents. All I do is fire the workforce and demolish the buildings, no problem.

[davio1960]

In my FRS the policy directives provide inspectors with realistic time scales for enforcement action to be signed off.
In my part of the world...where the air is clean and clouds float below a never ending cushion of azure blue...oh sorry its back to 2 top coats cos its a tad chilly out dooors....these are based on the local market forces.

However my colleagues are requested to invite the responsible persons to keep in communication and if the completion dates cannot be met, e.g. the sparky falls down the ladder and his brother sparky has a smack on the M62, let us know well in advance, its considered too late to find out nothing or little is completed on the date of the follow-up.
Have others seen that some FRS provide (expected) reasonable timescales on web pages...3 months for a fire alarm, 12 months for an new external staircase...?
In some instances high and low risk go out the window due to local authority consultations perhaps even listed building consent. Then its down to time, management and temporary compensatory factors.

Where the RP has completed the FRA and has a realistic action plan that includes adequate time scales based on the signiificant findings and it appears to be correctly managed why interupt. why enforce, why not let these professionals get on with running there businesses.
These are people with a wealth of professional judgements who are in the most often extremely efficient at managing a number of different serious/minor problems on a daily basis.
Davio

[jokar]

Davio1960, nicely put.  If only others shared the same response and attitudes the RR(FS)O would work, in all its guises, wonderfully well across the UK.  Its about each side understanding each other, being realistic with enforcement and times and understanding the way of business.

[CivvyFSO]

3 months is quite standard here for a fire alarm, but it tends to be not quite long enough even for some quite simple systems.

[Mike Buckley]

Back to the original question. CJ's query was about advice given by an outside assessor not by the fire service. I do not think an outside assessor can set timescales.

It is totally different if a FSO walks in and issues recommendations or an enforcement notice as an inspecting officer, then there must be a timescale.

[Midland Retty]

Doesn't it just go to show that both risk assessors and Inspecting Officers know very little about business or the way business is conducted.  The arbitary strategy of timescales is just that there is very little background sense to the way time scales are implemented and if the assessor has not bothered to explain the rational and logic then they are being paid for very little.  There is very little chance of getting a fire alarm system installed in London within 1 - 3 months and that is the contractor.  Then you have the business case to put to directors and then the contracts and tenders process to go through.  Please don't forget that other legislation applies to business and that Companies must meet that legislation as well.

That might be too much of a sweeping statement really Jokar.

I think you will find any risk assessor or inspecting officer worth their salt should be able to apply common sense and recognise sensible timescales, or atleast engage on sensible discussion with the client / organisation being inspected to come up with a sesnsible and workable deadline.


I agree there will always be assessors / officers who just dont do this but you will find so long as you can say to a fire officer or assessor  "Look we cant do that as quickly as you would like because of X,Y and Z" then normally they are reasonable if it is a genuine excuse or reasons.

[jokar]

I agree but in a number of cases it is true as you concur in the last paragraph.  Some hitler type FSO's are still out there and are struggling to come to terms with the "New" legislation.  As regrads risk assessors some are very good but agian many are retired FSO's who have continued on from where they left of in their respective Brigades.

[reece]

Instead of setting timescales set action times

High Risk   =Immediataly
Medium     =1to3months
Low          =3 to 6 month
not expecting that the work will be compleated in that time,but allows the RP to meet with management, accountants, the issue of tenders ect .if there is an inspection carried out by the FB and they see that the RP has shown willing will allow him to carry on ,but will probably visit at regular intervals to see how work is progressing keeping the RP on his toes

[Dinnertime Dave]

Doesn't it just go to show that both risk assessors and Inspecting Officers know very little about business or the way business is conducted.  The arbitary strategy of timescales is just that there is very little background sense to the way time scales are implemented and if the assessor has not bothered to explain the rational and logic then they are being paid for very little.  There is very little chance of getting a fire alarm system installed in London within 1 - 3 months and that is the contractor.  Then you have the business case to put to directors and then the contracts and tenders process to go through.  Please don't forget that other legislation applies to business and that Companies must meet that legislation as well.

I agree with most post here that there is very little chance on getting a fire alarm installed in the 3 months that I now give people to install one; it normally takes around 4-6months in my neck of the woods. So why do I do it?

The simple answer is if I give 6 month people don’t even start getting quotes until 5 months it then takes 4-6 months to get the work done - total time 9-12 months. If I chase at 3 months then generally the work will be done in by the 6/7 month mark.

Where anybody needs longer due to finances then of course I can be flexible but I still need to see progress being made.

[Dragonmaster]

One point not mentioned so far. Irrespective of who carries out the FRA, it belongs to and is the responsibility of, the Responsible Person. The RP therefore has to determine what is reasonably practicable, and if he disagrees with the RAs findings, (s)he has to take responsibility for any changes he makes to his/her FRA.