Fire risk Assessment

[peanut]

The 5 step approach is the one adopted by the Government guidance, itself issued under the FS Order.  Use methods not contained within the Government guidance at your peril!

[novascot]

peanut.
Government Guidance is just that- Guidance. Different Governments= different guidance.
The 5 steps were taken from general H & S risk assessments and made to suit Fire Safety. A good aide memoire but not the Bible .....so to speak.

[PhilB]

The 5 step approach is the one adopted by the Government guidance, itself issued under the FS Order.  Use methods not contained within the Government guidance at your peril!

5 Step, 9 Step, L -Curves, matrices.....not important. What is important is the outcome. The methodology is just a tool for determining if things are ok or if more needs to be done.

The five step method will not record the precribed information, the example template in the CLG guide does not record the prescribed information.

....and no method will be any good unless the assessor has received the appropriate training.

[jokar]

I agree wholehartedly with the comment above.  The outcomes need to be risk based and have options for each, one of the options being leave it as it is.  The RA is not the RP and can only give proper recommendations with leeway for the RP to undertake the options to ALARP and on a Cost Benefit Analysis basis.  That is why PAS 79 dos not work, it ends up as a fault list which is not coreect as one option for the RP is to do nothing.

[peanut]

I knew that would spark some comments, but I still think my points are valid.

I spend all my day arguing that guidance is just guidance, but unfortunately as far as the government guidance is concerned courts have decided that it needs to be followed.

With regards to the actual risk assessment process, it is the duty of the responsible person to prove that risk appropriate measures have been provided, not for the enforcing authority to prove otherwise.  In this way the responsible person is very much guilty until he can prove he is innocent.  Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.

[PhilB]

Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.

The CLG guides are not issued by the Secretary of State and they do not give a methodology. They just say there are five steps, that is not a methodology.

Guidance Note No.1 is issued by the Secretary of State and recommends that for guidance on what is a suitable and sufficent risk assessment, reference should be made to the MHSW Regs ACOP.

That ACOP explains clearly what significant findings are and what constitutes a suitable and sufficient RA.

..and it will comes as no surpise to many that the definitions and guidance in the ACOP conflict with the CLG guides.

Also Guidance Note No.1 points out that in some buildings the FRA will not be suitable and sufficient without plans.

[nearlythere]

I knew that would spark some comments, but I still think my points are valid.

I spend all my day arguing that guidance is just guidance, but unfortunately as far as the government guidance is concerned courts have decided that it needs to be followed.

With regards to the actual risk assessment process, it is the duty of the responsible person to prove that risk appropriate measures have been provided, not for the enforcing authority to prove otherwise.  In this way the responsible person is very much guilty until he can prove he is innocent.  Thus, what better way to prove that the order has been complied with than to follow the methodology in the government's guidance, which has been issued by the secretary of state under the order.

Yes, the responsible person has to provide a suitable and sufficient Risk Assessment. If it is not suitable and sufficient would it not be up to the F&RS to demonstrate to the court that it is not, rather than the RP to show that it is?

[CivvyFSO]

If we issued an enforcement notice for a risk assessment and it was appealed, then I would imagine there would have to be some sort of proof on our behalf that it was not suitable and sufficient. (This 'proof' could quite simply be an opinion as to why we consider the RA to be insufficient.)

This is quite different to a defense against an offence mentioned under article 32. That is the one where they have to prove they took all reasonable precautions. Guilty until proven innocent.

[jokar]

Article 34, Onus of Responsibility, is clear, it is the responsibility of the RP to prove that the FRA is suitable and sufficient along the lines of ALARP.

Enforcers are not prosecutors, the case is Regina versus whomever and the FRS personnel are there as evidential witnesses and give evidence of what they did, saw, took piccies of, they should not pass an opinion as they do not have any Fire Safety Duties under the Order and are not an RP.  In the case above they would have to defend their enforcement notice in an appeal court and demonstrate why they believe that the FRA was not suitable and sufficient, this has been done in Lancs by reference to the CLG guidance "on page 55 of the sleeping risk guide it staes that all hotels have to have an L2 Fire Alarm to BS 5839 Part 1 2002".  That is not risk assessment as the system may well be suitable as it is but could be a 1988 system.

[peanut]

Under Article 50 the SoS must ensure that guidance, which HE considers appropriate is available.  This is the CLG risk assessment guidance, issued under the Order.  The reference to a MHSW ACOP is bizarre.  Since the MHSW Regs were made under the HSWA they do not apply to fire safety (Article 47).  I would still stick with the RR(FS)O guidance.  (The Article 47 point seems to have been missed by many. For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)

I wouldn't like to argue the toss about when a series of steps becomes a methodlogy, and I don't think it relevant.  The RP has a duty to undertake an assessment of the risks, and under Article 34 it is up to him to prove that he did all that was reasonably practicable to fulfill this duty.

As jokar alludes to, sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents hardly seems in the spirit of the Order, but it is essentially what the Order, and the Courts, require.

[PhilB]

Under Article 50 the SoS must ensure that guidance, which HE considers appropriate is available.  This is the CLG risk assessment guidance, issued under the Order.  The reference to a MHSW ACOP is bizarre.  Since the MHSW Regs were made under the HSWA they do not apply to fire safety (Article 47).  I would still stick with the RR(FS)O guidance.  (The Article 47 point seems to have been missed by many. For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)

I wouldn't like to argue the toss about when a series of steps becomes a methodlogy, and I don't think it relevant.  The RP has a duty to undertake an assessment of the risks, and under Article 34 it is up to him to prove that he did all that was reasonably practicable to fulfill this duty.

As jokar alludes to, sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents hardly seems in the spirit of the Order, but it is essentially what the Order, and the Courts, require.

I'm really not meaning to be rude Peanut but the more you post the more you demonstrate your lack of understanding.

The reference to MHSW Regs is not bizarre it is totally relevant. The MHSW Regs were made under the HASAW Act as you correctly point out,  however, they became part of the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation and the ACOP is as relevant now as it was in 1997.

Unfortunately it appears that many people who either assess or audit have never read it and clearly do not understand what constitues a suitable and sufficient FRA including the authors of the CLG guides.

The Secretary of State has issued gauidance Note No.1 in which he states:

"Enforcing authorities should note that the requirement for suitability and sufficiency
is one and the same requirement as that in health and safety law. Detailed advice has
been produced by the Health and Safety Commission as part of the Approved Code of
Practice and Guidance to accompany the Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999 (ISBN 0-7176-2488-9). That guidance is equally applicable to the
suitability and sufficiency of risk assessments under the Order."


Have you read Guidance Note No.1?

The Article 47 point has not been missed, unfortunately you don’t seem to understand it.

Your comment
 
"For example the CLG guides refer to the Safety Signs Regs, which no longer apply with regards to fire since Article 14(2)(g) takes care of where signs should be provided - where necessary.)"

worries me, do you honestly not see how the Safety Signs & Signal Regs are very relevant here???

Sticking rigidly to controversial guidance documents is certainly not what the Order, or the Courts, require!!!!!!!

.....please tell me you don’t enforce this legislation.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with much of the comments submitted but my original posting was about the starting point for a FRA.

The CLG guides do not give a methodology. They just say there are five steps, that is not a methodology.

Methodology can be defined as a particular procedure or set of procedures so I started to use this word but it is not important which word is used but I believe it is important to have a methodology, plan, method call it what you like. Even the MHSW ACOP recommends the five steps to risk assessment.

Jokar gave me my answer use any of them choose the best suited to your working practise. You can modify it and create a bespoke plan suited to your own working practises but it is very important to have a plan to ensure you cover all the bases.

[PhilB]

Jokar gave me my answer use any of them choose the best suited to your working practise. You can modify it and create a bespoke plan suited to your own working practises but it is very important to have a plan to ensure you cover all the bases.

that's correct, you need a template, document, thingummybob, or whatever you want to call it that makes sure you ask all the correct questions. Just following five steps will not do that.

I have a template that I use that does that and also a document for auditng that asks a serious of questions to determine if all the information that is prescribed in he Order has been recorded.

I am happy to share these if they are any use to you TW.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Phil I will take you up on that and send you an email.

[peanut]

PhilB,

Yes, I have read guidance note 1.  Have you read the actual legisalation instead of just the guidance?  That clearly explains that the MHSW Regs are not relevant to fire safey any longer - they are dispplied as far as general fire precuations are concerned due to Article 47.  And why are you referring to 1997 legislation?

I couldn't agree more with your inference to the standard of  the CLG guides.  I am not advocating their contents of their 'methodology', but trying to explain the possible repercussions of the Order and the guidance.

The Safety Signs Regs lay down very presciptively where signs should be positioned.  This clearly conflicts with Article 14 of the FSO which only requires signs 'where necessary' and therefore the regs no longer apply - the Order takes presedence.  What worries me is your eagerness to jump on other peoples' opinions without actually reading the legislation.  I ask again, read Article 47.

As far as deviating from the guidance is concerned, I really hope that courts will accept that the guidance does not have to rigidily applied.  However, I am aware that of a case (but don't have the details to hand) where the courts judged that the guidance should be followed.  This is not suprising, as Lord Justice Simon Brown in the famous 1993 NACODS case ruled that it was not the court's role to over turn guidance issued by the government.

No, I don't enforce this legislation.  Please tell me you don't have any professional involvement in law.