Getting the Fire Risk Assessment message over

[lingmoor]

Well we are nearly two years down the line with the RRO and I'm amazed when I'm chatting in the pub with people in business that many are still not aware of the change in legislation and the need to carry out a FRA

I've put an article in the business pages of our local paper hightlighting the changes and I've been down the fire safety office talking to old colleagues asking them to do the same because the last article they did was around its introduction

I think one cast iron way of getting people aware of their responsibilities and for the RP to ensure that a Fire Risk Assessment is carried out would be if insurance companies stipulated that this was necessary to make the fire insurance premium valid

Any thoughts?

[Tom Sutton]

Is it not also the case that many do know but are not prepared to do anything about it, because of costs, until they are chased by the enforcers?

[lingmoor]

Is it not also the case that many do know but are not prepared to do anything about it, because of costs, until they are chased by the enforcers?

Yes I have no doubt that is the case with some.

As I mentioned, if the insurance companies stipulated they had to do it to ensure validity of the policy then I'm sure that would give RP's no choice but to do a FRA...after all what's the point of paying fire insurance premiums if it aint going to pay out

[Ricardo]

Tottaly agree with you Lingmoor have been saying this for donkeys now, if ony the Insurance Industry and the fire services had a partnership,so that whereby upon taking out insurance or renewals of policies, insurance companies insisted that their customers are in full compliance with fire regultaions, and  the fire authorities could inform insurance companies on non compliers. Maybe that would just happen in my fantasy world.

I am sure most know that they do have fire safety responsibilities, even though many wont have carried out a FRA, I am sure most dutyholders do have  general, even if incomplete or imprecise, understanding of their responsibilities for fire safety in their premises. In many cases they will have taken some action to meet their obligations.

[Wiz]

..... and  the fire authorities could inform insurance companies on non compliers.......

I suspect that the insurers might be more interested in maintaining 'a get out of paying claims clause' rather than ensuring the insurance premium payer has suitable fire prevention and detection facilities in place - or am I just being cynical?

[Chris Houston]

Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.

Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.

Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too?  What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to).  And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't.  Then what?

Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.

Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different.  Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.

(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)

[lingmoor]

Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.

Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.

Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too?  What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to).  And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't.  Then what?

Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.

Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different.  Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.

(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)

Sixthly chill out ... no one said it was your role...it was just an observation and asked for peoples thoughts

Seventhly your XYZ ABC scenario...if all insurance companies insisted that premises complied with the law ref FRA then there would be nowhere else to look

Eigthly having no FRA under the RRO... which has taken over all other Fire Safety legislation  is fundamental and not just 'at least 1  failure'

Ninthly I didn't say Insurance companies not paying out was common

Tenthly Biggest isn't always best

[Chris Houston]

"biggest isn't best"? She only said that so you didn't feel so bad

[nearlythere]

Firstly, it is not the role of insurane companies to do the governments work for them.

Secondly if XYZ insurer Lts required compliance with RR(FS)O, then ABC fatctory Ltd just buys his insurance elsewhere.

Thirdly, who checks if the RR(FS)O is complied with, does this become the role of insurers too?  What if there is a minor breach (I seem able to find a minor breach at every single site I go to).  And what if I think it is a breach and the insured fatory manager doesn't.  Then what?

Fourthly, if this were the rule, insurers could refuse to pay out on almost every claim due to every site tending to have at least 1 failure.

Fifthly, commercial insurane and domestic are quite different.  Insurers not paying out is not as common as you all think.

(I spent 5 years working for one of the largest property insurers and now work for the worlds largest insurane broker.)

Sixthly chill out ... no one said it was your role...it was just an observation and asked for peoples thoughts

Seventhly your XYZ ABC scenario...if all insurance companies insisted that premises complied with the law ref FRA then there would be nowhere else to look

Eigthly having no FRA under the RRO... which has taken over all other Fire Safety legislation  is fundamental and not just 'at least 1  failure'

Ninthly I didn't say Insurance companies not paying out was common

Tenthly Biggest isn't always best

Chris's second point is very true as an insurer has told me so.
It is a little like medical insurance. The contents of the proposal form mean absolutely nothing, apart from the Direct Debit  instructions, until you make the claim. Most people don't make a claim so will never know that their application could well have been invalid right from the start and they did not actually have insurance at all but still paid for it. Insurers don't make money by refusing to take it.

[lingmoor]

"biggest isn't best"? She only said that so you didn't feel so bad

I know but being an assessor I can adjust and come up with an engineered solution

on a point that you made earlier Chris about not being insurers job to do the Governments work...which I agree fully...and you being in that line of business, I'm interested to know if you think it would benefit the industry if all insurers had the FRA proviso on the policy....then maybe if we Fire Risk Assessors (or as we've been called on another forum 'licenced bandits') did our job properly you wouldn't have to pay out as much because of the increases safety provisions and staff training

Of course all insurers would have to agree this policy for it to work

Would car insurers pay out if there wasn't an MOT certificate in place?

[Chris Houston]

I can't comment on the motor policy as it is not my area.

Now I'm assuming we are all thinking of property insurance here, rather than employers or public liability - because I don't think anyone wants to see insurers refusing to pay out to injured employees/guests/visitors etc for their injuries.

So on that basis we are talking about the insurance on the "bricks and mortar" and "contents" etc. Something that the RR(FS)O wasn't written to protect. So ignoring my comments above [about: who decides upon what complies, the massive % of non compliance etc] let's look at this from the customers perspective. He'll say " you won't pay for my burnt roof because YOU think I didnt comply with a bit of safety legislation? That's (A) irrelevant ad (B) none of your business and (C) open to debate.

I just can't see it. Will they also not pay out if people dont comply with the lifting regs, oil tank bunding rules, speed on the way to work, pay their child minder cash in hand?

While insurers support the RR(FS)O and ill quote it to every customer I see breaching it. And I'll even pretend to be amazed that they dont have a fire risk assessment, I think the it just aint insurers roles to meddle in this.

[Clevelandfire]

I can't comment on the motor policy as it is not my area.

Now I'm assuming we are all thinking of property insurance here, rather than employers or public liability - because I don't think anyone wants to see insurers refusing to pay out to injured employees/guests/visitors etc for their injuries.

So on that basis we are talking about the insurance on the "bricks and mortar" and "contents" etc. Something that the RR(FS)O wasn't written to protect. So ignoring my comments above [about: who decides upon what complies, the massive % of non compliance etc] let's look at this from the customers perspective. He'll say " you won't pay for my burnt roof because YOU think I didnt comply with a bit of safety legislation? That's (A) irrelevant ad (B) none of your business and (C) open to debate.

I just can't see it. Will they also not pay out if people dont comply with the lifting regs, oil tank bunding rules, speed on the way to work, pay their child minder cash in hand?

While insurers support the RR(FS)O and ill quote it to every customer I see breaching it. And I'll even pretend to be amazed that they dont have a fire risk assessment, I think the it just aint insurers roles to meddle in this.

I think those are very wise words personally.

[Tom Sutton]

If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient and if it wasn’t then does it achieve anything?

[lingmoor]

If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient

The Fire Authority

[Chris Houston]

If insurance companies give RP's no choice but to do a FRA then RP could Google for one of those online check boxes FRA’s who would say it was suitable and sufficient

The Fire Authority

So would they check everyone's?  If so, why involve the insurance companies at all then?