Agreed action plans - do they undermine the legislation?

[johno67]

Sorry Kurnal,

my e.g. was just plucked out the air as a general example. I didn't see any details of a particular premises in this thread?

I thought we were talking about hyperthetical action plans.

I've gotten myself in too deep, I want out!

[kurnal]

No worries Johno- thanks for giving me the chance to get on another soapbox over the detection though!

[johno67]

Kurnal,

It may be an idea to thrash out a few examples such as the one you just detailed. Seeing as this site is used by Risk Assessors, IO's and other Fire Safety Prof's, it would be interesting to debate our different thinking on such issues or merely hack the official guidance to pieces. If you could give a bit more detail of your previous example I would be happy to post my thoughts (can't guarentee they will be anywhere near right though).

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I can see where an assessor would apply other additional control measures such as additional detection etc, but when a consultant is the risk assessor, surely it is their responsibility to explain the risk assessment and reasoning so the poor RP actually understands?

I have on some inspections found the risk assessment to be unsuitable and insufficient and applied professional judgement. In these cases when it is a risk assessor as the "competent person" I advise the RP to have them back and ask for the risk assessment to be carried out properly, usually providing six to eight weeks at which point another audit takes place.
If it still isn't right, then I will consider formal enforcement.

I do not audit the risk assessor, I audit the RP, who should have an understanding of the risk assesment and the actions to be taken if any are identified.
I'm not going to blame all risk assessors as the RP has a duty to take ownership of the risk assessment and its content, not just pay the bill and stick it in a file in the office to gather dust, which many seem to do and then can't provide answers under audit conditions.

As they say "ignorance is no defence in law"

[Steven N]

I can see where an assessor would apply other additional control measures such as additional detection etc, but when a consultant is the risk assessor, surely it is their responsibility to explain the risk assessment and reasoning so the poor RP actually understands?

I have on some inspections found the risk assessment to be unsuitable and insufficient and applied professional judgement. In these cases when it is a risk assessor as the "competent person" I advise the RP to have them back and ask for the risk assessment to be carried out properly, usually providing six to eight weeks at which point another audit takes place.
If it still isn't right, then I will consider formal enforcement.

I do not audit the risk assessor, I audit the RP, who should have an understanding of the risk assesment and the actions to be taken if any are identified.
I'm not going to blame all risk assessors as the RP has a duty to take ownership of the risk assessment and its content, not just pay the bill and stick it in a file in the office to gather dust, which many seem to do and then can't provide answers under audit conditions.

As they say "ignorance is no defence in law"

I couldn't agree more Baldyman this really gets to the heart of the matter! Without gaining some knowledge of the R/A they have bought they are just paying lipservice to the order

[kurnal]

I agree with you both- ownership and understanding of the risk assessement is vital otherwise its all a waste of time. But its a question of degrees.  

Take an office for example. Through the risk assessment I identify an unprotected dead end condition and report it as a significant finding, putting additional risk control measures in place ie detection in all rooms rather than protecting the route. I explain the reasons to the RP and he understands the risk and agrees to maintain the alarm system.  

However another person comes along and says that detection is not a suitable alternative to a protected route in this case and the corridor should be protected. I cannot expect my client to understand and construct an argument to justify why I chose detection. He is likely to accept what he is told and upgrade the corridor. If this is done on an agreed action plan it is likely to be as specific as detailing the doors to be upgraded and specifiying the standard, rather than a general advice to review the risk assessment in respect of the mean of escape within the dead end.
I think something that was included in the enforcement concordat, to safeguard the Responsible Person from unnecessary formal enforcement is unwittingly being used against his interests and leading to unnecessary expense, as there is no right of appeal and the format of the action plan is not laid out as it is under formal action, giving alternative solutions or asking for a review of the original risk assessment.

[Steven N]

Kurnal, I would hope that your client would refer back to you for some advice on this but otherwise i have to say that this is when it becomes banging your head against a brickwall time! i'm afraid there is no easy answer to this scenario.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Through the risk assessment I identify an unprotected dead end condition and report it as a significant finding, putting additional risk control measures in place ie detection in all rooms rather than protecting the route.

I could live with that as a solution, as long as the reasoning behind it is recorded within the fire risk assesment.
On the other side of the coin, I have to justify as an I/O why I've accepted it so that any other Officer can understand and it doesn't affect subsequent inspections.

I explain the reasons to the RP and he understands the risk and agrees to maintain the alarm system.

That's alright, but what if the RP doesn't understand or (just to be difficult!) the premises changes ownership?

However another person comes along and says that detection is not a suitable alternative to a protected route in this case and the corridor should be protected. I cannot expect my client to understand and construct an argument to justify why I chose detection.

In which case, I would hope that the RP refers back to you for some assistance!


Whichever way it goes, it is important that the risk assessment contains reasoning to support conclusions. How else as an auditor am I to understand why decisions have been made and are considered suitable for the situation?
It is equally important to allow the RP, in cases where clearly they don't understand the risk assessment and content, to contact the competent person to obtain the information. Again, it is the auditor being reasonable.
Unfortunately there are too many responsible persons that seem to be under the impression that because they've paid for a third party to carry out the risk assessment, then that is their duty fulfilled. As mentioned, it's a question of ownership!

[Midland Retty]

Kurnal, I would hope that your client would refer back to you for some advice on this but otherwise i have to say that this is when it becomes banging your head against a brickwall time! i'm afraid there is no easy answer to this scenario.

You would hope the RP refers back to the risk assessor / consultant.

I generally ask the RPs to (where applicable) see if their risk assessor can be attendance when I visit.

Sometimes this isn't practical (i.e. consultant is busy because of workloads, or Ive turned up on spec because of a complaint)

I'm sure the likes of Prof Kurnal and his chums remind their clients of the need to get in contact should an inspecting officer ever question any of the installed precautions but alas 12 months down the line the RP forgets to and the consultant never gets informed of the inspecting officers actions.

Infact I went to a premises the other day where the turn over of staff is frightening - the manager has been replaced 3 times in the last 24 months.

The new manager was unaware that a FRA had been carried out for her premises by a consultant.

She consequently did an FRA herself and highlighted what she thought were several failures. Trouble was those "failures" had already been considered within the overal scheme and been addressed or compensated for by the original risk assessor.

So before you know it she might have instigated upgrade works unecessarily as could an inspecting officer so the need to read the Risk Assessment is paramount, and speaking to the assessor directly I think is even better still.

Where this is not possible the FRA needs to be comprehensive to explain to the auditor why certain things have or have not been factored in.

[Shand]

Davo wrote early on that the FRA would probably be unwilling to discuss this issue on the forum. Well, I reckon I might be from the FRA where the hypothetical premises might (or might not) exist. I'm happy to talk FP with anybody.

All I can say is that whoever feels aggrieved, whether that's the RP or yourself Kurnal, really needs to write to the FRA and question the process. That's what the complaints procedures are there for.

I know the legislation as well as the next person and I'm also able to apply risk appropriate solutions. The law is perfectly clear. Fire risk in all except 'houses occupied as single private dwellings' is controlled by the responsible person carrying out a 'suitable and sufficient' assessment of the risks and how they impact on the occupants. The 'general fire precautions' needed to reasonably protect occupants from harm by fire are determined in the risk assessment and recorded therein. If the RP doesn't have the necessary abilities they can appoint someone to assist them.

The FRA are given the responsibility to enforce the order and are given powers to inspect and audit compliance with the articles where appropriate.

Simple then, look at the risk assessment, agree or disagree with the hazards identified, agree or disagree with the control measures, discuss with the RP as the concordat requires, agree an outcome. Mmmm...

Perhaps not.

There's been a lot of talk about IO's not being trained properly, not being up to the job. Can't argue with that so long as we're not all tarred with the same brush. As in all walks of life there is good, bad and all that lies in between. The reasons for poor performance are wide and varied too, it's not all due to lack of training or a big paper round when you were a kid. I suspect we are now all suffering from the symptoms caused by this fine nation's drive towards a more inclusive and accountable society in which legislative fire safety has assumed a less prominent position than, lets say community safety, diversity or performance management, within FRA's.

It can't easily be changed from within, believe me I've tried. I have the scars to prove it. The only way forward is to raise the profile by insisting that FRA's do what the law requires, no more, no less. And when they don't, make sure you ask why. Only then will it become an issue for many FRA's. Don't forget, at the end of the day they, like many other organisations, have a limited budget and a plethora of things they're supposed to do. Our local chamber of commerce once explained that small businesses only did what they had to do in order to avoid trouble. I'm not suggesting that's what FRA's are doing but they have to be selective and put most resources into the most needy areas. By not complaining when things are really not right we're just giving the impression that all is well.

Finally, agreed action plans are intented to be just that - agreed. They should form part of the natural process of communication and negotiation between the IO and the RP and are only appropriate where the RP is in full agreement.