High Risk Inspection?

[CivvyFSO]

This was going to be a reply in another thread, but I thought it might be better off in a thread of its own...

The other thing that I find strange is that on the announcement of the RR(FS)O, the Governmentwrote on the CLG website an FAQ.  One of the questions was, what type of premises will FRS now look at.  The answer and it should still be there is high risk premises only,  What is high risk about premises like the topic that started this thread?

The fact they had a fire in a commercial premises will initiate a visit by an enforcement officer. A complaint made will also initiate a vist. We also have the watches going out looking at the premises in their area, this creates internal complaints when they find somewhere that is sub-standard. This initiates a vist by an FSO too.

On the subject of "high risk premises only": The way it works is that everywhere we have ever been has been allocated a risk rating. Once we audit somewhere it is also assigned a risk rating. This rating is dependent on many factors (Occupancy, size etc), and (Along with compliance level) will also dictate the time taken before it will be inspected again.

So now if you imagine a list with the premises with the highest rating at the top. we are inspecting the premises at the very top of that list. It won't necessarily mean that a low risk shop will never get inspected, as they will slowly move up the list bit by bit dependent of the inspection interval it is given. So while it may not be all 'high risk' as you might imagine, it is the highest risk that is due for an inspection at that particular time on the list we have. (otherwise we would all be inspecting resi care homes permanently.

If your factory/office/hospital comes to the top of the list you will get your inspection. It might be that the occupancy such as a hospital will always get marked for a yearly inspection to the presence of vulnerable groups etc, but a well managed office might not get inspected for 10 years after the initial audit/inspection.

The regulators compliance code might initiate some changes in this, but at the moment that is how it works here.

[messy]

I reckon the CLG were spinning the truth a little here. Or if that was their intention, it's not working.

In addition to targetting the higher scoring properties, my teams's priorities are those buildings we know about (due to building regs consultation, alleged fire risks or some other contact we've had with it) but have never audited (even under WP Regs).

We also survey streets at random and make sure we know of all relevant buildings in that area. If not, an audit is likely.

These 'unknowns' are usually very low risk, but ocassionally you come across a good-un. Like one I found - a single staircase 4 storey Hotel (between two others that we did know about) which had never been looked at, and had never had a fire cert. It's now ended up with the mother of all enforcement notices.

Before anyone feels too sorry for the Hotel's RP, he knew exactly what he was doing and did years of ducking and diving to prevent doing what he should have done. Unfortunately (for him), a Companies House search has found that he owns more sleeping risks in a similar state (1 in another Brigade area), so he will now need to dig deep to upgrade his tatty businesses

[jokar]

As the RR(FS)O is a reactive piece of legislation for enforcers but a proactive one for the RP and his/her competent person, I understand the post fire scenario.  What I am slightly bemused about is the proactive stance of known premises being inspected to death.  I believe that it was Devon and Somerset who issued 50 Alterations Notices for their high risk premises and that is their IRMP inspection programme and then they pick up post fire bits.  That seems sensible, they get to know the RP ro the representative, include the data on the IRMP and answer the points in the National Framework document.

I assume that all FRS highlight the RRL for a particular premises and then build up with unknowns and post fire stuff and deal accordingly.

Messy, it was quite clearly the intention that FRS would only target high risk because of the NFD and IRMP.  If it is not working then I can only ask why?  Is it FRS policy that stops it because SFSO have a hidden agenda or is it FRS do not want risk assessment and are desperate for prescription?

[CivvyFSO]

What I am slightly bemused about is the proactive stance of known premises being inspected to death.

I personally think that the relative risk level should take more account of the previous compliance level. It seems to concentrate on size and occupancy, there are some fully complaint buildings getting yearly inspections (And constantly finding the same standards) when our time would be better spent elsewhere. This should alter with a bit of 'tweaking' and once we really start to heed the suggestions in the Regulators Compliance Code. (i.e. ease the burden on complaint businesses) Although to be honest, many of the fully complaint places seem to almost 'like' having the inspection. It must be nice sometimes for the fire safety manager to be appreciated and told he/she is doing a good job.

I believe that it was Devon and Somerset who issued 50 Alterations Notices for their high risk premises

That sounds ridiculous. We have huge engineered shopping centres, huge hospitals, rather high single staircase buildings and we have 1 alterations notice, and it is questionable whether that was due to an overreaction. It is certification by the back door. Some developers/fire engineers are quite willing to appeal against alterations notices, and they regularly win or the FRS backs down.