Question for fire risk assessors

[Midland Retty]

Absolutely Fishy

It would be in court where the issue of whom had what level of responsibility would be thrashed out

Clearly if the risk assessor has done a good job, but the RP chose to ignore the findings of his assessment, it would be totally unreasonable to blame the assessor for any offences that occured as a result.

[afterburner]

But that's rub MR.
The usual, anticpated outcome is that the RP may not like what a competent risk assessor comes up with, but nonetheless does what is required. In this example the RP clearly does not share the opinion that the risk assessor has done a good job, hence the disagreement and rejection of findings. When and if the RP rejects or ignores the outcomes and findings, the risk assessor cannot be held responsible for those decisions. Further thought, if the RP ignores the findings can the FRA be considered as a valid document regarding the fire safety within the premise?

[nearlythere]

Bear in mind that if a RP doesn't like what the FRA says he can always do another one himself with the expensive bits left out or at least altered to a much cheaper, even if it is unsuitable, option. He is perfectly within his rights to prefer an alternative FRA which, from his point of view, is suitable and sufficient.
FRAs don't have to be registered when completed.

[Midland Retty]

But that's rub MR.

rub?? did you mean rubbish Mr Burner??

Your last post threw me a little because I think we're basically saying the same thing.

Theres a few things to bear in mind here.

Why has the RP employed a risk assessor to undertake an assessment? Is it a case that the RP is too busy to do one themselves? Is it because the RP recognises he or she isn't competent to undertake one?

If the RP thinks that the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient then they should do something about it. It might entail taking the issue up with the assessor and seeking a resolution for example.

It might entail the RP not paying the risk assesor, and instead employing a new assesor to do a fresh FRA.

It might entail as Nearlythere states the RP doing a Risk Assessment themselves.

Or it could just be the fact that the RP isn't competent to judge what is a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and what is not

But the issue of who would be responsible for any offences committed will be battled out in court (if it got to that stage).

The point Im making is that if it's proven the assessor had completed a suitable and sufficient FRA and the RP did not go along with the findings for whatever reason (lets say they incorrectly thought the assessment was poor, or didn't like the findings because it might cost them too much money) it will not be the risk assessor who is held responsible for any offences committed as a consequence.

If the assessor has made a total hash of things and the RP went along with it unwittingly or otherwise , and offences occurred as a result then yes it maybe a case that the assessor also shoulders some of the responsibility.

If the RP doesn't like an asessors findings that is their perogative, but the they cannot leave things up in the air - they need to make a decision on where to go from there.

[nearlythere]

But that's rub MR.

rub?? did you mean rubbish Mr Burner??

I think he meant that he wanted to rub you all over with something. Baby oil or axle grease, whatever your preference is. Or have I picked him up wrong?

[CivvyFSO]

BANTER!!! Take it outside gents.

[Midland Retty]

Please take you banter back to the bar....

[afterburner]

No I didn't mean rubbish, I fact MR I think your comments are absolutely correct.  
I missed one word and meant to say 'That's the rub', meaning that the situation where a competent asssessor has carried out an assessment, which is subsequently rejected by the RP (lack of resolution of the significant findings), the inference is that the RP does not believe the assessor has done a good job.
What happens next? As said above "If the RP doesn't like an asessors findings that is their perogative, but they cannot leave things up in the air - they need to make a decision on where to go from there".
Do they ask the original assessor to revise, review or rethink the original assessment?
Do they carry out a new (replacement) assessment themselves? (and if they are going to do this at this juncture why didn't they do it themselves to begin with?)
Do they go and obtain the services of another assessor and hope they like this version better?
While all this is going on a demand is made for the Fire Risk Assessment to be produced (either by an Enforcement Officer or by the Courts), what does the RP produce?

[nearlythere]

Do they carry out a new (replacement) assessment themselves? (and if they are going to do this at this juncture why didn't they do it themselves to begin with?)

Because they probably didnt have a clue what a fire risk assessment was, how it was formulated and what it contained.
It is very easy to copy an assessment and leave out or rehash the expensive bits.

[Mike Buckley]

I would disagree with fishy over Article 5. I would read this as meaning that a person must have control i.e. they must be able to do something. If I do a FRA and pass it to the RP I have no control. If I do a FRA and the RP says to me "here is £10,000, sort it out" then I do have control and would fall under article 5.

My reading is that the RP must have the power to take action without hinderance. So back to the multi site business; if the manager of a site has a budget for fire precautions then he can be the responsible person for the site. However if the FRA recommends an installation which cannot be covered by the budget, then there are 2 courses of action.
1. the manager approaches parent and asks for the resources to do it, and the parent says no then the parent is the RP.
2. the manager manages the budget so the installation can be covered but it will take time or other recommendations have to be held up and argues "reasonably practicable", in which case he is still the RP.

In the case where the RP disagrees with the FRA on the content of the FRA then it is up to the RP to sort it out with the assessor i.e. the case where the assessor recommends a all singing , all dancing fire alarm system and the RP thinks this is over the top. How the RP does this is up to him, i.e. call in another assessor or have a chat with his local friendly FSO.

In all cases the RP must be able to justify his decisions.

However the only people who will really clarify this are the guys in funny wigs, but at the end of the day I suspect most of the prosecutions will be against people who won't do anything and not against people who are trying to fulfil their role.

[terry martin]

I would disagree with fishy over Article 5. I would read this as meaning that a person must have control i.e. they must be able to do something. If I do a FRA and pass it to the RP I have no control. If I do a FRA and the RP says to me "here is £10,000, sort it out" then I do have control and would fall under article 5.

My reading is that the RP must have the power to take action without hinderance. So back to the multi site business; if the manager of a site has a budget for fire precautions then he can be the responsible person for the site. However if the FRA recommends an installation which cannot be covered by the budget, then there are 2 courses of action.
1. the manager approaches parent and asks for the resources to do it, and the parent says no then the parent is the RP.
2. the manager manages the budget so the installation can be covered but it will take time or other recommendations have to be held up and argues "reasonably practicable", in which case he is still the RP.

In the case where the RP disagrees with the FRA on the content of the FRA then it is up to the RP to sort it out with the assessor i.e. the case where the assessor recommends a all singing , all dancing fire alarm system and the RP thinks this is over the top. How the RP does this is up to him, i.e. call in another assessor or have a chat with his local friendly FSO.

In all cases the RP must be able to justify his decisions.

However the only people who will really clarify this are the guys in funny wigs, but at the end of the day I suspect most of the prosecutions will be against people who won't do anything and not against people who are trying to fulfil their role.

i can kind of see where you're coming from, but you would be accountable for anything within your control.
 If you carried out a FRA badly (not saying you would) and the RP adopted your findings in good faith. Then you would of, at some point, had control of, and influence over the premise. Therefore your control over the premise would of impacted on the measures of fire safety within the premise.

The key phrase is;

   (3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises SHALL ALSO BE IMPOSED ON EVERY PERSON, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, TO ANY EXTENT, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters WITHIN HIS control.

i am currently involved in a case (no specifics gents i'm sure you understand) that has required the clarification of this.
Anyone under contract would be deemed to have had, to some extent, control. The issue would be, Did the extent of the their control have a direct impact on the offences comitted? if so, they would neeed to demenstrate due dilligence in their defence.

i know we keep coming back to this analogy but it is the key example.
 If the contractor did a bad job, intentionaly or not, and the RP, had appointed that 'proffessional' under contract and in good faith. Then that 'proffessional' person must be accountable for their involvement.

[Mike Buckley]

It looks as if it may hang on what the courts decide is "control". If a contractor is doing something ie fitting a fire alarm, he has control over the way the job is done, his employees etc. However if the contractor is giving advice, which is basically what a fire risk assessment is, the contractor has no control over what happens and the RP should be responsible.

Think about this as an example, I am walking along outside a building and I see that the guttering is almost falling off. If I go to the owner of the building and tell him his guttering is dangerous,  am I then responsible if the owner does nothing and it falls off and injures somebody? Or if I don't tell him am I still responsible because I did not tell him?

Then expand it, I am a surveyor and I am called in to survey the place and I see the guttering is unsafe, yes I should tell the owner that the guttering is unsafe but do I now have to take steps to make the gutter safe?

[nearlythere]

In response to Terry's point about control I would think the RP's "assistant", has no control over the FRA as he is only helping the RP to carry it out. As he is only giving the RP assistance the assistant's FRA ultimately belongs to the RP who has ultimate responsibility for ensuring it is suitable and sufficient.

[afterburner]

Developing this concept of 'Control' and subsequent duties, I will paraphrase the Scottish legislation (and presume the RR(FSO) has a similar content), and make the second presumption, that the Fire Risk Assessor is working under contract to the RP: -

Section 54 (4) A person who has, by virtue of a contract ,.... an obligation of any extent in relation to—
(a) ........................
((b) safety in respect of harm caused by fire in relevant premises, (contract - fire risk assessment)
shall also comply, to the extent of the obligation, with subsection (2)....... which says
(2) The person shall—
(a) carry out an assessment of the relevant premises for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises; and
(b) take in relation to the relevant premises such of the fire safety measures as in all the circumstances it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises. ................ but subsection 5 goes on to say ........
(5) Where under subsection (2)(a) a person carries out an assessment, the person shall—
(a) ................
(b) take in relation to the relevant premises such of the fire safety measures as in all the circumstances it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises.

If the RP who set up the contract to have the FRA carried out rejects some or all of the findings what would be the 'reasonable' measures the Assessor should or could take? I think this is where MR's previous take has it spot on
"If the assessor has made a total hash of things and the RP went along with it unwittingly or otherwise , and offences occurred as a result then yes it maybe a case that the assessor also shoulders some of the responsibility.

If the RP doesn't like an asessors findings that is their perogative, but the they cannot leave things up in the air - they need to make a decision on where to go from there."

[terry martin]

Then expand it, I am a surveyor and I am called in to survey the place and I see the guttering is unsafe, yes I should tell the owner that the guttering is unsafe but do I now have to take steps to make the gutter safe?

No, but if he appoints you to tell him whether the gutter is safe or not, and you tell him that it's safe. subsequently the gutter falls of and kills someone. then you are accountable for that