RR(FS)O Working

[Midland Retty]

Quite agree Kurnal

And lets be honest Mr Todd is a big boy capable of fighting his own corner and also most capable of delivering the odd cheeky quip himself.

So horses for courses perhaps?

[Chris Houston]

My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.

Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish.  Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.

I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.

I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush.  Like employers, there are also many good ones.

What is it about the rubbish FRAs Chris that you think makes them so? I have seem many RAs both in the out of the F&R Service and apart from the obvious "rubbish" ones they can vary in format and content depending on how the author interprets the legislation. I have seen ones written by persons I would have thought should be pretty good. In my opinion they fell well short of what I consider to be an assessment of issues of concern in relation to fire safety in the workplace and how they can be resolved, which basically is what I think a FRA should be.
Some FRAers think it is sufficient to point out deficiencies and defects and record that they should be fixed.
Maybe that is sufficient to satisfy the F&R Service audit and maybe I am going way over the top, but a Fire Risk Assessment by a professional assessor should be much more than just a report of failings.

Things that I have seen that I consider to be rubbish:

fire risk assessments in fire engineered buildings that have no consideration of the original fire strategy
people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources
people failing to look in plant rooms and store rooms and basements and missing major things such as storage of flammables, gas cylinders
people forgetting that people use the building they work in when it is dark
people overlooking the fact that their sprinkler pump is missing, or their fire alarm system has been broken for years
people writing a list of things with no analysis or conclusions

I could write a list as long as my arm.

[nearlythere]

My personal option is that most of the risk assessments that I have seen are rubbish.

Many of the ones that have been done by consultants are rubbish.  Many of the people who are paid to do risk assessments are not good at it.

I think this is partly the fault of the government for not regulating the fire safety industry and partly the fault of the employers for not vetting who they contract to undertake risk assessments and partly the fault of people who should know they are not competant to do risk assessments.

I think it is unfair to tarnish all consultants with the same brush.  Like employers, there are also many good ones.

What is it about the rubbish FRAs Chris that you think makes them so? I have seem many RAs both in the out of the F&R Service and apart from the obvious "rubbish" ones they can vary in format and content depending on how the author interprets the legislation. I have seen ones written by persons I would have thought should be pretty good. In my opinion they fell well short of what I consider to be an assessment of issues of concern in relation to fire safety in the workplace and how they can be resolved, which basically is what I think a FRA should be.
Some FRAers think it is sufficient to point out deficiencies and defects and record that they should be fixed.
Maybe that is sufficient to satisfy the F&R Service audit and maybe I am going way over the top, but a Fire Risk Assessment by a professional assessor should be much more than just a report of failings.

Things that I have seen that I consider to be rubbish:

fire risk assessments in fire engineered buildings that have no consideration of the original fire strategy
people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources
people failing to look in plant rooms and store rooms and basements and missing major things such as storage of flammables, gas cylinders
people forgetting that people use the building they work in when it is dark
people overlooking the fact that their sprinkler pump is missing, or their fire alarm system has been broken for years
people writing a list of things with no analysis or conclusions

I could write a list as long as my arm.

Maybe as long as both your arms.
I agree entirely and the tick box type is typical of the RAs I have seen. The tick box type is, in my mind, more of a FRA review or audit where the premises have already been put in order. Despite what the government believe employers generally do not give a donkey's dongler for fire safety and will only comply when made to by the enforcement authority.

[AM]

people using forms with questions like "is there a suitable fire detection and alarm system" and the assessor ticking the "yes" box without any further commentary or assessment
people using forms with questions like "are fire escapes suitable" and ticking "yes" when the fire escape from upper classroom is through an escape route full of combustibles and ignition sources

Totally agree with this. One local council issued a tick-box form for it's properties RA's, and i saw the same assessment on schools, old people's homes, offices and vehicle depots. The questions didn't go as far as to ask whether the escape routes or alarms were suitable - it just asked whether there were any trip hazards, if testing of the alarm was recorded and if spare breakglasses were available etc.

I was also asked to review risk assessments of F+RS property, which were amongst the poorest of all the ones I saw. I did a long speil as to why they didn't comply with the regs, but was asked to tone it down to prevent any aggravation at higher level.

[SmokeyDokey]

Thanks to Kurnal and MR for their comments above but within reason I respect CH (admin's vews) and we should all do so - or no FN. So I retain the right to offer apologies to CT. I am afterall recorded as a newbie.

What Chris H and others say about rubbish risk assessments certainly stikes a chord with me and I am oft asked "what can we do about these risk assessments?"

For me there are two things:-
(a) work out where and how RA's of the tick box type came from (difficult but probably not from the HSE/CLG five steps model unless based on the "checklist") and seek to address that original source; and

(b) for the FRS to "have due regard" to the Secretary of State's guidance in enforcment guidance note 1 to the FSO, form a decent argument why it is not appropriate to follow that guidance (i.e. the risk assessor has placed people at serious risk of death or injury due to their useless assessment) and so it is appropriate to prosecute the risk assesor either through their positin by contract under artilce 5(3) or simply by virtue of artilce 32(10).

Those competent and doing a good job (such as firenetters) should have little to fear but some cowboys would certanly get blown out of the water - and a few potential cowboys might think again.

Perhaps controversial but any suggestions?

[nearlythere]

We need to be careful about this as the next thing you know RAers will be required to have qualifications up to their armpits before they can practice.
Certificates and qualifications do not necessarily make a good risk assessor but neither does time in a Fire Safety office.

[Chris Houston]

Requiring fire risk assessors to be qualified would be a good thing.  I think we should accept that joe public isn't able to assess fire risks.

[Thomas Brookes]

The reason that this mess is here is because, the government tried to sneak in the RR(FS)O in with out upsetting the millions of business owners and business leaders in the country that they were now going to have to pay for something they felt the fire officers did for free.

They can  not possibly legislate how a fire risk assessment is done while they are claiming that joe public can do his or her own risk assessment. Its that simple.

I recently did a Nebosh Fire update course (its a basic fire risk assesors course), there was 12 people on the course and most worked for really big companies. Eight were after the course were going to be the person in charge of fire safety for their companies including all fire risk assessments. The others were hoping to make a living from doing fire risk assessments.
Not one of these people had any fire related work experience at all.

[nearlythere]

Requiring fire risk assessors to be qualified would be a good thing.  I think we should accept that joe public isn't able to assess fire risks.

What qualification would you consider appropriate CH? One specifically on Risk Assessing?
No. Joe Public cannot risk assess but the government says he can. That is who the process was aimed by presenting it as a simple inexpensive procedure which really was to manage the already supposedly existing comprehensive fire safety measures which every dutiful employer had implimented in 1978.
Somehow the RA processs has got very complicated and certainly outside the capability of the average employer.

[kurnal]

The reason that this mess is here is because, the government tried to sneak in the RR(FS)O in with out upsetting the millions of business owners and business leaders in the country that they were now going to have to pay for something they felt the fire officers did for free.

They can  not possibly legislate how a fire risk assessment is done while they are claiming that joe public can do his or her own risk assessment. Its that simple.

I recently did a Nebosh Fire update course (its a basic fire risk assesors course), there was 12 people on the course and most worked for really big companies. Eight were after the course were going to be the person in charge of fire safety for their companies including all fire risk assessments. The others were hoping to make a living from doing fire risk assessments.
Not one of these people had any fire related work experience at all.

I disagree with your first comment Thomas. I think the reason we are in this mess is because the Government wrote the legislation and the guidance under the mistaken and very naive impression that the FP Act - Certificates and 9A together with  the Building Regs had created  an excellent standard of compliance, and a good platform to build on, enabling them to define very basic and  general fire precautions in the Fire Safety Order  that could be assessed by persons with minimal training or experience.

Once it is recognised that the assessor needs also to make a judgement as to whether the arrangements are suitable, risk appropriate and sufficient, then the house of cards comes tumbling down.

I am sure that the Nebosh Fire Update Course is a wonderful thing. Will people be competent risk assessors as a result of it? Yes- but only if it it teaches them to recognise the limit of their own competence and when and where to look for assistance. Thats the strength of the NEBOSH Gen Cert- it opens the students eyes to the range and depth of expertise across a huge range of topics and opens your eyes to what you dont know.  

[Galeon]

Wow , what a thread , had to read some of the posts twice , its the same old story you pays your money , I have recommended a dear fiend of mine on numerous occasions to my clients , for fire risk assessments , and all is well until they get a cheaper price . What then really annoys me is they phone me up and moan about the bloke they decided to use .

I would liken the risk assessment game to car insurance , a good policy till you claim and they kick the tyres .

The person ultimately choosing the risk assessment company , would spend more time on ebay rather than do his / her homework on proper procurement.

I don't envy you boys doing this type of work , I have been in detection for 25 years , and all I hope its sorts its self out sooner or later , as for me I will keep recommending my old mate (he needs the money ) lol

[colin todd]

Cleveland, You have mised the sesne of this thread. There are not 101 reasons the FSO is not working. There are only 5. There are 101 reasosn that fires are down. Read the start of the thread. Here is Number 1 out of 101 if you go back far enough. The furniture regulations. That maut be true cos CFOA say so. Ready for number 2?  And on a point of accuracy, I never said I ahted english fire and rescue services.  I am gad I was able to be of service in my small and huble way in your education.

[Clevelandfire 3]

May I say how very very very sorry I am Col for missing the "sense" of your previous thread, although I wager the word "thrust" would have been better english. I think as a point of accuracy I got rather bored half way through reading and didnt pay much attention then tried to remember what you said and my brain kinda made some bits up to fill in the gaps. Your jappery as manifested by the ammount of speling mistaykes in your reply to me was noted, designed no doubt to replicate the epic lambasting your old whipping boy Philip Barry MBE gave me about my spellin'.

On an even greater point of accuracy you may not have said that you hated English brigades, but then you didnt have to. And why is it you hold inspecting officers in such contempt? You might actually like them if you got to know them a little. To me this is a typical "boy being nasty to girl in playground" scenario like we all used to play out at skool. You make on you dont like 'em to your chums but secretly deep down you think they are wonderful but just dont want to admit it. 

I still would like 101 reasons why that thingame whatever you mentioned isn't to do with the wotsit. If you fail to provide them I may have no option but to write into Points of View. Not even you are brave enough to take on Wogan. So get righting or is it writing and no bed until theyre listed , in alpha numerical order too I might add

Love you Colin Night night xxx.

[colin todd]

Cleveland, Since most of your post consitutes some form of dream on your part, I assume that you wrote it in your sleep. Night night to you too.

[Davo]

When the Nebosh first came out you could access the syllabus for free

I took one look and realised that whilst the course content is admirable, the time allowed to fully grasp is nowhere near that required.

Its like learning to drive. When I passed that I had never overtaken another moving vehicle! I learnt over the years and am still learning.


A course delivered at local colleges is required, even if it's one day, for small businesses

A smart man could of course seize such an opportunity to design one
davo