RR(FS)O Working

[Chris Houston]

It was marbles that made me think Elgin was Greek.

[Tom Sutton]

CT I never said an IO was wrong if he challenged a RP, providing he considers his FRA is not suitable and sufficient I think he is right. Conversely if a consultant thinks a FRS is wrong he should challenge the FRS. It makes people stop and think and research the subject more deeply hopefully learning something in the process.

It is also not a matter of principle I have very few of those.

I have submitted many reports and you could count on one hand the number of people who disagreed with those reports, which made me think, I must know what I am talking about. But in fact it was the recipients who believed it was a waste of time because the fire brigade would always win, again this is incorrect.

Sensible and informed debate is a great learning tool; this forum is a good example.

[Chris Houston]

Sensible and informed debate is a great learning tool; this forum is a good example.

Feel free to nominate us for OBEs, Knighthoods etc.

[Izan FSO]

Thanks for the offer by the way- If you really are interested I will forward you a copy, its a actually a case of the Bluff and Persuasion Act 1872 dressed up to look as though it is an enforcement notice but missing the teeth. And potentially could cost the client £50K for something that cannot work.
[/quote]

Actually Kurnal, Enforcement Notices are quite easy to spot they have a boat load lof leagal jargon and notes to explain how the RP can appeal to a magistrates court. If it does not have all the legal notes it is a notification of deficienecies. Also the heading on the letter should be a bit of a give away if it says enforcement notice it is....if it does not say enforcement notice it isn't.

[kurnal]

Hi Izan
Yes thanks- I know it isnt an enforcement notice but the client does not know that and cant be expected to from the wording of the letter. And that goes totally against plain english and the enforcement concordat. The letter uses the word requirements twice and furthermore  states that the requirements should be completed within 3-6 months and that a further visit will be made after this time to check that the work has been carried out.

But it isnt an enforcement notice because it does not include most of the information detailed in article 30 (2). And theres no mention of any means of appeal.

What makes me sad is that instead of using the ample powers accorded by the FSO 2005 the fire servcies are so widely using  letters that include provisions pulled directly from the old Bluff and Persuasion Act and the outcome is that rather than trusting the fire service as a source of free and impartial advice with no axe to grind, clients would now rather seek the opinion of a consultant.

[Midland Retty]

You may recall sometime ago I posted a thread on the very issue of how Brigade reports are worded / structured.

I urge anyone who feels that letters issued by any Authority are poorly written / unclear to make an official complaint to the brigade concerned.

You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either. They are cumbersome to say the least and in my opinion are not very helpful for punters and consultants alike.

[nearlythere]

You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either.

No. Not surprised at all. Normal actually IMO.

[Davidrh]

This is all jolly good fun
But.....
As I said right from the beginning....people are going to die BECAUSE of this particular legislation.
The problem is the British Desease which appears in all areas but mostly in the public services.
A complete and total lack of common sense.
How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.

[Midland Retty]

Not sure why people will die as a result of this legislation Davidrh...could you explain that further?
In terms of your latter statement I agree - I dont think the RRO was particularly well thought out.

But what alternative would you prefer prescription or risk assessment?

[Mr. P]

How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.

Being, an intelligent businessman, you have an amount of common sense.  You will have already done risk assessments on your finances before committing to this work.  You won't be in buisiness to lose money.  So, everything you have done will have invloved assessing.  You have already assessed that you may not be competent to carry out RA as per your quote above.  So, you may make the decision to do it yourself or get someone in on your behalf.

[nearlythere]

How could anyone with any common sence have legislated to have me, a hotel owner, do a competant RA.

Being, an intelligent businessman, you have an amount of common sense.  You will have already done risk assessments on your finances before committing to this work.  You won't be in buisiness to lose money.  So, everything you have done will have invloved assessing.  You have already assessed that you may not be competent to carry out RA as per your quote above.  So, you may make the decision to do it yourself or get someone in on your behalf.

Davidrh. Do you do your own tax and VAT returns? If so you are a heck of a clever person to be able to read and understand the mountain of tax legislation and guidance. I can't and won't so I employ an accountant to do it for me but, I am still responsible for my taxes, not him.
If you can understand the tax system a FRA should be easy.

[FSO]

You may be suprised to hear that a lot of inspecting officers dont like them either. They are cumbersome to say the least and in my opinion are not very helpful for punters and consultants alike.

Thats me.

I hate our written opinion letter, it reads too much like an enforcement notice and is worded too strongly in my opinion.

If the risk is so serious, thats what articles 30 and 31 are there for.

I always make a point of warning the RP about the letter, that seems to work.

[Midland Retty]

I always make a point of warning the RP about the letter, that seems to work.

Yes me too!!  ...

[CivvyFSO]

As I said right from the beginning....people are going to die BECAUSE of this particular legislation.

But are you not the person who is complaining that the FRS have come to your Hotel and told you what to do?

Which way do you want it?

[Chris Houston]

Can I just throw in a discussion point.  Do people die because of legislation?  Not directly, they die because of fires in unsafe buildings.  Occupiers have the right, obligation, freedom to make their buildings safe from fire as they see fit and are not limited to the minimum legal solutions.

I'm not out to defend (or knock) the legislation, I'm just saying that there are more factors to consider.  An employer who takes the approach "I will protect my staff by only protecting them to the bare minimum legal standards" is not very inspired.