Fire safety enforcement in england

[CivvyFSO]

Just out of interest, where did all you experienced consultants receive your training?

Mr Todds 3 and a half day wonder-course?

A few weeks of a NEBOSH?

BEng? BSc? (IMO, you can roll it up and wedge a door open with it for all the good it does with run-of-the-mill fire safety. Always looks good on a business card and in court though, that is granted.)

Or built up over many years? If so, where did you start?

[CivvyFSO]

There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.

In the places where enforcement is taking place it is highly likely that no solution was reached. It will have just been bad conditions, simple as that.

Take enforcing HD to SD in hotel bedrooms. All you see is a FRS nazi going against the British Standards, implementing his will on some poor helpless hotellier with 100% RRO compliance and the lot.

What you choose to ignore and what the poor hotellier fails to divulge is that there was no risk assessment, all the doors are ill fitting with no strips/seals, missing self closers, no maintenance, no staff training, wedged doors etc etc etc. Cheapest option? 20 doors and frames, or 20 detectors?

FWIW, there is some grey ground somewhere between those 2 examples. I think it's called fire safety.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Yes you can have ALARP but you have to bas it on something Jokar. You cant just pluck ideas or solutions out of the sky. It has be based around something.

[Clevelandfire 3]

There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.

In the places where enforcement is taking place it is highly likely that no solution was reached. It will have just been bad conditions, simple as that.

Take enforcing HD to SD in hotel bedrooms. All you see is a FRS nazi going against the British Standards, implementing his will on some poor helpless hotellier with 100% RRO compliance and the lot.

What you choose to ignore and what the poor hotellier fails to divulge is that there was no risk assessment, all the doors are ill fitting with no strips/seals, missing self closers, no maintenance, no staff training, wedged doors etc etc etc. Cheapest option? 20 doors and frames, or 20 detectors?

FWIW, there is some grey ground somewhere between those 2 examples. I think it's called fire safety.

Hurrah atlast some honesty and truth Well said Civvy FSO. I do have to smile at som RA'ers who make on taht all IOs are jack booted Nazis who go round barking requirements willy nilly. In reality there maybe some very isolated cases of that but the in the main most RA'ers or consultants who have an axe to grind with the fire authority dont know enforcement procedures very well. Yes they may have been ex fire service and reckon they know the score or what was done of old but things change and procedures are revised.

 And how many times on this forum have we given advice about what to do if a Insp Off is overburdensome. Theres a whole raft of things you can do before having to go for an appeal or determination and enforcement is never taken lightly and has to be OK'd by a line manager who incidently will be covering his or her back side with 12" thick steel to ensure that the brigade doesnt get sued for requiring OTT solutions. So hello and welcome to planet earth people. If you are going to criticise lets be honest and talk facts not half truths or urban mythology please.

Perhaps some of you genuinely have come across really horrid fire officers who get out the wrong side of bed each morning or who have not received the love of a good woman for quite some time. But dont tar every last IO's with the same brush, I dont treat every responsible person or RA'er like that.

I said in my last post that yes you can have ALARP but you cant just pluck ideas out of the sky . You have to base your assessment against known quantities or have a bloomin good reason for straying away from know standards.  You need to be able and confident to justify your decision in court. Some of us just don't seem to appreciate thats where things may end up. And it's intimidating and intense in court because you will be put under the spotlight being asked to back up opinions. And unless you have something to base you assessment of why you have allowed such a deviation you are just merely giving professional opinion if you have not tested your theory in some way. And that may mean the prosecution then asks you why you are so qualified to ake such decisions. If youre not careful you will be shot down in flames by a prosecuting barrister. However if you are competent and you know what you are doing and are confident in that decision then great I haven't got a problem with that.

[Thomas Brookes]

Just out of interest, where did all you experienced consultants receive your training?

Mr Todds 3 and a half day wonder-course?

A few weeks of a NEBOSH?

BEng? BSc? (IMO, you can roll it up and wedge a door open with it for all the good it does with run-of-the-mill fire safety. Always looks good on a business card and in court though, that is granted.)

Or built up over many years? If so, where did you start?

CivvyFSO, I feel you need to explain your statement or retract it, I am not saying you are wrong or right but feel you need to explain your possibly slanderous statement.

So CivvyFSO, are you saying Mr Todds wonder course is no good then.
What are you baseing your opinion on, have you sat it and thought "thats rubbish" or is it just a guess.
I also take it that Nebosh is no good either, again this is based on what? you have sat them or again its a guess?.
BSc, BEng both poor, again please explain.

And finally I feel you should start us off with your CV.

I think I could be F**ked as I have done all of the above (apart from BEng) and the Todd course was a less than three days but is was a many years ago.

[kurnal]

WELCOME BACK CLEVELAND
Its been dull without you.

[Dragonmaster]

Having read through this thread again, I'm feling quite wounded, and covered in all the tar! I've dealt with a FRA that was carried out by a 'professional RAer' that identified all the risks/hazards (hurrah), then singularly failed to identify any action plans, alternative solutions etc or even where his poor client could go for answers.

What was left for me to do - declare the FRA not suitable and sufficient. I then spent a good hour or so teaching the RAer about action plans. Let's not forget that FS standards have evolved over a number of years as knowledge, technology etc increases and progresses, therefore we do have to move with the times. If us professionals find this a little difficult at times, how do you expect the poor RP to manage. I guess we need to write down some sort of standard that can be used for their own FRAs. Lets call them a guide so we can all look at them and assess what it is proposed against a normative standard.

Wev all know that if you let an inch be taken there are some (not all) who don't stop at a mile or so, so how do we, the poor FO's, deal with this. YES we use what experience, training, etc we have to make a decision on what we consider is a minimum safe standard, and apply that unless we are persuaded otherwise by a well presented and cogent case.

We will make mistakes, but not on purpose. We will try to assist the RP to make their premises safe (ALARP), but we will also enforce as we are charged to do by law, and don't forget, any FRA carried out by a 3rd party (once paid for) belongs to the RP, which they must understand and work with after the consultant is tucked up in bed with a warm toddy or three.

Rant over - sorry folks - but I must defend my corner as well.

[val]

Just to add a little anecdote to this interesting thread.

I had the pleasure to come up against a 'highly qualified' fire consultant in a legal case. He was truely awful, spoke utter rubbush and was so out of date that I sat there fuming, (unable to cross examine...which would have been a joy).

After the case, I casually struck up a conversation, (as one does), and he opening and gleefully told me that he would say anything, the pay was brilliant and he had a vintage porsche in the garage.

There are good and bad in any field but I have yet to find a fire safety officer with such a poor approach.

[Rex]

Colin Todd said-
I think that Rex just likes what I said and wanted people to read it again. He is clearly a discerning man.
 Rex said- sorry Colin, I pressed the wrong button!!!! But I like you.
Colin,
I attended a fire risk assessment course that you organised for a FRS, this was for the inspecting officers of that brigade, [I got on this course as a civi when I left the service] not all I believe passed the course, again the problem is training. During my time within the fire prevention department no formal internal assessable training was implemented for fire prevention officers I did instigate informal on the job training one day per month if circumstances allowed. I am lead to understand this lack of internal training within brigades is still applicable. Not only training for enforces of the RFO is required, but also training for fire risk assessors . Poor fire risk assessments, and lack of training for enforcers is not a happy position for all concerned, I am still learning, particularly from this forum.  

[Clevelandfire 3]

WELCOME BACK CLEVELAND
Its been dull without you.

You're right it has been dull without me but dont worry I'm back now  . Seriously nice to hear from you Kurnal and thank you for the kind welcome 

So it seems then in conclusion that - shock horror stand back in amazement - we all agree fire safety professionals be they IO's, FRAss or consultants could all do with extra training in some areas, that inevitably guides and benchmarks have to be referred to or "hugged" unless a suitable alternative is put forward and that actually we all have a common goal of achieving using ALARP processes to reduce life and property risk in most cases. (Despite the different angles we may approach it and the misconceptions we have of each other).

Im quite tearful actually for this is a beautiful moment. Where is Wiz I want to embrace him and tell him Im sorry. Midland Retty drinks all round because guess what we professionals are probably singing from the same hymm book, we just need to all get on the same hymm sheet and life will be good.

 

[jokar]

Cleveland, different name same person, welcome back, if it is you that is.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Hi Jokar thanks hope you are well. Im afraid it is me yes... different person same name or something like that

[CivvyFSO]

CivvyFSO, I feel you need to explain your statement or retract it, I am not saying you are wrong or right but feel you need to explain your possibly slanderous statement.

I don't feel the need to retract anything, and if you can point me to where I am being slanderous it would be much appreciated. However I will explain very slowly for you.

So CivvyFSO, are you saying Mr Todds wonder course is no good then.

No. Just that 3 and a half days training does not make a good risk assessor.

What are you baseing your opinion on, have you sat it and thought "thats rubbish" or is it just a guess.

I am basing my opinion on three and a half days not being enough time to learn enough fire safety to go out risk assessing buildings.

I also take it that Nebosh is no good either, again this is based on what? you have sat them or again its a guess?.

Same again. I quite simply do not think a Nebosh on its own guarantees a good risk assessor.

BSc, BEng both poor, again please explain.

Being part of the way through a BEng, as far as the risk assessment aspect goes I have had very little input that I consider valuable for risk assessing buildings, or even quite basic fire safety, and I see little on the horizon that will assist with that aim. Good input for fire engineering though, as would be expected.

And finally I feel you should start us off with your CV.

I am glad you feel that way.

The whole point is that qualifications alone do not make for competence in fire safety, and I would hazard a good guess that there are many people out there with no qualifications at all who make excellent risk assessors.

[Thomas Brookes]

Hi CivvyFSO,

Please dont take this as I am having a go at you I am interested in what makes everyone with qualifications a poor risk assessor and all the ex-fire officers much better at it.

You say experience tells you Colin Todds course poorly equips people for the job of RA, have you seen poor risk assessments done by people qualified by Todd wonder course?.

Again the Nebosh Diploma is a Degree level risk assessors qualification respected world wide, it commands high wages and you say it is poor as well, I assume you have you sat this exam to be able to say it is poor.

In a way I agree with you that having  qualifications alone does not make you a good anything, but any qualification will give you some extra knowledge.

[CivvyFSO]

I am not saying they are poor qualifications, nor am I saying that the fire officers are better at the task. I am simply saying that none of the qualifications on their own make you a good risk assessor.

People love having a go at FSO's about lack of training. So where should we all go for our training? Does the Nebosh touch on BS9999, ADB, BS5588, BS7974, BR368 etc etc etc?