Online Fire Risk Assessments. (FRA)

[Tom Sutton]

Observing (lurking) the general consensus of this forum to online FRA's is a NO, NO but is it not possible to create a intelligent systems that could be considered acceptable when you look at the people who are responsible for conducting FRA's? (RP's not competent Persons)

[bungle]

I think it could possible be done on a Yes/No basis for some of the most simple premises i.e:

Will 60 people or less use the premises/room?   
How many doors are avaiable for the room?
Would a fire anywhere in the premises be detected and a warning given by a person?
Is it a low risk premises?

The list would obviously be quite long and the weak link in the chain would always be the person who actually answers questions along the lines of " Are the means for detecting and giving warning in the event of fire adequate?". I think every RP I have ever met ticks the  yes box, sometimes in cases where it is blindingly obvious they arent. ( On more than one occasion I have been to a premises where  an extension has been added but the AFD system has not been changed in any way so not only would a fire not be detected but the old sounder layout is inaudible in the extension.)
 I have also seen tick box forms that say the fire precautions are making the premises as safe as possible, I then found several LPG cylinders in the cellar. When I asked why they were there I was told "I don't know but they have been here for years. They were here before we bought the place"!
I think a well formatted document is a good start but it is the suitability of the actual person that makes/ breaks the FRA.
I have seen some very good ones on a form that was created by some bloak in Farnham, but it was obvious the actual assessor was competent!
Incidentally the premises suitable for tick box assessments are probably the ones that don't need rercording anyway.

[colin todd]

Ah farnham, or more precisely the Scottish embassy in farnham. Nice to know you approve of its products.

[Galeon]

Diplomatic immunity ? 

[colin todd]

honorary citizenship available for south londoners.

[Tom Sutton]

I was prompted to submit this thread because a website asked me to promote their online FRA, but I refused. When I looked at their website it sported two FRS’s badges and other fire related organisations logo’s so I decided I should give it a little more consideration.

First of all bungle I do not totally disagree with you but I would be more definitive on what a simple premises is, for example I would exclude sleeping risks because they fall in to a higher risk and I would add other conditions. As for ticking check boxes I agree the person answering the questions would have to have reasonable knowledge of fire safety but this site claims you do not have to have any knowledge at all. To redress that they provide a help line for twelve months to give advice and it is manned by qualified persons.

I believe in most cases, small business premises (definition to be agreed) could conduct their own FRA with some guidance and a lot of common sense. I believe in most cases an online risk assessment would be of little use to them and a hard copy fire safety audit guide would be a better solution. In my opinion for medium to high risk premises the services of a competent person is required and if he/she is competent then an online FRA would be of little use to them. For a less experienced risk assessor then a hard copy fire safety audit guide could be useful until he/she develops their own procedures.

On reflection and if I interpret the views of this forum correctly I will still follow the consensus of opinion that online FRA is not viable and is not an acceptable method to conduct a FRA, consequently I will stay clear.

[bungle]

TW,
Thanks for the positive reply to my post. I agree with what you say regarding a definition of simple premises and I think there lies one of the most serious problems.
In my minds eye I was thinking of a shop of low risk ( newsagent say), limited floor space and a single 750mm exit . But if he then buys the shop next door, only keeps the original exit and starts to sell fireworks we have significant change but the RP will not want to pay someone for a revised FRA.
 On the subject of FRS badges being used on a website I actually dealt with a case where an online company had listed several FRS as "partners" ... On checking the situation out I found that mine had never heard of them and one of the FRS also named didn't exist!! It took several letters from our legal department to get them to take us off the site, I don't know if the other FRS named are even aware of the fact that they are "partners".

Bungle

[kurnal]

To me a key element is how the online assessment actually works. If the system is based on printing off an inspection checklist and getting off your backside and looking round your building and checking your records etc  then depending on the checklist it may be fine for a simple building.

But if it involves someone filling it in and ticking boxes without ever moving from their PC then I guarantee it to be a waste of time and money.

Theres no shortage of companies trying to sit on the back of fire brigades and seeking to use their logos etc as a marketing tool. Some brigades have even linked to them without ever knowing through a lack of security in the fire gateway when it was first set up, and this continued for about 2  years though appears now to have been resolved. Take a look at your local brigades fire safety website and try the "click here for an on line fire risk assessment button". You may be surprised. My brigade in the east midlands recommended a company in the north east "Comanies we work with" and for two years forwarded enquiries directly to them without knowing and free of charge.

[bungle]

Kurnal,
I agree with you absolutely but there are many , many of these tickbox ones out there, and for premises which really need a properly thought through strategy to be safe. I am also shocked at the prices some people are telling me they have been charged for them.
 What a country... you need a license to use a fishing rod but I can charge a hotel anything I want for a sub standard fire risk assessment without having had any training whatsoever, and the law says I can!

[Tom Sutton]

My main concern was the statement you do not have to have any experience of fire safety. Take a simple question like “Is the travel distance acceptable.” If you are talking to a novice, think of all the additional questions you would need to ask to determine the answer. Also think of all the additional questions you would need to ask to the additional questions it would be a nightmare. This why I think a check list will only work as a prompt for any person that has basic knowledge of fire safety and also an online FRA is a check list done online.

As for the badges they are on a page offering a free home fire risk assessment, which incidentally is not the best, but I can see why FRS would allow their use but it is simple a marketing tool for the company.

[Thomas Brookes]

Just noticed that Chubb charge £292.57 for theirs, can not comment on how good it is but looks like a yes or no tick box thing.

www.ChubbRiskManager.co.uk

[jokar]

As with all things they are only as good as the person using them.  make a form as simple as you like but someone somewhere will make an error in it and that could be just on an order form.  Make it risk critical and you have a whole different ballgame.  It would not be too bad if afetr every question you had to go to aCLG guide for a specificx answer.

[Davo]

TW

I would suggest IMO that online ticky box is only useful for premises who did not require a Cert.
It would as others suggest have to be decently written with prompts

davo

Next step up would have to be the guides

[jokar]

In reality, tick box forms do not really deal with hazard and risk or proportionality.  Therefore, they are of limited use unless mixed with something like BS 8800 which does a bit of risk analysis.  The same goes of course for the CLG 5 steps which also needs the risk analysis attached to make any sense of it.

[bungle]

I agree with everything above but having had a look at a few self assessment websites can see it all going horribly wrong. For instance ,ask the average hotelier ," Who is especially at risk, bearing in mind it needs to be part of the SF " and you almost always get the vague stare and eventually a comment about the people on the top floor as they would have the longest jump if the stair was unusable. If you mention the DDA you quite often get a response regarding wheelchair users and the fact they can't get up the front steps so nothing is done for them as they can't get into the building.
People with other  impairments, the hard of hearing  or partially sighted  don't even get a thought.
I appreciate that the people who use this forum are professionals but there are alot of companies out there who will take several hundred pounds from an RP for a tick box FRA and then leave them to deal with an FRA that is not suitable and sufficient and an IO who has to do something about it.
 Please see my earlier comments about fishing rods!

Bungle