National Register of Fire Risk Assessors

[Bobbins]

I have heard that the IFSM have started to lobby for a national register and this has also been mentioned within the FIA at the Fire Risk Assessors committee. I think I know what the IFEs stance is on this and I understand the barriers that are preventing this from getting off the ground.

The RRO is not supposed to be a consultants charter but the ‘free for all’ at the moment is verging on criminal with no control at the bottom end of FRAs.

My stance on this is that if you charge for FRAs you should have some sort of competence, which is registered in some way the public can understand and that a national register would provide a level playing field. It would also eradicate the cowboys over night.

Anyone else agree, disagree, not give a dam?

[JC100]

It is down to the responsible person to employ a competent person if required and up to check on whether they are competent by checking experience, certificates, previous assessments etc. There is also plenty of information on the internet to explain what is required of a FRA and what is suitable and sufficient and what isn't.

If all employers did this, then your so called cowboys would be out of work.

I think therefore that this is an issue that lies with the responsible person, either not being fully aware of their duty under the RR(FS)O or because they are just trying to save a few quid and pleading ignorence if it goes wrong. Either way, they are still responsible in the end and can be held accountable.

Just my opinion of course

[nearlythere]

I have heard that the IFSM have started to levy for a national register and this has also been mentioned within the FIA at the Fire Risk Assessors committee. I think I know what the IFEs stance is on this and I understand the barriers that are preventing this from getting off the ground.

The RRO is not supposed to be a consultants charter but the ‘free for all’ at the moment is verging on criminal with no control at the bottom end of FRAs.

My stance on this is that if you charge for FRAs you should have some sort of competence, which is registered in some way the public can understand and that a national register would provide a level playing field. It would also eradicate the cowboys over night.

Anyone else agree, disagree, not give a dam?

Is it not up to the client to determine if the assessor is competant or not? A CV may go towards demonstrating this. How do you measure experience over qualification?
As I keep saying the FRA process, which was suppose to be within the capabilities of the average employer, is growing horns and teeth and turning into a monster and many qualified people are quite happy to let it go this way as they may be able to get a by ball to registration and capture some of the market.

[Bobbins]

It is down to the responsible person to employ a competent person if required and up to check on whether they are competent by checking experience, certificates, previous assessments etc. There is also plenty of information on the internet to explain what is required of a FRA and what is suitable and sufficient and what isn't.

If all employers did this, then your so called cowboys would be out of work.

I think therefore that this is an issue that lies with the responsible person, either not being fully aware of their duty under the RR(FS)O or because they are just trying to save a few quid and pleading ignorence if it goes wrong. Either way, they are still responsible in the end and can be held accountable.

Just my opinion of course

‘If all employers and responsible people did this’ …….is a very valid point but they just don’t do it.

If I needed a FRA and wasn’t confident about doing it myself, as soon as I made the decision to pay; I would want a single reference point to find a risk assessor, i.e. a national register.

Too many risk assessors can talk the talk and the general small business guy doesn’t know any better. If they think every assessor is the same then it comes down to price and availability and those that don’t invest in training or qualifications or have the experience can and do charge less.

A single reference of competence would be very useful for the every day client at the lower end of the scale.

[Wiz]

.......As I keep saying the FRA process, which was suppose to be within the capabilities of the average employer, is growing horns and teeth and turning into a monster and many qualified people are quite happy to let it go this way as they may be able to get a by ball to registration and capture some of the market.

I always remember being told by a solicitor that any piece of legislation that is produced by the Government with the intention of it being simple to understand and used by the layman is a threat to the legal profession.

If a law is too simple then there is no work for the solicitor.

Therefore the solicitors would even fund legal action free-of-charge where they thought they had a chance to 'muddy' the waters with case law, thereby complicating things so that everyone would need a solicitor in the future.

Are Fire Risk Assessors any different from solicitors?

[JC100]

A single reference of competence would be very useful for the every day client at the lower end of the scale.

That would be all well and good but who would compose the list? Who would assess the assessors and and deem them competent? If an assessor got it wrong, could he then turn and blame the person who passed him as competent? That would be a job with a very large responsibility....i wouldn't want it, would you?

As this issue exists then maybe the government should provide clearer guidance for the responsible person, and provided they do this then if 'small business owners' choose not to follow it is another matter.

[kurnal]

I agree with the principle of third party certification and the IFSM are by no means the only body trying to get their own register off the ground.

A national register may be a good thing - but only if the register is set up right, effectively measures the competence of individuals, has teeth to investigate and take action in case of malpractice and is set up to support the full spectrum from one man bands through to multi-national companies. Not a lot to ask?

UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?

The registers should effectively test the competence of the individual and monitor the effectiveness of the assessment - I believe that some just ask for a list of assessments carried out and ring the end user to achieve a customer satisfaction survey? What does that prove?

Dont be too impatient Bobbins- the industry is still embryonic and the warrington certification and IFE schemes appear to me to be moving in the right direction.

 I have heard it stated by several assessors that the  peer review puts them off applying- if you have invested a lot of time and effort into your template and system, if the peer review is carried out by your main competitors it may put you off applying.

Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.

[Bobbins]

I
UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?
 I
Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.

The Warrington scheme is written to 17024 and has all but got the UKAS accreditation, the six are from a pilot scheme held in last summer and it has not been open to applicants because they are waiting for the UKAS accreditation. So they tell me!

You have however highlighted the problem which scheme to choose wouldn’t it be better to go with a national one!

A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.


Kurnal I would hold on the IFE and the IFSM registers and give Warrington another look when they have accreditation. 

[nearlythere]

So how would such a scheme work with regards to the Enforcement Authority.
If an EO came to my business to check my FRA and found that I did it myself (me being "unregistered") is it automatically unsuitable and insufficient before the front page is even turned?

[kurnal]

A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.

The MOT analogy is different. All cars have to pass the same performance criteria. It is extremely prescriptive and garages are told how much to charge. The system is so bad that if you take an old car for an MOT that predates the emissions requirements, they have to use a new car for that part of the test - the emissions analysis- otherwise the system will not allow them to complete the test.

Fire risk assessments are a variable market- the risk control measures are proportionate to the risk. There needs to be a spectrum of practitioners available to meet the range of need. The big players aren't interested in the corner shops- they just want the big juicy corporate contracts. Make third party certification too complicated and too expensive and you will eliminate the opportunity for cost effective,  risk based support for the duty holders and smaller employers.

Depending on the overheads, the requirements of a compulsory national scheme could put the one man band out of business- especially if they start setting prescriptive requirements like £5million PI insurance, ISO 18000, ISO 9000 et al.

[nearlythere]

I
UKAS accreditiation should be a goal- of the current registers in place how many have this?

The registers should be set up  in accordance with ISO17024?
 I
Personally I am about to apply for the IFE register and am considering the IFSM. Warrington looks fine but is three times the cost of the IFE and has very little take up at present. Last time I looked there were only six certified assessors.

The Warrington scheme is written to 17024 and has all but got the UKAS accreditation, the six are from a pilot scheme held in last summer and it has not been open to applicants because they are waiting for the UKAS accreditation. So they tell me!

You have however highlighted the problem which scheme to choose wouldn’t it be better to go with a national one!

A perfect illustration is at lunch I popped out to book my car in for an MOT……  the point being I couldn’t get my dad an ex mechanic to give the car a once over and say it is fine for the road costing me the price of a bottle of wine , I had to take it to an approved centre costing me a lot more.

The MOT garage should be competent to carry out the required safety checks etc as they are approved.

I can go to any approved garage for my car road safety check but for my fire safety check I can go to anyone or do it myself.


Kurnal I would hold on the IFE and the IFSM registers and give Warrington another look when they have accreditation. 

But your dad can give the car the once over Bobbins and if he is competant it should only be an audit and nod from an agency of the enforcement authority. Much the same as a FRA carried out by your dad. If he is competant it should only be an audit and nod from the enforcement authority.

[Bobbins]

So how would such a scheme work with regards to the Enforcement Authority.
If an EO came to my business to check my FRA and found that I did it myself (me being "unregistered") is it automatically unsuitable and insufficient before the front page is even turned?

Not at all, that option is still available, but when money does change hands a minimum competence should be a requirement …………..otherwise you get salesmen offering risk assessments for a fiver.

If I buy a toy for my child it should have a CE mark on it which tells me it has reached a certain standard and shouldn’t fall apart, poison or injure my child.

I can go and buy a non CE marked toy (if I could find one) or I can make one myself; it might be a good one or it might not be; it might kill him or it may not.

The point being that at least a CE marked product should meet a standard and this provides me as a consumer with a reference and some assurances.


If a fire risk assessor has some starting point then the paying public will have a reference point, without a starting point many responsible people will make a bad choice because that’s what has been sold to them

[colin todd]

There are lots of CBs offering BAFE SP203, why should there be a monopoly of a single national register. Maybe at most all that is needed is a single scheme, rather than a single register.

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?

[messy]

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?

You should report them to the Competition Commission

[Bobbins]

There are lots of CBs offering BAFE SP203, why should there be a monopoly of a single national register. Maybe at most all that is needed is a single scheme, rather than a single register.

Ps why is there only one monopolies commission?

Correct and that is how it should be …. one standard for all; just like a CE mark.

If you take a good look at the schemes available they all have some good points but there is a clear order of merit; some being paper thin, some being far from independent. The two best schemes are the IFE and Warrington and with a UKAS stamp the later will be the hard to beat.

If the professional bodies could sit round a table and agree to follow the same standard, then it wouldn’t matter who did the assessment as long as it was the same assessment ………see my MOT analogy (it is the same test no matter who gives it) and in theory the cars are safe for the road so a risk assessor would be safe to practice.

The FIA annual meeting might provide a good forum to discus a national register if not there then where?