National Register of Fire Risk Assessors

[colin todd]

Great and superior being Retty, the IFE is not a trade association. It is a professional body. The two are entirely different somewhat like the IET is a professional body for electrical engineers, while the ECA is a trade association for electrical contractors and the FIA is a trade association for the fire industry.
And the combination of interview and review of FRA is a powerful tool by which to judge competence.
  ps I would never wonder why I did not employ you, as I already know the answer.

[Midland Retty]

Regardless, I'm still not convinced that accreditation is best done in this way. I have no doubt Sir Todd that you would be very thorough in your interview with an assessor. But how would you know if they had missed something fundemental?

  ps I would never wonder why I did not employ you, as I already know the answer.

My dear Colin I know I've always been far too expensive for you, even taking to account " best mates rates"

[Bobbins]

Regardless, I'm still not convinced that accreditation is best done in this way. I have no doubt Sir Todd that you would be very thorough in your interview with an assessor. But how would you know if they had missed something fundemental?

Fair point MR!

My take on this is that an accompanied visit should be included on the initial assessment particularly as in the IFE scheme they don’t ask for the name or details of the buildings submitted. 

This lack of traceability is obviously open to abuse and if an assessor is short on suitable reports to submit; what is to stop them submitting FRAs completed by another assessors.

If anything is dramatically wrong within the report what then? (No tractability = No accountability)

According to the Warrington scheme details: all reports submitted should have permission from the owner and have full contact details included. The owners also have to agree to provide confirmation that the person submitting the reports did actually complete it.

I do think an interview is a must along with a thorough look at the quality of reports a risk assessor produces, but to have an actual FRA on a building that the approval body has seen will give a far better indication as to the true qualities an assessor has. 

How far these schemes go to determine the competence of an assessor will ultimately be determined by the industry it’s self; the more comprehensive schemes will cost more and the cheaper ones will be less thorough. The value to an assessor in terms of marketing themselves and the amount of work they receive through having it; will determine which level of register they go for.

YOU PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET!

At the moment there seems to be plenty of work for everyone registered or not.

Just off the topic, I heard that the IFE got a very public dressing down off the FPA recently, anyone know the details?

[Clevelandfire 3]

The whole thing just smacks of openess to abuse. An interview. Wow. That will proove alot. Wonder how that would stand up in court. It isn't that easy I know to go round checking peoples work, but as Retty says how esle do you ensure that the assessment was of a genuine property in the first place and that the assessor aint missed something pretty major. I could quite easily produce a ficticious risk assessment making ive found 101 thinsg wrong and how i transfromed the building from a rat hole to something ultra safe. I could also bat off some questions from the would be accreditors quite easily. Wam bam thank you ma'am.

[kurnal]

So what would you propose Cleveland?

These systems are entirely voluntary. No practitioner is compelled to register  with any of them. As they are currently set up, they are operated partly for the benefit of consumers (ie duty holders seeking assistance) and partly for practitioners as a marketing tool. As such they have to strike some kind of balance between the two unless the Law is changed to make registration of a national scheme compulsory.

Perhaps we should make this a legal requirement, look how successful such a scheme has been in the financial sector with the FSA?

[colin todd]

So how do warrington confirm that the guy didnt miss anything?

[Benzerari]

Indeed; who will guard the guardians? 

[colin todd]

Cleveland, I imagine that many officers who write enforcement notices could indeed produce fictitious risk assessments. I thought that this is what many enforcement notices are, arent they?

[Thomas Brookes]

Until the idea that anyone can do their own fire risk assessment is dropped by the government any sort of legal qualification will not work.

The best that can be hoped for is some sort of recommendations, best practises or voluntary codes.

It just can not work, with out major changes in the government requirements in who and what is competency.
I had a recent conversation with a shop owner who asked a Fire Risk Manager (i think thats the new name for the FRS assessor now) if he was competent to do his own fire risk assessment. He was told "You work here every day and know the building inside out, you know what is flammable and what can cause a fire so you are competent to do your risk assessment".

With that sort of logic how can they force a qualification on everyone eles.

[Clevelandfire 3]

So what would you propose Cleveland?

Easy Kurnal. The accreditation panel check the work and visit the premises that has been assessed.

Im not interested if its voluntary or compulsory. It makes no difference. At the end of the day a third party is putting their name to an individual assessor and confirming that assessor is competent.

Like Myself and Tom Brookes said other systems are too open to abuse - people could falsify their risk assessment, sex it up or copy someone elses.

So let me ask you a question Kurnal. Would you want a gas engineer or builder or plumber to sign up to a volutnary scheme, and accredited simply by asking some questions. You'd feel pretty cheesed off if on the basis of that accreditation panel you employed a builder they said was OK but turned out to be shoddy and cut corners . No need to answer by the way.

If people want to be accredited great. It shows they are willing to verify their competence and have theior work  scrutinised. Equally however the accreditation organisation needs to cover it's back when confirming the competence of somebody and they won't do that by "asking some hard questions"

Colin todd - dont understand the question about enforcement notices, but then Im not tuned into answering silly questions. Ask me a sensible question one and I may reply.



 

[colin todd]

Cleveland, I will try to make it simple for you. Are enforcment ntoices always based on risk or are they simply prescriptive application of CLG guides (which, if that is what is required for enforcement of legislation, could be done by supermarket shelf packers).

[Clevelandfire 3]

No Colin Ill make it simple for you .EN's are normally issued tro address poor standards on a risk assessed basis. Often it is because an RP is clueless hasnt employed an all powerful risk assessor such as you to sort their fire precautions. It isnt the fire authority's job to give RPs options, it is for the RP to decide their own fire precautions and if deemed inadequate for the fire Auth to do something about it . Yes they the FA will default sometimes to CLG guidnace. Which is a benchmark incidentally. Sorry you dont think it is a  worthy benchmark  but dont blame IOs for that blame government.On one hand the likes of you moaned about prescription. Then when Risk Assessment came along you moan there is no consistency. YOu moan when IOs are jack booted for trying to actually help the RP.Unless you have something constructive to say, rather than trying to score points, then don't say anything at all. It is time you changed the record now. We all know you have some axe to grind.You wanna see some so called fire safety consultants out there some of which would be shown to be woefully incompetent by super market shelf packers. You seem to suggest shelf packing isn't a noble or worthy proffesion. Rather snobby.Anyway perhaps you wont be able to reply too quickly to my comments. Maybe you will be delayed being superhuman expert witness somewhere helping some poor police authority that just couldnt do without you as you like to tell us. Wow should I bow in front of you or something.Its funny you criticise british Standards yet you sit on many of their committees relating to fire safety. You dont understand the work of the fire auithority clearly or the position it is in, else you simply wouldnt say the things you say.  I'd have a lot more respect for you and be prepared to take on board a lot of what you said if you werent so sarcastic.

[kurnal]

Cleveland just to let you know I have reported your last posting to the moderator. I did this because whilst I think you do have a point to make, I dont think that personal insults add anything to the debate. They are more likely to deter others from contributing in the future to the detriment of the forum.

[Wiz]

Prof., this has happened before and I was surprised then that you never saw it!

[Clevelandfire 3]

Sorry I just grew a bit sick and tired of a certain member being facetious. Report me if you like Kurnal that is you perogative, but at times i think the other poster who I took umbridge with  has been more atagonistic and contraversial over time , particulalry about Inspectors and certain parts of the industry, than I ever have. His comments display a smug sort "of all knowing" quality as if he somehow lords it over us with a superior knowledge. Ive always said i have time for his experience, and his wisdom, i just dont like or have time to waste on his sarcasm, which incidentally isn't as clever as he thinks it is . Im not quite sure why he has such beef with particularly firefighters turned fire inspectors but his comments arent helpful, yet I wonder if he has ever been to a fire in progress and seen how catastrophic it is to watch or indeed fight.
 I dont see why people have tolerated him that long, yet well all just seem to bow at his feet. I just dont seem how telling us how busy he has been an expert witness for so and so adds anything to the debate. Frankly its just being big headed him reminding us saying he is better than anyoe else. And im not having it. Sorry if I offended but if you are going to pull me up on my replies I think you ought to perhaps conceed that the other person is also in the wrong to and can antagonise without any need. Also i didnt like comments directed at shelf stackers, and infering they are thick and lowly. What is so wrong with shelf stacking? Or do we all have to be rich fire safety consultants to have any standing in society.If you feel I put members off i think you will find others (not publically) get put off by him as well. I'm happy to be educated and learn more, but he is someone who totally turns me off.