Fire Risk Assessment Franchise

[natdan]

I was just wondering if anybody was aware of a fire risk assessment franchise on the market.  I wont go into detail but I am from a fire systems background and we asked the client to get FRA's carried out but we didnt offer them.  They had a company come in with a very fancy document that looked good with fancy pictures but the document was a yes/No document and has set answers.

Anyway I caught up with a guy and had a chat and he said he paid £20,000 for a franchise and was a former mechanic.  He then said he had 1 weeks raining on how to carry out assessments, and 1 weeks sales course on how to sell them.  This guy is now considered to be competent to carry out a FRA and has a IFE certificate.

I then asked the guy what would he recommend about the alarm system and extinguishers in the building and he said not sure about alarms I will ring the office who advise me.

Is this acceptable in the industry and how can these companies just come up recruit people with promises of big money and send them out with no idea what there getting into with regards the lawful aspect??

[colin todd]

Could you give me his number. There is a constant squeaking noise at low speed from the rear nearside wheel in my car, which the garage can never seem to hear, but I swear is there. I could give him the advanced FRA course that takes him beyond his current extensive knowledge,while he fiddles with my wheel. We have had one week's raining here too. I blame the Russians for this crazy weather. My old mother always said this would happen with all those sputniks being sent into space.

[nearlythere]

If the local Fire & Rescue Service see them as suitable and sufficient then they must be fine. Remember that the safety departments are being steadily pruned of experienced IOs and the easier the FRA is to read the better. A yes/no answer is much easier to understand than one that goes into description, analysis, evaluation, mitigation and conclusion.

[Galeon]

Colin ,
Thats a bit off , I didnt moan when you started your pole dancing club , and you wanted scaffold poles compliant to BS 5eXY 

[Tall Paul]

A "Yes/No" tick box may be ok for a very simple premises where the owner/occupier has carried out the FRA using the Guides, and is likely to be on the premises to discuss rationale where necessary.

Where a premises is more complex whether by way of size, layout, age, occupancy or all of the above then I would not be happy unless the assessor's reasoning was clearly laid out and provided a suitable approach for addressing significant findings.  The more complex the building, the more I would expect to be written, and the higher the level of 'expertise' required.  It's all a question of scale.

Statements that categorise fire safety officers or fire safety consultants as a whole are less than helpful.  Discussions that improve overall understanding and underpinning of the FSO, the Guides and the myriad of research documents would be better.

Just my opinion.

Paul

[Mike Buckley]

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the FSO and the interpretation of it. Most of the simpler stuff was thrashed out soon after the order came into effect.

There is also a great deal of concern about both Inspecting Officers and Fire Consultants as well as the format of Fire Risk Assessments. To quote an old sci fi series, "we are grey, we stand between the darkness and the light". There are some excellent IOs and FCs about but there are also some who are a disgrace. It is right that we condemn the bad and, being british, we tease the good.

In the same way there are differing ways of doing a Fire Risk Assessment, the problem is that one size will not fit all, a few premises can be covered by a simple tick box form, whilst a few will need a complex written assessment, most will fall between.

The "black art" is to judge what is needed and the best way to communicate this. It is as bad to stick ridgidly to one type of assessment as it is to judge an assessment by its form.

The pity is that the authorities seem to think that the FSO has made the IO's life simpler whereas I think it has made it a great deal more complex. It is no longer a case of sticking to the code, value judgements must be made which is never easy.

[kurnal]

Well said Mike.

[Tall Paul]

Mike, I fully agree with all that you have to say.  Except for the last paragraph.

IO's believe that the FSO has made their job extremely difficult, and many of the older, more experienced hands, well versed in the previous prescriptive roles, feel that they may be losing their way.  Rather than look at a building, assess the management regime and apply a formula, they are now having to do the job from scratch.

The FSO for the inspecting officer means an assessment of the FSA (which might be presented in all manner of words, ticks or numbers); an attempt at interpreting what the author of the FSA has seen or is offering; a review of parts of the building to see if it marries with the findings of the author; and very often a process of educating the RP who has either not read, not understood or not complied with the FSA anyway.  For those with the right head on it is good fun, and certainly not repetative, because they are all a different mix.  For those on the other hand who believe that the FSA should address the significant findings appropriately it is often frustrating.  I work with officers who fall into both camps.

IO's do not want to see proformas, because they generally don't believe that a tick without a qualifying comment means much.  However, they will work with whatever is presented to them provided that the significant findings are, in some way or form, clearly addressed.

I have come across FSA's that state that the protection to the means of escape is 3.5, with no written statement in support.

You call it the black art, I call it the dark side, but we're both in the same field.  The reason for my earlier posting is that I become frustrated by the bickering between IOs and Consultants on a forum that should support both.  I work with officers, some new, some longer in the tooth, and I come across consultants, some new and some longer in the tooth.  I would rather work with both than dumb either of them down.  There has to be room for mick taking in a profession such as ours... provided that the 'fun' does not discourage the younger members from taking an interest in the site, which I fear may be the case.

Paul

[Mike Buckley]

Paul,

I think we both actually agree with my last paragraph. By the authorities I am not so much talking about the IOs, more their lords and masters in the government and authorities.

I may be biased but I come from an era where Fire Safety was seen as a shortcut to promotion by some as the Operational route was clogged up. I hope things have changed but the legacy may still be there.
I agree that both sides need to work with and respect each other however in a world where you can buy a proforma DIY Fire Risk Assessment over the internet and Fire Safety depts are facing more complex work with fewer staff, there are bound to be problems.

I hope the 'fun' does not discourage anyone from younger members from joining in. I find in general the vast majority of questions on the forums are taken seriously and answered. However it is sometimes difficult to revisit a question that has been thrashed out several times already. (I think I'll scream if I see the arguement about whether retained firefighters should have blues and twos on their private cars to respond to their pagers, come up again).

It is always worth using the search facility to see if a point has been addressed before and reviving a thread if there is a new slant on it or if someone does not understand or disagrees with the points being made.

Please understand that sometimes the residents of the Home for the Terminally Bewildered will ramble off the point in a surealistic manner but at least you find out what the Toddmaister likes to drink and his favorite watering holes.

[Tall Paul]

Mike.

It's good to talk.  I am very familiar with the onboard search facilities, and use them frequently.  Please don't be put off by the 'newbie' title - I was a prolific user of the forum in its previous incarnation, and have been using the current forum under a pseudonym until I felt that I would prefer to discuss issues under my own name.

I constantly encourage newer staff to use the forum to expand their own horizons and to see what the world at large feels about particular subjects that are close to their hearts.  Many however give up because of what they perceive as constant snipes.  That is probably why I feel the need to speak up when discussions vere off in that direction.

As for proformas.
Whilst I personally would like to see all DIY proformas torn up in favor of on-site understanding of the issues at hand, as long as CLG are putting in print, as they do at the start of each of their guides, that the uneducated can use their book as sufficient 'qualification and experience' to carry out FRAs in less complex buildings, and provide a DIY proforma in the same book, then our hands are somewhat tied.

Watching the faces of the owner/occupier as IO's start to explore areas that they had not even considered is always worthwhile.

I feel that the greatest benefit would be for our masters to put in larger print... "If you read this guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice from a competent person".  It might steer more RPs in the right direction.

Paul

[Mike Buckley]

that the greatest benefit would be for our masters to put in larger print... "If you read this guide and decide that you are unable to apply the guidance, then you should seek expert advice from a competent person".  It might steer more RPs in the right direction.

Good idea, unfortunately I can see a comment like that will light up £ signs in the eyes of the RP. I have just finished working for a firm where the Financial Director decided off his own bat that it was a waste of money to have the pump which emptied the new degreaser tank fitted. So when we had a problem with it and had to empty it, we had to spend £1800 buying the pump and accessories and wait 3 weeks for it to be delivered from Italy. His next coup was to decide the company didn't need a Health and Safety officer and this could be outsourced with a facilities company. I don't know the date when the HSE is taking him to Court but in the meantime anyone got a job going?

[natdan]

Colin Todd you really are a prat.  A serious discussion where you again try to ruin with your smart arse comments. 

[Davo]

natdan

Let it waft, natdan
We don't appreciate comments like that


davo

[kurnal]

natdan
Re fire risk assessment franchises- in every walk of life there are people who are passionate about what they do and others who are passionate about making money.
Those of us who are passionate aboout fire safety recoil against the idea of people with no skills or real interest in the subject making a killing. (or being ripped off by buying something effectively worthless as a franchise) But it has always been this way and always will be.

And if you stick your head above the parapet by using an internet bulletin board you have to be ready to duck whatever comes your way. We all make a choice to post on here whilst it can be irritating if we go off topic none of us get paid for the advice given we have to have a bit of fun from time to time. We have remarkably few trolls compared to many similar sites and so far nobody maliciously giving bad advice. I guess I am sort of saying put up or shut up, or if you cant stand the heat etc.     

[CivvyFSO]

We don't appreciate comments like that

Less of the 'we' please.