breakdown of enforcement

[Bobbins]

Just had a thought whilst reading through another thread which leads me to post this question.

What percentage of enforcement notices and legal action is taken against RPs whose risk assessments have been completed in the following categories,

a)  Third party accredited fire risk assessor
b) A risk assessor with no accreditation
c) An internal facilities manager or such with some training
d) An untrained person who has used the CLG guides
e) Has no risk assessment

My best guess is that this information is available but difficult or near impossible to get, and that statistically category (a) is the least likely to have any actions required against them.

If CLG did the above statistical exercise across all the enforcement authorities, it would answer a lot of questions about the RRO. I for one would be very interested in the figures.

Obviously some account would need to be taken of the proportion of risk assessments carried out by a to d above, and a percentage allocated. My maths has never been very good but I am sure a final figure could be found, which I would suppose, prove any point that the statisticians wanted to prove; so forget the above.

Would a breakdown of this type of information answer the question: Is the Governments approach to fire risk assessment working?

I feel it would go a very long way to confirming the need for a national accreditation like the Corgi system. 

[Tall Paul]

Bobbins,

I agree, information on this front would be invaluable.  But as you say, very hard to get.

Individual inspectors are aware of the author's credentials at the time of the fire safety audit, but neither the FRA nor the credentials are recorded on the file.  ENs are issued where significant findings have not been identified or have not been addressed.  As a result it is only the content of the FRA that is recorded by the inspector.

Unless the author is a consultant who is known locally for good or bad reasons, no notice is taken of the author.  The FRA is taken at face value and assessed accordingly.

I could see the benefit of cross-mapping EN's and PN's against the training/accreditation of assessors - but to have meaning this would have to be done on a larger scale.  County wide surveys would be likely to skew figures.  Regional reviews may provide a better picture.  National would of course be better.

Accreditation has got to be the way ahead.  But at what level do you need an accredited assessor?  For a single story lock-up shop?  The game goes on.

[CivvyFSO]

From my experience, category a) are indeed less likely to have any action taken against them, on a sliding scale down to e). I am guessing the order is not a coincidence

b & c might be in questionable order, as at least you know the facilities manager has had SOME training.

I don't see the need for collecting statistics on accredited/non-accredited assessors. It doesn't take a nationwide survey to work out that people giving advice and assessing the level of safety regarding the life safety of potentially thousands of people should have some sort of governing body or accreditation.

[Tall Paul]

No perhaps not.  But my experience shows that those above us need evidential statistics rather than qualified perception before they will support moves that often appear logical to the masses

[Bobbins]

No perhaps not.  But my experience shows that those above us need evidential statistics rather than qualified perception before they will support moves that often appear logical to the masses

Thanks Paul, your two posts have answered the question.

You have confirmed that the information would be invaluable and that better people than I can’t be bothered to record such valuable information in order to guide future inspection strategy.

The statistics could prove more than one point about the RRO, but if the information isn’t even being collected then all will continue to be rosy in the RRO garden, just like the CLG commissioned interim report says it is.

I think that enforcers should do a little more to target the weaker areas and support the professional assessors who at least have training and experience.

A very good point about where the line is drawn on complexity of buildings and in my opinion this is one area where there is such a void in definition and there always will be. Even the simples looking building on the outside could have very complex problems on the inside. Bad conversions of existing properties in to ‘lock up shops’ or ‘flats’ may have very complex fire stopping issues, which even trained assessors often miss. My thoughts are if you can risk assesses you can risk assess anything and unless the building has very complex and dangerous processes you should be fine doing an assessment, and you will also know your limitations, which is the most important thing. 

[AnthonyB]

Building size is by no means a guide as to whether a specialist is required. We visit a large number of Dental Surgeries that are converted large houses, often with ad hoc extensions over the years, that have escaped all legislation over the years (as 9A and subsequently FP(w)Regs 97 premises rarely drew attention) and have several complex or easily overlooked issues relating to escape, compartmentation & alarm.

Whereas a recent build 4 storey office block built to code presents little challenges in comparison.