FRS to advise or not?

[Midland Retty]

The argument is a none starter Sir Civvy

The "Oh it's a Fair Cop Guv" mentality that some RPs seem to have is all well and good - it is the risk they choose to take, it may pay off, it may not. (Bit like me choosing to park on double yellow lines - I may or may not get caught).

Anyway back to our little scenario.... it would depend on how bad the precautions were at Castle Civvy when the Inspector dropped in. Things may be so horrific that the Inspector tells that dastardly naughty, non compliant Sir Civvy that he is going to prohibit the use of his castle.

All the guests get turfed out and take their business to Castle Retty and spend much wonga at his luxury bar, $chahing$

The legislation is about self compliance and good old Sir Retty is a compliant sort of chap and would therefore not run the risk of an unpleasant encounter with an Inspector. Whereas Sir Civvy really is sailing close to the wind and chancing it tut tut!

For the record I'm sure PhilB is a fab risk assessor, alas I couldnt afford his charges.

 

[CivvyFSO]

If a traffic warden catches you parking on double yellows would you expect parking advice from him? A free copy of the highway code with the applicable areas highlighted perhaps?

Some of this is the product of what fire legislation used to be about, and the way we used to work. Now we are basically here to see if someone is complying with the order, and taking into account the compliance code, dishing out meaningful sanctions/action to those who do not comply and create the greatest risk. In my book 'meaningful' does not always mean 'helping' them along free of charge.

I think the way round it all is to simply enforce a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and have a clause that ensures that the findings and necessary measures are actioned in a reasonable time.

Cue - arguments regarding suitable and sufficient, and reasonable timescales.

[Davo]

Civvy

But of course you will not get precise advice, and have to pay PhilB or even worse Sir Todd himself to interpret what part x of BS xxx means

davo

[jokar]

Civvy, I make you correct providing of course that once an FRA is done and is deemed suitable and sufficioent by the Risk Assessor the FRS don't try to change standards and do not use the non prescriptive guides as prescription.

[CivvyFSO]

Jokar

IMO, if we are applying the guides prescriptively then there is no point enforcing a risk assessment at the same time as telling someone exactly what to do. The risk assessment may as well be a paper exercise once the issues have been remedied, and simply used as a starting point for future assessments or reviews.

If we enforce the risk assessment, then subject to us being reasonably comfortable with it, then we should accept the assessors findings.

Davo, I have no problem with dictating a suitable standard to use, I just don't think we should essentially be doing the risk assessment for them.

[FSO]

Well the guides are the Article 50 guidance. Therefore is it not case of justifying why your premises does not meet the same standards?

After all they are the only standards that can be enforced under the FSO.

[CivvyFSO]

No. Not for the RP. As is discussed in the other thread on a similar line, as an FRS we MUST have regard to that guidance. There is no duty on the RP or any consultants to use it as a benchmark.

[terry martin]

Well the guides are the Article 50 guidance. Therefore is it not case of justifying why your premises does not meet the same standards?

After all they are the only standards that can be enforced under the FSO.

No standard can be enforced under the RRO. it can only be refered to as an accepted standard that they would need to demonstrate they are acheiving or justify why they are not.

lets say an IO visits a office premise and is not happy with with the MofE signage, not because its not sufficient but because it's not complying to BS5499 . He could justifiably serve a notice to say that the signage needs to be updated to comply.

Now lets say the premise is a heritage site.

They provide you with a risk assessment that says, we have not provided signage in accordance with BS because of the adverse impact it would have on the heritage of the building. Instead, we have similair signage that clearly indicates the exit routes. Also, to mitigate non compliance to BS5499, and to avoid any confusion, we have posted staff at every point along any exit route, whilst the building is occupied, to direct people out of the building. This is to mitigate the following statement in BS5499

It is recommended that all signing systems should conform to the recommendations of this Code, so as to
minimize the risk of confusion for the public.

Their solution would be non compliant to BS but, in my opinion, would be satisfacory. remember british standards state:

As a Code of Practice, this British Standard takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and
particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not
misleading.

[terry martin]

Cue - arguments regarding suitable and sufficient, and reasonable timescales.

now your opening a can of worms. i bet we could get at least 10 different opinions on this one!! lets all use our best judgement and any disputes, leave to the courts.

[Hightower]

I see that if the FRS does not fully explain what it pecieves as the defficiency(s) when issuing an enforcement notice the accused could then appeal to the Secretary of State - RRO, clause 36, 2.  who would then provide specific advice.  Granted some resolution information from the accused would need to be forthcoming to raise a dispute in the first place - but the content of this resolution could be ridiculous just to get the process started.

The accused, once having gone into dispute could sit back and wait for the answer.

It would certainly be a lot easier if the FRS just assisted in an amicable way from the beginning to get to the same result - but for those RP's who want a free risk assessment the opportunity is still there - so long as the Secretary of State obliges.

[Fishy]

We're discussing the RR(FS)O, but let's not forget that under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 the Fire Authority has a specific legal duty to provide fire safety advice, upon request.  Specifically regulation 6 states that they must (to the extent that the Service considers it reasonable to do so) make arrangements for:

"the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire".
So, a responsible person would have every right to request such advice from their FRS on the above matters, and the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice, upon receiving such a request.

[Steven N]

We're discussing the RR(FS)O, but let's not forget that under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 the Fire Authority has a specific legal duty to provide fire safety advice, upon request.  Specifically regulation 6 states that they must (to the extent that the Service considers it reasonable to do so) make arrangements for:

"the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire".
So, a responsible person would have every right to request such advice from their FRS on the above matters, and the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice, upon receiving such a request.

Which could be to point them to the CLG guides? discuss

[CivvyFSO]

From section 6:

a fire and rescue authority must in particular, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of information, publicity and encouragement in respect of the steps to be taken to prevent fires and death or injury by fire;
(b) the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire.

The explanatory note for the FRS Act points towards this 'required advice' being geared towards community fire safety:

The Fire and Rescue Service already carries out a wide range of activities to promote community fire safety, with the aim of preventing deaths and injuries in the home and reducing the impact of fire on the community as a whole. This includes fire safety education (especially for vulnerable groups), smoke alarm installation, chip pan safety demonstrations and fire safety checks for householders and others. Many fire and rescue authorities also provide training programmes for young people and work with local businesses, agencies and partnerships (such as crime and disorder partnerships and local strategic partnerships). This work is currently carried out on a discretionary basis and the effect of section 6 is to impose a statutory duty.

So, it is my opinion that if we have supplied a team to deal with Community Fire Safety issues, and that is all we consider it reasonable to do, then we have discharged our functions under the Fire Services Act.

(Although, there is another requirement for advice coming from the Regulators Compliance Code, which could again technically be fulfilled by the presence CLG guidance.)

[Mushy]

ahhh the days of doing the architects job for them...I remember going round with pen and paper and tape measure...drawing the soddin rooms up and bringing them back to the station. If we were lucky the 'plan drawer' on station would knock them up to a decent standard. We had hundreds of 'skins' lying around all over the place.

back to the Op original post

I think you have to have the courage of your convictions and trust in your experience and knowledge (and of course advice from this site ) and crack on and take all the actions necessary that your FRA flags up...ok it would be nice to have a bit of confidence boosting Fire Service nodding in your direction but If you do a good job of the FRA then the Fire Service can have few comebacks

[Hightower]

Mushy - I take your point about forging ahead - my present course of action has been to file a pointed letter to superiors - will this get me the response I am looking for or just ailenate me - time will tell.