FRS to advise or not?

[CivvyFSO]

So you are basically going to complain about someone not doing your job for you?   

[Hightower]

CivvyFSO

No one has done the job for me, I have assessed the risk, written up the significant findings, provided solutions and then asked the FRS to engage in dialogue to ensure all will be well with them if my suggested solution(s) is implemented. 
A simple yes / no is all that is required and surely not unreasonable as they can view the buildings present state and review the solution against it.
I have seen from others on this site that this is a reasonable request of them.

[CivvyFSO]

Like Mushy says, have the courage of your convictions.

If you are competent in your role and you consider the solution to offer a suitable level of safety then why do you need confirmation from anyone?

[Fishy]

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.)

Wouldn't argue for a moment that, from a proactive standapoint, FRS should be concentrating advice on community fire safety, but my point was that if asked by a Responsible Person for advice on matters such as means of escape, the FRS is legally obliged to provide such advice (and probably cannot refuse to do so, as long as the request is a reasonable one).

[jokar]

I do not think that the request is unreasonable.  After all FRS staff have a habit of being off the wall in their asumptions, you only have to look at both determinations to realise that.  All solutions are good, it is just that unless it comes from a book most FRS staff can not see it for the trees.

Perhaps some training in risk perception will assist.

[CivvyFSO]

There is a difference between a RP asking for advice on compliance, and a consultant who is being paid (often quite handsomely) for his knowledge and skills, asking the FRS to decide something for him.

If we are all that rubbish at assessing risk then why bother asking us at all? If your opinion is better than mine then don't bother troubling my feeble brain with what is clearly above my level of capability.

Jokar, your constant belittling of FSO's gets tiresome. Where do you get 'most FRS staff' from? If your opinions are based on what you hear here then you should bear in mind that the FRS employees that people come on here and moan about will be in the minority. Nobody will join the forum to say what a good job an FSO just did in their assessment/audit, or how fair/helpful they were when consulting at the building regs stage. However, if your work is constantly getting questioned by different FRS's then maybe it is your training that needs addressing.

[jokar]

Civvy, baited and hooked.

[Midland Retty]

Lets not forget that an RP often has little or know knowledge about fire safety. I think it is only right that they be given helpful advice and guidance from the Fire Authority.

A competent paid professional assessor or consultant on the other hand shouldn't need advice. There might however be an odd occassion where something quite unique presents itself and the assessor wants to consult or liaise with the Fire Authority about it. Also local brigade policies - such as the use of green emergency break glasses for example- can vary between authorities so an assessor would be well within their rights to ask what the Authority's policy is on certain matters, etc.
 
To me if a fire risk assessor comes up with three seperate solutions to a failing its up to the RP to decide which one they choose to implement, not the fire Authority, because all three solutions should defacto adequately address the failings found ! The choice will then come down to cost and practicality and what suits the RP best.

[nearlythere]

Lets not forget that an RP often has little or know knowledge about fire safety. I think it is only right that they be given helpful advice and guidance from the Fire Authority.
A competent paid professional assessor or consultant on the other hand shouldn't need advice. There might however be an odd occassion where something quite unique presents itself and the assessor wants to consult or liaise with the Fire Authority about. Also local brigade policies - such as the use of green emergency break glasses for example- can vary between authorities so an assessor would be well within their righst to ask what the Authority's policy is on certain matters, etc.
To me if a fire risk assessor comes up with three seperate solutions to a failing its up to the RP to decide which one they choose to implement, not the fire Authority, because all three solutions should defacto adequately address the failings found ! The choice will then come down to cost and practicality and what suits the RP best.

Quite right MR. Common policy amongst the UK's Services can be lacking is some areas and there may be times when clarification is needed. I know that in some cases IOs can speak before they think, and to be fair, so can some consultants.

[Hightower]

My letter got some attention.

A senior officer from said FRS met with me to advise me that his department was indeed to provide advice to RP’s so that compliance of the Order could be made as easily and simply as possible.
It just so happened that in my personal dealings I’d come across a particular person that hadn’t been given that brief yet.

Most importantly I am informed that this FRS is now taking guidance from the ‘Hampton Report’ of March 2005’ which considered the scope for reducing administrative burdens by promoting more efficient approaches to regulatory inspection and enforcement.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/bud05hamptonv1.pdf

I have only briefly perused this report but notice that many comments are made with respect to providing advice.

Paragraph 2.62 of the report states:   ‘Regulators’ advice services need to address the full range of business requirements.  Some businesses will want general information on the minimum requirements they have to meet.  Larger businesses may want specialist advice on detailed issues……….

further more the following paragraph states:

Paragraph 2.67 - Firm specific advice.   This is advice given to particular firms, either as a general overview or as part of a site visit.  This advice needs to be tailored to the needs and capabilities of the firm, and should be as specific as possible.  Advice on improvements above minimum standards should be distinguished from advice that must be followed to meet minimum standards.

This report certainly gives me some encouragement that collaboration between all interested parties through discussion and specific advice (where necessary) is considered a key part of reducing the burden of inspection and enforcement to everyone involved.

[CivvyFSO]

Guidance should not to be taken from the report, but from the Regulators Compliance Code; This is a statutory code of practice to regulators.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45019.pdf

[Hightower]

Thank you Civvy

This code also states that advice should be given - in particular i note paragraph 5.4.

It seems that there is plenty of codes and reports around to ensure it is all forthcoming.

[FSO]

We took on the findings from the Hampton report back in April and are more likely to advise on compliance rather than enforce. That being said it is down to the discretion of the officer (within the constraints of the EMM).

Providing we are not doing a full FRA for the RP I cannot see a problem with working with the RP to achieve a decent outcome. After all, if they have come to us for the advice, they are the ones who are making the effort and should be encouraged.

[Phoenix]

Providing we are not doing a full FRA for the RP I cannot see a problem with working with the RP to achieve a decent outcome. After all, if they have come to us for the advice, they are the ones who are making the effort and should be encouraged.

I do think you have a valid point here, FSO, but there is an opposing argument that should be an important consideration for FRSs. 

That is, that the people that come seeking advice from the fire service are generally not the ones who have fires anyway.  If they approach the fire service for advice they must have some awareness of the hazards of fire, and if they have some awareness then they are less vulnerable to fires than those who have no awareness (of whom there are many). 

This reasoning supports the idea that FRSs should direct all their efforts to their own independent and prioritised reinspection programme whilst giving the minimum attention to those who approach them for advice. 

Stu

   

[FSO]

I totally agree phoenix.

The latter person to which you prefer is the person we are more likely to take enforcement action against which generally would lead to us on them advising on matters anyway. All of our enforcment notices come with a comprehensive schedule, so you could sort of argue that it has covered most if not all of the significant findings of an FRA.

We generally direct all general enquires to the relevant guidence documents but will deal with any specific enquiry as appropriate.

I feel that we should be advising where we can and working to achieve a safer community in the long run.