Implementing a FRA

[Tom Sutton]

I had a query from the RP of a Victorian house, split into 3 apartments. I gave him advice and he followed my recommendations and commissioned a fire risk assessment for the house. The following is part of his actions and the response to them. It would be interesting to hear your views.

It is a 4 storey Victorian house converted into 3 flats in 1987. The flats do not share any kitchen; toilets etc and are totally separate. All flats are currently owner occupied, but will be rented out in the near future.

Flat 1 is accessed at the front of the property by going down half a flight of stairs (external). It has two separate means of escape, one front and one back.
 
Flat 2 have two means of escape, one front thought the communal hall and down the external steps, the other through the back via external wooden stairs.
 
Flat 3 are accessed via stairs which is off of the communal hall, but are within its own demise. It also has two means of escape, one front through the communal hall as above and also through a door from one of its bedrooms, which leads directly into the bedroom of the property next door. This is reciprocated in the neighbouring property.

The FRA was conducted by a person who claimed he was a ‘Qualified Assessor’, working for a company that is a member of a recognised body.  The RP received a completed report and part of this report recommended:
 
“Fire Alarm – (BS5839 PART 1 2002): Residents should provide an independent fire alarm in each flat (residents responsibility) and additionally a mains fed smoke detector (responsibility of the management company) is required at the ground floor entrance to ensure occupants are alerted to fire in the common areas in the early stages of a fire (75 db to be achieved)”. He also recommended that the alarm in the communal hall had an emergency light on it.
 
The RP asked a company, who claims to be a member of a recognised body, to come out to give a quote to fit such an alarm system. He showed him the recommendation, and asked him for a quote to provide what is recommended in the risk assessment.
 
The engineer promptly sucked his teeth and stated that the advice the RP had been given is wrong. He then proceeded to explained the situation at the house, and he said that the premises needed a complete system fitted with sounders in each bedroom, smash points  at all exits, heat detection in all kitchens, smoke detection in all separate areas…you get the picture, all singing and dancing system that you would expect to see in a office. He also recommended that fire extinguishers should be placed in the communal hall.
 
Needless to say, the quote to carry out this work is more than 10 times the rough ‘max’ price quoted as a guide by the risk assessor.
 
The RP wants to do what is right, and safe but does not want to pay over the odds if it is not necessary.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tom

Do we know if the conversion of the property was done in accordance with building regs prevailing at the time?

The level of AFD required will be dependent on the level of fire seperation between flats and the communal areas.

In all but a few cases converted houses do not have the same level of fire seperation you would find in a block of flats for example.

Thus a fire in one flat of the victorian house has the potential to spread to another flat or compromise escape routes.

From what you descirbe two of the flats have two seperate means of escape .

Flat 3 has a wayleave agreement whereby alternative means of escape is through an adjoining flat. This is not ideal, and whomever purchases or rents the flat next should seek legal advice to ensure that the MOE through an adjoining property is always available.

Based on all flats having two seperate means of escape I think it would be reasonable to simply install single point mains powered smoke detectors (with battery back up) in each flat as the risk assessor suggested.

I'd risk assess the communal areas - depending on how big the area is, and the amount of combustibles / ignition sources therein AFD may be required.

If the weayleave agreement in flat 3 can not be guranteed you may need to assess if window escape is acceptable from the flat. If not the only MOE for flat three is via the communal stairs / hall and thus the communal areas will need AFD

May also need an interlinked heat detector in flat 2 to protect the MOE (as it opens onto the communal hall)

Whether an interlinked heat detector in flat 1 is required will depend on whether a fire therein could jeopardise the communal hall.

It seems the fire alarm engineer is applying a standard found in typical HMOs where only one means of escape is available to all flats.

[kurnal]

I agree with all Retty says but there are a couple of areas of concern with the wording used by the fire risk assessor. He has described what is clearly a part 6 alarm system but referred to part 1 system, the 75db reference is unclear. (obviously referring to bed rooms but not stated.) Silmilarly the reference to emergency lighting is equally unclear.  It makes one wonder whether the rest of the report and the logic applied to the proposed risk control measures is flawed.


The fire risk assessor's recommendation could not be used as the basis for designing a suitable system, therefore I have sympathy with the fire alarm engineer. The assessor should have been clear as to the standards to which the alarm and lighting should be installed.

“Fire Alarm – (BS5839 PART 1 2002): Residents should provide an independent fire alarm in each flat (residents responsibility) and additionally a mains fed smoke detector (responsibility of the management company) is required at the ground floor entrance to ensure occupants are alerted to fire in the common areas in the early stages of a fire (75 db to be achieved)”. He also recommended that the alarm in the communal hall had an emergency light on it.

This is a moderately high building and it is difficult to see how many floors each flat covers.

[Tom Sutton]

The following is a reply from the RP to some of the questions asked.

"Do we know if the conversion of the property was done in accordance with building regs prevailing at the time?”
I do not know the answer to this. The house was split into 3 flats in 1987, where they were all sold separately. I would hope that any solicitor at the time would ensure that this had planning / building regulation approval (I know they would now-a-days) but I cannot be sure.
 
“the level of fire separation between flats and the communal areas”
 
The two doors to the flats (flats 2 and 3) that open up to the communal area appear to be original (solidish construction, but with large panes of glass in them with very old looking glass) there is also no smoke seals.
 
“flat next door should seek legal advice to ensure that the MOE through an adjoining property is always available”
 
I (as director of the management company) have asked for access into the flat to asses this. I have not been able to do this. The Fire Risk Assessor was made aware of the situation, but, as above, did not see it himself. There could quite conceivably be a bed up against the door in both rooms!
 
“I think it would be reasonable to simply install single point mains powered smoke detectors (with battery back up) in each flat as the risk assessor suggested”
 
This is not what was suggested in the fire risk assessment. This stated that individual fire alarms should be installed, but did not specify that these should be hard wired. The system in the communal area was recommended to be hard wired.
 
“I'd risk assess the communal areas - depending on how big the area is, and the amount of combustibles / ignition sources therein AFD may be required.”
 
I totally appreciate that you would need to see this to get a proper opinion, but I can describe it as follows: a single corridor that is part tiled and part carpeted. It has 2 steps in it. It has a single door open to the outside and internal door (with no lock) and the two entrances to the flats at the other end, approximately 5 meters away. There is nothing else, no stores for example. There are no obvious means of ignition, apart from maybe wires under the floor board that I do not know about.
 
“Whether an interlinked heat detector in flat 1 is required will depend on whether a fire therein could jeopardize the communal hall”.
 
The communal hall is over the main hall of flat 1. As such it is conceivable that a fire here could spread and cause fire in the communal hall. The construction of the floor in this area is a standard found in Victorian buildings (timber joists, plaster / lath below and carpet above).
 
It seems from the post that the advice contained within the fire risk assessment looks woefully inadequate. In addition, it also appears like the advice from the company I called to install the recommended alarm looks over the top.
 
Does any of the above help?

[kurnal]

It needs a competent fire risk assessment. However the Fire Safety Order applies to the common areas only and not to internal arrangements of the flats. Whether the means of escape from the individual flats is adequate or not is more likely to be a matter for the Housing Act. It all goes back to the standard of the conversion which was probably not carried out in accordance with the Building Regulations 1985 and the mandatory rules for means of escape current at the time. But it is impossible to say how far these rules would have applied to the conversion without seeing the building or a set of plans.

[Midland Retty]

Quite

Apologies Tom for misreading what the assessor had asked for in terms of AFD

From what you describe and bearing in mind that we haven'tr seen the premises I'd perhaps recommend the following

You have hinted that there is questionable alternative means of escape from flat 3, that a fire in both flats 1 and 2 could compromise the main means of escape from flat 3, therefore in my opinion it would appropriate to have a linked fire alarm system (i.e single point mains powerred detector in each flat, plus interlinked heat detection.) plus AFD in communal hall.

This may become a nightmare to enforce however owing to the fact that you have three seperate owner / occupiers. If one common landlord were involved it would be much easier to deal with!

[Tom Sutton]

Another posting from the RP.

Many thanks all for your assistance. I have given this matter a lot of thought over the last couple of your days, and the advice I have been given from this forum, and discussions elsewhere, have been invaluable! Thank you very much!
 
It seems to me that before I can get into the nitty gritty of the situation, I first need to establish the competence of the FRA that was carried out. With the best will in the world, and as posted above, no one could definitively say what steps would be reasonable to take (with regard to choosing a suitable fire detection system) without either visiting the property, or to have the floor plans.
 
As such, and from my point of view, is it not my responsibility to employ a suitably qualified person, and implement any alterations within the referred time frame? Would this not be the test of reasonableness of my responsibilities?
 
So, the question then becomes, what is a suitably qualified person?
 
IF the person who carried out my FRA was a qualified fire assessor and registered as such, and the company he worked for was a member of a national fire safety association, surely that would make him competent.... or rather, I could not ask for any more than this could I?
 
I am making investigations into the above, and will report back. In the mean time, is there any other professional organisation or qualification that you would recommend a company or person should belonged to ensure that the person is qualified to do the job?
 
Your thoughts are most welcome.

[kurnal]

There are in my opinion two registers of competent risk assessors that go some way towards a measure of competence. The IFE scheme and the Warrington Fire scheme. I dont believe the others hit the mark. (We are not registered with either for particular reasons of our own).

Otherwise I am afraid its Caveat Emptor. The FIA are working with BAFE to produce a registration scheme for competent businesses. but its embryonic at the moment. The other solution is to ask to see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks for your comments much appreciated, my concern is how RP’s when they employ a competent person knows who they can trust. I fully agree with kurnal but being a member of a trade association is for the benefit of the company not the client and those that run risk assessors registers appear not to guarantee the standards of those on the registers.

I see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work, similar to Kurnal’s competence pack he provides for his clients is the best safeguard. It is very much Caveat Emptor.

[Tom Sutton]

Another comment from the RP.

I totally see where you are coming from. However imagine the following solution.

I am a manager who is responsible for a block of flats. I know nothing about what I should do, or what regulations are applicable. Although not an ideal starting point, It could be argued that as long as I recognise this, employ a group of suitably qualified consultants, and act on their recommendations, my duties of care have surly been met? Is this not what happens in the building industry when a person with a ‘fist full of money’ wants a new office build? They employ consultants.

Now take my instance, I recognise that I do not understand enough about what is required in the house that I manage. As such I choose a consultant to advice me. I opt to choose one because of the various memberships he and his company belongs to, and when I speak to him on the phone, and meet him in person, he fills me with confidence.

If alternatively I had taken Kurnal’s advice and asked to see ‘evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references’ – I believe that it could be argued that this would be the wrong approach as I have already admitted that I do not understand enough about the measures. As such, a bit of sales patter, a nice looking website and I could be persuaded.

In short - I am not competent to judge if a company is competent. That is why associations that you can trust are so important. I believe it should be them that judges competence, not someone who by the very action of requiring this sort of assistance has admitted that they do not know enough about it!

I agree, it does seem like ‘Buyer beware’ – but this scares the hell out of me. What we are talking about is fire safety not getting ripped off buying an old banger. If you ‘buy’ the wrong thing, people could die. I am therefore surprised to find there are not multiple organisations that are regulated by legislation that can be trusted.

Many thanks for the continued support. It goes without saying that it is invaluable.

[kurnal]

The industry is embryonic and the fundamental flaw within the legislation is that it was written with rose tinted spectacles under the impression that the existing UK building stock is in good condition and nobody would dream of carrying out alterations except under the supervision and in accordance with the Building Regulations. If this had been the case your building would have been straightforward and after reading the National Guidance document you probably would have been able to carry out your own risk assessment without use of a consultant.

But because your building is unusual and perhaps does not conform to the Building Regulations at the time of conversion it makes it almost impossible for the Responsible Person to evaluate existing and additional risk control measures without competent assistance.

Its not just the fire industry where this duty of due diligence applies- its across the board - all areas of health and safety, accountancy, medicine, alternative medicine, car repairs, building work etc. Yes if it all went pear shaped you probably could argue a strong case of due diligence. But until the Government changes the Law Caveat Emptor will always apply.

I cannot understand why you dont just ask your existing risk assessor to justify his report and his evaluation of the risk. You have paid good money- ask him to clarify his recommendations.

[nearlythere]

The industry is embryonic and the fundamental flaw within the legislation is that it was written with rose tinted spectacles under the impression that the existing UK building stock is in good condition and nobody would dream of carrying out alterations except under the supervision and in accordance with the Building Regulations. If this had been the case your building would have been straightforward and after reading the National Guidance document you probably would have been able to carry out your own risk assessment without use of a consultant.

Agreed. The Gov reckons that a FRA would cover one or two pages. One only has to look at the templates contained in some of their guidance.
The reality is that as part of the Assessment you end up reconstructing the building to what it should have been in the first place.
It's a bit like a the old (in GB) certification process. Has any ex or serving FSO ever carried out an inspection and gone back to the office to prepare a certificate. In all my years I have never nor have I known anyone else to do it.

[Bobbins]

There are in my opinion two registers of competent risk assessors that go some way towards a measure of competence. The IFE scheme and the Warrington Fire scheme. I dont believe the others hit the mark. (We are not registered with either for particular reasons of our own).

Otherwise I am afraid its Caveat Emptor. The FIA are working with BAFE to produce a registration scheme for competent businesses. but its embryonic at the moment. The other solution is to ask to see evidence of competence, methods statement, policies, references and samples of similar work.

Kurnal

 I am still very unsure about a company quality scheme for fire risk assessors. I know it sounds fine in principal but effectively you will get a blanket cover for all who are employed. Hiding under a blanket is something that should be reserved for consenting adults and not ‘competent persons’. Individuals go out ‘on site’ and therefore competence is for individuals not companies.

The competence of individuals under any company scheme should be through a UKAS approved scheme which Warrington has in place already. So why write a company scheme?  Individuals still need to prove their competence!

Could it be something to do with the IFE by any chance?

The FIA fire risk committee need to think about making a real change for the better, not just dress up what is in place at the moment. What is needed is a national scheme that government puts some support behind and not a continuation of the ‘mish mash’ of registers that are running at the moment.

I don’t think the FIA committee are brave enough to do what is needed; it will serve its members for the sake of its members and do nothing for the good of the RPs, who employ fire risk assessors. 

[kurnal]

No I think its a bit different. The warrington fire scheme is for individuals. The FIA scheme- if it gets off the ground will go further - its for comanies not for individuals. It will complete the circle- competent companies who can show adhere to standards- quality management, customer care, employing competent staff who no doubt will be individually  certified through schemes such as Warrington. The company scheme should also have third party accreditation.

Take a look at the BAFE SP203 scheme for an example of an industry association  making a real difference to industry standards. The industry association has a vested interest in doing it well- if it launches a credible scheme that is well respected in the Industry and by enforcers companies will be keen to get on board. The difficult bit will be getting the balance right though- doing enough to be a worthwhile scheme but not being so difficult or  expensive to put off smaller companies from joining.

[Bobbins]

It will complete the circle- competent companies who can show adhere to standards- quality management, customer care, employing competent staff who no doubt will be individually  certified through schemes such as Warrington. The company scheme should also have third party accreditation.

Take a look at the BAFE SP203 scheme for an example of an industry association  making a real difference to industry standards. The industry association has a vested interest in doing it well- 

Kurnal

BAFE SP203 is a accredited against 45011, not appropriate for ‘competence’!

If the FIA wants to do this right they should at least get the right standard.

The competence’ element of a 45011 scheme is effectively the company setting their own ‘competence’ levels.

It is likely to be down to each company which if any of the ‘competence’ registers they choose to put their employees on, or they could go for exams or experience or just general in house training as a way to demonstrate ‘competence’.

Effectively the FIA will have changed nothing, as they are not looking at the issue of ‘competence’ they will be merely looking at a quality mark for companies, with an ambiguous and minor ‘competence’ element.

The issue is incompetent fire risk assessors selling their services and not; has the company got a training plan in place or do the company deal adequately with complaints. 

The FIA need to talk to some RPs and find out what they want; “confidence in the guy who turns up at the door to do the assessment” is the single priority of the RPs who buys in fire risk assessment services.

The trouble with trade bodies is they serve their members and not the people that keep their members employed.

If you ask the wrong people you get the wrong answers!