Implementing a FRA

[kurnal]

[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!

Of course an industry association has a vested interest- that of representing its members- the raison d'etre.  But does this mean they cannot also make a meaningful contribution to society at large? Every other stakeholder in the fire safety industry has vested interests- the FBU, the FPA, the CBI, the FSB, even the Government has one eye on its own  political support when drafting legislation. Can  any group of stakeholders (apart from Civvy FSO and his peers)  honestly say that they act fully impartially in the sole interest of serving the best interests of society?

It isnt up to any Industry Association to paper over the cracks and perceived shortcomings of the legislation. Democracy gave us the legislation as it is and a deliberate decision was made in respect of competence issues. Why should we seek to gold plate that which Parliament passed? We recognise the difficulties created as a result of the legislation  and wish to offer some support to our members and Responsible persons in putting together a scheme that may assist RPs in exercising their due diligence. We hope to strike a balance and offer both RPs and members a worthwhile  and credible benefit. If we dont succeed in striking this balance then its self defeating, we wont attract members, wont be able to offer a credible system, standards will fall.

My first car was a mini van, it got me from A to B. Everybody laughed at it but hitch hikers still put their thumbs up and were glad of a lift.  I now have a mondeo, its adequate but i still aspire to an aston.  Likewise we have to get a system off the ground slowly and improve it in a stages as we grow.

I know we will probably always sit on opposite sides of the fence over this Bobbins but I do appreciate the continuing debate.

[Midland Retty]

I take on board your comments Kurnal and agree that the goals of an industry association, vested interests aside, is to raise standards and give members / punters worthwhile choice and peace of mind.

So long as the accreditation process is implemented correctly I would be more than happy to support it.

What I still have a problem with Prof, and perhaps you will be able to correct me on this, is that if I want to be accredited as a fire risk assessor what safeguards are in place to ensure that:-

1) I haven't just produced FRAs on a ficticious premises
2) I haven't "sexed" up the findings of my assessment in the hope of coming across as 'more impressive' or "competent" as I may otherwise have been
3) I haven't missed something blatantly obvious or dangerous

To my mind the only way you could ever prevent the above is for the accreditor to actually go out to the premises being assessed or to invite the candidate to an assessment centre where set scenarios are staged and the candidate is asked to produce assessments based on those staged scenarios

I'm also wary of blanket accreditation for companies rather than individuals, but will conceed that this may be down to my lack of knowledge on how these processes work.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks for all the submissions and to me it appears clear cases of buyer beware. A company being a member of a trade association doesn’t do anything for the consumer and it may show the company is interested in their profession or could it could be a marketing ploy? Being on a risk assessor register is a better guide for the consumer but even this still has a long way to go before it is considered a guarantee. In both cases it is very important you confirm their claims are genuine. Another possible avenue to consider is to check to see if the company has a competency statement including previous clients and details. This is another way the consumer can check and hopefully get recommendations from previous clients but the trouble is they will not include dissatisfied clients. As I said at the beginning it’s Caveat Emptor.

[Midland Retty]

I agree TW

Unfortunately I am very cynical about standards of competence and third party accreditation, and I don't think there is enough support for RPs to make an informed choice about whom they should or shouldn't employ based on levels of competence.

Gas Engineers need to be Gas Safe or CORGI registered because of the 'safety critical' nature of their work. So why are we not looking at similar schemes for fire alarm installers, risk assessors et al? Afterall their work is related to life safety issues too.

It comes down to the classic scenario of a fully qualified sparky installing a fire alarm system. Just because he / she is a fully trained electrician does this automatically make them competent to install / commission / service a fire alarm system? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - Ive asked this question literally hundreds of times and no one has yet been able to tell me one way or another.

What about Firefighter Bloggs who has just retired after thirty years of faultless front line service and decides to become a fire risk assessor. Does thirty years riding a fire engine make him competent to undertake that role?

As far as Im concerned any genuine contractors / assessors who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.

Where does this leave our RP?

[Tom Sutton]

MR It may sound like a mutual society but I am with all the way.

What about BAFE they claim "Established in 1984, BAFE is a non-profit making organization dedicated to improving standards in fire protection" how good is their schemes do they live up to the hype.

[kurnal]

Unfortunately I am very cynical about standards of competence and third party accreditation, and I don't think there is enough support for RPs to make an informed choice about whom they should or shouldn't employ based on levels of competence.

Gas Engineers need to be Gas Safe or CORGI registered because of the 'safety critical' nature of their work. So why are we not looking at similar schemes for fire alarm installers, risk assessors et al? Afterall their work is related to life safety issues too.


As far as Im concerned any genuine contractors / assessors who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.

Where does this leave our RP?

As i am feeling tetchy tonight I would point out that at least the RP can choose a fire risk assessor competent or otherwise. The RP can carry out whatever due diligence checks they consider appropriate. They get no such opportunity to choose the enforcer and likewise there is a huge variation in competence levels.

Then there are brigades that offer fire risk assessmet services under the wing of a seperate business trading unit but fully capitalise on their being the fire brigade - so we are the best. Seen an absolutely dire example of this today- a one size fits all fire marshall course that was totally inappropriate for the premises involved.

As far as Im concerned any fire service inspecting  officers who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.

[nearlythere]

Tetchy K. And the week has only begun.
You probably need a good dose of UV therapy.

[Davo]

Prof

Is the course at MITM compulsary nowadays?
Reason I ask is as you say differing levels in competence for I/Os.

I have yet to meet a current one I would set on to do a FRA, although I would happily do so for certain retired gents who have put the effort in


davo

[jokar]

Different Brigades have differing training strategies.  Some do in house training, others employ the FPA do do it.  The real problem is that FRS do not seem to have a consistent policy about how they operate and get caught between 2 stools.  Spme want to do their real job and enforce, others want to be presciptive and others want to be aligned to the FRA Act and be helpful.  This leaves IO's in a bit of a minefield not knowing where to go.

It needs a consistent policy about how and what Brigades are doing and then a decent training strategy with set objectives to meet.

[Midland Retty]

As i am feeling tetchy tonight I would point out that at least the RP can choose a fire risk assessor competent or otherwise. The RP can carry out whatever due diligence checks they consider appropriate. They get no such opportunity to choose the enforcer and likewise there is a huge variation in competence levels.

Then there are brigades that offer fire risk assessmet services under the wing of a seperate business trading unit but fully capitalise on their being the fire brigade - so we are the best. Seen an absolutely dire example of this today- a one size fits all fire marshall course that was totally inappropriate for the premises involved.

As far as Im concerned any fire service inspecting  officers who want to show they are competent will have bothered to get some form of third party accreditation . But as we have seen some schemes are flawed and do not guarantee you get a competent person turn up at the door.

Totally agree. (Perhaps the competency of auditors / IOs need a seperate thread)

I'm not attacking contractors or risk assessors here by any means.

But put yourself in the shoes of the RP. The law states that they must appoint competent persons to assist them in their duties.

All I'm asking is how does the RP ensure they get a competent person? There are so many different trade associations and bodies out there offering differing levels of accreditation for their members that it can be bewildering for someone unfamilar with the industry.

Who does the RP choose? And how can the RP satisfy themselves that they won't at a later date find themselves in hot water because auditors or a court finds that the engineer they employed was infact incompetent, or atleast, not competent to a perceived standard, and that the accreditation that the engineer claimed to have is actually quite worthless.

So do we say that the RP needs to look for UKAS appointed accreditation schemes only, knowing that atleast a government agency has given that particular body the thumbs up and that that initself should offer the RP some protection??

It seems to me that I could quite legally start my own trade association - lets call it "Retty's Risk Association" - and offer accreditation to my members in all manner of things - yet who states I'm quailfied and competent to give accreditation?

I note that several of the risk assessor accreditation bodies mentioned regularly on these forums aren't listed on the UKAS website. So who or what has deemed them to be competent to accredit others? And how does the RP protect themselves

I ask you all again how easy is it for an RP to check someone's credentials and know that those credentials actually mean something?.

Why isn't there one standardised system out there for each trade as you would find for gas engineers for example?

I said before Prof that I'm all for third party accreditation if its done correctly - hence why I asked you how Risk Assessor accrediation is undertaken (and note you haven't replied you tetchy so and so!  ;-))

Midland Retty, News at Ten, taking his bat and ball home

[Tom W]

Im not sure if this has been mentioned or not but the FIA now have a code of conduct which it asks its risk assessor members to sign up to.

It is in affect an ISO statement pledging to quality of work/insurance/competence.

[kurnal]

Retty
Sorry for not answering your question its just that I have looked into a number of these accreditation schemes and if I give my opinion of some of them on this forum I am likely to end up in hot water. But would be happy to chat about them anytime. There are a couple of schemes that appear to be worthwhile but only one has UKAS accreditation. And I have a few personal reservations about that one as well. but thats just my opinion.

[Bobbins]

Retty
Sorry for not answering your question its just that I have looked into a number of these accreditation schemes and if I give my opinion of some of them on this forum I am likely to end up in hot water. But would be happy to chat about them anytime. There are a couple of schemes that appear to be worthwhile but only one has UKAS accreditation. And I have a few personal reservations about that one as well. but thats just my opinion.

Dear All

The answer is simple you put in place a national model of competence assessment which leads to a national register for the RP to refer to as a definitive list.

What would a national model look like?

It would need to be written to a national standard, something that BSI supports; the standard would need to look directly at the issue of competence. BS 17024

Then you need a check to see that the checkers are doing it correctly possibly from a government approved body. UKAS

You then need accredited certification bodies to run the scheme.

FRACS as Warrington calls it is effectively the national model.

But hay ho! the Kurnal doesn’t like that one so lets get the trade associations to do something else for their members, just like the first time around because we all know how successful that has proved. ( and the same people that stuffed it up last time are running the show this time)

Certificated fire risk assessors satisfy the due diligence process of the RPs (it says so in the standard). 

BAFE are not a certification body so what ever they knock up with the FIA and the IFE will need to be run through a certification body as all the other BAFE schemes do.

Kurnal you and I will always be on other sides of the fence and as I am on the RP side I know the grass is greener on your side. Come over the fence; it’s a mine field!

[Clevelandfire 3]

There should be a national register but without government backing it aint ever going to happen

[Bobbins]

There should be a national register but without government backing it aint ever going to happen

Cleveland  it is on the way, government are doing something about it as I type, following the tragic deaths in Lakanal and the revelations about local authorities having no fire risk assessments CLG are reviewing the situation with haste as you might expect!

How much backing will remain to be seen but they can't do anything else but try and make things right.