Implementing a FRA

[Bobbins]

If they were to create one register they would embarrass many an Institution and association who are already running them.

If they plumped for an existing register they would put the other ones noses out of joint.

I am just forseeing problems. I am 100% behind having a national accreditation scheme.

Good they need embarrassing!

What is needed is a good shake up; by CLG providing for a national register, the associations will need to adapt and change or loose their listings.

They need to adapt because what they are doing just isn’t good enough.

However CLG are very unlikely to make this a requirement to practice as an assessor, so the ‘rogue traders’ will still be out there peddling rubbish and the poor unsuspecting RP will still be stung by salesmen with little or no fire risk expertise.

Some of the stories I have heard border on criminal and only last week I saw two reports that demonstrated just how poor some risk assessors are. They were not worth a penny never mind the price the RP actually paid for them.

[kurnal]

What problems have you found with the "Institution" (whichever one it is) such that you feel they should be embarrassed?
Were the assessors in question on any existing register?

Bobbins you have always kept your cards close to your chest- it would be very helpful to have a clue as to your involvement in the Industry- enforcement,consultant,  RP etc.

[hammer1]

The FSO is geared up to RP and their responsibilities, is does not mention really anything about risk assessors and what their duties are or about a national register, the FRA is only part of the process that the RP needs to undertake as part of there legal responsibilities.

The main aim was to lessen the burden on Employers for low risk/simple premises which I am afraid is the majority in general are. Various guidance documents were published to help the RP, THIS INCLUDED TEMPLE FRA's. It is down to the RP to assess if they are competent to conduct FRA or require specialist advice. It is the RP responsibility to ensure the FRA is suitable and sufficient (not a national register). It is the F&RS to ensure this also when conducting inspections.

The Law requires suitable and sufficient training, shall we have a register on that. or maybe or a register to ensure the requirements of Article 11 are meet???

Think I am playing devils advocate here

[Midland Retty]

My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.

The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of  contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent

[Bobbins]

My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.

The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of  contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent

M.R. You are correct the RP needs help and CLG need to give it to them. If Gas, Electric, Asbestos, Double-glazing, are all regulated; then why not fire risk assessors?

Asbestos is nasty but not as nasty as burning alive, try telling the families of those that perished in Lakanal House that risk assessors don’t need to be regulated.

Kurnal I have a foot in the RP camp and one in the consultants plus a toe in the enforcers, which is not easy I can tell you.

Lets take the second biggest register of competence; under no stretch of the imagination does that register check the competence of an assessor in any way more than superficially. .

No assessment of previous work and no interview, well done that trade body;

Good Job!

Then there is the big one, you can go on a 5 day course approved by that trade body, obviously you need to pass the open book exam before you apply, but that will give you an easy ride on to their register; a couple of assessments (that you could have borrowed from your mate) and no interview. Plus if you get on with the course presenter you might even get a fast track and not have to wait 8 months, as he is likely to be the assessor who approves your application.

Again, another great job; well done.

Sorry to be so cynical, but the above is only the tip of the iceberg.

Its time for a shake up and when it comes the trade associations will have their noses put out of joint.

[Tom Sutton]

The following is a quote from the Lakanal Inquiry.

It is important, says Sir Ken, that assurance be given to the responsible person for the premises that a risk assessment has been and the enforcing carried out by a competent person, particularly in relation to high-risk premises. As a result, he proposes a review as to how the responsible person, under the Fire Safety Order, can be assured that their risk assessment is suitable and sufficient, particularly where the premises has a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the assessment. Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be amended accordingly.

Is it hot air or will something be done?

[Clevelandfire 3]

My beef is that I dont think we can say to RPs "its all down to you ", without having proper mechanisms in place to support them.

The government has produced guidance on how to comply with the FSO, but for RPs who dont have the time or the knowledge to manage fire precautions within their premises and need the services of  contractors there is little information available out there to assist them in employing competent persons whom are suitably qualified and competent

Good point well made Midland. Theres a lot of people on this forum who like to defend their own position within the industry but pay lip service to the rest of the industry. We know who they are, and certain people will form cliques with other who share theior view

The fact is we do need better regulation in one area to support the freedom of self assessment in other areas. Some people on this forum need to remember that.

[Midland Retty]

The following is a quote from the Lakanal Inquiry.

It is important, says Sir Ken, that assurance be given to the responsible person for the premises that a risk assessment has been and the enforcing carried out by a competent person, particularly in relation to high-risk premises. As a result, he proposes a review as to how the responsible person, under the Fire Safety Order, can be assured that their risk assessment is suitable and sufficient, particularly where the premises has a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to undertake the assessment. Where appropriate, the current Fire Safety Order guidance would need to be amended accordingly.

Is it hot air or will something be done?

Hi TW

I sincerley hope it isn't hot air because in theory this is good news for the RP

Ive been banging on for the past week or so about support (or lack of it) that RPs get not least from enforcers, Governemnt and other sectors in the field.

Its all well and good telling RPs " You must do this you must do that etc etc" but unless you can point them in the right direction, support them to know how to identify a competent person we are going to see RPs get shafted for otherwise trying to comply.

I see this on almost a daily basis. The retired firefighter who who charged someone £800 for a frankly disgraceful risk assessment - the so called alarm engineer who didnt know the difference between a smoke detector head and a sprinkler head when questioned. The RPs concerned hired these people in good faith.

However I live in the real world too and unfortunately anything the Government gets involved with normally becomes over complicated or muddied in some way shape or form so we will see.

[Tom Sutton]

MR I am with you on this one and it looks something is happening check out http://www.kingfell.com/~forum/index.php?topic=4568.msg47984#new I hope they extend it to other areas as well.

[colin todd]

TW, yes, the answer is hot air, expelled with  the halitosis of insincerity.

[Tom Sutton]

CT I a accept getting the government involved, especially the CLG is a last resort but the industry hasn’t come up with a common standard in three years how long will we have to wait or do you think we don’t need a common standard.

[colin todd]

The "industry", TW, was told by the cynical and disengenuous civil servants that comprise the Department for Crap and Loads of Garbage (or their forerunners the Old Dozy and Post Menopausal) that UK Ltd would NOT need consultants because the department would issue loads of good guidance so that people could carry out their own fire risk assessments. They publicly stated that the legislation did not include a requirement for FRAs to be carried out by competent persons because to do so would imply people had to use the services of consultants. One previous Head of Fire Safety Policy, who to be fair, was very disinclined to be unduly influenced by firemen so had many good points, stated publicly on the same road show platform as my wee self that the department would not permit consultants to come out of the woodwork as had happened in the field of heath and safety (Department statement, not mine).

Is one to understand that they have changed their minds. If so, one assumes that they will go back to Parliament and tell them that their regulatory impact assessment was a tissue of terminological inexactitudes.

One cannt help but feel that, if the Department were more interested in keeping people safe from fires in buildings and less worried about politics, the world would be a safer place.

[Tom Sutton]

CT I am with you regarding your contempt of government departments and I see you still insist on having digs at firefighters no change there but you never answered the question “the industry hasn’t come up with a common standard in three years how long will we have to wait or do you think we don’t need a common standard”?

[Clevelandfire 3]

Colin it isnt firemen that are the problem as you well know. Im not sure what your problem is with the fire service but whichever element you are talking about the people you talk to are not rank and file personnel, they are the principal officers and politicians. Please do not confuse the two groups. I can otherwise accept your comments and agree that once again HMG have stuck their noses in and made a complete hash of what should have been a better regime. What a shame, perhaps when Gordon Clown is ousted out of gorvernment things may change. I very much doubt it.

[colin todd]

Clevey, At last we are coming closer in our thinking. By the way, I dont have a problem with the fire service- some of my best friends are firemen, though its not something I like to admit for fear of bringing shame on my family. I just have a problem with bad enforcement, of which we see a lot. You are gracious to assume that principal officers and politicians would speak to a waif or stray such as myself, but this is a level of grandeur about which I can only dream (after too much cheese at night). Regrettably, it is unlikely that small minows like thee and me will see much difference when Big Gordie goes, though there may be less beer and sarnies for the FBU.

Many of us are spending happy days of time trying to sort the hash to which you refer, which brings me back to TW, to whom I would say simply that a common standard will be great but Rome was not built in a day. Had the CLG been clerk of works on the Italian building project, they would have decreed that no city was necessary since people could build their own homes. Then they would have decided to build a village. Then in blind panic when their political masters complained that there were homeless people, they would have desparately tried to create a city without any knowledge of the building trade, created a shanty town from old oil barrels and corrugated iron and blamed shoddy workmanship when it fell down in the first gale. Only then would they have got Wee B to write some cracking stuff on wind resistance of buildings.

Give it a year or so TW.