Proposals for compulsory certification of fire risk assessors

[Bobbins]

On a point of (possibly pedantic) accuracy, in certification schemes, it is not UKAS who assure the competency, it is the UKAS accredited CBs.

Colin to be pedantic too my reference to ‘rubber stamping’ by UKAS does refer to the approval it gives to the CBs scheme. UKAS has a memorandum of understanding with government to provide accreditation of CBs ie it has no real power but that which it has been given by the state and therefore rubber stamping in its political terms is an approval by a subordinate on behalf of those with the responsibility.

If you read the sentence again I think you will find it reads as above.

Will you be contributing; as the elected representative of the FIA fire risk assessors council, to the working group who will be defining competence of fire risk assessors or not?

I think we have established your loathing of the civil service, but I hope that doesn’t mean you will be cutting your face off to spite your nose. A lot of people think this is very over due and much needed and regardless of why it was started or by whom it needs people like you to support it and not dismiss it.

[colin todd]

Bobbins, it will be a matter for the FIA (and indeed IFE) to determine who should represent them. Organizations such as these are bigger than any individual. However, I am touched that you should consider me worthy of even pouring the coffee for the assembled good and great of the profession.

On a point of accuracy, I do not loathe civil servants, I merely have a healthy distrust of their intentions or even the accuracy of the time of day as allegedly read by the watch that their consultants borrowed to tell people the time.

I still await the basis for their sudden concern over the matter of the risk assessments that they told people could be done for themselves.

[Mike Buckley]

Perhaps there has been a revelation that carrying out a Risk Assessment for a possible once in a lifetime event, such as a fire, is not as easy as a Risk Assessment for an everyday event such as operating a machine. Also there are a lot of people who have experience of operating machines but there are not that many who have experience and knowledge of fire.

In short their initial assumptions about fire risk asessment were wrong and they are trying to a) correct the mess and b) cover their backs before the brown smelly stuff hits the ventilation unit.

[colin todd]

Michael,  I like the theory, especially the second part.

[Bobbins]

Yes Mike I think you are correct; following the BBC investigation into the Local authority flats in London the Government must be concerned that another fatal fire could cause brown stuff to start flying.

They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them.

 It would be nice to have a definitive name to give to competent fire risk assessor so the RPs know what to look for; any suggestions?

FRACS does seem the obvious choice but Warrington have that one, what about RoCRA

Register of Competent Risk Assessors

[Mike Buckley]

"They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them."

Bobbins your faith in politicians and civil servants is greater than mine. If the government starts it, it is in the knowlegdge that there will be a general election before anything happens and if they lose it will be someone else's problem and the new government will add it to the list of messes to blame the previous governemnt for. If the civil servants work on it it will be mired in countless committees and reviews and it will die from red tape strangulation.

[kurnal]

Yes Mike I think you are correct; following the BBC investigation into the Local authority flats in London the Government must be concerned that another fatal fire could cause brown stuff to start flying.

They must act now and they have started a process going that we all need to buy in to. By getting involved and supporting the review, the industry will have standards driven up and hopefully those RPs out there that are blessed with half a brain will choose a competent fire risk assessor to do the job for them.

 It would be nice to have a definitive name to give to competent fire risk assessor so the RPs know what to look for; any suggestions?

FRACS does seem the obvious choice but Warrington have that one, what about RoCRA

Register of Competent Risk Assessors

Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?  

As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?

Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.

[kurnal]

Face the Facts
 - High Rise - Low Safety
John Waite presents the investigative consumer series.

The deaths of six people in a tower block fire in London in July 2009 have revealed poor to non-existent fire safety standards in some similar residential buildings. At many there was no fire risk assessment - one has even been condemned as too unsafe for people to live in. We reveal that it had been visited by the fire service on a regular basis because of broken lifts, yet only after the London fire did it become clear the building was unsafe.


This programme was aired today on Radio 4 and is available on the BBC website to listen again.

[Bobbins]

Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?  

As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?

Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.
[/quote]


Kurnal

Lakanal house didn’t have an up to date suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a competent person. FACT!

The BBC investigation revealed that many high rise social housing stock in london had no fire risk assessments either. FACT!

The sister block to Lakanal had a risk assessment that was not suitable and sufficient FACT!

Sir Kens report highlighted the competence of fire risk assessors as a real issue of concern FACT!

The review process just completed was as a result of the fire at Lakanal FACT!

The radio show on BBC 4 was full of illustrations of incompetent risk assessments and more importantly lack of action by the building owners. FACT!

Standards in the industry need improving I don’t see how you can argue against it. You must have seen as many poor risk assessments as I have, and I bet if we opened a thread on poor risk assessment examples on this site it wouldn’t take long for many examples to come flooding in. The scale of the problem is huge make no mistake about it.

My agenda is simple; improved life safety and consumer protection.

You may be doing fine out of the situation as is but so are the cowboys and as a knowledgeable, conscientious, and very competent risk assessor what do you propose to do about it? 

Is your primary concern the life safety of the people in the buildings you risk assess or is it just a wage to you? 


I know from the comments you make on this site that it is more than just a job to you, so how can you stand back and let RPs get ripped off by incompetent risk assessors who put lives at risk?

What you are actually saying is “tough; buyer beware”, it is the RPs own fault for not appointing me.

Very commendable Kurnal!

A name is for consumer confidence and consumer protection, everyone knew you needed a Corgi guy to do your gas work and FENSA for your windows and that a kite mark is a sign of quality on products.

What do you suggest the RP looks for in appointing a risk assessor?

“are you RoCRA registered”  “your name is not on the RoCRA register” “Can I see your RoCRA ID please” “sorry I need to appoint a RoCRA risk assessor”

As long as RoCRA or what ever it is called is robust and user friendly it would be wonderful if the above could be heard from the RPs mouths.

The industry are due to set out the criteria for competences of risk assessors so lets hope they get it right and give it some support.

Sorry for the rant Kurnal but I some times think you and I interpret things we hear and see very differently and from the opposite sides of the fence which I guess is a good thing in some ways.

[nearlythere]

Bobbins once again you seem to infer that the issues raised in the BBC investigations prompted by the Lakenal House Fire arose as a result of incompetent risk assessors !!!! Why??? The Guardian report today and the BBC John Waite program tomorrow will point out that the problem really is that many local authorities have not carried out or commissioned risk assessments for these properties either through ignorance or recklessness. Why do you persist in trying to move the focus to blame low standards in the industry? What is your real agenda?  

As for a name - does that really matter at all or make any difference to anything apart from the bull**** factor?

Mike I dont think we need worry about the politicians. I think the Industry is moving itself in the right direction and does not need any more meddling by those whose only interest is to protect their own backs, slope shoulders and sling mud at everybody else.

Kurnal

Lakanal house didn’t have an up to date suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a competent person. FACT!

The BBC investigation revealed that many high rise social housing stock in london had no fire risk assessments either. FACT!

The sister block to Lakanal had a risk assessment that was not suitable and sufficient FACT!

Sir Kens report highlighted the competence of fire risk assessors as a real issue of concern FACT!

The review process just completed was as a result of the fire at Lakanal FACT!

The radio show on BBC 4 was full of illustrations of incompetent risk assessments and more importantly lack of action by the building owners. FACT!

Standards in the industry need improving I don’t see how you can argue against it. You must have seen as many poor risk assessments as I have, and I bet if we opened a thread on poor risk assessment examples on this site it wouldn’t take long for many examples to come flooding in. The scale of the problem is huge make no mistake about it.

My agenda is simple; improved life safety and consumer protection.

You may be doing fine out of the situation as is but so are the cowboys and as a knowledgeable, conscientious, and very competent risk assessor what do you propose to do about it? 

Is your primary concern the life safety of the people in the buildings you risk assess or is it just a wage to you? 


I know from the comments you make on this site that it is more than just a job to you, so how can you stand back and let RPs get ripped off by incompetent risk assessors who put lives at risk?

What you are actually saying is “tough; buyer beware”, it is the RPs own fault for not appointing me.

Very commendable Kurnal!

A name is for consumer confidence and consumer protection, everyone knew you needed a Corgi guy to do your gas work and FENSA for your windows and that a kite mark is a sign of quality on products.

What do you suggest the RP looks for in appointing a risk assessor?

“are you RoCRA registered”  “your name is not on the RoCRA register” “Can I see your RoCRA ID please” “sorry I need to appoint a RoCRA risk assessor”

As long as RoCRA or what ever it is called is robust and user friendly it would be wonderful if the above could be heard from the RPs mouths.

The industry are due to set out the criteria for competences of risk assessors so lets hope they get it right and give it some support.

Sorry for the rant Kurnal but I some times think you and I interpret things we hear and see very differently and from the opposite sides of the fence which I guess is a good thing in some ways.

[/quote]Didn't hear the programme Bobbins but have you any idea who the "incompetent risk assessors" were? Were they LA or private consultant/advisors?

[kurnal]

Thanks Bobbins yes we agree in a lot of respects and I guess a lot of my concern comes from my inherent distrust of the motives of some politicians and local authorities. Sorry for coming across as cynical but I have so often seen experienced the effects of "Do as I say not as I do " that I sometimes start to lose faith in human nature.

For what its worth I have equal or greater mistrust of the private sector and especially some sections within it - but at least they do not have the authority to tax me, fine me,  dictate how I should run my business or put me in prison. Thats the reason for my focus on the Authorities.

Yes I also take your point on a universally recognised name for a register. However since unlike the Gas safe register it will not be  mandatory nor will there be a single scheme. If there was to be a single scheme "Fire Safe Register " would work.

NT in the program the worst case risk assessment was only allegedly carried out - it was not recorded as there were less than 5 employees and no licence in force. In this case the owning company carried out their own ( allegedly) went bankrupt and the new owners were forced to  close the building due to the state of the place.

[colin todd]

One FACT missing: None of so called Government concern is about keeping people safe from fires in buildings. Its about politics and the CLG pleasing their political masters and their chums in the fire service. Stop message ends.
 Further Informative message: I have said it before and I will repeat it: The professional bodies and the FIA were already well ahead of the game in addressing Bobbins concerns. Many people in the profession are giving of their time without pay to do so. The public interest is not being served by the civil servcie but by good intentioned people who have already done masses to sort out the wheat from the chaf.
What more is it people want? If they could be specific instead of ranting, there are plenty of people willing to listen.
Returning home station.

[Tom Sutton]

Colin I will be specific, if I get an enquiry from a RP asking how does s/he select a competent Fire Risk Assessor what answer do I give him, knowing in my own mind I have given the best possible advice?

[colin todd]

Easy TW. tell them to go to: http://www.ife.org.uk/frr/riskregistersearch or go to a member  company of the FIA or to http://www.warringtonfire.net/ContentAttachments/928.pdf.
 
Available for further fire calls.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks CT but because all the registers you suggest used differing criteria to select assessors I usually choose Warrington Fire because as far as I am aware it’s the only one that is third party certificated, also I always add the proviso Caveat Emptor. What I would like to see is one national register with one set of criteria to get on that register.

Incidentally I feel a little guilty because it’s the IFE who provides my Fire Risk Management Journal and I have been on their books for some time.