Proposals for compulsory certification of fire risk assessors

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal I accept what you say but are there sufficient companies out there that are big enough and willing to take on this responsibility. I understand there are many one man bands and companies that act as agencies for self employed FR assessors so who is going to do the training.

Before I joined the Fire Service I served my time as an artist in burnt clay, bricklayer for the uninitiated and I got my apprenticeship because the government of the day funded an apprentice scheme which had very few takers because even with the funding it cost participating companies money.

I would also ask how many of the 40% was employed by a company anyway.

Assuming a development programme could be achieved and the registration scheme was mandatory how would new entrants conduct the necessary FRA’s unaided unless this situation was included in the scheme. If it was not mandatory then there would be no problems but how many consultants would bother getting registered anyway considering the extra costs.

[mr angry]

I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned. I can however see the reason for people thinking it would be a good idea in weeding out all the incompetent chancers out there trying to make a fast buck, but surely the enforcing authority would identify these people whilst conducting audits?

[Mike Buckley]

Has this thread drifted abit? I thought the original problem was how a RP could judge the competence of a Risk Assessor. There is no need for an enforcing authority to vet a risk assessor's assessments. What is needed is an easy and reliable way for a RP to judge the capability of a risk assessor as it will be on the RP's head if it goes wrong. It is up to the RP to use a competent person to assist him and if he doesn't and gets caught, it is the RP who will be prosecuted for not having a suitable and sufficient FRA.

The obvious answer is a certification scheme. The RP has an assurance that an assessor who is approved by the scheme is a competent person to carry out the FRA. Then if something does go wrong the RP can prove that he appointed a competent person ie that person was certified. I very much doubt that there will be a compulsory scheme as it will cost the government too much to set it up and keep it running.

The next bit is getting certified which is where I was talking about a two stage scheme with a probationary Fire Risk Assessor status and a full Fire Risk Assessor status. To gain probationary status you have to prove that you have some knowledge, experience and training in the field. You then get a card to carry out assessments as a probationer. The RP then knows that you have a level of competence and can judge whether or not to employ you for the job. Obviously this will depend on the compexity of the job but again it is up to the RP. the RP could be justified in using a probationer to do an assessment for a small factory, office or shop but would not be justified in using one for a major petrochemical site.

Yes there will still be RPs who wish to use uncertifed people, but the same RPs may very well not bother with a fire risk assessment at all.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned.

I know wee brian is a man of few words but I do not think he was saying the idea is a non starter he was saying compulsory registration is a non starter and the aim is a common industry standard in selecting a consultant which many of us will agree with.

[Bobbins]

I agree with Wee Brian here, and consider it a non starter for all the reasons mentioned.

I know wee brian is a man of few words but I do not think he was saying the idea is a non starter he was saying compulsory registration is a non starter and the aim is a common industry standard in selecting a consultant which many of us will agree with.

Tom you are so right compulsory registration is a non-starter. An industry standard is what is needed, how do you get an industry standard? You use a British standard!

Kurnal I love your attitude; it's ok to break the speed limit by 15 miles an hour if you risk assess it out. My attitude is that 30 is the limit and if it is foggy I’ll drive slower and if it is dark and raining I’ll drive slower.  That’s the risk assessment as the limit is set! I know that some times the limit isn't allways achievable but as an assessor you have to have the skills to at least indentify the limit in the first palce.

ABBE level 3 is the training model as it is Ofqual approved and has surveillance and mentoring for the new risk assessor.

So if you are a practicing risk assessor you can get certificated by a 17024 scheme for competence and if you want to become a risk assessor you do an NVQ or Ofqual approved course; the reason being they are all government approved and not industry approved. The reason industry can't set the test is they look after their own interests and not the RPs interests. If you had a gas fire to install you used a CORGI fitter and if you didn't you knew it was wrong, FULL STOP! Thats what we need in the frie risk assessor industry a one stop shop.

The IFE has to take a look at the wider picture, as they are very very inward looking, they could in one quick act accept a BS standard of competence assessment but that is as likely as Katie price winning ‘I’m a celebrity…. ‘

Kurnal what do you use on a daily basis to make judgements against? I’ll give you a clue it starts with B and has an S with a series of numbers at the end.

Why should the IFE and FIA try to reinvent the wheel when it is already been done and they could do the same as FRACS or could they?

Don't try to make it too complicated as that won't work and don't make it so simple that 100% of applicants get on. If it was 40% of people who didn't get FRACS certification then thats a good thing isn't it? I think you will find that the IFE register has about the same rate of failure but the IFSM register has a much higher acceptance rate.

[kurnal]

Yes the ABBE level 3 is a reasonable starting point but having paid over £2k to obtain the cometence what am I qualified to assess?

Small offices and low rise commercial builings with no storage risks and less than 60 staff . Small village halls with a capacity of less than 300 - but only provided the boy scouts never camp there.

I dont knock it - it is a great starting point but very much unproven, and very embryonic. If it takes off, is exended to cover all levels of competence, and is affordable then there is no doubt it will be a Very Good Thing.   Then there are the FRACS and IFE schemes certifying risk assessors. Also embryonic but certainly moving broadly in the right direction. Then there are the even more embryonic but relevant FIA / BAFE proposals for companies offering risk accessments. Very different to the certification for individuals - and no the FIA could not and would not seek to replicate what FRACS are doing.

You know it appears that maybe the industry itself is already moving in the right direction without government leadership, perhaps thats why they are interested?

Bobbins- As far as the speeding thing goes as you are fully aware I was trying to make a point about prescription vs risk assessment. (And clearly suitable risk control measures may include blue lights and sirens?)
Otherwise If I go to a workplace and find that part of the office  is more than  18m from an exit (without an alternative) I shall have to draw a line on the floor and appoint a security guard to make sure that nobody steps inside that area and places themselves in danger.

RSET/ASET? Forget it mate never  'eard of it. Its more than me jobs worth. And I have got the badge to prove it.

CORGI was a great scheme but it too was modular, someone competent to fit a cooker was not competent to fit a gas fire. But all you ever saw was the CRGGI Badge- it relied on the integrity and competence of the engineer to keep within their range.  But lilttle indication was given to the client. Would the same thing apply in the fire industry? Often the issues / complexity does not become apparent till you walk through the door. .

[Bobbins]

Kurnal

I think we will never see eye to eye on this one as we are coming at it from different angles, you the consultant and me from the RP side.

Subjective solutions to real hazards are never going to be easy to put a right or wrong against. That’s why we have enforcers and appeals and fire safety engineering etc.

What you can evaluate is; does the assessor have the knowledge and skills to identify hazards correctly in the first place and has he or she reduced the hazard to the lowest possible level by reasonable means. It isn’t perfect but it is a start and by providing a consistent bench mark for assessors the RP knows what to look for when appointing an assessor and those that are not up to it don’t continue to work in a field where life safety is the key driver. 

You have constantly knocked the government approved training and certification models but you have not suggested an answer to the problem. May I suggest you contact ABBE as they are looking to establish a technical panel to work on Level 4. You know your stuff and it would be of benefit to us all if you put that knowledge to good use and come up with an answer or two, its easy to knock things but those of us who are trying to improve things need support not negativity.

If the FIA and BAFE use BS 45011 to produce a ‘Quality’ scheme for fire risk assessor companies I will be fully behind it, however if the competence element of that scheme is weak then I’ll be letting all the RPs I know that it isn’t worth approaching a ‘Quality’ company but it is best sticking with a ‘Competent’ assessor.   

They have the chance to do it right but I know some of the key drivers behind this and I think self interest will be a key player in this one I am afraid.

[kurnal]

Thanks Bobbins.
I dont mean to knock the government schemes for the sake of it, just trying to prompt as much discussion as possible so that if a  central "official"  certification scheme comes along we at the sharp end at least have prepared our arguments and have exercised as much influence as we can.
The devil is always in the detail but the powers that be only ever want to look at the broadbrush principles and to paper over the cracks. I dont need to give examples of this I am sure.

I fear if we dont get the balance right the costs and overheads will weigh heavily against the small fry of the industry, making them less likely to succeed as a business. We small businesses need the scheme to help sell our services- more than the very big players. They can continue to trade on their market penetration size and public perception and will probably ignore the scheme- some of their staff are more competent in sales rather than assessment and salary structures are heavily commission based. If  a large proportion of their staff are failing to achieve the necessary standard that would be a big problem for them- probably better not to take part at all. 

I started this thread to explore and discuss the issues and I have learned a lot so far. Thanks to all who have taken part, I hope you will continue to do so.

[Midland Retty]

I still feel that there needs to be a nationally recognised qualification or accreditation scheme for assessors - something that allows an RP to check the creditentials of the assessor concerned easily and know they've been trained to a certain standard which will be recognised by enforcers. More importantly there should be the means to know that the assessor concerned in competent to deal with their particular type and size of building

Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.

Thirdly is the problematic "chicken & egg" situation people have mentioned regarding submitting risk assesssments for scrutiny. I suggest that assessments aren't submitted for scrutiny at all and instead assessors sit exams and / or undertake mock assessments of staged scenarios.

Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc

[Tom Sutton]

I applaud Kurnal’s aims and which side you are on is irrelevant. I am not aware of any official statement on this subject other than items in fire journals but if and when it materialises and requires comments on a scheme then you guys selected will be ready to give a well informed response.

[wee brian]

Absolutely. I think CLG are just sounding people out at the moment.

[Davo]

What about BAFE etc certified fire extinguisher service people marking extinguishers as u/s, or advising the client you need more extinguishers guv, all just to get more money? Certification is not the be all and end all unfortunately
Taking up MRs excellent point, I know I am probably a two on a scale of five . Could I improve? Possibly, but my employers are skint for the next two years.

davo

[kurnal]

I know I am probably a two on a scale of five . Could I improve? Possibly, but my employers are skint for the next two years.
davo

Davo you are much too hard on yourself. I would have given you four out of ten.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.

Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc

A balanced view Retty but what about the possible financial constraints Davo points out

[Davo]

Too kind Prof

davo