Proposals for compulsory certification of fire risk assessors

[kurnal]

Tom most of us are minions myself included. But big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite em.

[colin todd]

TW et al, to update you, Kurnal is correct that there is absolutely no secrecy, in fact quite the opposite. But it is not as at early a stage as he suggests.
To keep you informed, yesterday, the Fire Risk Assessment Council of the FIA, which I chair, worked on, amended, approved, and signed off as completed, a draft BAFE scheme document, which was prepared by the Professional Standards working group, which reports to the Council. As far as FIA is concerned, our work on the document is finished.
The draft scheme has now been forwarded to BAFE to take it forward, though FIA will contribute to that process along with other stakeholders. As kurnal says, the principle is competent fire risk assessors though not necessarily on a register (that is just one way of proving competence) and a proper QMS system.
The idea is that the scheme could be run by any UKAS accredited CB. The scheme exactly follows SP 203, so will be recognisable as a BAFE scheme even in the early draft.
CLG will be kept informed.
If you need to know any more, happy to respond.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal, you do your self an injustice. Thanks CT I appreciate that I have learnt more about what is going on, this week, on this subject, than all my searching on the internet (my main source of information) since this subject was raised.

[Bobbins]

The feedback from the CLG review as far as I have been told is that RICS and IFE are to lead a group of key stakeholders in defining competence of fire risk assessors and that certification schemes with UKAS accreditation for individuals (17024) will be the preferred model for identification of the defined competences.

The time table is refreshingly short 1 month for an initial list of stakeholders and dates for meeting and 12 months for completion.

Let the bun fight commence!

Actually I do hope this will be the start of something very positive let’s hope the two professional bodies charged with coordinating this can keep control of the others and actually produce what is needed in the time frame.

[kurnal]

But it is absolutely certain that this will NOT be a compulsory scheme. Lets hope that whatever the outcome it is supported by sufficient publicity and guidance to RPs across all sectors to make such registration worthwhile for assessors from a marketing point of view.

The FIA/BAFE scheme for companies has now been put together by the FIA and sits with BAFE for their consideration. 

The Industry is moving itself in the right direction, all proposals have value in contributing to  our common objectives lets hope that all parties will put vested interests on one side and make rapid progress.   

 

[colin todd]

Bobbins, regrettably there was nothing quite so definitive. But, having listened to the consultants' findings, I now understand why people say consultants are people who borrow (or steal) your watch, tell you the time and send you the bill.

[Bobbins]

Bobbins, regrettably there was nothing quite so definitive. But, having listened to the consultants' findings, I now understand why people say consultants are people who borrow (or steal) your watch, tell you the time and send you the bill.

 Oh Colin tut tut, telling the government they are crap and that it's their own mess they are lying in is not going to gain you any brownie points. If you then offer to solve their problems for them are you surprised if they don’t bite your hand off. I am paraphrasing but I think that was the gist.

I think I am correct in saying that the IFE and RICS are to run the working group, I have heard that from three sources now and that UKAS and individual competence was the reason for the working group being put together ie to define competence by which the certification bodies could judge fire risk assessors to certificate them as competent individuals.

Regardless of what went on in the meeting there is some movement towards an agreed method of identifying competent consultants and I know that has to be a good thing for the RPs. Lets hope that what ever the professionals decide to do is acceptable to the RPs; who after all are the customer and pay your and other consultants wages.

The key to all this is a ‘buy in’ from all and if history is anything to go by, that is going to be the most difficult thing to achieve.

CLG have put the bus on the road we have the drivers and lets just hope everyone gets on and ends up at the final destination together. My greatest fear is a hijack by the militants who ‘know they know best’ because they are making good money from the situation as it is. Lets hope they don’t manage to get the brakes on or get the bus off the road all together.  

Tickets please! The next stop is…………….

 

[kurnal]

My greatest fear is a hijack by the militants who ‘know they know best’ because they are making good money from the situation as it is. Lets hope they don’t manage to get the breaks on or get the bus off the road all together.  

Tickets please! The next stop is…………….

Thats uncharacteristically cynical and cryptic Bobbins. Who are these "militants" who wield sufficient power and have a desire to hijack your bus?

I have heard no voices within the industry opposing such a scheme in principle, indeed for example the FIA/BAFE proposals  support and complement it perfectly.
Many of us have cautioned that the scheme should be cost effective, well managed, achievable and appropriate- thats not opposition its just worry that we dont want to end up with something thats not fit for purpose.


For clarification, the FIA / BAFE scheme would not relate to "person certification", which the FIA regard as a proper matter for professional bodies. The scheme would relate to third party certification of organizations that offer fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (including organizations comprising simply a single self-employed person). There are numerous similar schemes, supported by CLG and CFOA, which are published by BAFE and operated by any certification body accredited by UKAS for the purpose.

The format of the proposed FIA/BAFE scheme exactly parallels other BAFE schemes operated by UKAS accredited CBs. ie the scheme would incorporate the use of competent persons (such as those registered with professional bodies), in conjunction with a suitable management system.

[colin todd]

Bobbins, Unlike those in power at the CLG, who seek nothing more than to gain brownie points from their political masters, brownie points count for very little in my life. For avoidance of doubt, the Government are lying in their own mess, and no doubt the civil servants are telling them how they will be getting them out.
For further avoidance of doubt, the CLG could not even blow up the tyres(they would need to ask their chums in building regs how to use the tyre gauge) on a bus never mind drive it. They did not set any bus in motion, they simply paid consultants to find out, purely for political reasons, what the timetable was for the various bus companies that were already running a well oiled omnibus.

Perhaps if they spent less time on sanctimonious hypocrisy in Fire Policy and CFRAU and put their own house in order, they might gain the respect their colleagues in building regulations have achieved.

[colin todd]

Kurnal , Love the cut and paste of my text. There is no greater compliment than plagiarism. I read your last posting with huge admiration for your prose, until I remembered I wrote it.

[kurnal]

Nope. You dont hold the copyright.

Someone else beat you to it and I may have plaigiarised them.

After all had I thought they were your words I would have been far more selective. Me turn into a Toddy Clone? Never. Well not for at least another  80 years at any rate. And a few hundred weight of Ugly pills.

[colin todd]

You did plaigarise them, but they merely reproduced my words. So you reproduced 3rd generation Toddy text in your post. Admiral choice on your part.

[Bobbins]

They did not set any bus in motion, they simply paid consultants to find out, purely for political reasons, what the timetable was for the various bus companies that were already running a well oiled omnibus.

So Colin, are you saying you won't be buying a ticket?

Will you perhaps be taking alternative transport to the final destination?

Did some government minister or senior civil servant treat you badly in your formative years?

You’ll have a seat on the bus I am sure of it and probably not at the back but near to the front so you can whisper in the drivers’ ear (actually whispering isn’t a skill you are known for). It is far too important an issue for you not to be involved and I do hope you contribute to what could potentially be a huge boost for the industry.

Having competence and quality rubber stamped by UKAS will be a good thing and if the cowboys are run out of town as a result it will make a big difference to the RPs and to those professionals who want to do a good job for their clients and charge a professional rate for the service they provide.

Kurnal the militants I refer to are those bodies/groups/individuals who only have a minor interest in fire risk assessment but want to be seen to have a say in what goes on and those  with ideas above their capabilities ie poorly run associations who can’t manage themselves or those who have very vested training interests.

The RPs need to contribute as do the representatives of the risk assessors, these two groups need to work together on this; CFOA need to monitor the process as do CLG, but they don’t need to butt in too much, just be satisfied with the outcomes.

The professional bodies should and indeed have been charged with running this working group, RICS and the IFE will; given the support of the rest of the industry produce something we can all buy in to. I know that this relationship was explored when the RRO first came in to existence and for some reason it didn’t take off at that time.



 

[Tom W]

Having competence and quality rubber stamped by UKAS will be a good thing and if the cowboys are run out of town as a result it will make a big difference to the RPs and to those professionals who want to do a good job for their clients and charge a professional rate for the service they provide.

Do you carry out risk assessments? Are you on the UKAS scheme register?

[colin todd]

Bobbins, I was hoping for a complimentary season ticket, but, if all else fails perhaps Kurnal could get an OAP pass. I know that I will gladly give up my seat for him as is courtesy to the elderly.
I have no problem with Government ministers, as no one expects them to tell the truth, and they are paid to be politicians. I have a dislike of civil servants who want to play politics and meddle in things they do not understand (largely because they got rid of the good and honourable people who did), or who fail to understand the concepts of transparency and impartiality. While keeping people safe from fire in buildings is what we should be all about, this has been relegated to at best a spin off or bonus to political manoeuvres. Perhaps someone can remind me as to what roused them from their slumbers to suddenly have a care for the matter of fire risk assessment, bearing in mind that a previous head of fire policy stated publicly that it would not be a consultants' charter as there would be such great help from the Governement that people could all do it themselves.
On a point of (possibly pedantic) accuracy, in certification schemes, it is not UKAS who assure the competency, it is the UKAS accredited CBs.