Property Management Companies

[nearlythere]

Was in a large retail centre a few weeks ago carrying out a FRA for one of the tenants. I had him obtain a copy of the Centre's FRA so that I could check a few details regarding the fire safety strategy. The Assessment had been completed as part of the property management by a high street PM company. The assessor was employed by the company as a surveyor and is a MRICS.
Is fire safety part of a MRICS's training?
From what I saw from this Assessment there seems to be a major lack of even basic fire safety knowledge within the Chartered Suryeying field. Large holes for the transfer of trunking and pipework in walls enclosing escape routes where assessed as being capable of withstanding the passage of heat and smoke, a fire evacuation strategy  incorporating a course of action by tenants was in place despite the tenants knowing nothing about it and references to legislation which had been repealed or did not exist.
The list of issues is considerable but I had to protect myself and my client and include an appropriate comment in my FRA to disassociate it with the main one. I also gave my client a list of questions to put to the Centre manager to clarify his action in the event of a warning of fire. The reply varied from that in the main FRA.

Have other members come across this?

[Midland Retty]

It depends on what you mean NT. Have I come across shoddy assessments in complex buildings before? the answer is yes.

If you are referring to the competency of RICS assessors then I can't really comment. I am not aware of what training is given to its members. One would assume that it must include elements of fire safety.

I have seen assessments undertaken by RICS members in the past and they were very good indeed.

So I guess its like anything else really, you get the good and the bad in all disciplines.

Sounds like you have done the right thing and protected yourself, which is all you can do. If you are really concerned about the failings you have picked up in the other chap's assessment then it may be worth flagging it up with the centre management company concerned if you feel able to do so.

Failing that perhaps a phone call to the local fire authority may be in order if it is that serious.

[kurnal]

I yesterday had to respond on behalf of a client to a fire risk assessment imposed on them by the owner of the building. (why I dont know- I had done one for them but the owner insisted on imposing his preferred supplier on them at their cost.

This was also carried out by a chartered building surveyor or someone working on their behalf. Total travesty. No reference to any building management issues anywhere in the template- policies, procedures, emergency plans and training were not given a mention not even a box to tick. Recommendations include a full L1 alarm system in a two storey office building with two protected staircases and every door and  glazing panel on the two way office corridor to be replaced to a half hour standard. But he never noticed that the same partition ceases at false ceiling level with no separation above.

[AnthonyB]

A lot of the really big property management companies will employ external specialists such as firms like ours rather than do it themselves - some who have done in the past have had their fingers burnt (no pun intended) and returned to using external firms.

However it is true supposed external specialists can also turn out to be sub standard and some in house teams very good - however from experience the external fire specialists turn out duff stuff far less than the general surveyor or H&S person who has a go at fire.

I find that the two extremes crop up most - missing major issues & passing very substandard premises or going the other way & being totally OTT on required control measures. A lack of a good working knowledge on fire alarm systems (from 1960 to present) can lead to some interesting omissions as well.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I, like a few others have come across poor risk assessments carried out by 'competent' risk assessors such as those with MRCIS accreditation.

It annoys me, as the responsible person will appoint the 'competent' person to carry out the risk assessment, yet they are the ones who stand before the magistrates or judge when the nasty fire officers take them to court ..... while the 'competent' person walks away.

I appreciate that there is a register of competent assessors, but I do think (and this is a personal opinion) that there are people put there who trade off the letters after their name without really understanding what the FSO is requiring them to record or what they should be looking at. Personally, I talk to the RP and advise them to contact the risk assessor and ask for it to be done again.

[Bobbins]

Baldyman you are correct MRICS is not an assurance of competence nor is being an ex fireman nor is being on a register of competence that uses letters after a persons name as a competence indicator. There is no guarantee that anyone is competent but what the RP can do is maximize his or her chances of appointing a ‘good un’ is by using a certificated  fire risk assessor.

The RP is, in the vast majority of cases put in an almost impossible position when selecting a competent fire risk assessor. They have to judge technical competence on the back of a CV or a sales pitch; both of which could be flawed through and through, with omissions or elaborations; it isn’t the PR who is to blame it is the profession.   

A national register of competence would go a long, long way to resolving this issue, and if you are on it, you will be able to prove you’re competent. Plus if you do slip up you will be kicked off and miss out on work, a powerful motivator to do a good job; a motivator that will drive up standards over night.

Why won’t it work? Because assessors on this forum all like to rant about poor assessments they have come across and how the RP has appointed a ‘bad un’ the silly sod, but actually do they want the system to change? I don’t think so, because the same system that allows the poor assessor to work unregulated is the same system that allows them to work unregulated.

What are the professional and trade bodies doing about it? If there is a serious debate to be had about competence why aren’t they around a table talking about it, why aren’t they agreeing on a way to get the cowboys out of the saloon and in to the desert. Martin Duggan of the FIA in an article on the national competence standard INFO4FIRE sums it up; to paraphrase him ‘too many vested interests’

Nothing will change because those who view themselves as competent will never need to prove it!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Valid points Bobbins.

There is aregister of both Risk Assessors and auditors hels by the IFE and supported by CFOA. It's not easy to get on it and hopefully this will go some way to 'getting the cowboys out of the saloon' as you put it.

I would argue that competence can be asked to be proved ..... in court for example.

As for ex-fire officers doing risk assessments .... I'd like to think that they know what they are doing and should know what is required to be recorded by law.

[wee brian]

I'm sure we would all like to think that too.

[Bobbins]

Valid points Bobbins.


As for ex-fire officers doing risk assessments .... I'd like to think that they know what they are doing and should know what is required to be recorded by law.

I'm sure we would all like to think that too.

Main Entry: think
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: believe; anticipate
Synonyms: assume, be convinced, comprehend, conceive, conclude, consider, credit, deem, determine, envisage, envision, esteem, estimate, expect, fancy, feature, feel, foresee, gather, guess, hold, image, imagine, judge, plan for, presume, project, realize, reckon, regard, see, sense, suppose, surmise, suspect, take, understand, vision, visualize 

To quote the great Orvil "I think I can fly way up to the sky"

PROVE IT?

"but I can't"



Proof is not a synonym of think and I am sure all working assessors think they are competent.