Scottish Government recognises the benefits of third party certification

[Toddy's best friend]

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/scottish-government-recognises-the-benefits-of-third-party-certification

Today, fire alarm contractors etc, but maybe one day also fire risk assessors (another valuable contribution by my good friend Toddy I see)

[kurnal]

Hi Toddys only friend! Welcome back to the forum. Good to hear from you again.

We all thought his supporters were becoming extinct or at least retiring to the nursing homes to re-live their memories of dipping their hands in their pockets at the bar.

[Tom W]

All that says is "Colin Todd, recommended that Scottish Government guidance should make duty holders aware of the existence of third party certification schemes and their benefits. During cross examination, the Advocate for Scottish Government confirmed to the FAI that this recommendation would be considered."

So something will be considered. The title of the article was written by a journalist and doesn't mean a thing. English/Welsh government recognises third party certification. It doesn't mean a thing as its not and will never be mandatory.

[AnthonyB]

It's nothing new and changes nothing. Unless law you are still going to get hundreds of sparkies and rag & tag firms messing up fire alarms, EL, extinguishers etc due to price or the customer not knowing any better.

The type of RP that would insist on 3rd party approval is the one who has being insisting on it for years (as it isn't a new thing, BAFE for example started in 1984)

And with the £350million of deregulation (certainly in E&W) announced in the budget (and I'm sure I heard the Chancellor mention implementing the Young report into H&S) the chances of any more mandatory requirements gets even further away.

[Toddy's best friend]

Kurnal, Glad to see you too. Obviously, the broadband is still working at your care home for those with the delusions of grandeur.
 
Piglet, It would appear you did not read the whole article which, if I am reading it correctly was making the point that it is not just considered but has led to a change in Scottish Gvt advice on their website to encourage people to use third party certificated firms

[Davo]

TBF

If you can see Kurnal I suggest taking a wee drop of branch water with it in future

davo

[kurnal]

Kurnal, Glad to see you too. Obviously, the broadband is still working at your care home for those with the delusions of grandeur.
 

Yes I cannot understand what I am doing here with all these commoners and riff raff. It must all be some kind of terrible mistake.

[Tom W]

Its the least commitment I have ever seen in a sentance!

I thought the Scots had balls!

[Speyside]

TBF will you be at firex?  See my post in Q and A

The Scottish government haven’t gone far enough, however I do think there may be more to come.

Look out for a very interesting concept due to be proposed at Firex by one of the presenters, third party is and will always be voluntary but it is a good way of marginalising the cowboys. The only thing is that the end user needs educating and that’s difficult.

[Wiz]

It's nothing new and changes nothing. Unless law you are still going to get hundreds of sparkies and rag & tag firms messing up fire alarms, EL, extinguishers etc due to price or the customer not knowing any better.

The type of RP that would insist on 3rd party approval is the one who has being insisting on it for years (as it isn't a new thing, BAFE for example started in 1984)

And with the £350million of deregulation (certainly in E&W) announced in the budget (and I'm sure I heard the Chancellor mention implementing the Young report into H&S) the chances of any more mandatory requirements gets even further away.

I don't think the current type of third-party certification works.

They all seem to be run by organisations that charge unrealistically high fees for their services. And If third party certification became mandatory I wager that their fees would be even higher.

It also seems that the various TPC organisations have different expectations of the standards that need to be raised. I'm sure I recollect Graeme saying that his one demands his involvement in areas not even covered by BS5839-1!

What is the point of that? Will we eventually get one TPC provider promoting that their scheme as being better for end-users than other schemes? That will certainly confuse Joe Public.

Surely, there are far better ways of raising standards than the current Third Party Certification schemes which I feel are all run as 'jobs for the boys'?  Let's raise standards not someone else's pay-packet/profit !

[Psuedonym]

Third party certificaton may not be a requirement for all as yet, however the main duty holders within Scotland certainly do require third party approvals. Many are Natonal companies with a UK policy for approvals.
One gripe I would have though is that these duty holders have passed procedures and requirements down the line to the buiding maintence or facilities managers who have so much paperwork and boxes to tick that they don't unerstand the requirements or someone has passed the wrong information down the line.
I am currently arguing with a new facilities manager for a building run by The Scottish Govn. regarding CRB and Disclosure Scotland. He misunderstands the legislation and therefore as the duty holder has denied me access to a site I have been servicing for the past three years. (Enhanced CRB cleared)
God help us if there's more legislation to confuse folk with. 

[Toddy's best friend]

Speyside, I hope to be there. TBF

[Speyside]

[/quote]

I don't think the current type of third-party certification works.

They all seem to be run by organisations that charge unrealistically high fees for their services. And If third party certification became mandatory I wager that their fees would be even higher.

It also seems that the various TPC organisations have different expectations of the standards that need to be raised. I'm sure I recollect Graeme saying that his one demands his involvement in areas not even covered by BS5839-1!

What is the point of that? Will we eventually get one TPC provider promoting that their scheme as being better for end-users than other schemes? That will certainly confuse Joe Public.

Surely, there are far better ways of raising standards than the current Third Party Certification schemes which I feel are all run as 'jobs for the boys'?  Let's raise standards not someone else's pay-packet/profit !


[/quote]
Wiz I would be interested in your alternative to third party; you actually say there is a better way to raise standards and you are right.

I think the answer is that the fire risk assessors should be in court along side the RP and be fined appropriately. Trading standards should prosecute every rogue fire risk assessors and the RP should sue fire risk assessors for negligence; when the FRS audit and say the fire risk assessment is unsuitable. Perhaps Dominic Little should do one of those consumer programmes ‘Fire Risk Assessors Caught on Camera’ or ‘Catch a cowboy assessor’. Better still the government could invest heavily in an education campaign to let the end user know how to spot a ‘good one’ from a ‘wrong one’

Over to you Wiz; how do you spot the good from the bad? 
Third party certification perhaps!

The reason that third party isn’t working too well at the moment is simple; lack of standards which is being addressed in some part by the work of the Fire Risk Assessment Competence Council. The second and third reasons are lack of standardised assessment methods between certification bodies/registration bodies and a lack of appropriate guidance for the RP.

Wiz have you ever heard of the saying ‘quality costs’. Unfortunately your attitude to third party is the same as that of the RP to fire risk assessments. “How much? I can get a fire risk assessment for £90 from risk assessor B and you want £500. I saw one from a firm on the internet for £25 and they don’t even have to turn up”

If you/the risk assessor wants certification for nothing, can you blame the RP for doing the same with risk assessments? That’s one of the reasons the profession has such low standards.

[kurnal]

Wiz I would be interested in your alternative to third party; you actually say there is a better way to raise standards and you are right.

I think the answer is that the fire risk assessors should be in court along side the RP and be fined appropriately. Trading standards should prosecute every rogue fire risk assessors and the RP should sue fire risk assessors for negligence; when the FRS audit and say the fire risk assessment is unsuitable. Perhaps Dominic Little should do one of those consumer programmes ‘Fire Risk Assessors Caught on Camera’ or ‘Catch a cowboy assessor’. Better still the government could invest heavily in an education campaign to let the end user know how to spot a ‘good one’ from a ‘wrong one’

Personally I couldn't agree more. Of course it is happening in the Penhallow case. Investigative journalism is an excellent way of raising public awareness.

The effectiveness of TPC depends on the quality and diligence of the certification bodies. In the fire industry we are starting out from a baseline level in recognising the existing registers, some of which do very little to measure competence. That is worrying. The sooner the goal posts are raised the better, and UKAS accredited certification schemes seem to be the only available way forward.
But we also have to keep an eye on the market and the legislation. There is no mandatory standard for fire risk assessments and no requirement for RPs to use fire risk assessment companies. The Legislation allows a DIY approach. So the lower end of the market is always going to be driven by cost. .

[Wiz]

Speyside, It's not what the fire risk assessors charge for their work, but the additional costs they incur by being Third-Party Certified by a profit-making organisation that annoys me. This also applies to fire alarm installers and, these days, anyone else who can do the job properly, but has to pay for someone to confirm it.

If the rules and recommendations are laid down by independent bodies it is up to everybody to apply these to their work. They shouldn't have to pay for someone to look over their shoulder, and then pay someone to be looking over the shoulder of those supposedly looking over the shoulder. And so on, ad infinitum! This all just adds to additional cost to the customer and with little, in my mind, benefit to the customer.

I wonder if a TPC fire alarm installer was taken to court for some infringement, if their Third Party Certification provider would also face court action. I'm guessing that this would never happen.

I personally agree with you that it should be enough that fire risk assessors and fire alarm system installers etc. etc. could be taken to court for failing to properly implement the rules/recommendations to deter the cowboys from short-changing customers.

Who really benefits most from TPC schemes? I believe it is the TPC providers.