Scottish Government recognises the benefits of third party certification

[TallyHo]

Speyside there is already a ‘legally enforced’ alternative to third party.

There is already a legal system in place for assessing that employers have carried out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a ‘competent person’; it’s called a Fire Safety Audit conducted by the local authority through the F&RS fire inspectors.  There is also a definition of a ‘competent person’; this is described in PAS 79.  An event like the Penhallow case and numerous other prosecutions shows us that this system is already being used.

How many individuals/companies who are taking payment for carrying out fire risk assessments have actually been prosecuted for failing to comply with the RRO?

I have carried out thousands of fire risk assessments since the Workplace Regs made them a legal requirement in 1997 (how many ‘certified’ fire risk assessors have been doing them since then?).  Why should I pay out for certification, which quite often requires attendance on one of the certifier’s expensive courses before they will issue me with a certificate?

I already spend enough money on new publications and attending CPD events etc. to keep me ‘competent’ without the added burden of ‘certification’ which will no doubt have to be renewed every 3 years or so.

One again this is seems to be promoted by companies offering third party certification.  Are they really interested in making the workplace safer from the effects of fire, or are they only interested in lining their pockets?

[Fishy]

The only people who can make third-party certification ‘work’ are the people who provide that certification.  They have to be willing and able to put the time, money and effort into promoting the benefits of their schemes to those who have the ability to make them (contractually) mandatory.  Yes; without the benefit of it being the ‘law’ you will not initially get the low-end of the market interested in such schemes, but if enough high-end clients & government organisations take them up eventually the effect will trickle down to ‘Joe Bloggs Ltd’.  It’s interesting to note the success of some of the other newish certification schemes out there – the fire door & installer certification schemes run by TRADA & Certifire are an example where a part of the industry that was largely unregulated a dozen years ago has been transformed by certification; now Certifire alone has about 200 members & claims to represent “over 75% of the fire doors sold in the UK”.   All that marketing costs money, which is one of the reasons why membership isn’t cheap.

Government ‘encouragement’ (which is the most they will ever give, in current times) will help, but at the end of the day it’s up to those running these schemes to get membership into procurement spec’s and give their members the value for money that will enable them to earn enough to make paying the fees worthwhile.

[Wiz]

Speyside there is already a ‘legally enforced’ alternative to third party.

There is already a legal system in place for assessing that employers have carried out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment completed by a ‘competent person’; it’s called a Fire Safety Audit conducted by the local authority through the F&RS fire inspectors.  There is also a definition of a ‘competent person’; this is described in PAS 79.  An event like the Penhallow case and numerous other prosecutions shows us that this system is already being used.

How many individuals/companies who are taking payment for carrying out fire risk assessments have actually been prosecuted for failing to comply with the RRO?

I have carried out thousands of fire risk assessments since the Workplace Regs made them a legal requirement in 1997 (how many ‘certified’ fire risk assessors have been doing them since then?).  Why should I pay out for certification, which quite often requires attendance on one of the certifier’s expensive courses before they will issue me with a certificate?

I already spend enough money on new publications and attending CPD events etc. to keep me ‘competent’ without the added burden of ‘certification’ which will no doubt have to be renewed every 3 years or so.

One again this is seems to be promoted by companies offering third party certification.  Are they really interested in making the workplace safer from the effects of fire, or are they only interested in lining their pockets?

My thoughts exactly!

[Speyside]

Daveyh and Wiz what I am reading from your last posts is ‘leave it be’ ‘there is nothing wrong’ ‘the current system is fine’ ‘buyer beware’ ‘I am competent so that’s fine’

That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA, the professional bodies and the fire safety press to name just a few. Standards need to improve and one of the most established and an effective method is through third party certification. As fishy has mentioned it has worked for other areas of fire safety in the past. He is also correct the third parties need to promote and make it worth the expense. However the industry needs to assist and make a statement to the RP.

Don’t worry guys you won’t have to line anyone’s pockets as it is and will remain VOLUNTARY.  Wiz which of the current register keepers is a ‘for profit’ organisation?

Third party is a form of assurance to aid the RP complete due diligence and reduce their chances of appointing a technically poor assessor. Third party is also a differentiator for the fire risk assessor or company; it allows them to clearly demonstrate quality and competence; which sadly doesn’t need to be demonstrated in the current climate. Poor risk assessors are just as busy as the good and the RP has no easy way of telling which is which.

Wiz how does the RP differentiate when appointing a fire risk assessor?

[Allen Higginson]

I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.

[Speyside]

I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.

How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?

[Allen Higginson]

I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.

How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?

Blind faith.

[colin todd]

That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA,

That would be enough to suggest to me that it is right......

[Speyside]

That is the opposite opinion of Sir Ken, CLG, CFOA,

That would be enough to suggest to me that it is right......

What a spectacular OWN GOAL Mr Todd, one of the best ever. Well you do play for Scotland and OGs are often the only ones they score.

As chairman of the FIA fire risk assessment council, you surely can’t believe that nothing has to change and that standards are fine. Wouldn’t that make a mockery of all the pontificating about cowboy assessors and BAFE quality assurance schemes?

[colin todd]

Well, Simon, I was merely pointing out that you were arguing against yourself with your strange collection of bedfellows.  You were doing ok with your arguments until you blew it on the basis that you seemed to think that all else had failed so you needed to scrape the barrel by finding a collection of people who you think think that you are right.  

Buzzy may now reply and say that his mum, some guy he met down the pub and a girl he was stunned by at Thompsons Garage the last time I saw him all think he is right.

[mr angry]

I'm sorry but I see third party accreditation as little more than a box ticking excercise for the RP to show they have done their best to get a competant company - it doesn't actually mean that they have.

How do they know they have appointed a competent assessor then?

The same way they would appoint a competent tyre fitter I suppose!

[tmprojects]

what i find quite funny about all of this is is that the original concept of the FSO was not just to move away from prescription by the fire Authorities and to place the burden of compliance with the occupier. But it was also intended to be acheivable by the occupier with guidance (hence the RP guides) and was distinctly intended not to create a reliance on third parties.

Anyone could of said this was never going to work. But this is why we are were we are.

Third Party accreditation, however well intended, always becomes an exercise of control and a revenue stream to be manipulated. Does it work anywhere else?

Extinguishers
Fire Alarms 

I know people on the IFE register that are totally belt and braces, code huggers. they're not dangerous, but they are a burden on their client. they recommend more than they should and very rarely provide detailed explanation. Oh! and they also take on the work recommended by the FRA.

A company that tells you what you need and then provides that service? one that over prescribes! now where have i heard that before?


 

[Speyside]

Well, Simon, I was merely pointing out that you were arguing against yourself with your strange collection of bedfellows.  You were doing ok with your arguments until you blew it on the basis that you seemed to think that all else had failed so you needed to scrape the barrel by finding a collection of people who you think think that you are right.  

Buzzy may now reply and say that his mum, some guy he met down the pub and a girl he was stunned by at Thompsons Garage the last time I saw him all think he is right.

If only I knew I was right all the time instead of thinking I was right some of the time. Colin, what’s it like knowing you are right all the time?

I can see how you do it, particularly about this subject; but if you could fall off the fence and actually offer an opinion. Just let us know which hat you are wearing.

As chairman of the FIA fire risk assessment council, you surely can’t believe that nothing has to change and that standards are fine. Wouldn’t that make a mockery of all the pontificating about cowboy assessors and BAFE quality assurance schemes?

Actually as you are so very very good at speaking on behalf of others I may have a go.

FIA hat 

Third party UKAS accredited quality assurance certification is the way forward and will raise standards within the industry.

IFE hat

UKAS accreditation is not needed at all for third party certification.


Surely a foot in both camps means your position is untenable. I think I am right in saying that….no…. I know I am right.

It’s a bit like being a member of the Labour party and the Conservative at the same time.

It’s time to vote Colin; or deflect, distract and avoid the issue with sarcasm and razor wit as per usual.

[kurnal]

To be fair both these organisations are democratic and the chairman does not get his own way all the time. The FIA position was a recommendation to the Council from its own professional standards sub committee and Colin was not chairman or indeed present for many of the meetings.

When wearing the FIA hat Colin has to represent the FIA view. Similar for the IFE.

I too would be interested in knowing Colins own view but I guess it would put him in an untenable position. Would we expect Sir Ken Knight to tell us which political party he supports?

[Tom W]

I'll chip in with my two penneth.

I completely agree with third party accreditation, it is an easy way to show competence. It is not the only way though.

It is a fine balance. What annoys me as there are large companies out there farming out FRAs for loose change, sometimes free if they pick up maintenance contracts. FRAs to them are not a way of making money, they are a selling tool.

You have smaller companies carrying out FRAs that just do it because they have been involved in extinguishers and think they can. These people are most likely to fail a 3rd party scheme so won't do it. They don't need to and will carry on getting work because their prices will be competitive.

You have the smaller (under 10 consultants) consultancy companies that are very good and would pass a 3rd party scheme. These guys are probably also struggling with being undercut but they will go ahead with 3rd party because the costs are only x10 and their overheads are minimal.

You then have the medium size companies (under 50 consultants) who want to comply but need to remain competitive. Government WILL NOT make it mandatory, they have never been asked for it by a client, the costs are prohibitive. They can prove their competence in a number of other ways.

3rd Party certification is a good idea.

Depending on what camp you are in, its very expensive. You can say that if you have 50 consultants you are doing 50 times times the amount of work so you can afford it, it doesn't quite work like that.

Would a client turn their nose up if you didn't have it but you could get them to speak to any number of your clients, show cvs, insurance, ISO, Certificates?

I like the idea of the BAFE company wide scheme though