Health & Safety Consultant prosecuted.

[nearlythere]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13733118

It's about time some "fire safey consultants" were prosecuted as well rather than waiting for the loss of life due to incompetent assessments. There are plenty about - even those with "competent" certs.

[Allen Higginson]

You starting to come across "expert" FRA's as well since the new order came into play then???

[nearlythere]

You starting to come across "expert" FRA's as well since the new order came into play then???

They seem to be appearing out of nowhere. A 2 1/2 day course is all it takes nowadays.

[Allen Higginson]

You starting to come across "expert" FRA's as well since the new order came into play then???

They seem to be appearing out of nowhere. A 2 1/2 day course is all it takes nowadays.

Yes,had one the other day in a commercial property in Belfast where they were told to put in a system of MCP's and sounders,along with battery smoke detectors in the escape corridor.The battery smokes would be upgraded to mains/battery smokes at a later date and would need to be interfaced into the break glass system - as the two MCP's are going at either end of the corridor would it not be sensible to prescribe an L4 system instead at the time of installation (or am I just being daft??).

[nearlythere]

I came across a FRA for a shopping centre carried out by a big name in property management in Belfast. I was doing a FRA for one of units.
50% the legislation quoted was out of date, 25% was English and the rest seemed to have been made up. Not really an important issue but a common escape corridor and stairway serving around 10 units, which had gaps into adjoining areas you could have passed a football through, were described as being "protected". When I looked above the false ceiling I made sure I had a bomb proof disclaimer in my assessment.

[AnthonyB]

I think I know which company you mean, but can't comment further on the forum as we may have had/have dealings with them if it's one and the same.

To save a few quid some property management firms try and do stuff in house, however it has resulted in them coming unstuck at sites and coming back to external competent people to bail them out.

Some FSO's are at last looking properly at FRAs and taking enforcement action where required - too many complex premises have FRAs based on the entry level guide for lock up shops etc (& some these by charging external firms!)

[tmprojects]

Cost or ability to meet demand will always prevail for the business. With no guidance or standards to measure the skill of the RA. They will go for the badge that is well known or the cheapest.

I know someone who was working through a big company carrying out FRA's for local housing. He's getting £35 per block of flats. He done 10 a day. He then went home and wrote them in a day.

10 in a day! working on a ten hour day. That's one hour inspecting one completing the report. Does anyone think this is acheivable?

Apart from the fact they were total cr#p. He didn't need to worry about a regular income. It was his second job. So he was happy doing that once or twice a month. If this type of person is serving both ends of the market. How can the real competent RA operate.

And their lays the problem. Which ever they go for they get the same.

It's not just about prosecuting them. It's about setting the standards to which they operate.

My view is mirrored in my comments in my thread on article 18. In that an RP should be free conduct the FRA himself or by his employees. But if he requires the help of an 'expert' then that 'expert' should be required to show why he is.

The IFE register goes some way to solving this. But not enough in my view. I believe their should be a legislation change to require a qualification of a RA acting as a consultant.

[colin todd]

Terence, there will never be mandatory qualifications. The great white hope is for the profession to sort itslef out and for the buyer to beware.  As you know, lots happening in that respect.

[nearlythere]

"10 in a day! working on a ten hour day. That's one hour inspecting one completing the report. Does anyone think this is acheivable?"

Easy when you only have to change the name and address for each one.

[Davo]

NT

Its easy

Just inspect one floor and put 'ditto' for the others


Bet he's not insured either


davo

[tmprojects]

CT. You say there will never be a mandatory qualification. Can I ask Why? I think its acheivable and realistic to at least look at the possibility.

Buyer beware philosophy is, to me, an unfair expectation on them.  And I don't think leaving it to the industry will resolve the mater when it is the big players who have the most to loose.

NT and Davo. Changing the address only applies if all the buildings are the same and have exactly the same deficiencies. Which they weren't, and didn't. Which I am guessing was your eloquently put point.

[nearlythere]

"NT and Davo. Changing the address only applies if all the buildings are the same and have exactly the same deficiencies."

Would the landlord know or care? He has a document which says "Fire Risk Assessment" across the front cover.
In my experience, so far, nearly all employers, or persons with control, care not a jot about fire safety. It's the Assessment document which is the important bit, not what's in it.

[kurnal]

Who cares and why should they?

The Politicians are not going to legislate further.

Third party accreditation schemes are seen as the way forward but will be slow to get off the ground and become a universal requirement unless government, industry and enforcers start to promote and publicise the schemes. To join a scheme at the moment you have to jump through hoops and make substantial investment in time and money but the market place and the enforcers dont seem to give a hoot.

The fire services dont generally seem to be interested in persuing rogue traders such as you describe.

Trading standards have so far not come to the fore.

Many of the customers are interested only in cost and the bit of paper but dont take ownership or interest in the content. It becomes a piece of paper like the MOT but you dont have to mend your car to get the bit of paper, and the policeman wont look at it unless you have an accident.

The industry itself and the existing four registers are trying to improve standards. Look at the FIA list of risk assessment companies. They introduced some very basic competence and standards benchmarks this year and if you look at the website membership appears to have dropped from about 80 companies down to about 30.

But despite this sorry comment on the state of the industry it does create opportunity for those who jump through the hoops of third party accreditation to market their competence and stand out from the crowd. There are some customers who care. They  tend to be a little more upmarket.

[nearlythere]

Maybe so K but I have yet to be asked by anyone I have had dealings with what stands me out from the crowd. They just want their document and at the right price.
Interesting that I have carried out assessments where insurance companies have rejected the in house attempt.
Why? Because it wasn't thick enough. It seems that some insurance companies judge the suitability of an assessment that way. Mind you all of them were pretty poor but according to the clients the insurance auditors do not even read them.

[Davo]

NT

A dilemma has arisen

Do I prepare a thick document for the insurer that the owner won't read?
Or do I prepare a 15 page document that the owner will read and maybe act on?


Answers on a postcard please


davo