Register of third party approvals from the PFPF

[Eli]

Here is one to note for those in the fire safety sector. I am not sure if the active sector has done the same. If they have perhaps it could be joined in some way to make a national fire safe register!

http://www.pfpf.org.uk/pdf/TPC%20Register.pdf

press coverage

http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/new-register-of-fire-safety-certification-schemes

[colin todd]

They will soon be able to include the BAFE SP205 scheme for companies that carry out fire risk assessments. It is progressing well and will do the business in cleaning up fire risk assessment companies, much as bafe did for extinguisher maintenance.

[Eli]

Any date yet Colin?

[AnthonyB]

BAFE hasn't cleaned up extinguisher maintenance that much as the majority of firms doing this work are not BAFE approved and some that you think are from their literature are not when you see what scheme they are approved for  (one I found was only in the BAFE scheme for fire alarms - on site I was happy with their alarm work, but their extinguisher work & advice was abysmal)

Similarly with the fire alarm industry, those with the BAFE approvals are fighting a loosing battle against the numerous unapproved contractors who undercut them.

Don't get me wrong, the idea of the schemes is great, but unless it becomes mandatory to be approved and/or mandatory to use approved firms then a vast amount of work will still go to the 'rag & taggers' , 'box tickers' etc. 

[Eli]

Anthony I would agree with you, but Colin will have a go at me and I am too tired to argue with him any more.

So I won't agree with you even though I do!

[kurnal]

To those of us in the fisk assessment business Anthonys point is absolutely key. Those of us who are considering signing up for the BAFE SP205 scheme  (when available) or the FRACS scheme need to have some evidence that there will be  sufficient publicity and awareness to enable us to effectively market our competence and to see the commercial advantage in doing so.

I do not hear much evidence from colleagues in the alarms sector to suggest that SP203 is having this effect. Many appear to feel very negative towards it as the majority of clients are only driven by the bottom line.

[Eli]

Kurnal there is an answer but with an industry that is split (not down the middle) and a total lack of any kind of lead from CLG and CFOA. It’s going to be a very long and difficult slog to get any real movement of the RPs towards buying the assurance of third party certification. It will take a couple of big players to sign up to the BAFE or FRACS scheme to start the process. But the reality is that unless something else changes only the good will sign up to third party, the dross at the bottom won’t be affected and won’t need to sign up. The good the bad and the ugly fire risk assessors are all still very busy. To really put the squeeze on the bad ones you have to make it financial suicide not to improve and get third party. I can see a way it can be done hence I started this thread but there are some influential people (who are in the minority) that say; ‘there is no need to change anything’

I find it incredible that on one hand some people can say that evidence suggests that the lack of a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments has contributed in some recent multiple fire deaths and then on the other hand say nothing really needs to change.

 To make a real difference something has to change; the RP needs to start getting selection right and then standards will improve, with those that can’t prove competence missing out on work. The added expense (if any) of appointing a third party company is not in their certification, but because they do it right. I would hate for those with standards to start dropping them because they are struggling to compete.

[Midland Retty]

I have to agree with most of your points Eli

I grow a little weary discussing third party accreditation, because frankly no one in the industry wants to bite the bullet and push for a uniform system, like for instance, the Gas Safe Register as a loose example. Frankly HMG don't want to know either.

It will probably take a few fire deaths where negligence on behalf of a contractor or risk assessor was proven to be the route cause to push HMG to implement compulsory registration or accreditation.

Until then responsible persons are left with very little assistance or advice on how to employ a competent engineer, risk assessor, consultant etc, which is a bit of a joke really. Yet I bet we are happy to prosecute the RP when things go belly up at the hands of an incompetent person having ccontrol employed by the RP .

We like making life difficult for ourselves in this country.

[TFEM]

BAFE approval does not automatically mean that the company/technician is any good.....some of the worst fire extinguisher servicing I have seen was carried out by a BAFE approved company who also covered half the extinguisher instructions with stickers and logos for this that and the other trade association.
What about the BAFE approved companies that tell (my) customers that their British Standard coloured extinguishers should have been scrapped years ago when they are perfectly serviceable?
What about the BAFE approved companies that tell their customers that an extinguisher is "up for test and needs to be replaced" or is "out of date"?
In 14 years of running my own fire extinguisher company, only one person has ever asked if we were BAFE approved and when I said "no", his next question was "are you a limited company". When I said no, he said that was good enough for him. We're not all cowboys.
Ever considered that perhaps those "approved" companies are not being undercut but in truth are pricing themselves out of the market because of all the additional costs placed upon them by gaining approvals that prove nothing.
I will continue to attend technician training updates, continue to charge a realistic price, continue with our policy of not ripping the customer off and continue to sleep soundly in my bed at night.
John 

[Midland Retty]

Hi TFEM

Apologies if my earlier post seemed like a rant. It wasn't aimed at people like yourselves - I appreciate your point of view and understand there are good reputable companies out there whom are not accredited, and on the flip side there are some very bad companies who have achieved accreditation.

I think my beef is that the RP is told they must appoint competent persons to assist them, yet there is little out there to assist them in appointing someone competent. Just seems unhelpful.

I sound like a scratched record!

[Eli]

TFEM Did you or the client report the BAFE registered company?

My guess is no.

Schemes can only be as good as the policing of them by the CB, but part of that policing is your ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ type activity; if they are in a scheme and they do something outrageous report them. 

The trouble is two fold; schemes that aren’t robust enough in the first place and a lack of decent policing by the CBs and companies in the same industry. Actually threefold, Bafe, they don’t have a decent grip on the CBs that operate their schemes. (Colin that’s from the horse’s mouth; before you ‘tell’ on me again)

MF you are correct the end user is not helped when selecting a quality company or competent person. More needs to be done, part of that is decent third party with teeth which is easily referenced and the second part is a ‘due diligence’ guide on selecting good fire safety services. If they follow that guidance then TFEM will get appointed even without third party.

[AnthonyB]

Reporting BAFE companies doesn't seem to ensure they change some of the sharper practices of their field staff as TFEM has exampled (& I've encountered them too)

Remember some of the members are big players and have a lot of weight - holding up & amending BS revisions to suit their convenience, not user safety, brushing off numerous Trading Standards convictions over the years, etc.

For the 'non expert' it's a minefield - no wonder price is so often a decider!

[colin todd]

Eli, BAFE rely on UKAS to "get a grip". I thought you liked UKAS or have you changed your mind about that too.

We hear all the time about " I went to a job by a tpc'd firm and oh my god you should have seen this that and the other". Maybe what we need is a bulletin board for those who have seen jobs by non certificated firms and "Oh my God you should have seen this that and the other"  Wonder what the ratio between the two would be.

Watch this space for BAFE SP 205- it will allow people to specify third party certificated firms in their tenders and provide some defence for the RP if it all goes wrong, just like Retters wants.

[Eli]

For those that don’t understand certification

There can be many different levels within 45011 quality assurance schemes and all that UKAS do is make sure the CB is meeting the requirements of the scheme at the level they have set it at. Even weak schemes can be accredited that’s why if you intend to rely on third party certification you should first of all satisfy yourself that the scheme is actually robust enough to assure the quality or competence you desire ie if the scheme has good checks and balances which cover a sufficient number of employees with a competence assessment you can rely on those with the certification. Level 5 is normally the level that is a ‘given’ to do what it is supposed to.  

Colin I’ll send you a table illustrating the different levels a 45011 scheme can be set at. Actually you probably have it as you work for UKAS.

You will see that the SP 205 is at level 2 possibly 3 it’s a little hard to place as the standard is for products really.

[kurnal]

Watch this space for BAFE SP 205- it will allow people to specify third party certificated firms in their tenders and provide some defence for the RP if it all goes wrong, just like Retters wants.

There already is a UKAS accredited scheme run by FRACS that appears to be making little or no impact in the market place. Colin what is it about the BAFE scheme that makes you so confident that theirs will take off?

Eli I wonder what level the FRACS scheme is set at? I wonder if the apparent low take up is because it aspires to take the industry from zero to hero in one leap? From shanks pony to rolls royce without first runnng a secondhand ford to get people used to the concept?