Register of Fire Risk Assessors & Auditors

[Fishy]

There could be a few reasons why you would want to join one of these schemes:
1.   Because it’s mandatory;
2.   Because customers ask for it;
3.   Because you believe it’ll get you work, giving potential customers confidence in your abilities, or;
4.   Because it’s become ‘best practice’ and all your biggest competitors have joined.

Forget 1) – it’ll never happen.  The government currently has no appetite for tightening up H&S regulation & so far as they are concerned the 2005 Order is working pretty well.  Not sure that 2) is happening?  We’re probably a long way from 4)?  So... that leaves 3?
 
The question I’d ask of all the schemes would be what are you doing to market your scheme to my customers?  It’s no good to me if they are only marketing to the fire industry – if any scheme is to be really successful it has to market itself to the fire industry’s clients, so that it gets into requirements statements & invitations to tender. 

[Tom W]

Excellent points fishy

[William 29]

There could be a few reasons why you would want to join one of these schemes:
1.   Because it’s mandatory;
2.   Because customers ask for it;
3.   Because you believe it’ll get you work, giving potential customers confidence in your abilities, or;
4.   Because it’s become ‘best practice’ and all your biggest competitors have joined.
 

I am missing something here?? Surly it’s none of the above.  It’s about attaining a 3rd party recognised competency standard from the formed body of the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council.  This was established due to a lack of confidence in the industry due to the number of poor, inadequate or inconsistent FRAs that are being produced.
The most common breach of the RRFSO is under Article 9 – failure to conduct a suitable and sufficient FRA either by the RP or an external company.  We all know there are good and bad assessors out there like there are good and bad builders, electricians etc.  These schemes are an attempt at eliminating some of the bad and an attempt at ensuring a common competency standard to work to like so many industries have out there, why should the fire industry be any different?
It also ensures that skills are kept current and up to date as assessors are reviewed periodically.  Assessors range from non-fire service backgrounds, retired fire officers that retired pre the RRFSO coming into force and have only known the FP Act right through to serving fire safety officers working part time.  Whether we get any work from it or not is irrelevant and would not be my main motivation for going through the process.  I would be more interested in achieving a recognised (UKAS accredited) competency standard that is independent of the risk assessors’ registers we currently have.  I am on the IFSM risk assessors register but I don’t feel that goes far enough to demonstrate competence.

[Eli]

William I fully agree with you!

Colin It's the 'salesman' bit I object to!

If you are just a salesman for CS Todd (FIA, IFE, PAS 79) and Piglet is just a salesman for Fireco; then I am just a salesman for Warrington.

I welcome the introduction of BAFE SP 205; even with the issues I have with it.

‘Please note that this is my personal opinion and in no way reflects that of the company I work for’

To save me from putting this disclaimer on every post I make; Kurnal has kindly put on a very clear note at the top of the home pages to explain to those who are ‘hard of understanding’ why some people may wish to remain anonymous. I know that line sometimes gets a little blurry; but what you know is what you know and what you think may not meet the bosses’ approval.

Therefore I know some things which my job has provided the information about and I think some things which are of my own opinion. Right or Wrong! I think it’s the same for many of the serving fire officers on this site who don’t want to be identified. Regardless of how important Colin may think it is to ‘fess up’ a personal identity; I am not concealing anything more than many others on this site.

I would apologies to anyone who took offense about the article I highlighted about piglets certificated fire risk assessors. If you did read the full article you will have seen that it was very, very respectful to the memory of the assessor who passed away. It was only used to highlight some other points raised in the article; which countered piglets’ statement.

[Midland Retty]

I'll add my two pennies worth.

I too will be seeking third party accreditation for all the reasons William gave. I'd make sure it was a UKAS certified certification body too, because otherwise I don't see any benefit to it.

I've said before that there is nothing in law stopping me setting up a third party accrediton scheme - certifying anyone from Uncle Tom Cobley to Joe Bloggs as competent risk assessors so long as they pay me enough.

The point is that the accreditors must themselves be accredited and monitored by UKAS in order to be taken seriously, a nd carry weight.

[Tom W]

So you think only schemes with a UKAS stamp have benefit?

[Midland Retty]

Im not saying non UKAS schemes any better or any worse than UKAS schemes.

But who accredits the accreditors so to speak? As per my post above it seems that legally anyone can start their own accreditation scheme, no checks or hoops have to jumped through to prove you are competent to accredit something.Atleast UKAS schemes have been audited / certified / or accredited in their own right

[Tom W]

http://www.meansofescape.com/industry-news/news267.aspx

Looks like there is only one competent assessor in the whole country!

So if you have already done the scheme you can't say you're competent? Do you have to re-sit?

 

[Golden]

Midland the only checks you really need to become a 'competent' fire risk assessor are spelt 'cheques' and generally have a lot of 0's on the end of the number, nearly as many as if you want to get a diploma in fire doors!!

[Midland Retty]

Now then Golden that is a very sceptical response .... I agree though 

[Eli]

Piglet there is indeed only one fire risk assessor in the UK who can demonstrate he has the competences identified in the new fire risk assessor competence standard; via independent third party certification from a body which is accredited by UKAS against BS 17024. 

I am sure there are hundreds of assessors out there who have the competences identified in this industry standard but equally there are hundreds who haven’t got them. Which is exactly the problem the RP faces; how do they know who has these competencies and who doesn’t?

Currently they are not doing too well at differentiating them. Let’s face it; the incompetent don’t advertise the fact that they are incompetent, and I should imagine that there are less assessors operating who are knowingly trading as incompetent than there are assessors who think they are doing a good job but actually aren’t. 

All the FRACS guys will be reassessed to make sure they have the competences identified in this new industry standard. This will be either through the regular surveillance or during their recertification evaluation. However assessors will be offered the chance to be assessed against this new standard at any time from now to their next surveillance or recertification. 

Those certificated were not assessed against this new industry standard as it didn’t exist; taking two years to put together it can now be said to be supported by the vast majority of bodies involved in fire safety in the UK. However those previously assessed can claim to be ‘competent’ as they hold certification to the 17024 standard against the previous standard used, which wasn’t a million miles away. This was apparently good enough for you to rely upon, as you put some subcontractor assessors through it. 

I dare say that the IFE will claim Grandfather Rights for all their registered assessors. Why wouldn’t they; no one audits them!

[kurnal]

Only one Eli?
What about the other two on the NFRAR?

[Eli]

Only one Eli?
What about the other two on the NFRAR?

Those on the NAFRAR have BS 17024 certification from an accredited body; which couldn't use the new competence standard to assess them against as it didn't exist at the time they went through the process.

The industry standard will be the required standard by those RPs who do a little bit of research on appointing a fire risk assessor. (If price isn’t the only requirement) Therefore any register would be mad not to adopt this as the standard for assessment; I can’t imagine that the IFE would be that stuck in their ways, that they didn't adopt it as their technical reference. IFPO surely will do the same as they too had a seat at the table. What would be the point of writing an industry supported standard if the very bodies it was produced for, didn’t use it?

Perhaps Colin will know! Will the IFE be adopting the competence standard as the technical benchmark for assessing the competence of any new applicants for their register? They helped write it, so surely they should be promoting it for the good of fire safety in the UK.

[Tom W]

Unfortunately you have hit the nail on the head Eli. We are hoping the RPs highest demand will be on quality not price.

In my experience people get 3 quotes and there are a number of factors involved in deciding but the overiding one is unfortunately cost.

I am with you in the point of trying to drive out cowboys but the gov won't help so we need to ensure we have extra benefits and not be too far out.

A serious concern is that we all try to add to the USP and 3rd party is a great example but by doing that you need to recoup the costs and therefore your prices go up.

[William 29]

Therefore any register would be mad not to adopt this as the standard for assessment; I can’t imagine that the IFE would be that stuck in their ways, that they didn't adopt it as their technical reference. IFPO surely will do the same as they too had a seat at the table. What would be the point of writing an industry supported standard if the very bodies it was produced for, didn’t use it?

Perhaps Colin will know! Will the IFE be adopting the competence standard as the technical benchmark for assessing the competence of any new applicants for their register? They helped write it, so surely they should be promoting it for the good of fire safety in the UK.


2 very good points well made in my view.  I would be very interested in why the IFE is sticking to its own register?  I wonder if Colin can tell us?