Register of Fire Risk Assessors & Auditors

[William 29]

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

Agreed on the 3 quotes but also in my experience RPs will look at credentials, experience of the assessor and the quality of the documentation produced.  I personally think that once the FRA Competency Scheme is known and the word spreads this will be a major factor as well as the fee for the FRA.

[colin todd]

Willie, why would the IFE not stick to its own register. The Institution has been around and examining/accrediting since 1918. No one is asking for UKAS accreditation of the members or grad exam, which firemen all dearly love to quote in reports/cvs etc. It is a legitimate professional body activity, and competence of fire risk assessors was forseen by the IFE as a need before there was even such a thing as the DCLG and their disingenuous policies on the matter.  That is why the register was set up- as a perceived need to keep the public safe from fire, not to line the pockets of commercial bodies, regradless of how well they may do the job. Its like fire resisting cable- beware imitations.

[William 29]

So are the IFE using the fire risk assessors competency scheme as the new bench mark when assessing people to go on the IFE register then?

[colin todd]

Its to be discussed , Willie.

[Eli]

"Persistent concerns over fire risk assessors prompts new competency criteria
The UK Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council has released new industry-agreed criteria against which the competence of a fire risk assessor can be judged.
Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors sets out criteria that can be used by professional and third-party certification bodies to register or certificate fire risk assessors, and by organisations that provide fire risk assessment services".
Fire Risk Management Journal February 2012 (FPA/IFE)

'CAN' being the key word here. But why would they sit on the Competence Council and contribute to this; then not fully support it?

I don't think they have the infrastructure to change, adapt and move forward. Hence, the lack of public comment on the matter about this new standard and how it will affect their register.

Beware of limitations!

The IFE have been involved in the competence standard for the last two years, they knew the projected date of release, they knew the content before the general release; yet it is still to be discussed! I for one will be asking why they have a seat on the council if they can’t support what they have helped produce. All they will do is weaken the concept of the standard, if they as the ‘leading’ professional body who foresaw the issues with competent fire risk assessors, are not willing to fully embrace and support the industry standard; which has been offered as a solution.

The industry is trying to move forward, trying to improve standards and trying to marginalise the cowboys, yet the IFE are dragging their feet; WHY?

[colin todd]

Maybe Eli, having written much of the stuff, it reflected their existing approcah, rather than having, as some people openly admitted, having to fix something that clearly wasnt right in the first place.

[Eli]

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

Oh Colin

The IFE just can't do it, and no matter how much you bleat on about it being fine as it is; they should at least publically confirm that their assessment does in fact cover the requirements of the competence standard. It is only right and proper that they as the 'leading' professional body do some leading for a change. At least if they make a public statement it would help support the standard; and lets face it they actually don’t have to do anything in the way of actually checking; they are the IFE and above all that nonsense.

Sorry to be so critical of the IFE as I know it does some things very very well, but the reality of this is that the IFE scheme is ready for an update, a freshening up. If they used the 17024 model to make the assessment the same for everyone and if they used the competence standard as their bench mark, I could quite easily live with them not being UKAS accredited and them not having that very important independent audit. It may be commercially streets ahead of any other scheme but technically it is light years behind, and with the introduction of the BAFE scheme and the introduction of the RP guidance document it is in danger of being left behind. The links with the fire service has been so strong for years and let’s face it; the uniformed guys have been an army of salesmen for the IFE register for years. That should change with the RP guidance and the CLG listing hopefully being updated. The FRS should follow on with the same standard of advice.

Change; because change is needed, lead the way IFE (Colin Todd) clear the deadwood that is stopping the IFE moving forward. I will happily come and sit on the fire risk assessors panel if that would help.

[Tom W]

Have you sat any IFE exams? If not you can't say it is "Light years behind"

You are making some valid points Simon but you are making them all with a vested interest and to my knowledge you are not a risk assessor and have no experience in the business of fire consultancy. Correct me if I am wrong.

I hate people who advertise by picking faults in the competition. If you're course is of benefit people will use it, you lose credibility by making assumptions about a business you are not actually involved in.

Do exova warrington have plans to get their company UKAS accredited under your scheme? 

[William 29]

Eli, I think you make some interesting points that would benefit us all if they were clarified by the IFE, although we should avoid our comments getting personal.

I do find it quite worrying and sad to see that even we in the industry have very strong and differing views over which body we should be 3rd party accredited with.   I thought it was quite simple.  

1. Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council established to which all the main players sit around the table and agree a competency standard.

2. Whatever fire risk assessors register is set up works to that competency standard when assessing persons to be on their register.  Otherwise what was the point in developing the standard?

The IFSM have recognised that their own register does not go far enough in terms of competency standard (as it is not truly independent) and their register will cease in 2013.  The IFE seem to be sticking to their guns and almost come across as arrogant in that the IFE way is the only way, which quite frankly I don’t get.  All this makes a mockery in my view of what the Competency Standard and Council are trying to achieve.  If we can’t decide a common competency route how on earth are the responsible persons out there going to decide, there are just too many options and variables.

My last point on the IFE register is that it needs to be more accessable in that the time taken to apply and get a person accepted just takes too long.  I also think attending interviews at Morton is a joke for those of us that don’t live and work in that area.  I have been MIFireE since 2000 and MIFSM since 2006 and have looked at all 3rd party accreditation routes; I am currently on the IFSM register, so I feel my comments are justified.

[Golden]

As with any council is the competency council suffering from the common problem that only the loudest voices get heard? Am I getting paranoid in thinking that this whole exercise is about getting rid of the IFE as they're not in the profit making club?

William I would be wary of a 'common competency route' - once an organisation gets a monopoly the smaller players in this 'game' are done for and the RP will be left with no choice.

[William 29]

William I would be wary of a 'common competency route' - once an organisation gets a monopoly the smaller players in this 'game' are done for and the RP will be left with no choice.

I don’t understand?  Are the Competency Council making profit from organisations working to their standard?  You can have as many organisations as you like IFE, IFSM, IFPO etc but they all work to a common standard of competency  and not their own, surely that makes sense?
If I were to stick with the IFSM risk register or any other, I only have their opinion to say that I am competent.  What I am saying is that I don’t think that goes far enough and the checkers need to be checked.  In my view the FRACS systems as it will be UKAS accredited goes down that route.

I think they way to go is a UKAS national register of risk assessors of which there could be many routes to achieve that from the industry recognised bodies.  If the IFE or any other did that then I would be interested.

[Eli]

Piglet you assume too much!

I am sticking to the topic and being critical of the IFE for not appearing to support the competence standard or at least dragging their feet on the support for it. Which William has picked up on nicely but you seem to want to twist things to your own agenda which is trying to make it look like I have a sales orientated motive; because you know me, and it’s getting boring. I am trying to contribute to the debate that’s all.

The IFE has a system of assessment that doesn’t use the competence standard.
The competence standard has been written and published for Professional and Certification bodies to use for the assessment of fire risk assessors. If they don’t use it I just think they weaken two years worth of work, and my personal opinion is that it is lack of resources that is stopping them with a tinge of arrogance and a commercial interest.

Now I know that won’t go down well with some, but just like I haven’t sat an IFE exam they haven’t sat in the same meetings I have, or spoken with the same people I have, or listened to the same primary source comments I have, or researched the schemes in detail as I have.

It would be better for all posters here if you could stick to the debate and not try to invent something that just isn’t there.

Just to make it crystal clear; the IFE in my opinion need to change what they are doing with their register and publicly and quickly come out in support of the competence standard by adopting it; as they helped write it after all. This will start a chain of support from other bodies including the end user representative bodies which will help focus RPs to look for competence over price. If this doesn’t happen the market place will not change and the poor cheap fire risk assessor will continue to thrive and survive. I think they should be doing it for the good of the industry. (There you are Piglet no advert no mention of it not even a subliminal message; mind you there wasn’t in my last post!) 

[Golden]

William there may have been some differences of interpretation of your comment - I was reading into your post that a 'common route' was a common organisation through which to route your application rather than the common standard as you have clarified in your last post. Apologies.

I would like the IFE to state why they are not supporting the competence standard. If it is a case that they don't agree with it (this is possible even though the IFE sat on the body that published the standard they may have had objections that were overruled). If it is lack of resources/arrogance/commercial interest then the members of the IFE and their register deserve some explanation. I hope these reasons weren't invented!!

Lastly for Eli its not the 'poor cheap fire risk assessor' that is a problem for many - they are only a problem for the bigger players in the market. The problem is the 'incompetent fire risk assessor' and they come in all shapes and sizes, rich or poor, cheap and sometimes damn expensive.

Getting rid of incompetence will be good for the industry however I along with many others are not sure that a competency standard is the nirvana that the RP is seeking.

[Tom W]

Golden very true, competency can be lacking in all shapes and sizes of companies.

Eli, Im not sure what I am assuming incorrectly so are you a risk assessor or have you ever run a fire consultancy company? I have no agenda everyone knows who I work for. I just think its unfair to pick holes in what others are doing when you have a vested interest, thats all.

Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.

I am not saying you don't have valid points about the IFE though, have you emailed them about your concerns?

[William 29]

Whilst we are debating though I would like to know why exova aren't company UKAS registered.

As I understand it the FRACS system is going through the UKAS process.