BS 7273-4

[kurnal]

I am surprised that none of the 'assessors' responded to the point that they didn't really have to know the fine details of Standards such as BS7273-4. Surely, it was a weight off their shoulders?

None of us us can know everything about everything, but it is good to know which things are really important.

Far from a weight off one's shoulders Dr Wiz its a potential worry. The "fire risk assessor" from Mansfield who went to jail didn't know what he didn't know and obviously thought he was competent.  When the lock doesn't release or the door doesn't close and someone dies the coroner will take a close look at all parties involved and the hold them all accountable for what they did or didnt do. 

How much do I need to know about anything? The Judge will measure my actions against what he would expect an average competent assessor to have done in the same circumstances.
Case Law would indicate that I should be ok provided I know as much as or a little bit more than my peers and apply my knowledge in a diligent way.

I would suggest that the average risk assessor would be expected to have a good understanding of cause and effect, the appropriate categories / risk scenarios together with  basic installation issues  but would not be expected to know about or verify the individual response and monitoring characteristics of the different types of panel.
Anybody agree or am I talking out the back of my head? (again?)

(Puts head back below battlements)

[Wiz]

I am surprised that none of the 'assessors' responded to the point that they didn't really have to know the fine details of Standards such as BS7273-4. Surely, it was a weight off their shoulders?

None of us us can know everything about everything, but it is good to know which things are really important.

Far from a weight off one's shoulders Dr Wiz its a potential worry. The "fire risk assessor" from Mansfield who went to jail didn't know what he didn't know and obviously thought he was competent.  When the lock doesn't release or the door doesn't close and someone dies the coroner will take a close look at all parties involved and the hold them all accountable for what they did or didnt do. 

How much do I need to know about anything? The Judge will measure my actions against what he would expect an average competent assessor to have done in the same circumstances.
Case Law would indicate that I should be ok provided I know as much as or a little bit more than my peers and apply my knowledge in a diligent way.

I would suggest that the average risk assessor would be expected to have a good understanding of cause and effect, the appropriate categories / risk scenarios together with  basic installation issues  but would not be expected to know about or verify the individual response and monitoring characteristics of the different types of panel.
Anybody agree or am I talking out the back of my head? (again?)

(Puts head back below battlements)

Fair points, well made, Prof.

However, I can't see how a Court of Law Judge can measure something he knows nothing about (although I appreciate that has never stopped them trying).

The way even you descibe it, is that you only need to be as good as the 'average' of your peers. If you were all to be members of a trade group which maintained certain standards, which a member met, then surely that would be evidence that you were at least as good as average.

Your point about the diligence required is obviously unarguable.

I believe that many of us live in too much fear of the 'legal action' scenario, which is then blown out of reasonable proportion by any number of punters-of-something-they-want-you-to-buy-from-them-know-alls.

I know nothing about the 'Mansfield Assessor'. Are you saying he was obviously unfairly treated by not knowing some in-depth/obscure recommendation?

I obviously understand that everyone should be competent to do any job, but unless the Government lay down actual Laws as to what constitutes competency in any field, then we all have to realise that judicial interpretation of it is just a matter of opinion. So we can all only strive to do the best we are able to do and not worry ourselves because we don't know the 'impossible to learn'.

[Midland Retty]

Does a fire risk assessor need to know as much about a fire alarm system as a fire alarm engineer?

...Or should the assessor simply have a general understanding of fire alarm systems, and rely on certification from the engineer as a measure that the system has been installed correctly?.

I think most reasonable people would say the latter. And when Kurnal talks about "peers" in a court of law I think he means to say a jury made up of "reasonable people" plucked from Joe Public, who are not going to be familiar with the wonders of fire safety. A Judge doesn't decide your fate, the jury does.
 
That said you may be up in front of magistrate, who, again will be a lay person not familiar with fire safety. That to some degree works to the risk assessors advantage.

From what I have heard about the "Mansfield case" the assessor was simply a bad assessor who had poor knowledge of the fundemental basics of fire safety

Here's an Example:I would hope all assessors / enforcers would be capable of spotting things like  detectors not sited in the correct places, or incorrect wiring used during installtion. But how would we know if a green box EDR has been wired through the relay circuit from the fire alarm system or directly to the electromagnetic lock for example? (especially if the cabling is hidden)

[nearlythere]

I'm generally with you MF. I think that one has to make a reasonable assumption that a FA System which has documentary evidence as having been installed to Standard and that it is being maintained is fine. If there were obvious weaknesses with the degree of cover relevant to the Catagory installed then that would be something a competent Assessor would be expected to highlight.
Where do you stop? Would you be expected to open every water extinguisher to check that it contains the correct level of water? No. That probably is already being done by the service engineer annually. The failure to service annually would be something the Assessor should pick up on, not what's in or not in the extinguisher.
Other competent persons are involved in various aspects of fire safety and they must and we should expect them to perform their specific functions properly.
Do fire alarm engineers open up every smoke detectors to check that they comply with standand? Course not and I don't think they would be expect to. Someone else has already done that: the manufacturer.

[kurnal]

Midland, NT I dont disagree  that the first call for evidence of compliance will be the design, installation and commissioning certificates. I always ask to see them for every assessment I carry out.

On about 90% of occasions there are none available. And when there are certificates, about half of them are cobblers. Rarely is the system category shown. I almost never see any declarations of variations even when they are obvious. Plastic cable ties reign supreme throughout except where the cables are thrown across a non FR false ceiling or run up a shaft without any support. Saw a new install last week where the loop going into the roof space was laid through an open loft hatch with the lid left open. Another hand written certificate declaring compliance with BS5839-1 1988.

Thats when I start to dig a bit deeper to the depth of my own knowledge and limit of my own competence - which is clearly not too great in this specialist area.

Maybe I am making it hard for myself and maybe I should slope shoulders and accept  the crap certificates I am offered. Its someone else' problem. But I believe that would not serve my customers well and if I do,  nothing will ever improve.

Dr Wiz- heres a link to the Mansfield risk assessor story
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/fire-risk-assessor-and-hotel-manager-jailed-for-fire-safety-offences-updated-11-07-11.

When I suggest I will be reviewed against the standards of my peers, I mean that that if I find my self in court I will be cross examined as to the standards of my work and the judge, as part of his considerations, will ask the question "would any average competent fire risk assessor have used the same process and come to the same conclusion?"

[wee brian]

This is standard professional negligence stuff.

The Judge will ask one or more expert witnesses to advise on whether a competent profesional should have known/done something.

[nearlythere]

I do recall something reported on the forum a while ago, maybe a court case, something about a fire extinguisher service engineer being pulled by a judge for not reporting a deficiency in the level of cover because it was an expectation of him as an expert Something like that.
Anyone?

[Midland Retty]

Understood Kurnal but from what you have said you are picking up on issues that a risk assessor should pick up on, and highlighting sub standard installations. I'm not sure how much further you can go with it.

Your responsibility is to inform your client of those issues, so that they can take it up with their contractor, and if your client doesn't heed your warnings that is not your fault.

I recommend to all the punters I deal with that they shouldn't pay for an installation until they receive all the necessary certs, have the system and documentation has been given a cursory check by me, or another fire safety professional.

[lingmoor]

Understood Kurnal but from what you have said you are picking up on issues that a risk assessor should pick up on, and highlighting sub standard installations. I'm not sure how much further you can go with it.

Your responsibility is to inform your client of those issues, so that they can take it up with their contractor, and if your client doesn't heed your warnings that is not your fault.I recommend to all the punters I deal with that they shouldn't pay for an installation until they receive all the necessary certs, have the system and documentation has been given a cursory check by me, or another fire safety professional.

I've had a Fire Risk Assessment deemed not 'suitable and sufficient' by Mr Fire Officer chap because the work I said needed doing in my assessment wasn't done

tis true I tells ya

[nearlythere]

Understood Kurnal but from what you have said you are picking up on issues that a risk assessor should pick up on, and highlighting sub standard installations. I'm not sure how much further you can go with it.

Your responsibility is to inform your client of those issues, so that they can take it up with their contractor, and if your client doesn't heed your warnings that is not your fault.

I recommend to all the punters I deal with that they shouldn't pay for an installation until they receive all the necessary certs, have the system and documentation has been given a cursory check by me, or another fire safety professional.

I also strongly recommend that the system is not commissioned by the installer.

[Wiz]

I've now read through the Mansfield report, Prof. K.

The FR assessor was obviously punished for 'missing' those things the hotelier was eventually punished for. These mostly appear to easily identifiable and serious short-comings and not to the same level of expertise required in 'not identifying that a processor fault within the cie would not release the held-open fire doors'.
I understand the points you make, but are you worrying a little too much? However, It would maybe prudent to always have an insurance policy to pay for the best expert witnesses available!!!!!

N.T. - I agree with the third-party commissioning idea. At the moment, the same person can design, install and commission a system. Quite apart from the current system being a loophole for the 'cowboys', it does none of us any harm to have our work checked by others. We can all miss or misunderstand something. With a minimum of two different people checking the same thing, there is, at the very least, the opportunity to start a discussion about something one of them disagrees with.

Lingmoor - Amazing. How can someone have that role without understanding the process, even if the understanding is just based on commonsense?

[AnthonyB]

I do recall something reported on the forum a while ago, maybe a court case, something about a fire extinguisher service engineer being pulled by a judge for not reporting a deficiency in the level of cover because it was an expectation of him as an expert Something like that.
Anyone?

Sounds like the Church v Chubb Fire civil case where the original Judge who awarded for the church said something along the lines of the engineer should have warned the church about the severe secondary damage from Powder and suggested alternatives and because he didn't then Chubb were liable for the many thousands of pounds worth of damage to their organ after a malicious discharge.

Chubb got the decision overturned  at appeal, but the case does appear to have influenced part of the new BS5306-8

[nearlythere]

I do recall something reported on the forum a while ago, maybe a court case, something about a fire extinguisher service engineer being pulled by a judge for not reporting a deficiency in the level of cover because it was an expectation of him as an expert Something like that.
Anyone?

Sounds like the Church v Chubb Fire civil case where the original Judge who awarded for the church said something along the lines of the engineer should have warned the church about the severe secondary damage from Powder and suggested alternatives and because he didn't then Chubb were liable for the many thousands of pounds worth of damage to their organ after a malicious discharge.

Chubb got the decision overturned  at appeal, but the case does appear to have influenced part of the new BS5306-8

I remember that one AB and no it wasn't it.