NEW GUIDE FOR PUBLIC SHOWING SOURCES OF COMPETENT FIRE RISK ASSESSORS

[Kelsall]

The Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council recommends the use of fire risk assessment companies, including sole traders, which are third party certificated to appropriate schemes operated by Certification Bodies which have been UKAS accredited to certificate against such schemes.

FRACC could mean Fire Risk Accreditation, Colin Clueless!


I am sorry Colin but to say that an accredited competent person’s scheme is not allowed is ridiculous and unfortunately for you, the wording is clear; appropriate UKAS accredited schemes. You think it means only 45011 schemes because that’s the FIA stance and that’s actually what you said at the meeting. I don’t recall anyone agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. If you wanted 45011 you should have had it written in. But with UKAS in the room and DCLG that wouldn’t have happened in my opinion.

You can’t exclude a scheme that is written to comply with an international standard, the competence standard and is accredited by the UK governments own appointed accreditation body. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense to say it isn’t suitable. Next time there is a revision, just see if you can get that clarified and get the council only to recommend 45011 schemes. In fact, do it now ask the council to clarify that 17024 schemes are not appropriate and the statement above doesn’t include them.

The FIA are looking at a training scheme for fire risk assessors and on the back of that training they are looking at competent person’s certification. Hey go figure that one Col.

BANG! It’s a wonder you have any toes left.


Stop sniping Colin and look at the bigger picture!

The aim here is to make a difference and protect the duty holder from the bad and ugly fire risk assessors who are running around buildings with tick lists and have no idea what they are looking at or why. The most assured way of offering protection is through appropriate accredited certification schemes. To encourage people on to schemes that are appropriate there needs to be a choice of scheme and a unified approach, plus a hell of a lot of work by stake holders. To make a difference you actually have to make some tough decisions which I am afraid haven’t been made. Those who have certification need to be wary of Colin and the FIA who seem to think that their club is the be all and end all of fire risk assessment.  Where I have seen that before, IFE perhaps! Whilst we are on to the IFE haven’t you just condemned their register to death? Whilst on that topic aren’t you still involved with that register? Isn’t your position with them now untenable?  I know you are a thick skinned narcissist but even you can’t hold two so contradictory views.  

[ian gough]

All very interesting.

And Wee B makes an comment that gives more food for thought.

However, what would be really good is for 'competant' fire risk assessors to recommend third party certificated contractors. The rest of the fire industry could possibly then benefit from their own respective schemes that have been in place for some time.

[colin todd]

I love it when you rant Kelsall. For you always make yourself look so silly. You reproduce something from the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council and then rant about how ridiculous it is and blame me for it.  This would seem to ignore the fact that you were at the meeting that approved the wording, so by implication it is something that those employing you to attend agreed with that you are ranting about. How ridiculous is that.

And who said any scheme is not to use your words, allowed.  Allowed by whom for what.

If YOU wanted something else, YOU should have said so at the meeting, but I recall you were uncharacteristically quiet.

Person certification is a half way house to company certiifcation. The IFE Register lives on and grows from strength to strength.

So, let me get this right, the IFE, who have been in the fire business since 1918, the FIA who have been around as previous trade associations for donkeys years (and I who haver been in the profession for 38 years)-everyone is wrong other than you who have been dabbling in the fringes of fire safety for five minutes. You even rant at poor Piggers, probably because he is my good chum.  How arrogant is that. I keep apologising and sympathising that no one wants to buy your certification schemes but it is not all my fault, honestly.

Ps I didnt understand the reference to writing BIS policy-has something happened that I should know about.

PPs, no offence intended but your spelling is appalling.  There is only one p in sniping and look up the dictionary before attempting difficult words such as narcissist (no s on the end).

[Kelsall]

Text book answer, absolutely text book; even down to suggesting inexperience and arrogance. The best one I think is drawing attention to a weakness; a couple of typing errors. Deflection, discrediting and a suggestion that I pick on piggy because he is you chum. Honestly you couldn’t be more narcissistic if you set out to post a reply that demonstrated the traits of a narcissist. I urge you to use a dictionary to look up the definition of narcissism actually it would be fun for other forum users to do it and see if they recognise characteristics from your posts. Regardless of my opinion of you or yours of mine the thread theme should be given some attention.


Fortunately when I did come in to the fire safety profession in 2007 I had the most amazing mentor who taught me many things. First and foremost was that you should be in fire safety to make a difference. Which is exactly what I believe in and your ‘sales’ tag is annoying only because it is so far from the reality.

One of the earliest lessons I learnt from him was that committees, councils and bodies don’t always deliver what they need to deliver because of the nature of the way they do things and because of the shear number of people involve. What you end up with is a halfway house, a semi solution, an acceptable to most, a non offensive solution that in the end doesn’t resolve the issue it was intended to resolve. I believe that what the industry has produced will not resolve the issue of ‘cowboys’ in fact it could make their lot a happier one. I don’t believe it will encourage the weak assessors to gain certification and I actually think that because some harsh decisions have been ducked by the industry; those who buy in to certification will be wasting their money. I may be wrong, but from six years of looking at this on a daily basis; I think what has been done is too late, too weak, has too little focus and it will not have sufficient additional support to succeed.

[Tom W]

So at the competency council meeting

did you

A) Not mention your opinion in respect to wording

or

B) Mention your opinion but it was not accepted by the rest of the council?

There is nothing wrong with being inexperienced Kel, for a few years I had the pleasure of sitting on the FIAs risk assessment council chaired by the 24th most influential person in fire and security. My 9 years experience was not a patch on what most had achieved around that table so I listened to my peers. I didn't attack them on anything I felt was wrong, I offered an opinion and listened to their explanation which generally excelled my knowledge. Its not to say I didn't bring anything to the table, everyone has their place but when you talk about your mentor in such high esteem perhaps you should show the same respect to some on here. Especially as you are hoping they will be your customers.

[colin todd]

I hereby confirm that Piggers always listened and was always extremely polite. The boy will go far.

[Kelsall]

Just had a meeting with the most influential person in the fire sector and there is definitely mutual respect between us; in fact he even gave me a couple of compliments for some of the work I have done recently.

Unfortunately piggers if you give 'it' you have to be willing to take 'it'. Regardless of experience or reputation; there shouldn’t be immunity on that basis. 

Respect needs to be earned, which I have done with many in the industry; but unfortunately when there is a difference to be made there has to be a bit of honesty. I can fully see why a new person in the industry shouting loudly isn't welcome, albeit with very good intentions. But believe me when I say this, I am very confident that I have followed this issue closer than anyone else in the UK over the last 5 years; there has been no improvement in the issue of competence of fire risk assessors, in fact I would say it is marginally worse. Will the measures the industry has put in place help? No, the market forces will not change just with the introduction of these two documents. It won't happen in my opinion because the pull from the top (the duty holder) will not be created in any significant way. Therefore those who have invested in certification for possible market advantage will experience a marginal increase. Those with no hope of being certificated will not be removed from the service provider pool; especially in these tough economic times. If I am right the cowboy element will not suffer and the whole exercise was a waste of time and money. I appreciate there will be certificated firms to choose but those with it were not the cowboys in the first place. Thankfully for us all, the new hot topic in the fire industry will be unwanted fire signals and competence of fire risk assessors will be forgotten in a few months.

[colin todd]

Closer than anyone in the UK?? My goodness me. Self praise is praise indeed.  Could the honourable genteman for the Wirral tell the House what objective evidence he has that FRAs are getting worse. 

And with regard to making a difference, I respectfully suggest that many here have made more of a difference on  a Sunday afternoon that you have made in your whole 5 years on the remote fringes of fire safety.

[William 29]

Just had a meeting with the most influential person in the fire sector and there is definitely mutual respect between us; in fact he even gave me a couple of compliments for some of the work I have done recently.

Unfortunately piggers if you give 'it' you have to be willing to take 'it'. Regardless of experience or reputation; there shouldn’t be immunity on that basis. 

Respect needs to be earned, which I have done with many in the industry; but unfortunately when there is a difference to be made there has to be a bit of honesty. I can fully see why a new person in the industry shouting loudly isn't welcome, albeit with very good intentions. But believe me when I say this, I am very confident that I have followed this issue closer than anyone else in the UK over the last 5 years; there has been no improvement in the issue of competence of fire risk assessors, in fact I would say it is marginally worse. Will the measures the industry has put in place help? No, the market forces will not change just with the introduction of these two documents. It won't happen in my opinion because the pull from the top (the duty holder) will not be created in any significant way. Therefore those who have invested in certification for possible market advantage will experience a marginal increase. Those with no hope of being certificated will not be removed from the service provider pool; especially in these tough economic times. If I am right the cowboy element will not suffer and the whole exercise was a waste of time and money. I appreciate there will be certificated firms to choose but those with it were not the cowboys in the first place. Thankfully for us all, the new hot topic in the fire industry will be unwanted fire signals and competence of fire risk assessors will be forgotten in a few months.

Kel, please tell us all then what your solution to a competent assessor or company is and what scheme(s) and/or risk register(s) you are saying would demonstrate an accepted level of competence? 

[colin todd]

Willie, as a stakeholder in the FRACC guide he has implicitly already told us, surely.  The answer (for the moment) is BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice, as selected by Willie's Fire Risk Assessors extraordinaire.

[William 29]

Willie, as a stakeholder in the FRACC guide he has implicitly already told us, surely.  The answer (for the moment) is BAFE SP 205, the scheme of choice, as selected by Willie's Fire Risk Assessors extraordinaire.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about then 

[kurnal]

Neither do I William. There should not be a monopoly of company schemes - there is a choice in the extinguishing sector and in the alarms sector and it is right that there should be a choice of schemes in the fire risk assessment sector. A monopoly is always a bad thing even one underwritten by UKAS. We need choice and competition - not only in respect of CBs but also in respect of schemes. Unforunately compared to other sectors the market place is too small for more players at present - it shouldn't be but it is still early days. The whole thing needs to be driven and publicised harder from the top and from the bottom- Government, enforcers and by the companies themselves.

[colin todd]

Willie, I think the fuss is about commercial considerations and selling certification schemes, and the majority view of the profession that the end game for making the difference that Kel purports to want is COMPANY certification. Does this help you to understand.

[William 29]

Willie, I think the fuss is about commercial considerations and selling certification schemes, and the majority view of the profession that the end game for making the difference that Kel purports to want is COMPANY certification. Does this help you to understand.

So nothing to do with the main talking point of competence then.

[Kelsall]

Closer than anyone in the UK?    ? My goodness me. Self praise is praise indeed.  

This coming from a man who has more self love than a catholic priest!


Could the honourable genteman for the Wirral tell the House what objective evidence he has that FRAs are getting worse.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence from many sources and evidence that price not competence is the driver for many recent tenders. I asked the question on the forum and some members suggested that 40% of their work is completing fire risk assessments when the initial assessment was unsatisfactory. The IRMP returns suggest that non compliance under article 9 is reducing however as the buildings are inspected on a risk based approach you would expect some reduction in the headline figure; although some have gone up. Factories are up from 1544 (09/10) to 1653 (10/11)   Hospitals 118 to 127. Granted they did more inspection but still all those hospitals have been visited before

And with regard to making a difference, I respectfully suggest that many here have made more of a difference on a Sunday afternoon that you have made in your whole 5 years on the remote fringes of fire safety. I didn’t say I had made a difference; but that there was a difference to be made to protect the RP. This offering isn’t it in my opinion.