NEW GUIDE FOR PUBLIC SHOWING SOURCES OF COMPETENT FIRE RISK ASSESSORS

[colin todd]

Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused.  UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin.  But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.

Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???

Or put it another way.  Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.

Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.

hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.

[colin todd]

I must be missing something here - what's this scheme you're running Kel? 

Gazza, the Coal: Oops, did you not know?  Oh No!!!! Have I been a wobble gob again?  heck I will be in trouble again. Oh well.

[lancsfirepro]

Gazza, the Coal

lol
Come on, don't leave me in suspenders.... spill, COmpany of ODD LINT.  (I'm not good at anagrams!)

[colin todd]

I cant Gazza , I really cant. Ive said too much already............. My lips are sealed. Wild horses wont drag it out of me.  Never let it be said that I told you that.....No no I cant. Id have to kill you if I told you.

[Tom Sutton]

Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.

hence the sector has advised people to go for COMPANIES that are certificated under a UKAS accredited scheme.

SP 205 : PERSON CERTIFICATION but not by TPC but by the certificated company (or other verification of person competence). Individual FR assessors to be TPC would have to be on a register and if certificated under a UKAS is required FRACS would have to be your choice?

Not simple but unnecessarily complicated to my tiny mind, why not have it if you subject to one of the five alternatives in appendix 1 you are considered competent.

[Fishy]

Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused.  UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin.  But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.

Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???

Or put it another way.  Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.

Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.

hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.

But, to follow up on the Garage analogy - we're not talking about a one-off 'qualification' here - it's a certification scheme presumably involving both initial and on-going independent surveillance.  I really don't see the difference whether it's a named individual (who will, presumably, have to have regularly demonstrated to the CB that he/she's working within the strict rules of the relevant scheme as regards all the factors you refer to), or it's a company's name on the certificate.  To be honest, I'd instinctively feel more comfortable having the work done by an individual named and certified by an independent third party on a certificate with a UKAS logo on it, rather than trusting a company to give me someone (unnamed by any third party) whom they think I ought to be able to put my faith in. 

Surely I should trust UKAS to make sure the scheme rules are right?  If so, I really don't think it's helpful or even particularly useful for the industry to muddy the waters for the poor old RPs by saying only 'some' UKAS accredited FRA schemes are OK.

I have no axe to grind here - I don't do FRAs myself (though I have staff who do) & I'll likely never belong to any scheme - all I'm saying is that I've got about 25 years stacked up in the fire industry, & 10 years in Nuclear before that - I know this isn't a lot by some standards, but if I'm confused as to why I should be 'happier' with a Company-based scheme then I'm either a bit t'ick or the rest of the RPs are going to be just as confused as me!

[Kelsall]

As the most senior fire safety specialist working for a large RP, if I were to want to contract out fire risk assessment and if I were inclined to require TPC, I’d look for someone belonging to a relevant UKAS accredited scheme.

I really don’t care whether it’s the individual who’s registered or the Company – I’d trust UKAS to ensure that the ‘rules’ under which it accredits the CBs take the different circumstances into account, so that I have an equal degree of assurance in both cases (or what’s the point of the UKAS accreditation)?

I really can’t understand why anyone would wish to muddy the waters by recommending a particular ‘flavour’ of UKAS-accredited scheme – that’s just going to either confuse us, or more likely we’ll completely miss the distinction or we’ll simply ignore it.  If they were going to recommend UKAS-accredited schemes then they should have left it as that.

I agree!

[Kelsall]

Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused.  UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin.  But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.

Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???

Or put it another way.  Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.

Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.

hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.

Your spelling is not too good either!

[Kelsall]

Fishers, it sounds as though you are already confused.  UKAS accreditation simply ensures that the scheme does what it says on the tin.  But person certifcation and company certification say quite different things on the tin.

Imagine you take your car to the garage. The mechanic may well be qualified. but if the garage dont give him ongoing training, never surervise or check his work, never give him the latest technical circulars from the manufactuer, pay no heed to customer complaints, etc, are you as happy to go to that garage, just because the mechanic is well qualifed, as one that has well qualified mechanics and all the other management systems described above in place???

Or put it another way.  Some of the officers of a well known metropolitan fire and rescue service may have some reasonable knowledge of fire safety. But if they are not managed properly, with no quality assurance of the drivel some of them put in notices, if their ongoing training is not great, if they are not kept up to date with changes in standards, and if no one ever goes out and finds out how they perform in the field, is it any wonder that some of their work is shoddy and awful.

Put simply: PERSON CERTIFICATION (or other verification of person competence) + QUALITY MANAGEMENT = COMPANY CERTIFICATION.

hence the sctor has advised people to go for COMANIES that are certifcated under a UKAS accredited scheme.

But, to follow up on the Garage analogy - we're not talking about a one-off 'qualification' here - it's a certification scheme presumably involving both initial and on-going independent surveillance.  I really don't see the difference whether it's a named individual (who will, presumably, have to have regularly demonstrated to the CB that he/she's working within the strict rules of the relevant scheme as regards all the factors you refer to), or it's a company's name on the certificate.  To be honest, I'd instinctively feel more comfortable having the work done by an individual named and certified by an independent third party on a certificate with a UKAS logo on it, rather than trusting a company to give me someone (unnamed by any third party) whom they think I ought to be able to put my faith in. 

Surely I should trust UKAS to make sure the scheme rules are right?  If so, I really don't think it's helpful or even particularly useful for the industry to muddy the waters for the poor old RPs by saying only 'some' UKAS accredited FRA schemes are OK.

I have no axe to grind here - I don't do FRAs myself (though I have staff who do) & I'll likely never belong to any scheme - all I'm saying is that I've got aboutandards 25 years stacked up in the fire industry, & 10 years in Nuclear before that - I know this isn't a lot by some standards, but if I'm confused as to why I should be 'happier' with a Company-based scheme then I'm either a bit t'ick or the rest of the RPs are going to be just as confused as me!

Exactly so; the aim should be to get as many people on schemes that conform to British standards as possible. UKAS confirm the scheme meets these BS requirements and those on the schemes are either competent or quality assured. That said there are more checks a duty holder has to make but with either a company scheme or an individual scheme, there is an independent reference to assist in due diligence. In my opinion it was a bad choice by the FIA to only go for company certification and sadly the competence council followed the same direction. The end result will be a boost for the cowboy assessor. Too few will take the plunge with certification to make a difference. Too few duty holders will ask for it; lack of sign posting. Too many non certificated assessors will offer cheaper assessments. Too few individuals will think company schemes are for them. Too few with certification will see a commercial benefit.

All that has happened is an addition to the existing registers and schemes and the duty holder will keep being ripped off by the poor assessor due to a lack of clear advice.

Ah that's better off my chest!

Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.

[William 29]

Exactly so; the aim should be to get as many people on schemes that conform to British standards as possible. UKAS confirm the scheme meets these BS requirements and those on the schemes are either competent or quality assured. That said there are more checks a duty holder has to make but with either a company scheme or an individual scheme, there is an independent reference to assist in due diligence. In my opinion it was a bad choice by the FIA to only go for company certification and sadly the competence council followed the same direction. The end result will be a boost for the cowboy assessor. Too few will take the plunge with certification to make a difference. Too few duty holders will ask for it; lack of sign posting. Too many non certificated assessors will offer cheaper assessments. Too few individuals will think company schemes are for them. Too few with certification will see a commercial benefit.

All that has happened is an addition to the existing registers and schemes and the duty holder will keep being ripped off by the poor assessor due to a lack of clear advice.

Ah that's better off my chest!

Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.


Sorry Kel but I think you are talking rubbish, way too early to make the asumptions you have made above

[colin todd]

Sorry Kel but I think you are talking rubbish, way too early to make the asumptions you have made above

Sadly, not for the first time and with little sense of impartiality, but forgive him, Willie, cos he knows not what he does.

Please stand by for Colin's 'Kel is off his head and how dare he and he is rubbish and I am the only one who is allowed an opinion' response.   

Kel, you never do listen. Forget my opinion and the fact that you blame me personally for the success of other schemes and the back turned on your wee scheme by the industry. Listen, try to focus, just forget my opinion and listen for a moment. I will speak slowly. The_ opinion_ of 29_  stakeholders of the FRACC, _including the Government department, CFOA, all the professional bodies in the fire world and everyone else on that list is that THEY got it right by recommending company certification.  This would include a well known CB that is particularly well known to you though my good friend Gazza the Coal has not twigged that. And you were there personally when that decision was taken.!!!!!!!!!!!

And now you rubbish that decision and the buy in of the FIA to it, and the buy in of the RQIA to it.

SHEEZ!!!!!

[lancsfirepro]

Somebody had better inform "Gazza the coal" what it is I'm not privvy to or else wet tea towels will start to be used for ass whipping purposes.   (Appropriate eye protection will be worn throughout said whipping.)

[colin todd]

Gazza the Coal,  I told you my lips are sealed.  I will never tell you that, whereas I know you do your wee fire risk assessments, sell your wee extinguishers and so on, and you know I run a well known fire consulting practice that has been established for 31 years, Kel........ God I nearly told you. You tricked me into it. No, no no if I told you I would need to kill you and then who would feed the little Gazzas. Sorry, you will have to work it out for yourself.

[lancsfirepro]

Drink a bit do you Colin? 

[colin todd]

Only when the British fire service drives me to it.