NI care home sector given clear advice.

[kurnal]

Well yes I can see the benefits but is gold plating or adding "bolt ons" to regulations by another agency - one that does not have primary responsibility for the enforcement of those regulations-a sensible way forward?

What would happen if someone does refuse? They dont need to choose to mount a legal challenge, they just stand by their fire risk assessment that has not been carried out by a person on a register,  Would RQIA try to enforce it? And under what powers? Just asking!

[DavyFire]

Kurnal,
         The 'Rosepark fire' was a wake up call in regards to fire safety in residential premises. There are many lessons to be learned. It appears RQIA have focused on the report and have made their conclusions. Obviously they do not enforce fire safety legislation, but, again from experience they call the shots. If they deem a premises not to comply with the HTM's or other issues then the premises is not registered and cannot function. I had experience of consulting engineers who decided they had a better understanding of the HTM's and basically said the RQIA didn't know what they were talking about. I know who decided when the premises complied.

[DavyFire]

To put the record straight. I don't work for the RQIA or have any direct connection. After years of putting fires out, now doing my bit to educate people and prevent fires if I can

[nearlythere]

Are there many in NI with third party assurance of competence? I know of one but if he employs someone to carry out the assessments is that it being done by a person with third party assurance of competence?

[nearlythere]

Just to make sure that nobody tries to take advantage of this new policy we would need to put it out there that this applies to FRAs and reviews only. We wouldn't want them telling homes that it is only they can carry out training and reviewing Evacuation Strategies and Fire Safety Management Plans as well and pushing prices through the roof.

If RQIA is recommending, as I have read, that it is done by a person with third party assurance how can they check for compliance? They do not have to comply do they?

[kurnal]

This is exactly the point NT.

The letter states "Subsequently as of 1 April 2014, I would ask providers to ensure that all new fire risk assessments and those due for review are so carried out by a person, or, preferably, a company, holding appropriate registration or certification, such as outlined above.

No problem so far as far as I am concerned. Its the last line that brings the problem.

"RQIA inspectors will seek confirmation of this during regular inspection activity."

What will they do if they dont? The letter would be fine with me but for that line because it implies enforcement of something for which there are no legal powers to enforce and no indication of the sanctions that will be applied in the event of non-compliance. Its not been thought through. They are using the  old Bluff and Persuasion Act 1876 again.

[nearlythere]

I am of the opinion that RQIA do not want to be involved in the technicalities of the FRA and the contents, therefore it will be satisfied when it sees the front page flying an accreditation banner. I have experience of its fire safety knowledge, or rather non knowledge, already.

And yes, as you say, if it is only a recommendation how is it enforced? Will the RQIA have to look through it to determine if it is suitable and sufficient or not? Or, if not done by an accredited assessor will the assumption be that it is not suitable by default?

What happens then? Is it passed to FRS for it's determination?

The Fire & Rescue Service has been auditing assessments for many yonks now and very little enforcement has ensued.

I am suspicious of the wording of the letter. The underlining of the word "company" on the second page and the use of the word "preferably" is indicative of someone who views the sole trader as someone who could not possibly have or gain the level of accreditation necessary to carry out a suitable assessment and should "preferably" not be considered as a competent person.
Why so?

[nearlythere]

So from further examination of the letter it would seem that if I go for accreditation to carry on my work at residential homes it could well be a waste of time and money as RQIA is advising home owners to "preferably" use companies to carry out or review their FRAs.

As will the word "recommendation" in the letter be enforced so will the word "preferably".

[colin todd]

Nearly, if you are carrying out FRAs on a commercial basis you are a company. If your compnay is certificated under a scheme such as BAFE SP 205 then you are fine. And the time given by RQIA is to allow themj time to comply BUT also for those working in NI to become certificated.

As Davey says, the final sanction is that registration could be jeopordised.  I am not sure why Kurnal thinks that TPC is gold plating, however, given that he supports TPC.

[kurnal]

Colin I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Recommending companies with TPC is fine with me.

But suggesting that this is enforceable by saying that inspectors will be checking for it is gold plating the legislation because it implies it is mandatory when the Government has been clear form the outset it will not be. I repeat:

"RQIA inspectors will seek confirmation of this during regular inspection activity."

What will they do if the RP does not comply? This statement implies enforcement of something for which there are no legal powers to enforce and no gives no  indication of the sanctions that would be  applied in the event of non-compliance. In any other situation you would be jumping up and down and offering to represent people when those dreadful civil servants / fire officers etc served an improper notice.

I contend that your suggestion that the RP can mount a legal appeal is irrelevant. There is nothing to appeal against - any letter or notice would be a worthless paper tiger. You would just ignore it and then if necessary sue the issuer for wasting your time.

[colin todd]

Big Al, it was DCLG who said it would not be mandatory. They have no remit to even tell you the time of day outside ENGLAND (and if they did I would double check the info with the speaking clock), nor do they have any remit to deal with care legislation.

And they certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with the The Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 or regulations made thereunder; the nursing homes regs (NI) 2005 and the res care homes regs (NI) 2005. Under the latter RQIA issued stat notices within the last few months alone re fire safety and the requirements to have means for detecting and containing fire etc. One notice required the appropriate person to comply wtih the findings of the FRA.

To the extent I am being obtuse (which I wasnt) you are being parochial. There is a world beyond england and english legislation and an english government department that is in disarray and cant even cope with website changes.  I think they do flights from east mids airport should you wish to discover it and should Mrs K wish to trust the life of her Big Al to Fly(MAY)BE. You can probably see the runway from your 80 storey office block in matlock bath, where the bluff and persuasion act 1876 has probably never been formally repealed (much as the french legislation that makes me an honorary frenchman because of my scottish parentage-it must be tru cos you read it on firenet).

[nearlythere]

Nearly, if you are carrying out FRAs on a commercial basis you are a company. If your compnay is certificated under a scheme such as BAFE SP 205 then you are fine. And the time given by RQIA is to allow themj time to comply BUT also for those working in NI to become certificated.

Thanks for that clarification Mr Todd. Appreciated.
It must be difficult for you to soar like an eagle when you are working with us turkeys?

[kurnal]

Thanks Colin I have looked briefly at the Regulations to which you refer and will take another look in depth later. The enforcement of fire safety standards by two parallel agencies is difficult. Where this arises under other Legislation there are safeguards to protect the RP including consultation between the parties involved or protocols to be followed. There appear to be no such safeguards from my quick scan of the documents?

What would happen if both agencies issued notices for the same thing at the same time with different timescales for compliance? Surely the primary legislation for fire safety should be used for the enforcement of fire safety matters.

[kurnal]

It must be difficult for you to soar like an eagle when you are working with us turkeys?

Toddy? Soar?

Are you sure you didnt mean sore?

[nearlythere]

It must be difficult for you to soar like an eagle when you are working with us turkeys?

Toddy? Soar?

Are you sure you didnt mean sore?

Sorry. I like Dotty blame the schools.