Misleading FRA's

[Mike Buckley]

 'But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.'

If you can't, who can? You as an IO are representing the Enforcing Authority and have the law behind you. A body set up by the industry has no power unless it is enacted by Parliament and that is not going to happen as the FSO already gives the Enforcing Authority that role.

Without going over all the old arguments about the rights and wrongs of the FSO, the fact of the matter is that the Law is in place, it states the roles and we all have to work within the framework of the FSO, whether we like it or not.

The problem of insufficient and inadequate FRAs is not going to go away unless the Enforcing Authorities grasp the nettle and start enforcing.

[nearlythere]

But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.

Why not?


Isn't it about time there was an association that had the powers to scrutinise and assess the RA's being provided, and take the necessary action against these fraudsters?

There is. Its called the Fire and Rescue Service

[Fraudley]

'But as an IO I can't keep jumping on peoples backs because the RA is insufficient.'

If you can't, who can? You as an IO are representing the Enforcing Authority and have the law behind you. A body set up by the industry has no power unless it is enacted by Parliament and that is not going to happen as the FSO already gives the Enforcing Authority that role.

Sorry Mike I should have been more clear. What I meant by that, was when I look at an improved RA, I can either accept it, or reject it. Of course if it is still not sufficient I will reject it. The point I was trying to make is, if we as IO's keep going back over FRA's until they are S&S, the impact on the RP would rightfully be seen as harassment in some cases. For businesses that are otherwise compliant, the constant bashing of their FRA would be unfair. I totally agree that as IO's we should be in the position to remedy this situation, but it isnt feasable. I'm sure if it was, then there would be another FRS in the country taking action on a grand scale?  

[kurnal]

http://www.labc.uk.com/Media/Default/library/Technical%20Outlook%20Articles/Ol090911%20A%20timely%20warning_Fire%20risk%20assessor%20and%20hotel%20manager%20jailed%20for%20fire%20safety%20offences.pdf

That's the way to do it!

You cant fix them all overnight but the power of publicity means that you only need to make an example of the worst few and the message will soon get round.

[nearlythere]

NIFRS has a public register on its website which details current offenders including the full Notice issued. I'ts empty at the moment but there has been a number listed ijn the past.

[Steven N]

Nearly There and Anthony,thank you but I am fully aware of the powers granted to inspectors .However what Fraudley has said  is exactly what I have been trying to say in my clumsy way, its often my opinion against yours, I cannot imagine any Fire Authority  prosecuting solely for a insufficient FRA no matter what you may say and think, I doubt very much if it would pass the public interest test and trying to prove that in itself it put "person(s) at risk of death or serious injury" would be an herculean task.
I will accept that a poor FRA is often be symptomatic other problems at a premises and in the event of a fire may form part of a case against the premises.
However in the meantime a lot of shoddy FRA'S and the people doing them will continue to slip through the net.
Despite what we would like to be the case fire safety is often item 101 on the list of 100 important things a business has to do.

[colin todd]

Oh god a load of building control officers who havent got enough work because of the recession doing FRAs. Just what the world needs.

[Mike Buckley]

Fraudley and Steven N I would agree that immediate prosecution is not the best way forward.  If it is just the FRA and the rest of the building is compliant then surely what is needed is guidance and maybe a notice of deficencies which could be extended if necessary.

I suppose the real issue is what is suitable and sufficient? Back to the Fire Brigades wht do they expect to see in a FRA, personally I look for some mention of all the headlines from PAS 79 but using my common sense, for example I would excuse the absence of a comment on lightning protection for a terraced shop in Manchester but not for a 10 storey building in the middle of the fens!

[Steven N]

I happen to agree with you Mike horses for courses perhaps and using common sense and professional judgement?

[Davo]

I hope these people sleep well at night.
First thing I was taught 20 years (20 OMG) ago was "know your limits"
Apparently rule 101 was missing from their textbooks

davo

[Mike Buckley]

No it has been replaced by 'cash in my pocket' followed by 'it will never happen anyway' and finally by ' I deal with it when it happens and I'm a limited company so who cares?'

[Demontim]

Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.

Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.

[nearlythere]

Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.

Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.

Thanks for that Demon. Not sure either. Probably is somewhere.

[nearlythere]

Nearly, all enforcing authorities in England are required to keep a register of notices served under the provisions of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988.

Not sure if there is the same statutory requirement in NI or that dark place in the far north, but i'm confident the oracle will let us know.

Thanks for that Demon. Not sure either. Probably is somewhere.

Yes there it was is. The Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993

[Midland Retty]

Just reading this thread and I see both sides of the argument.

Are there two separate issues here? - a fire safety issue and a trading standards issue?

As Steven N said to bring a dangerous risk assessor to book for a poor risk assessment someone would have to be hurt or killed I would suggest (rightly or wrongly) before the public interest test would be satisfied and thus prosecution allowed to be taken forward.

However in every other scenario (no one hurt / killed) where the fire authority highlights a dodgy assessment they will advise the RP to pursue the dodgy assessor for their money back as its not suitable and sufficient, but in the meantime tell them they still need to get another fire risk assessment done at possible further expense!

Regardless of whether the RP pursues them or not, the dodgy assessor is still allowed to trade elsewhere, ripping clients off, and putting people at risk. Who can stop them? The fire authority? For the reasons above I'd suggest not unfortunately.

Were people put at risk? Yes - the dodgy assessment didn't highlight the correct fire safety measures required to keep relevant people safe! That clearly put them at risk

Was anyone hurt or killed? No! That puts the Fire Authority in limbo on whether they can take action - Therefore I'd argue that perhaps  this falls more into the jurisdiction of Trading Standards who could bring the assessor to book.