Misleading FRA's

[Tom Sutton]

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.

That was not the case in David Liu and John O’Rourke; relevant persons were only potentially at risk. http://www.notts-fire.gov.uk/E82166F5397D4F13AC31AB7F54E4CFB4.asp

[Midland Retty]

Indeed Tom, but this involved a case where the assessor and the RP were prosecuted, and there is a difference between that and the debate on this thread where it is suggested that action is taken directly at a risk assessor, and not the RP.

[Tom Sutton]

Midders my point was the RP or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) ( Assessor) only has to put relevant persons at risk and they would not have to be hurt or killed for a prosecution to be considered.

32. - (1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—
(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;

[colin todd]

Retters, Old Tam is right on this occasion.  It did not matter that Notts also went after the RP.  If they felt like it they could have gone after poor old Mr o'R in isolation. Now that they dont go to fires unless you can assure them that there are flames coming out of all the windows and can see them from your ARC 500 miles away, they will have even more time on their hands to chase after prosecutuons.

[Midland Retty]

No he is not Sir Col read Tams quote again and then when you are ready ill be more than happy to accept your offer of apology by agreeing to supply me with a years worth of Talisker.Simples.

[Mike Buckley]

'(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;'

Oh boy, how are you going to prove that? I can see hours of argument in courts as to exactly what is serious injury and whether the failure placed anyone at risk. The lawyers will love this one.

[Tom Sutton]

Mike they did in Nottinghamshire and they both defendants got 8 months.

Please explain further Midders for an old fart like me, I mean nobody else. Incidentally the charge against Mr John O’Rourke read,

Is responsible under Article 5(3) failed to comply with Article 9(1) failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to which relevant persons were exposed. (same charge for both hotels)

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tom

Sorry I should point out you were both legally and technically correct in your post which referred to Article 5(3) / 32(1), however proving such an offence has been committed is a different kettle of fish for several reasons.

In the Nottingham case the RP was prosecuted along with the assessor. However I do not believe you would ever get a prosecution solely against a risk assessor without the RP getting collared too.

This thread is talking about shoddy assessors who keep winging it, and keep trading, churning out poor assessments, and the question was asked "Why aren't fire authorities tackling poor risk assessors?" The answer is how would they do it? Particularly where no one has been injured or killed?

If we play arm chair lawyers, the answer should be simple "of course fire authorities can and should chase after these dodgy assessors" because the RR(FS)Order says they can.

But is the spirit of the Order to have fire officers chasing after dodgy assessors in this manner or is this type of enforcement fall more into the Trading Standards camp, because the lines are somewhat blurry. Also you have to ask would fire authorities have the resources to chase after every dodgy assessor they came across.

The fire officer's primary role is to ensure premises comply with fire safety legislation, not catch rogue traders, thats more Trading Standards territory.

I would suggest Trading Standards teams would be more effective at combating dodgy or reckless assessors in the way that many on this thread would want. They would I am sure secure a better hit rate on dodgy assessors, in cases of course where no one was injured or killed.

[nearlythere]

Hi Tom

Sorry I should point out you were both legally and technically correct in your post which referred to Article 5(3) / 32(1), however proving such an offence has been committed is a different kettle of fish for several reasons.

In the Nottingham case the RP was prosecuted along with the assessor. However I do not believe you would ever get a prosecution solely against a risk assessor without the RP getting collared too.

This thread is talking about shoddy assessors who keep winging it, and keep trading, churning out poor assessments, and the question was asked "Why aren't fire authorities tackling poor risk assessors?" The answer is how would they do it? Particularly where no one has been injured or killed?

If we play arm chair lawyers, the answer should be simple "of course fire authorities can and should chase after these dodgy assessors" because the RR(FS)Order says they can.

But is the spirit of the Order to have fire officers chasing after dodgy assessors in this manner or is this type of enforcement fall more into the Trading Standards camp, because the lines are somewhat blurry. Also you have to ask would fire authorities have the resources to chase after every dodgy assessor they came across.

The fire officer's primary role is to ensure premises comply with fire safety legislation, not catch rogue traders, thats more Trading Standards territory.

I would suggest Trading Standards teams would be more effective at combating dodgy or reckless assessors in the way that many on this thread would want. They would I am sure secure a better hit rate on dodgy assessors, in cases of course where no one was injured or killed.

Midders. Would you not need the enforcement authority to consider the assessments not suitable and sufficient first? How would TS know if they were S&S unless they had a competent person or body to advise them?
Do you see the use of TS by way of a complaint from the RP if his FRA is rejected by the EO as not being S&S?

[Midland Retty]

Yes that's how I would see it working, also Fire Authorities could send through referrals to TS (Although I think the RP would have to be asked if they want to pursue it before TS would take any action / make investigations!)

[Auntie LIn]

Something else to throw into the mix is that at least one brigade, which inspects small premises (where the owner was more than competent to identify the risks within their building and provide the strategy for dealing with them) and then tells the RP that their evaluation is rubbish and that they MUST buy an online assessment which tries to cover every available building type from a market stall to the headquarters of GCHQ.   The cynic in me says that the brigade gets a cut of the price of this annual ripoff.

[nearlythere]

Something else to throw into the mix is that at least one brigade, which inspects small premises (where the owner was more than competent to identify the risks within their building and provide the strategy for dealing with them) and then tells the RP that their evaluation is rubbish and that they MUST buy an online assessment which tries to cover every available building type from a market stall to the headquarters of GCHQ.   The cynic in me says that the brigade gets a cut of the price of this annual ripoff.

If that happened Auntie Lin then whoever gave that "Must" advice was completely out of order. I know that IOs do, by way of friendly advice, point RPs towards a means of resolution which can be either online or by using an Assessor. I also know that IOs do want the matter cleared asap so that they can get on with meeting their monthly targets and not spending endless hours chasing RPs for a proper assessment. Hence why some will suggest those assessors that can be trusted to produce the goods. IOs like to go in, tick the appropriate boxes and leave happy - job done.

[Midland Retty]

Hmm don't quite agree with you there NT but Ok the I/O and Brigade you refer to Auntie LIn is completely out of order, and frankly ought to be taken to task over it, if its true.

[nearlythere]

Hmm don't quite agree with you there NT but Ok the I/O and Brigade you refer to Auntie LIn is completely out of order, and frankly ought to be taken to task over it, if its true.

Why don't you agree Midders?

[Midland Retty]

Just that the process of audit takes as long as it takes there has to be due process otherwise the authority can get blasted in court, and risk assessments get chased all the time, its just the way it is, they'd prefer not to but they don't go round saying "Go to Joe Bloggs he will get you an assessment done quick 

Inspectors shouldn't recommend any particular company individual or product.

The only time inspectors leave happy is when they prevented imminent danger of death or serious injury.