Misleading FRA's

[colin todd]

Retters, I have read Old Tam's post and I reiterate that he is right plus I am aware of a case where it was indeed the line the FRs took.  Could the bottle of Talisker you supply please be the 57 degree North version if that is ok.

[Midland Retty]

Nope it could not unless of course you give me the detailsof the case you speak of Uncle Col inwhich case I'd be pleased to stand corrected

[nearlythere]

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

Yes and that's done when all the boxes are ticked.

[Midland Retty]

Not necessarily NT, there may be other works still required and the Inspector has simply been able to organise temporary measures.

[Tom Sutton]

Middy I agree it’s not the EO job to catch rogue traders but when she/he find on an audit, a FR assessor has put relevant persons at risk of being seriously hurt or killed, a prosecution should be considered. I accept it will not happen very often but when it does the FRS should act, which will at least put a shot across the bows of the cowboy assessors.

I also accept when you go after a FR assessor the RP is involved as well, because he/she is responsible for all articles 8 to 24, but the RP could invoke art 33 which could mean you may have to let the RP off the hook but that doesn't mean the assessor cannot be charged alone.

As for Trading Standards I am not sure about that but if it did work it would be worth considering.

[colin todd]

Fraud Squad, Take a look at most English so called Unwanted alarms policies and all will be clear. You could do worse than start at that of Merseyside, but to be honest you can take your pick other than Bucks and London.

[Meerkat]

The problem with the "tick box" approach which I come across often is that it does not require the assessor to then demonstrate any actual knowledge.  So you get the question "is the means of escape adequate for the the type of premises?" and the assessor has blindly ticked "yes".  Then I come along to review it some years later and I haven't the faintest idea how they came to that conclusion.  If I were answering that question I would go on to describe the means of escape, say why it is judged adequate, then identify any possible issues that might jeopardise it, etc, etc.  My way takes about 6 times as long.  Maybe that's how the cowboys get away with charging £100 for a FRA...   

I totally agree that when such inadequate assessments are found, the assessor should at the very least get their cage rattled, otherwise what's to stop them going blindly on the same way for ever?

[nearlythere]

The problem with the "tick box" approach which I come across often is that it does not require the assessor to then demonstrate any actual knowledge.  So you get the question "is the means of escape adequate for the the type of premises?" and the assessor has blindly ticked "yes".  Then I come along to review it some years later and I haven't the faintest idea how they came to that conclusion.  If I were answering that question I would go on to describe the means of escape, say why it is judged adequate, then identify any possible issues that might jeopardise it, etc, etc.  My way takes about 6 times as long.  Maybe that's how the cowboys get away with charging £100 for a FRA...   

I totally agree that when such inadequate assessments are found, the assessor should at the very least get their cage rattled, otherwise what's to stop them going blindly on the same way for ever?

Is it not a requirement in the 2005 Order that existing fire safety measures have to be identified and included in the assessment? And something a bit more that a "yes" tick. I feel I have to blame the tick sheet culture for the decline in standards and certainly yes, this is reflected in the price. Is it not also the case that some of those providing fire risk assessment courses are at the heart of the problem by churning out insta fire safety experts in a matter of a few days? I do know of people whose current businesses are not doing so well have mentioned going an a short course and getting into fire risk assessments. So much for the drive for accreditation.

[Davo]

NT

surely you cannot criticise tick box FRAs 


davo

[Fraudley]

[Is it not a requirement in the 2005 Order that existing fire safety measures have to be identified and included in the assessment? And something a bit more that a "yes" tick. I feel I have to blame the tick sheet culture for the decline in standards and certainly yes, this is reflected in the price. Is it not also the case that some of those providing fire risk assessment courses are at the heart of the problem by churning out insta fire safety experts in a matter of a few days? I do know of people whose current businesses are not doing so well have mentioned going an a short course and getting into fire risk assessments. So much for the drive for accreditation.
[/quote]

If the powers that be ammend the legislation to include a paragraph on tick boxes NOT being acceptable, and to support the fact, any information leaflets or guidance notes state the same, then those commissioning risk assessors will know to expect better. If the legislation stated clearly that a risk assessment MUST detail the whats, the whys and the hows, then many of these cowboys would soon become unstuck, and it would be far easier to hold them accountable.

As always these are just my personal thoughts and not those of my employer.

[nearlythere]

NT

surely you cannot criticise tick box FRAs 
davo

Yes I can.
Don't do it. Have never done it. Will never do it. But those who do can carry on.

[Midland Retty]

Middy I agree it’s not the EO job to catch rogue traders but when she/he find on an audit, a FR assessor has put relevant persons at risk of being seriously hurt or killed, a prosecution should be considered. I accept it will not happen very often but when it does the FRS should act, which will at least put a shot across the bows of the cowboy assessors.

I also accept when you go after a FR assessor the RP is involved as well, because he/she is responsible for all articles 8 to 24, but the RP could invoke art 33 which could mean you may have to let the RP off the hook but that doesn't mean the assessor cannot be charged alone.

As for Trading Standards I am not sure about that but if it did work it would be worth considering.

Totally agree Tom, there will absolutely be cases where the FRS should (and must) act, but in the context of the issues discussed within this thread the FRS can not routinely be responsible to catch the "Rogue Trader" element who rip RPs off by charging thousands for meaningless assessments. And you are of course absolutely right that an assessor can be prosecuted alone without the RP being collared too but in any event an investigation will involve the RP initially.

[Steven N]

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.

I wish i was as eloquent as you  perfect!

[lyledunn]

We'll then, why don't you experts come up with a FRA template that would require a descriptive response rather than a tick box? it wouldn't be too difficult to base it on pas79. Promote it as an exemplar from a consolidated panel of experts and perhaps the 75 quid FRA will go away. I am involved in electrical installation inspection and testing. I kicked the industry-standard tick box forms in to touch long time since. My reports are descriptive and presented in a clear understandable way. Yes I have to deal with the 75 quid opposition. Sometimes I lose out but so what.

[longjohn]

Interesting thread.
Maybe the answer is that ALL fire risk assessments have to be sent to the local fire authority (with a fee of course to cover the admin)  then a department could be set up containing some of the self-righteous holier than thou sorts (assessors and IO’s who appear on this site)  who could spend their time going through the assessments and rejecting the crap ones in an instant and you could sit and talk about the good old days when fire certificates were the baby of the fire authority and you all had such control and things were so much better then!