When you think the Fire Officer is wrong,,,,,,,

[CWEENG]

When you think the Fire Officer is wrong,,,,,,,

When you think / know the fire officer is wrong, and what he is asking of the “Responsible Person” is wrong, and he is not for budging.

Any tips and tricks, how to deal with them without rocking the boat "to much" and coming out with a “ win win “ situation. In the end of the day we all have to work together in the industry?

Any thoughts, experiences useful tips ?

[nearlythere]

When you think the Fire Officer is wrong,,,,,,,

When you think / know the fire officer is wrong, and what he is asking of the “Responsible Person” is wrong, and he is not for budging.

Any tips and tricks, how to deal with them without rocking the boat "to much" and coming out with a “ win win “ situation. In the end of the day we all have to work together in the industry?

Any thoughts, experiences useful tips ?

A word you have used is "asking". He could be right or could be wrong. You first have to establish if the "ask" is reasonable. Is it? Experience is important here as some IOs act like style policemen. Sometimes IOs are right. They may just have poor people skills.

[Firey Fellow]

Any IO worth their salt should be happy to explain the measures they are asking the RP to implement .They should not become hostile when asked to explain or justify their requirements.if the IO won't explain or won't  budge you should:

a) Ask the IO about the RPs right to appeal or challenge their requirements
b) Ask what level of enforcement is being applied (formal or informal)
c) Ask IO for name of his direct line manager as you may want a second opinion

At the end of the day the IO may be right, may be wrong, however that said they should be open to discussion and engage with the RP in a professional and polite manner. So long as you do likewise with the IO I would hope they reciprocate. If they do not a complaint should be made to their line manager / officer in charge.

[kurnal]

I agree with all of the above and as we are all human and occasionally subject to misperceptions I would also recommend confirming your own standpoint by asking a friend for a second opinion. If  trusted peer agrees with you then proceed down Fairy Fellows route.

[William 29]

Plenty of experience of this up and down the Country with differing IO's. A bit more on the specific details would help but in general unless the "request" is in an enforcement notice I tend not to get too involved as it just makes matters worse. If an FRA has been completed then I simply get the IO to refer to that, if he/she is not happy then they can discuss alternatives but the burden in my view is on the IO to explain and/or justify why the approach in the FRA is not acceptable and the associate risk. This tends to be something they are reluctant (or can't do) as the notices I come across provide very little detail other than stating which Article of the RRO has been breached.  If an FRA has not been conducted you haven't got anything to negotiate with.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Any IO worth their salt should be happy to explain the measures they are asking the RP to implement .They should not become hostile when asked to explain or justify their requirements.if the IO won't explain or won't  budge you should:

a) Ask the IO about the RPs right to appeal or challenge their requirements
b) Ask what level of enforcement is being applied (formal or informal)
c) Ask IO for name of his direct line manager as you may want a second opinion

At the end of the day the IO may be right, may be wrong, however that said they should be open to discussion and engage with the RP in a professional and polite manner. So long as you do likewise with the IO I would hope they reciprocate. If they do not a complaint should be made to their line manager / officer in charge.

This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.

Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.

Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.

[William 29]

This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.

Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.

Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.



Good points DD, but how does this approach fit with the enforcement concordat and being helpful, open and transparent? If the FRS took this approach to community fire safety or operational advice I think they would be inundated with complaints.

[Dinnertime Dave]

This IO completely agrees, happy to explain and listen to other opinions. Some IO won't in my experience mainly through lack of experience.

Also some FRS will only send generic type notices. i.e "the fire risk assessment is not suitable and sufficient" with a solution of "the fire fire risk assessment should be suitable and sufficient" there might only be one small section that isn't right but they leave it to the RP to fathom it out on their own.

Generally, most businesses want advice, it isn't a guessing game where only the IO knows the answer.



Good points DD, but how does this approach fit with the enforcement concordat and being helpful, open and transparent? If the FRS took this approach to community fire safety or operational advice I think they would be inundated with complaints.

Well, my approach fits in with the concordat or the Regulators compliance code. Not sure how the generic type notice does.

 But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken. Personally it doesn't  help anybody, but by the nature of this forum the ones that are willing to help will offer advice/opinions on here the one that won't keep away.

[colin todd]

I think Big Al should run a competition, for the best punchline to "When you think the fire officer is wrong............"  First prize a half hour counselling with the old boy.  Booby prize, living with him in Bathmat Lock for a week.

My first offer is:

"When you think the fire officer is wrong.................. you are probably right, unless you are in Scotland."

[Mike Buckley]

But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken

I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.

If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!

[nearlythere]

But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken

I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.

If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!

Agree Mike. Just like an MOT you will get a report of a particular defect but nothing officially as to how to fix it. The defect may not actually be caused by something that is broken.

[Dinnertime Dave]

But I am aware of some that say it's not my job to tell you how to fix it just to tell you that it's broken

I would agree under the new regime it is not the job of the IO to tell you how to fix it, however it should be the job of the IO to tell you what exactly is wrong.

If my car won't go I expect a bit more from a motoring organisation than to be told 'Yes you've broken down'!

Agree Mike. Just like an MOT you will get a report of a particular defect but nothing officially as to how to fix it.
The defect may not actually be caused by something that is broken.

My notices always give one acceptable solution. But they also indicate that other solutions may be acceptable but discuss first.

[wee brian]

As a BCO we were warned that giving specific advice on solutions was not our job and so any liability from doing so could fall on us and not our employers.

I think the fire service do have a stat duty to advise so its a different situation but you still have to be a bit careful.

An over zelous EHO working in the same borough as me was brought to task by a restaurateur (who had got some advice) and the council ended up paying for all the unncessary work that had been "required" by said EHO.

[Firey Fellow]

Ok, but by the same token anyone in an advisory or enforcement role should be competent and thus able to justify their actions should there ever be cause for them to be questioned.

[nearlythere]

As a BCO we were warned that giving specific advice on solutions was not our job and so any liability from doing so could fall on us and not our employers.

I think the fire service do have a stat duty to advise so its a different situation but you still have to be a bit careful.

An over zelous EHO working in the same borough as me was brought to task by a restaurateur (who had got some advice) and the council ended up paying for all the unncessary work that had been "required" by said EHO.

That the danger WB. Much better to leave to consultants.