serving fire officers carrying out fire risk assessments

[Mr Ed]

I thought we were talking about off duty F&RS employees doing FRAs on their days off?
Is it not?

Nope it is the fire safety department carrying out these assessments, not off duty or retained or anything else, but fulltime serving firefighters 

[Dinnertime Dave]

Nearlythere, I don't think the answer is difficult to resolve. The RP shouldn't employ anybody to do their FRA unless registered. Whether that be an off duty fire service employee or anybody else. However, the government are trying to remove red tape from businesses so it won't happen.

Now it appears that the question has altered a little from what we have been discussing. On duty Fire safety officers carrying out FRA in schools for a fee.

[Messy]

Its not just serving firefighters doing FRAs who could be classed as having a conflict of interest, how about more formal arrangements involving their employers?

Some F&RS carry out FRAs (using their FSIO staff) on their own premises which may then be required to be audited by the same person later (especially as the WT fire stations could/should be categorised as 'sleeping risk')

DFRMO (Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation) are a part of the MoD and routinely (and officially) carry out FRAs across much of the MoD estate - and then are responsible for auditing them.

Surely the poacher & gamekeeper type conflict of interest issues which relates to DFRMO and some F&RS are far more serious than firefighters doing FS work off duty?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Surely the poacher & gamekeeper type conflict of interest issues which relates to DFRMO and some F&RS are far more serious than firefighters doing FS work off duty?

Don't understand why it is more serious. We use our IO to carry out FRA on on our premises. We used to use a premises manager to do them, but quite frankly they were rubbish.

The defence fire service aren't going to prosecute because the buildings belong to the crown.

we also ask our newly appointed IO to have a go at carrying out FRA on the premises, this gives them an understanding of how difficult doing a good FRA is in what are relatively simple buildings. We then compare with the official assessment.

 Finally, brigades are unlikely to audit these buildings, using a risk based approach they have quite low risk (we don't have a sleeping shift in our brigade) 

[Mike Buckley]

You would like to reconsider that last statement?

http://www.ifsecglobal.com/fires-fire-stations/

[Messy]

The defence fire service aren't going to prosecute because the buildings belong to the crown.

That's true, but DFRMO is not exempt from the current FS legislation and those who resort to a MOD or Crown building remain 'Relevant Persons' and have the right of the protection afforded to them by compliance with the Fire Safety Order, and not a watered down version of it

IMO (like the LA fire services) DFRMO should not be carrying out a FRA and then auditing it themselves. The system is potentially corrupt in that a junior officer within a strict disciplinarian uniformed servec may have to audit a FRA carried out by somebody more senior.

Plus, virtually all of the MOD property I have ever seen (where there is no fire crew on site) is in a poor to shocking state fire safety wise (except MOD HQ in Whitehall which is exemplary).

[AnthonyB]

Plus, virtually all of the MOD property I have ever seen (where there is no fire crew on site) is in a poor to shocking state fire safety wise (except MOD HQ in Whitehall which is exemplary).

I remember doing an FRA on the former RAF Finningley (before most of the site not used for the civil airport was demolished) and three 2 storey brick offices (single stair, TD's at the limit) situated around a parade ground shared  a single rotary gong on the exterior of one of the blocks.....

[bjordan77]

It worries me

[mevans421]

Looking through the comments above I see a lot about prosecution, but in reality I believe only a one Mr John O'Rourke has ever been prosecuted for carrying out an unsuitable and insufficient FRA.  As such those without qualifications, experience, registration or knowledge carry on undertaking FRA's pretty secure in the knowledge nothing will ever happen to them.  Does anybody know why the enforcers are so reluctant to prosecute FRA's bearing in mind the level of incompetency shown by many,  it must be pretty easy to do?

[nearlythere]

Looking through the comments above I see a lot about prosecution, but in reality I believe only a one Mr John O'Rourke has ever been prosecuted for carrying out an unsuitable and insufficient FRA.  As such those without qualifications, experience, registration or knowledge carry on undertaking FRA's pretty secure in the knowledge nothing will ever happen to them.  Does anybody know why the enforcers are so reluctant to prosecute FRA's bearing in mind the level of incompetency shown by many,  it must be pretty easy to do?

If only they would mevans. If only they would. It would solve a problem virtually overnight.

[Messy]

Does anybody know why the enforcers are so reluctant to prosecute FRA's bearing in mind the level of incompetency shown by many,  it must be pretty easy to do?

Mostly its to do with the lack of budget. Of course, if the prosecution is successful, then costs may be awarded, but if it all goes wrong the enforcement authority will have to dig deep into their empty pockets.

On a more local level, taking forward a prosecution takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the Inspecting Officer and his/her team. Interviews under caution, the handling of evidence and photos and endless legal meetings. In my case - during the time I was preparing a prosecution - I still had pressure to meet all my 'business as usual targets' on top of the case preparation work which was a nonsense. The prosecution was dropped for technical reasons before it came to court, but I decided then to do all I could to prevent me being involved with another one.

Compare this effort with the range of 'offences' that can be dealt with via fixed penalty notices and it does pose the question should some minor FS issues - even some that would usually lead to an enforcement notice - also be dealt with by a FPN??

[nearlythere]

Does anybody know why the enforcers are so reluctant to prosecute FRA's bearing in mind the level of incompetency shown by many,  it must be pretty easy to do?

Mostly its to do with the lack of budget. Of course, if the prosecution is successful, then costs may be awarded, but if it all goes wrong the enforcement authority will have to dig deep into their empty pockets.

On a more local level, taking forward a prosecution takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the Inspecting Officer and his/her team. Interviews under caution, the handling of evidence and photos and endless legal meetings. In my case - during the time I was preparing a prosecution - I still had pressure to meet all my 'business as usual targets' on top of the case preparation work which was a nonsense. The prosecution was dropped for technical reasons before it came to court, but I decided then to do all I could to prevent me being involved with another one.

Compare this effort with the range of 'offences' that can be dealt with via fixed penalty notices and it does pose the question should some minor FS issues - even some that would usually lead to an enforcement notice - also be dealt with by a FPN??

Ok point kinda taken Messy, and not getting at you, but how the heck do they expect things to improve by letting these cowboys continue unchallenged?  I mean it is potentially about life safety. And I have to say that crap work is not confined to the unregistered.

[mevans421]

NT
For sure, I have been surprised at the standard of some FRA's that I have seen from registered assessors which has questioned me to consider my on going registration with one of the two bodies I am with.

From a regulatory point of view I deduce the following:

• The regulator is empowered by law to regulate however is not empowered by resources to regulate.
• If prosecutions are not forthcoming because of lack of resource then in effect there is no regulation.

• If there is no effective regulation anybody and everybody can be a FRA and there is absolutely no need for any FRA courses, qualifications, third party certification.
• The government (which ever party is in power) is keen to reduce regulatory burden, therefore, they are not going to regulate FRA and in so doing they will have achieved in part their commitment to their manifesto.

Hmmmmmm.  What a system, about as effective as 11 players donning white shirts and taking themselves to Brazil for a fortnight!!

[mevans421]

Back to the title of the thread:

About 5 years ago there was a senior serving fire safety officer carrying out FRA's in an area close to me of which he was an employee.  That same officer went on sick leave and continued to carry out FRA's.  A fire occurred in a hotel in which he carried out one of his FRAs when he was on sick leave.  His seniors found out and I guess you would expect for them to deal with the matter appropriately wouldn't you.  Oh no.  They asked the officer to consider leaving the fire service as he had sufficient time in for his pension pot.  So off he went and the whole sorry affair was hushed up and to my daily gall he draws his pension and continues to carry out FRA's.

Whilst this sort of carry on goes on I suggest serving fire officers in the offending region at least can do what they want.

I do not know if the fire (starting within the laundry) was in part caused by an omission of his report.  If it was the FRS had a perfect chance to prosecute but saving their own bacon came higher up the priority list as you imagine!!!

[idlefire]

Nothing new with this.

I seem to remember that FPA '71 Fire Certificates issued on the designated premises owned by my old brigade were issued by the Brigade. 

We also used to do petroleum inspections on our own premises and risk assessments, under both Workplace Regs and FSO, on the fire stations and other premises that we were the employer/responsible person for and enforcing authority over.

That said I didn't have sufficient interest back then for it to get conflicted anyway.