Audit v assessment.

[nearlythere]

Is anyone having this problem? A fire risk assessent which has identified significant issues just days after a red lorry fire safety type has considered the premises to be broadly compliant. Client confused as to why enforcement authority is so lax about fire safety when registered fire risk assessors have concerns. Happened twice now.

[William 29]

You will get this as the experienced fire safety officers move on and/or ops crews complete more FS audits.

An FRA should always identify more issues than the audit in my view. In some complex buildings the audit can be an hour or so but we can be on site several hours completing the FRA.

If the inspecting officer has had limited FS specific training then items that would be included in the FRA will be missed.

[Paul2886]

Now this all sounds familiar. Had a crew tell the staff in a care home to just get out and leave the residents as the fire crews will sort it out. Not very helpful when you just finished a fire awareness course saying just the opposite...sigh

[John Webb]

If the RR(FS)O requires the Responsible Person to see that a Fire Risk Assessment is carried out, why are others popping in to do an 'Audit' - surely they should be asking to see the FRA
I'm confused......

[AnthonyB]

The key is in their use 'broadly compliant' which means 'we wizzed around the place quickly and saw no massive padlocks on fire exits, so all is well'

Thus resulting in the all too common 'the fire officer didn't mention it'.....

The problem is when something goes wrong and a detailed thorough inspection is triggered all the things they missed over the years suddenly crawl out of the woodwork and appear on the Enforcement Notice.....

The first question should be 'Where is the FRA' and then go from there...

[Clevelandfire 3]

you are right in one sense but not in another. It seems enforcers just cant win. They come and do an audit and should be picking up anything thats serious enough to go in an enforcement notice first time round. the other little bits which arent really going to put relevant people at risk they will not ignore as such but probably have a quiet word in the rp's ear.its down to better regulation initiatives that they do this. also if i had a pound for every time people like to whack enforcers over the head i wouldnt be here now bothering to comment on a forum. the fire officer said this the fire officer said that. its like an MOT the mechanic tests your car on how it is on the day of inspection he doesnt follow you round every day to check your car meets the mot test. 

[Mike Buckley]

I would agree that enforcers can't win, but at the same time neither can the fire risk assessors or any one else in this field. it seems we have a a**e kicking circle.

Unfortunately in my view it comes back to the legislation and the way it was set up (or not). There is no clear guidance as to what a fire risk assessment is, what a review is and what an audit should do. It comes down to every brigade doing their own thing (and as we all know every brigade is the best in the country) and a lack of a centralised policy. Hence why people get so upset.

[G. N. Hamilton]

I think the problem lies with the terminology used by the FS Officer for the purpose of his visit. A quick 360 of a building does not signify an inspection but more a FS familiarisation of the building for operational pre planning. This should be indicated to the person in control by the FS and that the FRA always takes precedent

A lack of communication which creates a gap in public perception / expectation and reality. Any FS Officer worth their salt would request a copy of the FRA in advance of the visit, as this would indicate more than the "audit".

[colin todd]

Michael, who said every brigade is the best in the country.  Surely you know that this accolade is properly that of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, closely followed (but at a respectful distance) by the NI Fire and rescue Service?

[nearlythere]

Hh

Michael, who said every brigade is the best in the country.  Surely you know that this accolade is properly that of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, closely followed (but at a respectful distance) by the NI Fire and rescue Service?

Dot. I have to wrap your knuckles. I am in scotland next week trying to make up for what the SFRS is neglecting.
Your chances of a free sherbert at my expense are reducing.

Repent whilst you can.

[colin todd]

Almost, I doubt that my good friends in the SFRS are neglecting anything.  Perhaps your perspective is merely different from theirs.

[nearlythere]

Almost, I doubt that my good friends in the SFRS are neglecting anything.  Perhaps your perspective is merely different from theirs.

Possible Dot but not this time.

[Martin]

Initial Risk Assessment is an  one off event which identifies control measures. (May identify fire specific measures such as training in evacuation, appropriate fire fighting provison etc and none fire specific items eg electrical installation inspection as per IEE regs, gas equipment maintenance are not just for gas and elec safety but are relevant to  control of ignition.) I have seen RAs which only identified failings and did not mention the existing practices which need to be maintained.

The review is are my existing control meaures ok do I need any new or changed control measures.

The audit is have I implemented the control measures. The RA may say the RP needs to implement training in evacuating people with limited mobility. The review will say risk is same control measure is the same.

The audit would want evidence the identified control meaures have been implemented. The audit may say "Have you done the training your RA identified?"

When doing a review reminding an RP if needed they haven't actually implemented the existing control measures may be a good idea but the RA itself may need no amendments.
Traditional H&S guidance on HSE or IOSH websites makes clear the difference between risk assesment and audit.

[kurnal]

One local authority has gone out to tender for fire risk assessment reviews of assessments carried out previously by a number of companies. The main emphasis is on cost and they are asking tenderers to include an option for "Desk Top Reviews" - without visiting the site. When I queried this I was told I was the only tenderer to raise any queries over this!

[wainy1]

Hi Nearlythere
I believe the confusion arises from a lack of understanding between in the terms inspection and audit.
When the Fire Precautions Act was rescinded, Fire Services did not have the will, foresight or resources to inform all existing premises holding Fire Certificates, how the purpose of the visit would change. Organisations therefore understandably, continued to think the purpose of the Fire Safety officer visiting is to inspect the premises and identify all fire safety deficiencies. This would often be reinforced by a lack of understanding by some Fire Safety Inspecting Officers who continued with ?business is usual? combined with a degree of backside covering not wishing to have the finger pointed at them if they missed something during a premises visit.
With regard to explaining the difference between the old and new regime, I often use the analogy of the H&SWA which seems somehow to be easily understood. This is to say; the responsible person would not expect the H&S executive to visit and complete risk assessments on behalf the organisation, however if the H&S executive were to visit a premises they would audit the way in which the H&S requirements are managed and may select specific areas to visit to base an overall impression of the organisation?s arrangements.