Fire Service Audits

[stevew]

Earlier in the week I was instructed to carry out an FRA at a care home I last visited in 2010.
Since my visit the client had paid for a local fire equipment supplier to carry out a further assessment mid 2016 albeit there had been no changes.  The current manager was not aware of my 2010 assessment.

The 2016 assessment was in my opinion so lacking in content that if it was free it would still be too expensive.
Along comes the local fire inspector in February 2018.  He audits the premises and offers advice on fire safety that would be deemed as risk assessing but fails to comment on the RA.

Along I go and the first question of the Manager is where is the 2010 assssment and subsequent reviews.
The response was that the only documentation available was the 2016 RA.

I have expressed my views to the client and will speak to the fire inspector.  I am not surprised that the client fails to understand their responsibilities.  What I cannot accept is that a fire inspector has failed to carry out his role in a professional manner.  It only took me a minute to conclude that the current risk assessment was unacceptable.

Please tell me that this is a rare case and that we are not becoming complacement with the safety of our elderly citizens.

[nearlythere]

Earlier in the week I was instructed to carry out an FRA at a care home I last visited in 2010.
Since my visit the client had paid for a local fire equipment supplier to carry out a further assessment mid 2016 albeit there had been no changes.  The current manager was not aware of my 2010 assessment.

The 2016 assessment was in my opinion so lacking in content that if it was free it would still be too expensive.
Along comes the local fire inspector in February 2018.  He audits the premises and offers advice on fire safety that would be deemed as risk assessing but fails to comment on the RA.

Along I go and the first question of the Manager is where is the 2010 assssment and subsequent reviews.
The response was that the only documentation available was the 2016 RA.

I have expressed my views to the client and will speak to the fire inspector.  I am not surprised that the client fails to understand their responsibilities.  What I cannot accept is that a fire inspector has failed to carry out his role in a professional manner.  It only took me a minute to conclude that the current risk assessment was unacceptable.

Please tell me that this is a rare case and that we are not becoming complacement with the safety of our elderly citizens.

Can't say as I've come across an IO giving away free undocumented or unqualified advice yet other than some every day FS stuff which is fine. But what does irk me is doing reviews of FRAs by others especially failed lavatory cleaners who saw an opportunity and went on the course.
You are more than right to speak to the IO on their assessment of the situation but perhaps you should be speaking to his boss as well. By offering specific advice have they become persons who to any extent........ and are therefore liable just like a fire risk assessor?

[Dinnertime Dave]

The quality of IO has clearly gone downhill since I left the service. 

In truth I didn't believe some of the storys I'd heard and read. I now sit in the seat opposite the IO when they do their audit. Challenging rubbish observations doesn't work, they get cross and threaten you with enforcement.

I've challenged the a small cable hole that goes from a kitchen store into the kitchen stating it isn't the line of fire resistance and got threatened with prohibition. It was easier to get mastic from my car and fill it.

I have had to formally challenge enforcement because the IO claimed rendering is the same as cladding, even the ops crew standing behind him were rolling their eyes. He insisted that the property is on the list so you're getting a notice.

However, to balance it up slightly, I've also met some fantastic IO who discuss things like grown ups.

[Bruce89]

I agree Dave there are some good IO's, equally there are some suspect ones which is also true to say for risk assessors.
I do however believe the standard of IO's has gone down, certainly in the case of my local FRS, I'm of the view this is due in part to the process of auditing primarily spent filling out a long winded audit form, coupled with departments being stripped to the bone with far less levels of supervision is it any wonder.
Post Grenfell Tower... watch this space.

[nearlythere]

The quality of IO has clearly gone downhill since I left the service. 

In truth I didn't believe some of the storys I'd heard and read. I now sit in the seat opposite the IO when they do their audit. Challenging rubbish observations doesn't work, they get cross and threaten you with enforcement.

I've challenged the a small cable hole that goes from a kitchen store into the kitchen stating it isn't the line of fire resistance and got threatened with prohibition. It was easier to get mastic from my car and fill it.

I have had to formally challenge enforcement because the IO claimed rendering is the same as cladding, even the ops crew standing behind him were rolling their eyes. He insisted that the property is on the list so you're getting a notice.

However, to balance it up slightly, I've also met some fantastic IO who discuss things like grown ups.

Why are idiots like this allowed to roam free without supervision. In my time if you went to the Div Off with something like that you would have been thrown out of the office and not via the door.

[nearlythere]

Nearest I?ve been to an enforcement idiot was when one pointed to a fire alarm panel and asked why it was in a room off a foyer. I explained that from a fire safety point of view the client can put his burglar alarm panel where he wants. That not being a suitable answer he turned to two accompanying FS officers and asked them if I was right.

[AnthonyB]

Recently did a well managed care home site, that I've FRA'd for, and has been fire service audited for, years and other than minor improvements and some of the usual shoddy building work snagging issues on a new wing has been fine.
IO goes in along with a new trainee and asks for a fire exit sign above a door through a chemical store to serve a rarely occupied corridor that links the complex with a place of worship (despite it rarely having anyone in it and having suitable TD to several different compartments and an acceptable initial dead end plus of course L1 AFD) despite the fact that the store door has a lock. Apparently it doesn't matter it's locked, but must have a fire exit sign to go through it......

We are all used to the IO's (& consultants and fire protection firms) that go OTT, but increasingly worrying is the increasing amount of 'broadly compliant' letters despite FRAs and physical measures being clearly not suitable. Seems like as long as you have completed a tick sheet off the web FRA and service your extinguishers then all is fine unless you are sleeping accommodation above retail, HMO or recently a block of flats where the entire resources of the enforcement department are thrown at you!

[stevew]

The update is that I spoke to the IO late this afternoon.  He apologised stating that maybe he should have looked at the current RA more closely.  Perhaps better training would help. 
I wish you wouldn't mention the word DO.  Still sends shivers down my spine from my rooky IO days.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I agree Dave there are some good IO's, equally there are some suspect ones which is also true to say for risk assessors.
I do however believe the standard of IO's has gone down, certainly in the case of my local FRS, I'm of the view this is due in part to the process of auditing primarily spent filling out a long winded audit form, coupled with departments being stripped to the bone with far less levels of supervision is it any wonder.
Post Grenfell Tower... watch this space.

I do think that enforcement has taken a hit. My gripe isn't with the individual, it's the system.

I started in fire safety as one of 20+ fire safety officers, I only intended to stay my 3 years then back on the trunks. I liked it so much I stayed 14 years. When I left 3 years ago they were down to 11. They now have 5. Of these 3 have less than 3 years experience. This number is to cover one a the largest counties in England.

[xan]

I agree Dave there are some good IO's, equally there are some suspect ones which is also true to say for risk assessors.
I do however believe the standard of IO's has gone down, certainly in the case of my local FRS, I'm of the view this is due in part to the process of auditing primarily spent filling out a long winded audit form, coupled with departments being stripped to the bone with far less levels of supervision is it any wonder.
Post Grenfell Tower... watch this space.

I do think that enforcement has taken a hit. My gripe isn't with the individual, it's the system.

I started in fire safety as one of 20+ fire safety officers, I only intended to stay my 3 years then back on the trunks. I liked it so much I stayed 14 years. When I left 3 years ago they were down to 11. They now have 5. Of these 3 have less than 3 years experience. This number is to cover one a the largest counties in England.

1) Lack of investment-no courses at the college of knowledge for shared/new learning. Tick box paper courses only.
2) Huge reduction in numbers (90% in the area I worked in)- not enough experienced FSO's to supervise as much as would be liked
3) Often useless operational FF put into Fire safety 'where they can do less harm' rather than dealing with them properly. FS ends up with a useless, grumpy FF who doesn't want to be there, and senior officers don't want to deal/don't care (too many temporary promoted 'yes men/women' not wanting to rock the boat in case they ruin their chances of a permanent promotion. Ex Dep Chief quoted as saying "I like temps, they are more 'productive'. ".
4) FS is not regarded as important by Chief Officers, hence massive cutbacks as savings having to be made during austerity.
5) Quantity not quality of inspections is all that seems to matter.
6) Constant churn of inspectors who stay for a year or so to get 'tick in the box'. This is time consuming for the existing FSO's  developing them with no benefit to the department-as soon as they are only half useless they move back to ops (except the useless ones that nobody wants and FS are stuck with).
7) I am not bitter, I have my pension!

[William 29]

There are still some good fire officers out there, but they are becoming rare. We are getting F&R authorities advertising for fire fighters to apply for FSO positions straight off the fire engines, due to shortages.
As has been said, skill depletion is a massive issue and concern. The RRFSO has been with us for 12 years now and in that time the shift has moved to auditing buildings, rather than advising as was under the FP Act and WP Regs to a degree. The FSO no longer holds the RP's hand and guides them to "compliance". That's fine but when you have 12 years of this approach, where does the experience that is now so desperately needed come from?

[stevew]

Your response is what I would have expected.  Unfortunately we have for some time through this forum been identifying the failings in both the implementation and enforcement of the regulation. 

One of the main criticisms of the fire service under the old regime was a lack of consistency.  Unfortunately this has been carried forward into the RRO.  An opportunity lost.
I have for some time thought that a positive way forward would be for fire authorities to hold forums, perhaps regional, to talk and listen to those of us who operate on the other side of the fence. 

Some 18 years from my first retirement I am now at a point where I feel ready for full retirement.
Anyone interested in taking on a small company in the South East with a good client base?
One careful owner.

[xan]

Your response is what I would have expected.  Unfortunately we have for some time through this forum been identifying the failings in both the implementation and enforcement of the regulation. 

One of the main criticisms of the fire service under the old regime was a lack of consistency.  Unfortunately this has been carried forward into the RRO.  An opportunity lost.
I have for some time thought that a positive way forward would be for fire authorities to hold forums, perhaps regional, to talk and listen to those of us who operate on the other side of the fence. 

Some 18 years from my first retirement I am now at a point where I feel ready for full retirement.
Anyone interested in taking on a small company in the South East with a good client base?
One careful owner.

If there was a lack of consistency under the so called 'prescriptive' regime, it was never going to improve under the function based FSO. Relying on 'Professional judgement', which is based on 'knowledge and experience' is always going to be subjective, and vulnerable to all the issues mentioned in previous posts. I may be a bit rash in saying that 'consistency' is a pipe dream, but lets face it, if it didn't happen under nearly 30 years of the Fire Precautions Act, is it ever going to be any better under the FSO when only 'Guides' are issued and the constant phrase 'refer to your risk assessment' or 'contact your local fire service' are the typical cop out phrases when issues become a little 'difficult'?

[colin todd]

Steve, Does your wee company come with any qualified staff?

[Fishy]

The trouble with this situation is that it's worse than useless and actually diminishes fire safety.  The unnecessary recommendations just end up with people putting time, trouble and effort into making changes that don't contribute to safety.  

Worse, though, is the visits by IOs who (for whatever reason) miss major issues.  RP is sitting there fat, dumb and happy because "...The Fire Brigade have visited and they are happy that my building is safe..." and if they do have a fire risk assessor then it potentially makes their job of persuading the RP that improvement is necessary when the fire brigade didn't raise the same  issue that much more troublesome.