The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

[kurnal]

No problems with any competition on a level playing field.

But its not.

Marketing is the most critical element in running a successful business. If a Fire Authority uses its name as part of a commercial company then they are gaining  a huge commercial advantage from  the outset.

The commercial advantage they gain is both explicit and implicit- not only can you rely on the good guys in the red engines but as the fire authority is the enforcing authority they are not going find themselves wanting.

There plenty of history on this type of thing- look at the care industry, the failure of social services to regulate council run homes and the creation of the Care Standards commission. You cannot be gamekeeper and poacher. Having stayed in a number of hotels in the area with fire certificates I would not be too confident  that consistent standards will be maintained either!

And is the business truly financially independent with all normal commercial overheads or are the local council tax payers subsidising the commercial clients?

I recently did a H&S course in a care home where a local fire authority business unit provide the fire training. I touched on fire safety matters and their evacuation procedures and was immediately countered by "Well the fire Brigade do our training so they must be right". Trouble is they were not. A crew commander with no fire safety background giving bad advice and all I can do is say well ask the fire safety department and they will put you right.

Of course  for risk assessments the trading company is lkely to attract the blue chip clientele but the lower grade work and problem buildings are still more likely to use an independent assessor.

[stevew]

The Workplace Regs have done very little to maintain standards so it is down to the RRO to save the day.

Instead of offering a service providing FRA a fire authority should be directing their resources to carrying out a robust inspection programme.   Perhaps The Essex FA should learn to walk before they run.

The key to using an independent assessor is that they are free from influence from suppliers and the enforcing authority.

[AnthonyB]

It should be illegal for a brigade to undertake anything commercial (it certainly used to be - extinguisher maintenance depts could only service other government or similar premises like councils, education, universities and couldn't make profits) other than certain training services. If they are going to enforce they must be independant - would they really take enforcement action against a premises they'd commercially FRA'd? They will say so, but in reality.

Alternatively if they really want to become commercial, fine - take enforcement off them, which as they increasingly civilianise their inspection wing they might as well anyway.

[val]

Being a bit wicked...I would love to see a Fire and Rescue Authority taking their own FRA consultants to Court under the RRO. Article 5 applies I think.

[wtfdik]

The Workplace Regs have done very little to maintain standards so it is down to the RRO to save the day. .

I have to disagree with this its not the WPR fault its the employers and FRA.
the secret is not robust inspection programme to self complinace but robust enforcement

[stevew]

I am not pointing the finger solely at the FP Wkplace Regs but more at the introduction of them.  When introduced fire authorities were advised to proceed with a 'softly softly' approach.  This gave some authorities the green light to place the regs on the 'back burner' so to speak.

Perhaps if Government had put more effort and money into advertising the FP Wkplace Regs there would have been a far better take-up by employers.  That is however now water under the bridge we have to move on and that is why I have to rely on the RRO to pull it all together.  

I totally agree with R.I. Skassessment FA's must include a robust enforcement programme.   This is where I am still to be convinced and why.   A client recently copied a FA letter he had received following an inspection that read 'That the fire authority were satisfied that The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations were being complied with however the following matters require attention'  A FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN.

Not a lot of progress in 8 years.

[fred]

Apologies for being picky but technically the letter is correct - the risk assessment is a requirement of the Management Regs - not the Workplace Regs

The letter would be incorrect if the legislation quoted was "The Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation" which encompasses both.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree FA's should include a robust enforcement programme however this will not happen. The fire safety departments in FA have been decimated, by two thirds in the case I am familiar with. They talk about concentrating their efforts on high risk premises what about the other 95%. If you are placing your trust the responsible persons don't hold your breath. RRO will make no difference we are moving from proactive policies to reactive like the factory inspector did in the seventies, take them to court after the fire.

[Bluefire1]

would they really take enforcement action against a premises they'd commercially FRA'd? They will say so, but in reality.

The way that the RRO is designed allows for the use of an independant verifier of the RA. The FRS in the area may be asked to verify the RA, they cannot as far as I am aware carry out RA's on behalf of a client because of the enforcement issues mentioned above.. but in the verification process they effectivley get first bite.

If you go back a few years to when FRS's did the fire safety plans... they did specify the requirements.... many times I had the impression that I was being used as a free consultant designing the FS provisions for someone.... is there much difference between that and what some propose for the RRO.

[TallyHo]

Risk assessment
....
On the second bit about charging...I think London are playing a bit of a dodgy game. In my view FRS should never carry out FRA, for money or otherwise. Why not go back to certification? There is also the concept of unfair trade, if FRS charges commercial rates then they are making excess profits because they are already levying a precept. If they undercut commercial rates they are dissing Colin and his colleagues. The whole issue of commercial trading by local autthorities is complex and liable to create conflicts of interests. London's engineering team should resign, set up a trading company and rent the space back from the LFEPA. (If I have got that all wrong, I apologise in advance...third glass of port)!

Essex Fire & Rescue trading as EFA (Trading) can now carry out risk assessments in a consultant capacity. They also sell an online FRA for £199. http://www.ictu.co.uk/

I think that this is an interesting interpretation of the duty to give information in Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Is it reasonable? Is anyone going to take them to court to find out?

If I was trying to run a business doing FRAs I don’t think I would be too happy about it. But the fact that Essex is charging a commercial rate is probably better than them providing the advice for nothing.

What does the Forum think about this?

ODPM say that FRS are not allowed to carry out FRA's and they will be stamped upon if they try.

[kurnal]

I thought the deputy PM had a record of using his fists not his feet

[Bluefire1]

ODPM say that FRS are not allowed to carry out FRA's and they will be stamped upon if they try.

ODPM says they can't do the RA but they say that the company can ask the FRS to validate it..... one of the pains I had was trying to sort out a procedural policy to deal with that.... poacher and gamekeeper in one..........

On the point of should a FRS make money out of this.... why not.... running training courses to teach people how to complete a risk assessment is no different than fire extinguisher etc training and it helps steer people in the right direction.

[steve walker]

Bluefire 1

I am unclear what the verification or validation process that you mention actually is.

Unless a FRS actually goes to the premises and gathers information how can they verify the information that the FRA is based on?

I agree that they can look at a FRA (that has been sent to them) and make some comments about its content but this would be very general advice. They would not be in a position to formally verify or validate its contents.

The only way FRS can validate a FRA is to inspect the premises and gather information from the occupants. Is the ODPM suggesting that FRS should do this on request?

All sounds a bit dodgy to me.

[val]

I think you will find that the FRS (those who aren't acting in way which will potentially bring them into a conflict of interest), will 'audit' a risk assessment process and outcomes and may well write a letter to the responsible person stating that at the time of that audit they appeared to be complying with the legislation.
As for the ODPM actually being brave enough to ban FRS from carrying out FRA, I somehow doubt that they would be so specific.

[Bluefire1]

Val has just about hit the nail on the head...... the FRS can be asked to assess the assessment against the criteria laid down in the RRFSO and against any plans provided. Their comments can only be based on what the assessment says, hence one of the big problems with the Order.

At the moment there are in place prescriptive codes..... take for example a travel distance 45m in 2 directions... that is fixed and the FSO can see immediately if there is a difference but under RA, if the assessment says 60m is safe because of xyz......... then how in reality can the FSO prove otherwise without undertaking a full inspection and maybe  getting "expert" third party opinion (in the case of fire engineered solutions) on the RA so bias is not shown, and remember when it comes in, the owness will be on the FRS to prove that the RA doesn't work not on the owner/occ to prove it does.

At meetings I was in with the ODPM back in 2001 and 2002 when all this kicked off at policy level and the consultation was being readied, it was clear from what they were saying that yes inspections will have to be undertaken.