Competent person

[steve walker]

Has anyone actually gauged the effectiveness of the “Employer’s guide” at teaching the layperson how to do a FRA?

If the new guides are the same, I wonder what proportion of premises will need to bring in a fire safety consultant or send staff on a training course.

[jasper]

Does the employers guide for example tell you what for example is compliant fire alarm, emergency lighting, extinguishers to the bs?
My opinion is that the employers guide is ok for small shops or offices etc. but not for larger more complex premises.
I have seen a copy of one of the guidance docs to the new regs and it is a real meaty document

[Paul]

The Employers Guide is basically a janet and john type guide for perons with little or no experience of fire safety.  I don't think anyone in the industry would ever use this or quote it as reference material.

[TallyHo]

The other week I was doing a fire marshal course for a large building company.  When I was packing up one of the guys on the course asked if he could have a word as he was concerned about carrying out FRA’s.

He worked in IT but had been nominated as the ‘responsible person’ with regard to fire safety.  He was tasked to carry out FRA’s at the companies numerous locations and was duly sent on a Fire Risk Assessors course to give him the knowledge to carry out the task.

He explained that he was very concerned as he didn’t feel that he could do the FRA’s properly.  He understood that if he got it wrong and someone got hurt, he could end up in trouble with the law.  He also said that as his company had spent money sending him on the course he didn’t want to let them down.

He showed me his course notes, these consisted of a print off of the PowerPoint presentations, (much of this was so poorly printed that I couldn’t read it).  The practical risk assessment he did on the course was a single page L-curve evaluation of the likelihood of fire spread, before Fire Brigade intervention (yes that was it).  This was carried out by looking at 4 photographs of a building.  No requirement for Colin’s PAS 79 on this course.

The course was conducted in a conference centre and there were 40 delegates, obviously this gave little opportunity for the delegates to ask questions.  I fully understood why the guy was so concerned about carrying out his new responsibilities.

So who will be to blame if things go wrong?

Will it be his employers for putting him in this position?

Or himself for not raising his concerns with his company?

Or the company that conducted the training for giving him insufficient knowledge to carry out the task, (his words not mine)?

To end.

Would he be classed as a competent person?

[colin todd]

No, but then risk assessments do not need to be carried out by a competent person (according to the Regs.)

[steve walker]

DaveyH


" If things go wrong", I think that they are all to blame in some degree.

The employer would need to show that they had applied "due diligence".

I can understand the employee's reluctance but he should tell his company if he feels unable to do a suitable and sufficient FRA; and he has a duty to do so.

The training company should be able to show that they have not misrepresented what they can train people to do.

The employer cannot pass responsibility to an employee or advisor; they are still ultimately responsible.

Colin,

If the person can produce a suitable and sufficient FRA for that premises then he is competent; if he cannot then he isn’t. Doesn’t Reg 7 M of H&S at W require competent assistance?


So the effectiveness of the Employer's guide has not been examined?

[colin todd]

Yes, Steve, but the competent person who assists is not necessarily the person who carries out the FRA.

[Ken Taylor]

My understanding is that the employer has to carry out a risk assessment that is suitable and sufficient. If the person he uses to discharge this duty fails to do this, the employer is in breach of his duty.

[val]

Article 5 of the RRO states,

(3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the
responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the
responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those
premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.

(4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in
relation to—
(a) the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or
(b) the safety of any premises,
that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control
of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends.

I understand this to mean that fire safety consultants will have a degree of legal liability, subject to the ususal burnden of proof, if they give manifestly poor advice.
It definitely covers those such as fire alarm engineers who have a contract to maintain and can be shown not to have diligently done so.

This doesn't mean that the employer/owner etc has no responsibility though they would be on strong 'due dilligence' ground if they contracted a recognised expert firm.

[colin todd]

They always did have this liability Valery. There is some precedent in criminal liability on the part of health and safety consultants who screwed up. Another port?

[val]

You may find it hard to believe Colin, but I don't personaliSe every post I make. zzzzz

[colin todd]

Now you have lost me. Explain.

[val]

Colin,
I was trying to answer the query that Ken had put, but your reply indicated that you thought I was having a sly dig at you. I wasn't. G & T last night by the way.

[Ken Taylor]

I agree, Val. I was following on from Davey's example where the IT man sent on an apparently inadequate course and not thinking himself to be up to the task was being required to do the employer's risk assessment. Upon relating this lack of competence to the employer, if the employer insisted that he still did the RA, the employer would very probably be knowingly failing to provide a suitable and sufficient assessment and therefore not fulfilling the duty under the Order.

[colin todd]

Valery, I didnt think that for a minute, I was just elaborating. Try tallisker. It will make you more mellow.