Fire risk assessors standard may be ready by year end - Firex North - News-content | Fire safety news events and jobs - info4fire

Fire risk assessors standard may be ready by year end - Firex North

27 October 2010

The need for a single resister of professional fire risk assessors working to a unified set of competency standards was high on the agenda at the first morning’s seminar sessions at Firex North.

Stephen Adams of approvals body BAFE kicked off with an overview of why independent certification of fire risk assessment companies was so important to end users and responsible persons. He said there were three main criteria for good certification schemes: sufficient demand for them; adequate standards and a suitable delivery mechanism.

A competence standard for fire risk assessors, added Mr Adams, “probably should have been done a few years ago. But now there is unquestionably a demand for it and the industry now has the opportunity to do this and to get it right.”

Simon Ince
Simon Ince of Warrington Certification called for a single register of fire risk assessors

Simon Ince of Warrington Certification said the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order and similar legislation in other parts of the UK had ushered in what could be perceived as a “DIY” risk based legislation. But although the government did not want to create a “consultants’ charter”, he said that there was a role to be played by competent fire risk assessors “selling competence not compliance”.

Warrington Certification has already launched its own fire risk assessors scheme. It will adopt the standard for fire risk assessors currently being worked on by the cross-industry fire risk assessment competency council and due to be completed by the end of this year. “There is no point in having standards unless someone independent assesses you against them,” he said.

Nick Coombe of CFOA and a member of the competency council said that responsible persons would need to get expert help with buildings and occupancies which were more complex than those covered in the official government guidance. He criticised those who just went for the cheapest fire risk assessment they could find. “I get annoyed when you’ve got a £10m building and you have a £500 fire risk assessment. Would those people take their expensive company cars to a back alley garage?”

He added that all the stakeholders on the fire risk assessment competency council agreed the need for a unified set of standards and a single register for fire risk assessors. But there were currently different opinions on the depth and detail of knowledge required to undertake risk assessments for different types of building and levels of risk.
 


     
RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Mike Yates
As a totally independent fire risk assessor over the last ten years: (MD of Fire Safety Midlands Ltd.) I have seen this industry radically change: and not for the better. However, I would strongly disagree with registration of competence, unless such a scheme was voluntary and non profit making.
The recent approach by some well known training companies has been shameful in exploiting the situation. Many are actively promoting the notion that: without their precise training course: the prospect of any type of registration is completely out of the question. Also, putting forward the absurd idea that; after just a five day course, every individual in attendance; no matter what their background or previous knowledge; will be instantly ready to carry out fire risk assessments, with their (the training company’s) blessing.
In my view this is completely preposterous and gives the whole industry a bad name.

Posted on 29/10/10 16:44.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Paul Holdstock
Simon Ince and Nick Coombes have very good ideas and I agree that it will be quite a challenge to get it right. In 2006/2007 I worked for an East London local authority that contracted out its risk assessments for schools to two companies and I was asked to comment on their first few reports. No assessment was a usefull document that could be acted upon, with comments like 'some fire doors need attention'. There were no photographs of defects and both companies were subsequently dismissed.

Posted on 01/11/10 11:22.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Stan Jones
As a fire risk assessor and safety consultant I can say that I have seen poor fire risk assessments completed by 'qualified' and non'qualified assessors alike. The problem is that this is a business and business in turn is being exploited by the less proficient that tarnishes all in the profession. The secondary problem is that this creates a vacuum for exploitation for registration of assessors who become competent by making a payment. Solution - I don't know -answers on a postcard please.

Posted on 01/11/10 11:22.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Rebecca Jackson
I am failing to grasp Nick Coombe's statement criticising persons going for the cheapest fire risk assessment. My understanding was that cost should not be considered over risk so if you have a £10m building that is at low risk of burning down why pay someone several thousand to document it?

Is it possible to get back to risk being the overiding factor in an assessment not how cheap or expensive it is?

Posted on 01/11/10 11:22.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
David Sugden
I am not sure I understand Mr Yates' objection to a register. He is quite right to condemn many training companies who have limited knowledge but claim "their" training ensures adequate skill. Through the Competency Council we are trying to provide the means to measure that competence and a register would show who has demonstrated that level of knowledge. There must then be a list of those who have shown that they are capable of doing this vital job. TPC of such people is essentail IMO

Posted on 01/11/10 16:56.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Joe
As a fully qualified and chartered fire safety engineer and health and safety professional I thouth the current thrust was that we were supposed to be cutting red tape. Another licence to print money I think.

Posted on 03/11/10 10:19.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
David Sugden
Nick Coombe's comment on the video is most telling I think. In that interview he says that the main weakness of risk assesors is that they don't understand PFP and compartmentation. From the FRS point of view finding a point where a fire will can be stopped from spreading is vital as a leading CFO said to me yesterday. That is the value of compartmentation and understanding how fire separating elements are constructed reduces risk.

Posted on 03/11/10 10:19 in reply to Rebecca Jackson.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Mike Williams
The reference to "DIY" seems to suggest that this is somehow of lesser quality than that provided by someone who will sell you competence but will not offer accountability alongside. Surely supporting the diligent DIY enthusiast and helping them do their job well is better than buying in temporary knowledge of questionable skills and abilities. After all employing a member of the Federation of master builders does not mean you will necessarily get a better wall than you could have built yourself

Posted on 05/11/10 17:08.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Mike Williams
It is also interesting that the price of a risk assesment was picked upon as some indicator of quality and fitness for purpose. Especially when you see how much Fire Brigades want to train for their training (which in the case of the LFB & Southwark Council did not seem to work too well). There can be no doubt that this council could just as easily be called the Fire Industry self interest Group with an apparent intention to limit the competitive environment and scare the lay community. Appaling

Posted on 05/11/10 17:08.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Simon Ince
It is about protecting the RP who wants to buy in the services of a competent FRA and about improving the standards of those who charge for their RA services. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that there are plenty of cowboys out there ripping people off. A shocking 43% of audited buildings in England were unsatisfactory last year. The identification of the good risk assessor is not an easy task; a voluntary register of the competent would assist those who don’t want to DIY it.

Posted on 08/11/10 11:07.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Neil
There must be more consistency in approach and quality of FRA's as they are the foundation that protects life - and it is unacceptable that the current situation be allowed to continue. Unless you can come up with a better way don't knock registration of competence, and why is it a requirement that a scheme be non profit making - do you work for free? Voluntary is preffered but we should push for the RRO to be ammended to include FRA's be carried out by accredited individuals.

Posted on 12/11/10 17:17.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Tony Parr
I think the point here is that a Competent Fire Risk Assessor should provide a comprehensive (suitable and sufficiant) assessment and the cost should reflect this. A DIY assessor could carry out an inferior assessment at much lower cost, simply because they take less time to carry out and document. Lets be honest, the Assessor should really be questioning/consulting with somebody on site, gathering information of processes and Fire Safety management, advising etc, this all takes time...

Posted on 12/11/10 17:17 in reply to Rebecca Jackson.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Tony Parr
I think 3rd Party Certification is the way to go, but in every walk of life equally qualified persons "perform" differently. Fire Risk Assessors need to be multi-disciplined, so if 1 sole register might be difficult/unrealistic for various reasons, perhaps there might be a way of complimenting the task by creating a unified set approach to ensure Prevention/Protection Measures and Fire Safety Management are followed through? I think 1 week FRA courses should be identified as "complimentary".

Posted on 12/11/10 17:17.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Nick Coombe
My point about cost was that the people who run 10m buildings wont cut corners on Gas Safety or furniture or desk equipment but dont look into the quality of the fire risk assessor. If the building is low risk they will still have to pay the time it takes the assessor to look round the building and write up the report.
When you take your newish car for a service it will still cost you even though there is nothing wrong with it.

Posted on 15/11/10 11:02 in reply to Rebecca Jackson.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Bob Curtis
Competent person, I retired from operational and fire safety duties after 30 years service, surely this makes a competent person in the meaning of the act? Yes I would sit an exam or conduct a test inspection, but why should I spend over one thousand pounds and sit through a course, which will not reach my depth of knowledge , in order to get a certificate to prove I have passed an exam. It still doesn't make me competent. Let's use the experienced people out there who have trained to fight fire

Posted on 10/12/10 16:28.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Mike Fleckney
Bob,

You may well be competent by virture of your background, but many ex fire service personnel are not. How would the responsible person know the difference between you and somebody with no competence whatsoever, perhaps an extinguisher sales person? There is no need for expensive training if you already have the necessary knowledge and ability, you can apply for FRACS certification or IFE registration. Lets show the world who really is competent to do this work!

Posted on 05/01/11 12:12 in reply to Bob Curtis.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 16 results.

There are no results.
Related Content

jobs4securityandfire.com

Latest
jobs