Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By hoops
Hi Guys hope someone can help
Dilema
Myself and a coleague have recently been sent onto a fire risk assesment course in order for our company to comply with the reform order.
recently we had a fire at one of our properties which has not yet had a risk assesment completed. Thankfuly no-one died ut now the fire brigade are involved and they are tearing the building to shreds finding fault with the fire protection systems etc . The prolem my coleague and i have is that the fire officers is bringing up items that we would not have dreamed of putting in the fire risk assesment which has put the wind up us.
My dilema is if there were to be a prosecution as a result a fire that was due to something missed in the fire risk assesment either directly or indirectly who would be liable to be prosecuted. The fire risk assesor or the company ??
hope someone can help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Amanda
My understanding is the Responsible Person (employer) has ultimate responsibility. They must provide you with suitable and sufficient training to be able to undertake the required level of Risk Assessment pertaining to the work activites and the building. Obviously if there is negligence on your part you would be held liable to an extent. I would like to hear other colleagues comments as we are all waiting to see how the RRFSO 'pans out'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I McDonald
Hoops
my opinion would be the employer would be prosecuted. The Fire RA training does not mean competence.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By hoops
Thanks guys
Ian
in that case if the employer goes to external consultants would the outcome be the same as the employer is entrusting it out
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
It would appear that the building in question did not have a fire risk assessment therefore the fire protection equipment, and everything else may not have been tested according to instructions. Had the risk assessment been carried out and all equipment had been tested and found to be correct there may not have been a fire and/or the fire brigade may not now be finding faults?
This points toward the value of fire risk assessments but also, in this case, some negligence by the responsible person for the building in as much as the fire risk assessment was required in October 2006 and has not been completed.
It is up to the responsible person, either owner or manager of the building to have the FRA done.
I would not worry too much about carrying out the FRA as systems and equipment should be in place and tested to prove they work. If the necessary systems are not in place then recommendations need to be made to the responsible person. It is then up to him/her to take notice of the recommendations and put those systems/equipment in place.
I'll be interested to see what Shaun has to say, over to you Shaun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I McDonald
Hoops
going to externals would be seen as the use of "Professional Advice". The employer would need to demonstrate how the externals were selected to undertake the work, if this was deemed as sufficient, the externals would have a lot to answer for in the court room.
Problem with this scenario is most employers do not fully evaluate the information supplied by the externals. Many include disclaimers (i.e. certain aspects of the building were not assessed as no access was allowed/available, etc). If such disclaimers are included and valid, could go back to the employer or both.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Hi, guys, remember what i fire risk assessment is: an attempt to identify risks and address them does not = never a fire, or a go to jail card for the person that completed the risk assessment if there is a fire. It is also a snap shot look at the premises. Day to day management of the risks is still down to local managers..make sure you also give them and others appropriate fire warden/safety training.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I McDonald
Jack
think you missed the points of the thread:
1 - No fire RA was conducted;
2 - Hoops identifies that Fire RA Training was provided but the enforcement authority is identifying items they may have missed if the Fire RA had been conducted;
3 - Hoops then seeking views on were liability would be placed (i.e. If Hoops had undertaken the Fire RA and the investigation found it fell short, who is in the dock?).
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I McDonald
Jack
Last post is not a dig at you. I only wish to bring the main points as I see them to the front. I have my views but would be VERY interested in the views of others.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
Two different comments here:
Firstly, you will not need to be an expert in fire detection systems and the like in order to do a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. Your risk assessment should identify that a fire detection system is present. If there is evidence that the system has been maintained and inspected, then the risk is low. If, however, there is no such evidence, you have identified an unacceptable risk and should suggest that a competent contractor or person inspects the system and puts a maintenance and test schedule in place.
Alternatively, if you do feel that you are unable to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, then I would question the quality of the training received...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Hoops
I carry out fire risk assessments regularly. I know that I don't always see everything. It is almost impossible. It might be fire stopping above a false ceiling, it might be faulty electrical equipment, it might be staff who are inadequately trained. It could be any number of things that could be easily overlooked or could not reasonably be identified. On their own these things that are missed do not mean a poor fire risk assessment.
The process of carrying out a fire risk assessment means looking at several functional areas - sources of ignition, sources of fuel, means of escape, structural fire protection, fire safety management etc. It is an overall assessment of fire safety within the workplace. If the person undertaking a fire risk assessment fails to adequately conduct an overall assessment of each of these areas then you may have a chain of events - an ignition source may ignite a fuel, this in turn might prevent the means of escape from being used. The fire might then spread causing partial collapse of a floor. Inadequate management procedures could mean a failure to correctly conduct an evacuation. This is when serious injury or fatalities may occur. It is a bit like the chain of events that leads to any accident no matter what the cause.
If the assessor fails to identify one or two things then it is unlikely to be so serious. The fire authority are not going to pursue a prosecution in these circumstances. They may issue a letter advising that a particular area has not been considered adequately and give you time to address the issue. They will prosecute only in the most serious of cases and this will be because of a series of failings.
If the chain of events do occur then it is likely due to more significant failings, particularly in management, in which case the repsonsible person will be held accountable. The person who carried out the fire risk assessment may also be held accountable to a lesser extent but this will depend on his level of competency. A one day course is not going to equip anyone to undertake anything more than a basic risk assessment for a small property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Hoops,
I agree with everything Shaun says and he has also hit upon the main issue as far as you are concerned - the level of training.
Perhaps if you can let us know more about the training course content and the size/type of properties you will be assessing we may be able to help further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
The Employer is the duty holder so would be the recipient of enforcement action. If the assessor is a consultant the employer might then feel inclined to take proceedings against him/her. If the assessor is an employee, disciplinary action might possibly be considered but the employer should have used a competent person for the assessment so it would probably 'rebound'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert J Martin
HI
Fire Risk Assessments are not new they should have been perfromed under the workplace regs.
Responsibilty (i.e the person in the dock is the owner/manager of the property)
A RA is divided into 2 primary areas protection and prevention.
Protection - is the premises protected by automatic fire alarms with heat and smoke detection, audible and visual warning devices and emergency lighting throughout ( this is the same for all buildings). If there is high life risk then the risk assessment should be looking at sprinklers being fitted to protect the lives within.
On the prevention side you should be looking at no smoking policy, pat testing of equipment, combustibles should be in cupboards marked keep locked shut when not in use (storage cupboards should include detection). You should also be looking at staff training, daily checks of the work place, weekly and monthly testing of alarms and lighting and make sure this is all weel documented as will be given as evidence in a court of law. If you haven't got it you don't have a leg to stand on as they say.
If you are lucky you might just get an enforcement notice or at worse a prohibition notice until the imporvements have been put in place.
This is a gentle reminder that the grace period is coming to an end and the fire service and the insurance companies now expecting the risk assessments to be implace and being implemented.
Most schools if the are not modern are being enforced to have a fitted a CAt/Garde 1 alarm system regardless of the cost implications this is probably due to the history of arason in such places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.