Posted By Peter Leese I know there are a large number of opinions out there (a number of which are very strongly held!) so I thought I would put up a Fire Authority interpretation - taken from a recent improvement notice. "The person(s) carrying out the risk assessment should be the person who is most familiar with the premises and the business carried out. This should be the person best placed to ask and answer such questions required to produce a risk assessment, and therefore maintain and review the standard of fire safety most appropriate to the premises. It is important to bear in mind that the fire risk assessment is a dynamic process, with shared responsibilities, constantly under review, and updated to take effect of any alterations or changes." Nowhere does it mention previous fire experience, specialist knowledge, or competence. So where do all these hard opinions come from, that no matter how simple the premlses, we have to employ specialists to carry out fire risk assessments? Certainly not from this part of East Anglia.

Posted By Peter Leese I'm not sure what you are saying - because he/she is a typist, they couldn't do a fire risk assessment. I think we would need more information than that.

Posted By shaun mckeever Well Peter I suspect you might have known I would be drawn into this debate! Whilst I hold strong views on the competency of people undertaking a 'suitable and sufficient' risk assessment the legislation does in fact say that the responsible person must make the assessment. That does not mean he should not call upon competent people to help him. And if he is a responsible person (in the normal meaning of responsible) then he will recognise that the assessment is primarily about life safety, not just his or his work force but also others who may be affected by a fire which includes firefighters. So there is no reason why the secretary, cleaner, shelf filler or anyone else within the organisation cannot undertake the assessment so long as it meets the requirements of the legislation and is designed to reduce the risk to life safety. I and many of my former colleagues have been at the sharp end when it has all gone wrong. When you see the hysteric mother of a child who has just died in a fire because something so simple could have been done to avoid the tragedy then you never forget. Worse when the lad's employer says he didn't realise the danger!

Posted By Dan Malone Good evening gents, I have read your advice with interest. I too would agree with using the most experienced person that know the hazards. In all too many organisations the fire risk assessment seems to be left to the most inexperienced person. I work in a very large organisation with a large HSA group. They complete all assessments but they are not always correct. Asking the person that works in the area helps to stop the mistakes. And yes the H&S adviser is the one that takes the flack when something goes wrong. We should all agree that we don't know everything. If we are luck we will know a little about everything and a lot about one subject. Here in Ireland a fire cert is still required for premises. Regards Dan Malone

Posted By Raymond Rapp This appears to be a continuation of a previous debate, not that it does not warrant a further airing. I am currently completing several FRAs and emergency plans for my company. I have no formal training but within an office environment I feel comfortable with my task. I am certainly not a long serving employee, but where I need advice and information I know where to get it from. Just as health and safety has many areas even an experienced practitioner will not be familiar with, so fire and associated hazards are basically no different. I know my limitations and therefore I would not advise in a petrol/chemical environment. A little common sense can go a long way. Ray

Posted By Max Bancroft A very good point Jimmy R. Did the training make you change the assessments significantly and, more importantly, the actions that you/your emplloyer had to take as a result of them?

Posted By Jimmy R Hi Max, before my training I conducted the assessments and had few or no after actions. After my training I had a host of actions to sort out which took me weeks to complete.

Posted By D. Hilton If I pose a question to those who think a fire risk assessment is easy - what are the effects of painting over intumescent seals in door frames? How many have raised this issue in their fire risk assessment? Some of you will know the answer but I'd be willing to bet the majority will not and yet these are critical to the fire strategy of many buildings. Shaun: I would be interested in hearing your answer to the question posed. I would put forward my opinion that there is no effect of painting or varnishing over intumescent seals.

Posted By D. Hilton For clarification, I was repeating Shaun's original question not posing the question myself.

Posted By tony fog Well said last post, I too would highlight this if it was raised by Fire authorities about my assessment!!!!. They had responsibility prior to changes so exisiting building with certificates should not require that level of technical ability .....Part B of the building regs with take care of that for new and refurbished properties. Not saying this is right guy's just that last person put a good case forward

Posted By Son of SkyWalker Can I add something which I feel can cause potential problems now. If a building, which was previously covered by a fire certificate, is now being fire risk assessed do you have to look in ceiling voids to ensure the fire breaks are in place? Bearing in mind the age of the building means that there is a high probability of asbestos in the void? This would potentially be very expensive and hazardous. Your thoughts are welcome. Son of Skywalker

Posted By Son of SkyWalker Tony You appear to be assuming that asbestos consultants are going to check evey ceiling void barrier when they perform their asbestos survey. If the premises is occupied they will not be as invasive as would potentially be required. An asbestos survey may be in place stating that their is asbestos present where you are still in the dark re fire safety.

Posted By D. Hilton P No I do not consider that a person must be Chartered to give advice on matters of health & safety or an expert in the area of fire prevention but I do advocate that the individual concerned must be competant. I had taken issue that a previous post implied that the painting of intumiscent seals resulted in detrimental effect on the function of the seal. In addition, the post further implied that if an assessment did not consider the effect of painting over a seal, then that assessment was insufficient. The post asked for an answer to a specific question re painting of seals, to which I have provided an answer. I am as stated previously interested in an explanation as to why Shaun alluded to a detrimental effect. D

Posted By shaun mckeever Nice to see this debate gain some pace. With respect to the intumescent seals. I was not suggesting that painting over them causes a detrimental effect. The answer is in fact precisely the opposite. Paint will cause the fire to spread across the seal and thus raise the temperature and activate the seal more quickly, unless it is heavily painted with several coats in which case it might be detrimental. Of course it is important to keep doors shut but the provision and maintenance of seals in fire doors is important. If we are to do away with this then what other parts of the fire safety stratgey should we relax. Think of who will be put at risk if the seals do not activate correctly. We must not forget firefighters entering a building, we must not forget disabled occupants who might be delayed in their escape. The seals are particularly important for these people. With respect to the fire certificate, yes there are many buildings out there where a fire certificate was issued when the precations were sub standard. Some got through under the Statutory Bar. No matter how much the fire brigade objected if the Statutory Bar applied then the fire authority were forced to accept what was in place. This applies particularly to older buildings where the early fire certificates were issued. But my comments were made only to highlight that sometimes things are not quite so simple as they may seem. There are 101 other examples. The subject is more about who should do the assessments. I have always taken the stance that anyone can do them but whoever does them really must know what they are doing. So, thinking that a building was alright because it previously had a fire certificate might suggest that you need to dig a little deeper to understand the fire strategy!

Posted By D. Hilton Shaun I am still unclear as to why you asked: "what are the effects of painting over intumescent seals in door frames? How many have raised this issue in their fire risk assessment? "These are critical to the fire strategy of many buildings". If as you are now agreeing there is no effect of painting over these seals, why would you need to refer to this in a FRA?

Posted By Peter Leese I think you'll agree though Shaun, that in your example, fire safety wasn't compromised. So I'd like to pull the thread back to the original question: ....where do all these hard opinions come from, that no matter how simple the premlses, we have to employ specialists to carry out fire risk assessments? My feeling thus far, is that it is mainly from ex firemen who are now consultants (I can understand that and it isn't a dig Shaun) yet those who should know eg the East Anglian Fire Authority are saying almost the opposite. So the second question is: Where does that leave the ones who accept official advice (from the Local FA and the DCLG) and through lack of experience/knowledge get it wrong? And thirdly and purely as an aside the DCLG also state that the Fire Safety Manager is the nominated person for carrying out day-to-day management of fire safety - and may or may not be the same as the Responsible Person. Confused? I certainly am.

Posted By Peter Leese It's not an aside, I'd say it was directly relevant. You're confirming where the hard line is coming from - in a nutshell, the Fire Authorities. And it's confirmed my opinion. No matter what government advice has been given out, FRAs are seen by FAs as only being suitable if carried out by a fire expert/consultant some of whom are doing both jobs at the same time. We're now getting fire/safety laws passed where it is impossible for companies (no matter what their size) to comply with, unless they bring in expert help.

Posted By tony fog Yes but to be fair, you could say that about all H+S risk Assessments!!!!. , You are either competent to complete an assessment or not!. You can pick holes in anyone's work and we are probably all guilty of this at some point in our career. From my point of view I wouldn't carryout an Fire risk assessment in a chemical plant, i would pass it onto a fellow consultant who has that expertise, but I'm more than competent other environments. As long as the assessment covers the areas of concern and checks compliance then that's all that counts!!. Don't you think we are over complicating things here?, could a fireman carry out a water hygiene risk assessment?, no of course not, but if he attended a course and understood the legislation then he could!! Fire is not complicated, stick to the basics and core items, that is why legislation changed to get away from over complicating things, if a person in an office wants and feels competent to carry out a fire risk assessment then they should be encouraged, there is plenty of advice out there, blimey the guidance books are straight forward to follow so its all in black and white!!!. If you read the guides it clearly says KEEP IT SIMPLE!, Why create problems when they don't exist!!!!, has anyone noticed any outcry from the local fire authority, any outcry from the media, any outcry from The IFE....not at all, so whats the fuss Cheers Tony

Posted By tony fog Shaun, I agree with you believe me, but the trouble is this happens on all H+s audits!, not just fire. shaun i know you well and our paths have crossed many times, your a good assessor i have the up most respect for your work...i know about the pressure vessels and other systems, and the local newsagent...but the question is based on a person carrying out a fire risk assessment in a tenanted area within a building, who's services are supplied by the landlord and therefore they only look at items such as, PAT testing, Combustibles, emergency lighting; fire doors; training and planning an organization etc. You are correct if someone is carrying out risk assessments in areas outside there comfort zone, then they need to be competent. I to see many useless risk assessments that are no more than tick lists, and these are from large organisations

Posted By tony fog exactly Ashley!!!!! There are poor assesors across the board not just fire. You could argue "well fire costs lives", a trip hazard does not? I don't know but everyone has made good points, i'm sure this will rumble on