Posted By AHS
I suppose if the work is being done for them they can stipulate anything they like; however as they dont enforce Fire their observations are irrelevant for other clients.

Posted By Robert Randall
Ashley,

Thanks for your supporting comments.

When you say "There is a line of thought coming from the CFOA that in the future all fire risk assessors must be 3rd party accredited by a recognised organisation." I have also heard this said by a CFO at a recent IOSH organised seminar. At the same seminar were people advocating the official government line that any employer, given the right tools, can carry out a fire risk assessment. The seminar was intended for small business owners who were more confused when they left than when they arrived.

I would not argue with the need for competence or the accreditation route, indeed I have done the IFE course myself. I would also however agree that the IFE or a similar course is not the equivalent of a 10 years pre-qualification experience, a Diploma in safety management and 11 years post grad experience.

My question to IOSH is why don't you as a professional body make more representations on behalf of your members. Many of us are well qualified to carry out FRA's and we adhere to the professional code of conduct that would in any case debar us if we were not competent?

The CFOA seems to have an agenda that protects their members interests so how about IOSH protecting our interests?

Posted By Jim Walker
This is an area where I'd like to improve my competency.
I was toying with the NEBOSH cert but the general H&S stuff would be a waste of time for me. Also reports (see thread in study support) are not encouraging.

Can anyone recommend a reasonably rigorous alternative.

Posted By Bob Youel
Whilst I have the greatest respect & admiration for fire service personnel & support them wholeheartedly I am convinced [After >30 years of experience]that unless they also have H&S competence then they are not the people to undertake fire RA's in an independent role but they are certainly key members of the team

This is another area in which H&S professionals are being side stepped e.g. CDMC's

I call upon the HSE, the fire service and IOSH to make statements [joint or otherwise] re the subject as human life is at risk

As for 3rd party appraisal of RA's etc the same rule applies e.g. the appraiser must be competent - I viewed a fire RA recently where the RA was accepted as OK when the space immediately outside the fire door was completely wrong for the users but the assessors only looked at building regs not the individuals concerned

Posted By Robert Randall
Hi Bob (Lewis)

the LA are imposing these requirements on companies who wish to tender for the work.

Rob R

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I apologise if my understanding was at fault. I read the post that the LA were insisting that organisations tendering for work in general were being required to use such people for their FRAs for their work and own premises could be accepted. But then i am always a postmodernist in my reading!!!:-)

If it was purely for persons tendering to undertake the LAs FRAs then my other comments concerning their ability to do this are pertinent.

Bob

Posted By shaun mckeever
I really can't see the problem. Join the IFE. It doesn't cost that much. Certainly when I wanted to carry out H&S risk assessments I was required to join IOSH so why not the other way around. You want to carry out fire risk assessments so why not join an appropriate body. The Councils requirements are that you only need to meet one of the criteria.

Posted By Julian Wilkinson
I shall tell you why this is and it has cropped up in my career time and time again.

Up until the law changed the fire service have always been the authority regarding fire and fire prevention until the Fire Certificate was superseded by the Fire Risk Assessment.

However, even while the fire certificate was the legal route there was always a bode of contention between the District Surveyor and the fire services over who had final authority.

The main problems are that the fire brigade seemed only interested (and probably quite rightly)in how to get people out of the building, however the DS and now the likes of us have to deal more with fire prevention to conform with the details of the fire risk assessment.

The difference being is that the fire brigade did not care too much about sprinkler systems, hose reels or fire extinguishers, they were more interested in signage, alarms and evacuation routes. From a fire fighter's point of view (and quiet correct in my opinion) they are the ones who have to rescue people and the less time they have to do that the more time they can spend fighting fires.

We on the other hand have to look at all aspects of fire issues relating to our premises i.e wet or dry sprinkler systems, alarm system, fire warden training, staff training, fire suppression systems, portable fire fighting equipment and of course planned preventive maintenance.

My point is; most people outside of our environment don't understand that you don't have to be a fire fighter to understand fire prevention and evacuation which is what the fire risk assessment is all about as opposed to the fire certificate which mainly demonstrated how to raise the alarm and get people out, there is a huge difference here but it is still peoples perception of what they think is best.

For instance I am opening up a balcony with pub style furniture so as staff can sit out there lunch times etc. Its quite safe only that there is one door, but because people have less than 12 metres to travel in the event of a fire alarm it is perfectly acceptable and the local DS confirmed this. When I report my findings and approve the works people then asked if I consulted the Fire Brigade!

I am not in anyway knocking the fire service but its the stigma that goes with it and it will be a few years yet before others realise there is more to fire safety and prevention than just the Fire Service.

Posted By J Knight
Rob, Julian, agree with both of you,

John

Posted By D. Hilton
Shaun
I would imagine that the requirements relate to an individual being at the "Membership" level if the IFE rather than simply joining as a member. The IFE grade membership as student, graduate and member where member would be the equivalent of MIOSH prior to Charter. In addition, progression is via examination.

In response to the posting making reference that a "Member" would not necessarily be competent to carry out a FRA, I would suggest that a "Member" in the true sense would be more than competent.

Regards

Darren

Posted By D. Hilton
Rob,
I note that item 3 on the list referred to Ex Fire Service FPO's as apposed to Ex Fire Service officers. I also would believe that the vast majority of FPO's would already be at the Membership level of the IFE or equivalent qualification by examination

Posted By Tarquin Farquor
Rob,

Perhaps the Council is acting on [ill] advice from its insurers.

Posted By shaun mckeever
CFT

I joined IOSH with as MIOSH without any formal H&S qualifications i.e. NEBOSH. I had to prove competency in other ways.

If anyone is confident on their ability to undertake fire risk assessments commercially then prove it as I had to when I joined IOSH before I could carry out H&S work. Register as a fire risk assessor. I suspect many will not be able to prove their competency.

Posted By Liesel
I read this discussion with interest, as I have recently had back a report for a Fire Risk Assessment commissioned from a "competent" outside organisation.

Whilst I have no problems with the basic content of the report, I am rather unimpressed at the quality- and I do get the impression of a lack of understanding of the "risk-based" approach, even though it was clear that the author understood the technical issues of fire spread etc very well.

On one level this is not an issue in terms of my org's use of the report, as the Fire RA report has served its primary purpose in putting a rocket up the backside of the org management (sometimes needs an outside body) plus the technical input was very informative. But I think the message is as ever that the external assessor cannot do it for you, you must take their findings, understand them and integrate them into your own systems. Certainly the guidance material produced by the regulatory body is also very helpful- and worth ordering in paper copy, as it is detailed and easier to read in paper format!

Back to the original issue. I have no doubt that the assessor had much more "competence" than I in that his understanding of the technical issue of fire spread and sources of ignition etc is far greater than mine. But equally, I do wonder, how much experience did he have with the conceptual framework of "Risk Assessment?"

Posted By Robert Randall
Hi David,

I couldn't agree more, the silence from IOSH is deafening!

Bob

Posted By Hazel Harvey
All,
Whilst I am prepared to represent the interests of IOSH Members to bodies where we can gain recognition, in this particular case I cannot see what we are expected to do. There doesn't seem to be an organisation to approach as was the case with the CSCS cards and IOSH membership recognition.
If anybody has any useful suggestions on this one please contact me directly and I will help where I can.
I have to say from reading the threads this does seem to be an isolated Council that has made the IFE specification and I would need have to have sufficient evidence that this practice was widespread before I could tackle it at national level.

Hazel Harvey
Director of Professional Affairs

Posted By Edward Shyer
Rob

you asked,

I don't how others feel but when I did my diploma there was a large section on the theory of fire and on prevention, detection and suppresion plus a lot of extra curricular reading. When you add to this the fact that one cannot become a corporate member unless one has three years post grad experience it puts into perspective the certificate course that most of the Fire officers will have undertaken.

Fire is just a part of the many subjects covered in the diploma syllabus? I am not for one minute suggesting that you are not a competent Fire risk assessor. However the diploma does not make people experts in all aspects of health and safety.

If I wanted to advice on fire risk assessment I would consult a person with membership of the relevant body. likewise for for H&S queries I would consult a member of IRRSM or IOSH and cannot see what is wrong with the said council doing the same.

regards

Edward Shyer. H&S Consultant

Posted By Liesel
Bob,

I certainly would like to see this issue move foward. The report I referred to in an earlier post was useful in that is galvanised our management team and identified certain fire hazards/ignition sources- but to call it a "Fire Risk Assessment" implies there has been some assessment of each of the main fire hazards identified- which there was little evidence of in the report. Nor any mention (or evidence of use) of the fire-risk assessment verison of the "5 steps model."

What has actually been done is a listing of all the fire hazards then at the end there is a one page "Fire Risk Assessment" for the whole site- most of which explained the matrix used. It was wholly qualitative too. The actions (derived from the identified hazards) were therefore not prioritised. Given that we run a multi-property site with very different fire risk in our different types of buildings, this approach has not impressed me at all!

As for what I will now do: well, I will take the identified hazards section and use it to conduct a true "risk assessment" for each main hazard so remedial actions can be prioritised. However, given that the author is apparently "Grad I Fire E" one would expect a reasonable standard. Which makes me wonder if the understanding of the "risk assessment" process is in fact what is lacking?

Liesel.

Posted By james mcvey
Hallo all
I take interest with the fire service comments posted.as a ex FP officer and now a iosh member, i can see the issue from both sides.In my experience a FP officer is highly trained in one particular field,and brings with him/her a fire fighting back ground, I have won over many doubters of a particular decision, pointing out the background as to; why; we need this,that or the othe. Fire prevention has a role in the back ground of all safety.
As to the 'jobs for the boy`s, this is not the case as the LA,s have been historically been after the fire service role, maybe a bit of empire building? setting a standard will always be controversial and some one will be upset by the height of the bar.