Posted By martinw Not if it is justifiable Crim. I often find that I have to think hard about what is really required in the situation - I end up trying to second guess what a fire officer would recommend, then think screw that and do what I think is right anyway. Comes easier with experience. I still have problems with old buildings which are constructed with old building regs which have no bearing on modern standards. Then it is more or less open season on the fire safety systems required if you only consider the building. Compartmentalisation? Right. Go for it mate, you will be fine and your CDM-C will owe you big time, friend or not. Martin

Posted By Richard Hammer Shaun old chap, what about risk assessing hazards first, what about ignition sources first before you get into the state a passive fire protection. If you reduce the risk of fire in the first place, you will need not to worry about the separation. In this florist, you may only have electrical (kettle that is PAT tested) that will create an ignition, then you need fuel for it to develop, obviously oxygen is something we cannot do much about in this situation. The fact in most cases you have a concrete base that separates the flats above. Also what if the flats have no detection and are not willing you to link your fire alarm to their flats?? What are the statics for fires in florists?? If you use the guidance doc on shops, you should be fine. If it does get complex (must say if you think a florist is complex, try FRA industrial chemical warehouses, that's where competent advice is required) seek competent advice, as the guidance suggests. To go straight for a fire detection is not really risk assessing is it? What I am trying to get at, is in low environments, just using the guidance will be sufficient IN SOME CASES, as the Law does not require person undertaking FRA to be competent, obviously the RP will face the consequences if it goes belly up. Obviously if it becomes complex, seek competent advice. The fact it is safer to just get consultants in is good practice and gives the RP piece of mind and I am sure they have other things to stress about in this recession to go and start reading up on the guidance and other publications....... To be honest, until we have a national register in place, there is not much we can do, sometimes the client could of done a good as job as some consultants FRA I have seen, and when asked how they chose them, it is because they were IOSH members, be it Tech or CMIOSH. I advise they be at least members of IFSM,IFSO or IFE if it is complex.

Posted By Adrian Watson It is worth noting that the order is about assessing risks (the likelihood and severity of injury)"from fire" not "of fire". This means that you have to consider the severity and likelihood of injury given that a fire will occur. You have to consider how the fire will occur to take steps to prevent it occurring. Regards Adrian

Posted By stephen smith Hi Crim, Your first posting was for the evaulation of competence wrt fire risk assessment. I look at the electricity at works regs 1989 for this definition in every instance, (unless there is a specific measure of competence stated), as it accurately describes what this truely means & is easy for all to understand & apply. This five step competence measure was written to allow all persons with the correct level of knowledge and experience along with current learning abilities to function. There are, as you well know some 13 separate fire risk assessment guidance notes, and so in my judgement, and this open to discussion, the ability to read understand and apply those 13 guidance notes, in there respective areas, would be one of my criteria. regards stephen

Posted By D. Hilton I wonder how many people carrying out FRA's include DSEAR or an assessment of "process" related hazards and how many of these assessors demonstrate their competency or otherwise in these areas.

Posted By martinw Probably been said before but how do we stop saying that someone should be competent and prove it? I know that currently it is not always legally required, but who is going to make the determination that those carrying out FRAs are competent because they have been passed as such by group A or industry agency B? What is required - a mixture of an exam based on risk/premises eg level one for those using government guides in simple premises, level 2 for low risk larger buildings, level 3 for HMO's etc? You may even have to provide assessment evidence along the way rather than just passing exams, to show that you are able to apply the knowledge practically. You could even incorporate it into current qualifications: what would be wrong with the NEBOSH general cert having an extra day for not just fire basics, but specifically for FRA basics and practice, which would knock a few quid off the cost of the NEBOSH fire cert? Just ideas.

Posted By martinw I know, and that was partly my point. While there is no overarching group who will ratify competence, you will have this argument about competence every two weeks on this forum. I have only one path if I want to apply for my driving test. This is to ensure competence and make sure that the standards taught are those required, with practice and an exam to show this. If 17 year olds can be ratified as being competent to drive a potentially dangerous vehicle, why can't we within health and safety regarding FRA?

Posted By Brian Horrocks You can have whatever exam/assessment method of training and competence you like, but the fact remains it won't stop incompetent people working in fire safety. Look at other industries - medical, aviation etc people still make mistakes and get judged to be performing in an incompetent manner. Yet these are 2 of the highest trained professions where safety is paramount. In my view the commercial/industrial fire risks are not sufficiently high in general business to justify another semi legal/authority etc to 'approve' fire risk assessors. Wasn't this one of the reasons (all though never admitted by the Government) for getting rid of the old Fire Precautions Act & associated Fire Certificates - it was simply costing the Fire Service/Home Office etc too much to manage and administer, when compared to the risks.

Posted By Crim You can have your driving license taken away, banned from driving, but that does not stop people driving. The offences for a driving ban are against the Highway Code, (usually), and not simply for bad or incompetent driving. I agree that there should be one agency enforcing the fire regulations and the same agency issuing "permits" or similar for us to carry out fire risk assessment. Based on a test if necessary, or just proof of competence if applicable. That way there would be consistency throughout and only on single fee.

Posted By martinw Meant to say that I agree with your final point Crim. Sorry.

Posted By martinw One is good standards - highway code. RTA 1988 gives offences and punishment for breaches. Best to know both. You know well enough that it is wrong to drive with blood full of alcohol without having to be told in the highway code. If you do it and are caught, RTA 1988 applies along with PACE.:-)

Posted By David F Spencer To be competent for this potentially complex task requires training. Try Googling West Midlands Fire Service College for starters.