Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MrsSheila  
#1 Posted : 07 January 2016 10:38:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrsSheila

Had fire risk assessments completed on all my buildings this time last year by an external consultant. All action points (minor) have been completed satisfactorily. There are no changes to the building layouts or the function or tasks undertaken inside them. There are no changes to outside areas.

Annual review now due. Do I need to spend hundreds of pounds again this year on fire risk assessments by an external consultant or is there another way of recording that a review was undertaken and there were no changes. I am not qualified to carry out fire risk assessments myself.

It seems to me that if there are no changes then why spend hundreds of pounds.

Where do I stand and what is the law please?

Ian Bell2  
#2 Posted : 07 January 2016 10:42:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

You know your own business/organisation and what has happened since the fire risk assessments were completed.

A simple statement saying no changes have taken place, placed on file should suffice.
Matthew Fisher  
#3 Posted : 07 January 2016 10:44:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

Hi MrsSheila,

Legally the FRA's need to be reviewed by a competent person, so if you are not competent to do them yourself, then I think you are left with paying for an external consultant.

As you have said, you are not qualified to undertake them, so there is potential that you are not aware of any changes in the circumstances that a fire risk assessor would be.



David Bannister  
#4 Posted : 07 January 2016 11:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

MrsSheila, It depends on the way the FRA has been documented.

If there is full explanation provided for all aspects of the assessments, explaining the reasons for reaching the conclusion then it may be very easy for you (or other colleagues) to go through the same thought process and either agree or disagree with the original assessments.

If however the FRA is a series of tick boxes with little rationale provided you are more likely to need additional assistance.


eg if there is a simple Yes/No answer to whether escape routes are adequate then without some knowledge of what is adequate or inadequate for your sites you cannot properly review the assessments.
sadlass  
#5 Posted : 07 January 2016 13:40:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
sadlass

There is nothing specific in law for 'annual reviews' of fire, or any other, risk assessments. Neither is there is little consensus of what a 'review' actually is, or should be.

Ian has nailed it in general terms if there are no changes; simply annotate "reviewed FRA on (date), no changes". That is the easiest to deal with.

There should be no need to engage an outsider to tell you what you already know. In fact, how would a consultant know what, if anything, has changed, without spending a disproportionate amount of time going through the original assessment findings. Which will take, and cost, almost the same as the original.

Who determined an annual review was required? Would it, by any chance, be the FRA consultancy?

Tick boxes are not my expectation of FRA findings from a specialist consultancy.

Why not determine (and state) that any relevant changes will prompt a review, and leave it at that.
Matthew Fisher  
#6 Posted : 07 January 2016 13:54:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

Taken straight from the RRO:

9.—(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to
which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he
needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this
Order.

(3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it
up to date and particularly if—
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when
the premises, special, technical and organisational measures, or organisation of the work
undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions,
and where changes to an assessment are required as a result of any such review, the responsible
person must make them.


Assessments must be reviewed regularly, and if for any reason you don't fee competent to do them, then hiring a competent person so is the way forward.

Will you know whether fire doors are still safe, extinguishers are appropriately placed, escape routes are sufficient for the level of risk and travel distances etc. etc. etc.

For the sake of a few hundred pounds as it was stated, I would not want to potentially risk life if I was not 100% confident I could do a thorough job of a fire risk assessment review.

And yes, if the review is done by an external company, it would make sense to spend time reviewing the previous FRA as this will give you a idea of probable areas or high risk areas that may require more investigations.

Sadlass you are correct, there is no specific requirement for annual reviews, but in my experience the majority of business have some sort of change in the previous 12months, even if they are not aware, fire doors may have dropped, compartmentation may have been breached etc.

Better safe than sorry
watcher  
#7 Posted : 07 January 2016 14:57:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

Mrs Sheila, I'm not clear from the post, but I'm guessing that you are the responsible person.

I agree with the majority of posters.

If it was an in depth FRA that was completed, you would be in a position to review it, although with the caveat, as raised by David, if it was a tick box exercise it might be quite difficult to review.

I don't agree that you would need to get a consultant back in to review it. The ground work has been done and a good FRA will make it easy to be reviewed.

Guyzy1982  
#8 Posted : 07 January 2016 15:14:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Guyzy1982

Matthew Fisher wrote:
Taken straight from the RRO:

9.—(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to
which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he
needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this
Order.

(3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it
up to date and particularly if—
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when
the premises, special, technical and organisational measures, or organisation of the work
undergo significant changes, extensions, or conversions,
and where changes to an assessment are required as a result of any such review, the responsible
person must make them.


Assessments must be reviewed regularly, and if for any reason you don't fee competent to do them, then hiring a competent person so is the way forward.

Will you know whether fire doors are still safe, extinguishers are appropriately placed, escape routes are sufficient for the level of risk and travel distances etc. etc. etc.

For the sake of a few hundred pounds as it was stated, I would not want to potentially risk life if I was not 100% confident I could do a thorough job of a fire risk assessment review.

And yes, if the review is done by an external company, it would make sense to spend time reviewing the previous FRA as this will give you a idea of probable areas or high risk areas that may require more investigations.

Sadlass you are correct, there is no specific requirement for annual reviews, but in my experience the majority of business have some sort of change in the previous 12months, even if they are not aware, fire doors may have dropped, compartmentation may have been breached etc.

Better safe than sorry



Great post Matthew, i would also suggest changes in personnel;

I would personally look at a competent person all of the time; as mentioned, there may be new items/substances introduced into the workplace where you have no idea the conseqence or anything you need to do i.e storage or even a change in the building layout. Please don't become complaicent, a new set of eyes may identify something which you may need to improve for persons safety.

Good luck....G
alistair  
#9 Posted : 07 January 2016 15:30:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
alistair

My view is that it would be the ideal world if everything stayed the same! However when there are significant changes then it would take a competent person to ensure that the additional or new protective measures required were adequate.

PAS 79 provides a simple template for FRA reviews which includes - checking that previous actions have been implemented and carrying forward those that have not as well as any new actions to address significant changes regarding - changes in the premises, use of premises, management, occupancy, any new legislation, fire hazards, fire protection measures, means of escape, FFE, evacuation procedures, etc, etc, etc.

Regarding frequency of reviews, we have had many discussions with the Fire Service and we review sleeping accommodation annually and all other educational building and offices every 2 - 3 years.
Ian Bell2  
#10 Posted : 07 January 2016 15:37:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

3) Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it
up to date and particularly if—
(a) there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid;

So do you reasonably suspect the FRA is no longer valid?

This is what you get paid for - to make decisions - not to palm it off to someone else.
toe  
#11 Posted : 07 January 2016 20:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Alistair wrote:


Regarding frequency of reviews, we have had many discussions with the Fire Service and we review sleeping accommodation .


We also review all of our sleeping accommodation premises annual, purely on an organisational policy standard.

If my suspicions are correct, the OP may have sleeping accommodation premises.
pl53  
#12 Posted : 08 January 2016 08:15:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53

I think the most appropriate question is - Do you need to review the FRA annually or opt for a longer review period? As has been said, there is no requirement for an annual review so if as you say, there has been no material change in your circumstances, then go for a longer review period.
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 08 January 2016 10:13:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Mrs Sheila, you coud pay me thousands of pounds to review them if you like but that would be wasting your money, IMO.

It would appear that all action items have been cleared and as you seem happy with the situation simply have a look around while reading through the assessments you have and sign off the assessments as reviewed and date them.

There is no set time for reviewing fra's this depends on the type of risk, some may need reviewing daily others may be two or three yearly.

Sometimes the fire risk assessor may state annually expecting a call to review them.

It is your choice but it appears that you could quite happily review yourself.


IanDakin  
#14 Posted : 08 January 2016 12:35:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
IanDakin

FireSafety101 wrote:
Mrs Sheila, you coud pay me thousands of pounds to review them if you like but that would be wasting your money, IMO.

It would appear that all action items have been cleared and as you seem happy with the situation simply have a look around while reading through the assessments you have and sign off the assessments as reviewed and date them.

There is no set time for reviewing fra's this depends on the type of risk, some may need reviewing daily others may be two or three yearly.

Sometimes the fire risk assessor may state annually expecting a call to review them.

It is your choice but it appears that you could quite happily review yourself.



Good advice.
RayRapp  
#15 Posted : 08 January 2016 13:09:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

A couple of points worth noting from this thread, first, you may not be competent to carry out FRAs but does that also mean you are not competent to carry out a review? Given that there is likely to be no change within a year I think someone with a basic knowledge of FRAs could be competent to carry out a desktop review.

My the other point is the level of risk. If for argument's sake all the FRAs have come out a low risk then is there a need to review them all annually? I would argue not. That said, if the consequences of a fire are high risk - for example, a care home or similar, then there could be a good argument that even low risk FRAs need to be carried out on an annual basis. It's all about the risk.
jwk  
#16 Posted : 08 January 2016 13:38:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Hi Mrs Sheila,

We have 350 charity shops. The initial assessment is done by a consultancy (who at least claim to be competent). The review is carried out by the area manager. The review form starts with three or four questions along the lines of 'has anything changed' and 'is there still stuff outstanding from the initial assessment'. If the answer to those questions is No, then job done. If there have been significant changes to working patterns or physical layout etc etc the the area manager gets in touch with my retail person who determines what the next step should be.

Mostly, nothing significant has changed,

John
mssy  
#17 Posted : 09 January 2016 06:32:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

Matthew Fisher wrote:
Hi MrsSheila,

Legally the FRA's need to be reviewed by a competent person,



Sorry Matthew, this 100% incorrect, a common misinterpretation and one (like compulsory annual reviews) that is often banded about by consultants to keep their workloads high.

The RP must appoint a competent person to apply the preventive and protective measures - ie those measures highlighted by the FRA. So training, installing and maintaining the fire detection and EL systems must be carried out by a competent person, but the FRA does not need to be.

This allows the RP of low risk SMEs to do their own FRA as part of the rationale of moving away from Fire Certificates was to reduce the burden on industry. Why do you think the Govt have spent tens of £1000s issuing their FS guidance documents? A Competent Person would have the necessary training and experience and have copies of ADB and BS9999 to hand so wouldn't necessarily need the guides.

Of course, the FRA produced must be suitable & sufficient - but how hard is this for a low risk small businessman who has to deal with other 'admin' such as HMRC returns, the VATman, Insurance companies and staff pensions?

Mrs Shiela

If you decide not to review your FRA yourself, I will undercut Firesafety101's criminally extortionate quote (post 13) and save you £££££s as he is not to be trusted :) :)

Seriously, with most low or medium risk premises, walking around with an existing FRA and recording your findings (even if zero) may well be sufficient

Good luck
firesafety101  
#18 Posted : 09 January 2016 10:42:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Mssy, I Resemble that remark ha ha

Mrs Sheila. When you get your quote from mssy let me know and I will undercut him by 50%

Of course that will not happen because I am sure you will follow the guidance recieved here and do them yourself.

Good luck and I hope you enjoyed the banter.

Take care.
Matthew Fisher  
#19 Posted : 11 January 2016 08:35:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

mssy wrote:
Matthew Fisher wrote:
Hi MrsSheila,

Legally the FRA's need to be reviewed by a competent person,



Sorry Matthew, this 100% incorrect, a common misinterpretation and one (like compulsory annual reviews) that is often banded about by consultants to keep their workloads high.

The RP must appoint a competent person to apply the preventive and protective measures - ie those measures highlighted by the FRA. So training, installing and maintaining the fire detection and EL systems must be carried out by a competent person, but the FRA does not need to be.

This is not be being funny, in case it sounds so, it is a genuine question.

I am not following why you say that a competent person must undertake the review? Where is it you are getting this information from?
I am not saying that a consultant has to carry out, we all know that the RP can also be the competent person, and therefor competent to carry out the FRA. With you saying that the person carrying out the FRA reviews does not need to be a competent person, would you be happy with an incompetent person carrying out a review on the fire safety measures? I certainly wouldn't! It is extremely unlikely that no changes has taken place in a business over a period of 12 months.

In my opinion it quite clearly states that the responsible person must undertake a FRA, and review this when necessary. If the RP is also not the competent person, they must appoint one. So how does this mean that the person doing the review doesn't have to be competent? IMO I would rather a incompetent person did simple review checks of EL etc. (it is much easier to test EL than perform a decent FRA) than reviewed a FRA.
Invictus  
#20 Posted : 11 January 2016 08:56:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Matthew Fisher wrote:
mssy wrote:
Matthew Fisher wrote:
Hi MrsSheila,

Legally the FRA's need to be reviewed by a competent person,



Sorry Matthew, this 100% incorrect, a common misinterpretation and one (like compulsory annual reviews) that is often banded about by consultants to keep their workloads high.

The RP must appoint a competent person to apply the preventive and protective measures - ie those measures highlighted by the FRA. So training, installing and maintaining the fire detection and EL systems must be carried out by a competent person, but the FRA does not need to be.

This is not be being funny, in case it sounds so, it is a genuine question.

I am not following why you say that a competent person must undertake the review? Where is it you are getting this information from?
I am not saying that a consultant has to carry out, we all know that the RP can also be the competent person, and therefor competent to carry out the FRA. With you saying that the person carrying out the FRA reviews does not need to be a competent person, would you be happy with an incompetent person carrying out a review on the fire safety measures? I certainly wouldn't! It is extremely unlikely that no changes has taken place in a business over a period of 12 months.

In my opinion it quite clearly states that the responsible person must undertake a FRA, and review this when necessary. If the RP is also not the competent person, they must appoint one. So how does this mean that the person doing the review doesn't have to be competent? IMO I would rather a incompetent person did simple review checks of EL etc. (it is much easier to test EL than perform a decent FRA) than reviewed a FRA.



I'm confused you appear to be arguing with yourself!
Matthew Fisher  
#21 Posted : 11 January 2016 10:03:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

Invictus, I was questioning why the FRA does not need to be completed by a competent person, which was stated by Mssy.

IMO the FRA needs to be done by a competent person, whether that is also the RP or not. But my understanding of what Mssy has said is that the person conducting/reviewing the FRA does not need to be competent
Matthew Fisher  
#22 Posted : 11 January 2016 10:14:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

Perhaps this is the confusion: Where I said- I am not following why you say that a competent person must undertake the review? Where is it you are getting this information from?

What I meant was, I am not following why you said that a competent person is not needed to be the one carrying out the FRA/review.

Sorry about the confusion
Invictus  
#23 Posted : 11 January 2016 10:16:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Matthew Fisher wrote:
Perhaps this is the confusion: Where I said- I am not following why you say that a competent person must undertake the review? Where is it you are getting this information from?

What I meant was, I am not following why you said that a competent person is not needed to be the one carrying out the FRA/review.

Sorry about the confusion


That might be correct but you started your response by saying "sorry Matthew, but this is a 100% incorrect" but it was your own statement in the first place in #3.

Mssy was quoting you!
Matthew Fisher  
#24 Posted : 11 January 2016 10:23:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

ha, I see where the confusion was now. That was a quote from Mssy that I was replying to, it seems my reply also ended up in the quote reply part. I definitely wasn't arguing with myself.

Yes I was.

No I wasn't!
mssy  
#25 Posted : 11 January 2016 19:41:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

Matthew - My source is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and from conversations with a former colleague who was involved in compiling the Order

Article 3 -
Defines what is meant by the term 'Responsible Person'. There is no requirement in this article for the RP to be competent set out in this Article

Article 8 -
States that the RP take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable. There is no requirement in this article for the RP to be competent set out in this Article

Article 9 -
States the RP must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take. Again, there is no requirement in this article for the RP to be competent set out in this Article

Article 18-
States the RP must ...... appoint one or more COMPETENT PERSONS (my capitals) to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures*.

*Just to be clear; Article 2 defines "preventive and protective measures” as the measures which have been identified by the responsible person in consequence of a risk assessment as the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order

(in other words, competent persons are bought in after the FRA has been completed to deliver the findings)

Article 18 goes on.........
A person is to be regarded as competent for the purposes of this article where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.



Just to repeat, the RR(FS)O was designed to allow owners (RPs) of small low risk businesses to complete their own FRAs and the Govt provides easy to rad guidance for the general public so this can happen.

If the RP had to be competent, then Mr & Mrs Smith at the local corner shop would have to get a consultant in. But the RRO allows them to complete the FRA, but:
1) The FRA must be suitable & sufficient, and;
2) Anyone bought in as a result of the FRA (fire alarm engineer, emergency lighting electrician, fire trainer etc etc) must be competent

Hope this makes a bit more sense

http://www.legislation.g.../2005/1541/contents/made
Matthew Fisher  
#26 Posted : 12 January 2016 08:18:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

That makes perfect sense thank you Mssy :)
watcher  
#27 Posted : 12 January 2016 10:05:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

Mssy is spot on, as usual.

You always know that he/she is giving good advice.

firesafety101  
#28 Posted : 12 January 2016 11:20:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Matthew in #19 you say you would rather an incompetent person did the reviews.

This takes you a heck of a long way from your initial standpoint.



Matthew Fisher  
#29 Posted : 12 January 2016 12:22:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

FS101,

In 19 I mentioned that I would not be happy an incompetent person doing a review of the FRA.

And at the bottom I also say that personally I would rather an incompetent person did a review of the Emergency lighting checks (effectively flicking a switch) than reviewing the FRA! This was in response to a previous comment from another user.

My point was that IMO an incompetent person is less likely to do harm by reviewing EL, that reviewing a FRA!
firesafety101  
#30 Posted : 12 January 2016 16:04:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Incompetent:

Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something,

Inept, unskilled, amateurish, unprofessional ..............

Is this someone who you would allow anywhere near a risk assessment rview ???????????
jwk  
#31 Posted : 12 January 2016 16:19:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Of course they have to be competent, but the level of competence required for a review is very different from the level of competence required for the initial assessment, or at least it is in fairly simple premises.

I've mentioned what we do with our retail premises here; we are going to do the same with our (mostly very straightforward) office premises.

But at my last place we had care homes and hospices which were forever changing the use and purpose of rooms and so on. One of my team felt that we couldn't do 'reviews' as such as the risks were high enough, and the constant change was significant enough to require a fresh FSRA every year or so. I was undecided, but his arguments weren't easily gainsaid.

So where you have vulnerable people sleeping in, other high risk activities (DSEAR stuff, hot works and the like) you might well want a specialist fire risk assessor. Otherwise you can give somebody some training and a simple well designed tool. Both those people can be competent, but competence depends on context as much as on personal qualities,

John
mssy  
#32 Posted : 12 January 2016 17:11:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

jwk wrote:
Of course they have to be competent, but the level of competence required for a review is very different from the level of competence required for the initial assessment, or at least it is in fairly simple premises.
John


John - I am talking about the legal perspective to complete FRAs (not necessarily reviews). Nowhere in the Order does it say the person conducting the RA must be competent, however their FRA must be suitable & sufficient!

I accept that in practice any RP who uses a consult, or any business that employs a fire risk assessor onto their staff should establish they are competent - but that is not a requirement of the RRO .............. yet!!
Matthew Fisher  
#33 Posted : 13 January 2016 08:57:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matthew Fisher

FireSafety101 wrote:
Incompetent:

Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something,

Inept, unskilled, amateurish, unprofessional ..............

Is this someone who you would allow anywhere near a risk assessment rview ???????????



Would I allow them to complete a full RA review whilst incompetent? NO.

Would I allow them to complete parts of it, I.e. testing the emergency lighting? YES.

I think you are clearly missing the point!

I was saying that I would prefer someone to review a RA for EL, than review a FRA. There are plenty more that can go wrong with a review of the FRA, than the EL RA. That is not me saying I would allow it, that is saying than IMO I would rather them perform a RA review on something like EL than a FRA.
Invictus  
#34 Posted : 13 January 2016 09:09:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

I gather we are talking about a review, he may take the opportunity to look that all deficiencies have been completed, as these would be highlighted in the assessment carried out by the competent person.

He could then walk around to check that the rest of the assessment is still in order. The 12 month review is banded about by the risk assessors to keep work coming in.

I think you need a competent person for the initial or significant change, but not always for the review of course this would depend on the level of risk .
MrsSheila  
#35 Posted : 13 January 2016 09:12:23(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrsSheila

Thanks everyone - most informative as always.
jwk  
#36 Posted : 13 January 2016 09:52:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Hi mssy,

I was referring to the dialogue about competence for reviews, not commenting on anything in the RRO, which does not, as you point out, actually require any! And my comments on the competence of reviewers are based on the understanding that the employer has at least some sort of assurance that the original FSRA is suitable and sufficient; to me this implies a level of competence on the part of the initial assessor.

It's a thorny place this competence stuff, hard to negotiate and full of tangles,

John
Ron Hunter  
#37 Posted : 13 January 2016 17:12:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

In Scotland:

Regulation 17 of The Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 mirrors the H&S Management Regulations, including:

Safety assistance
17.—(1) The person with duties under section 53 or 54 must, subject to paragraphs (5) and (6),
nominate one or more competent persons to assist him or her in undertaking the measures
necessary to comply with the Chapter 1 duties.

And s.53 and 54 Chapter 1 duties of Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 include:

Duties of employers to employees

(1) Each employer shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace.

(2)Each employer shall—

(a) carry out an assessment of the workplace for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of the employer's employees in respect of harm caused by fire in the workplace;

(b) take in relation to the workplace such of the fire safety measures as are necessary to enable the employer to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1).

(3)Where under subsection (2)(a) an employer carries out an assessment, the employer shall—

(a)in accordance with regulations under section 57,REVIEW the assessment...........

toe  
#38 Posted : 13 January 2016 23:00:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Good point. Fire Laws in Scotland are different that the rest of the UK. For example, they recognise multiple 'duty holders' (responsible persons under RRFSO).

Out of interest: There is no crime of 'arson' in Scotland it is called 'wilful fire raising'.
gramsay  
#39 Posted : 15 January 2016 12:08:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gramsay

That's because we spend most of our time arson about up here, you'd never tell the difference.

Good thread.
mssy  
#40 Posted : 15 January 2016 17:14:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
mssy

Toe wrote:
Good point. Fire Laws in Scotland are different that the rest of the UK.


I work across the entire UK and have to deal with 3 x separate pieces of legislation that pretty much do exactly the same thing. I suppose it keeps those in the wigs and gowns busy (No - not Dame Edna, I mean the legal profession!).

All I know is that it takes me around twice as long to complete a FRA on an identical building in Scotland and Northern Ireland than it does in England and Wales as I have to keep referring to reference material to ensure I do not make any semantic type mistakes

Trying to train staff - especially managers - is particular difficult when your company operates across the UK. It makes my blood pressure hit the roof when I think how much money UK businesses waste because of the lack of joined up legislation.




Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.