Firstly if you are "employed" it is your employer who will carry the can if it all goes wrong as you would be following his instructions, however get it in writing first. Secondly you are correct in your deduction that further training is required for carrying out fire risk assessment. You should be congratulated for realising your limitations. (Showing your competence). There is a Regulation your employer may be interested in - see http://www.legislation.g...i/2010/471/contents/made this puts responsibility on the employer to ensure employee competence for fire safety work. Your next course could be the NEBOSH fire risk assessment but then only qualify to risk assess small low risk premises at the start. Good luck.

Chris: What about Article 5(3) and 5(4), which in a nutshell says that anyone who has any control of a premises, in relation to safety, can be treated as the Resp Person in certain circumstances. It is this Article that those who carry out FRAs, maintenance to fire alarms & EL should be wary of, as they along with the actual RP might end up in the dock if it all goes pear shape:.................... (3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control. (4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to— (a)the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or (b)the safety of any premises, that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends.

To clarify, the 'Employer' is the RP not the employee even if the employee conducts the work. The capability regs were issued following issue of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 this supplement stated if an employer requires an employee to conduct fire safety duties then he/she MUST take account of those persons competence and provide suitable & sufficent training. My advise, dont engage in an FRA if you don't feel confident. Fire Authorities are getting tighter on this issue and many companies, including some very big organisations are having their collars felt.

Well siad JJ, it often in the interest of those who have a vested interest in promoting the myths about FRA that respond to post such as this one. There are many situations that over the top knowledge and competence is sold as the minimum requirement. The RRFSO only requires adequate competence for the premises concerned and no more. If the premises are quite simple and have no hazardous things going on inside them the requirement is quite straight forward, such as offices and escape is the most important part to consider with the premises and its construction second. A case of horses for courses really.

Just a comment: In my personal experience most fire risk assessments that I have seen are undertaken by people who have no qualifications at all in any sort of 'recognised' competence area, so until the area is sown up as in finance etc. things will not change. Additionally I have seen Fire RA's that 'professionals' have completed that are very poor and v-verse and anybody with a NEBOSH Dip etc is, in my view, far better qualified than most noting that the only time any sort of RA will be evaluated properly is in a court

This could be said about anything health and safety i.e. do you need to be an expert to risk assess work at height? What about COSHH? What about waste disposal? etc. etc. More people die in fires than by any other means, each year. If you go by the above comment anyone can do anything as long as they read the ACOP?

Yes, I do. I once worked with a guy that did this sort of work many moons ago, before I was involved in H&S. Some of the stories stuck with me. Andy

The OP is clearly concerned about their own competence and is to be congratulated in both recognising and declaring this, not only to their boss but also on a public forum. We know nothing about the complexity of the site. One solutions occurs to me: get a second opinion on the adequacy of your assessment. Then you can decide whether any additional knowledge or skills are needed, depending on the unique circumstances of your workplace. Please can we not have another row about competency to perform fire risk assesments. CB: Asbestos disease and road deaths each account for many lives. Fire is awful but in relation to H&S at work is less of a killer.

From the DfT: "The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926. A total of 22,660 people were reported killed or seriously injured in 2010, 8 per cent less than in 2009. There were 208,655 casualties (slight injuries, serious injuries and fatalities) in road accidents reported to the police in Great Britain in 2010, 6 per cent less than in 2009.Motor vehicle traffic levels fell by 2 per cent compared to 2009."

I'm not going to get drawn into this discussion, so this is my one and only comment. On paper it may look like someone has simply ticked a few boxes but the analysis carried out to be able to put that tick in the box is crucial. I have only completed the BTEC Fire Risk Assessment Course and I can assure you even this course has opened my eyes to hazards and associated risks I would never have considered. Regards Elfy.

So the risk of dying in a fire at work is of a very small order of magnitude for the majority of the people. More likely to die on the roads while driving to work or out on business. In 25yrs of working, I know of nobody who has been injured/killed by fire at work (many sectors- aviation, oil/gas, nuclear, office, general industry) On the other hand - I knew 2 people killed driving to/from work, 1 killed by moving machinery, 1 killed by a fabricated section slipping & crushing, 1 killed by a tractor. Much better to conentrate more effort of occupational health issues such as manual handling, work at height etc. Fire is important, but you fire boys need to take a wider view of safety.

Now Chris calm yourself down a bit. I see no comments as to the competence you probably have in fire risk assessment. The main point of this topic is to me what competence do you really need to undertake a fire risk assessment. The answer in my opinion depends upon the situation being looked at. For instance as I have already indicated, if it is for an office environment provided the assessor understands the fire risks associated with the premises there is no need to understand for example how chemicals react with fire, so it is low risk. However, if you work in a place that handles expolsives or highly flamable meterial the nature of the risk assessment is much higher and will need a full understanding of the nature of the material in order to make a sound judgement. As to your remarks about the number of firemen killed on duty I think no one needs to be reminded of the dangers they face when undertaking thier duties. The remark you made about not being happy to work alongside someone is a bit over the top, no one would like to be in that position, I have and it was not a pleasant experience. So as I said calm yourself.

Much respect for the emergency services who have to deal with fires etc. I am not disputing their bravery. You have immediately jumped to a very narrow tack - the deaths of fire fighters in the line of duty. Looking at all working situations, I would most certainly argue - the risk of dying in a fire at work is of a very low risk order. I doubt many people go to work and have real and genuine concerns that they may get killed in a fire. As regards competence to undertake fire risk assessments, as previously indicated - it very much depends on the factors already explained - other relevant qualifications, nature of the business, existing conditions etc. Many fire risk assessments/premises are fairly straight forward with res[ect to fire risk assessment. As regards the comments you have made about the unlucky souls I have know/been aware of who have died at work - what makes you think I was working at the same companies etc and could then hopefully then influence the safety standards. Only 1 of the people I mention was employed at the same company, even then at a totally different site. Rather poor analysis of the overall situation and statistics, I think.

I regret that this post has got a little heated (pun intended). Firstly, of course lets clear up that a professional assessor is not required every time. For simple premises, it's perfectly acceptable for the business to do it themselves. I wouldn't always expect Mr and Mrs Smith to have bought in a pro to FRA their tiny off licence, but I would expect Hilton Hotels PLC to use a professional to RA their 22 storey flagship on Park Lane (which, BTW, they do!). But the fact remains, there is no requirement anywhere in the RRO for the assessor to be competent. Mad but true, but this is intentional to allow a degree of 'self regulation'. As far as my reference to Article 5(3) & 4, re treating others as the RP, consider the following: (my comments in CAPS), the Order states: (3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control. SO, THE SAME DUTIES WHICH BEFALL A RP (RE ARTICLES 8 to 22 & 24), "SHALL BE IMPOSED ON OTHERS.... SO FAR AS THE MATTERS RELATE TO MATTERS WITHIN HIS CONTROL". THIS CLEARLY STATES THERE ARE OTHERS WHO CAN BE TREATED AS (OR SIMILAR TO THE) RP FOR FAILURES RELATING TO ARTICLES 8 TO 22 7 24. THE ARTICLE GOES ON TO SAY THAT:........... (4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to— (a)the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or (b)the safety of any premises, that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends. SO, IF A PERSON HAS A 'CONTRACT' OR 'OBLIGATION' RE "THE SAFETY OF THE PREMISES" THAT PERSON CAN BE TREATED AS RP (IE PERSON IN CONTROL) AS FAR AS THE MATTERS CONCERNED ARE UNDER THEIR CONTROL. EXAMPLES: > A FIRE ALARM ENGINEER WHO BODGES A REPAIR OR LIES ABOUT MAINTENANCE > AN ELECTRICIAN WHO INCORRECTLY WIRES EMERGENCY LIGHTING > OR A PERSON WHO HAS EITHER A 'CONTRACT' OR 'OBLIGATION' (whatever that means) TO PERFORM A FRA

Chris, dont simply hide away because someone sees things slightly at odds with your view. It takes many opinions to reach an agreement. The fact remains it is about the level competence that is key to fire risk assessments, I am unable to say that I could assess a petrol plant simply because I have not had that level of fire risk assesment that such a premises would demand, however, I am competent to assess it for simpler premises, I feel that and would not exceed my own belief, because that could put others at risk, but dont stop participating simply because someone challenges your view point.

I think the spirit of the legislation wasn't intended to provide an opening for specialist fire risk assessors to become the only recognised competent assessors. I'm based a lot of time in a manufacturer & warehouse building and admit I felt a lot more comfortable to use a consultant to conduct a risk assessment with my employers full support. On the other hand I also cover many small retail units, which the majority I'm more than comfortable to carry them out. There has to be an even balance as with most issues as to what you feel comfortable within your capabilities as is normal in the H&S profession where 1 size rarely fits all! I for 1 wouldn't enjoy this going along the lines of yet another consultancy dominated register, good for business but good for the economy??

My organisation comes under the jurisdiction of Crown Property Inspection Group, who are not particularly happy with our facilities management service FRA's, deeming them not suitable or sufficient. A CPIG Inspector was asked if H&S adviser's working in the justice field were suitably qualified / competent and the answer was 'no'. The most useful FRA information I've found is the FRA guidance on the Communities.gov.uk website. Competence and accountability are a mess until there's a tragedy, then everyone will run for the hills.

Hi you just answered your own question as if you need to ask this question you have a skill gap, remember holding Health & Safety qul does not cover all areas in detail. Health & safety manager need to stand up to boss requests to cover everything check out PAS standards, Fire risk assessmet is not a tick box hope this is of help

Just to add - I have requested the Advisor gets NEBOSH Fire Safety Risk Managment trained, with a view of then attending the European Fire SAfety Diploma.