Posted By Adams777 I work on a 167 acre site containing 42 buildings, many of them housing several different disciplines. Each building and different areas (e.g. one building houses the kitchen and dinning room, some admin offices, the finance office and the CEO) have all been fire risked and the significant findings/results for each building/area made accessible to all staff via the company intranet. There is a progressive action plan for remedial works either completed in house or sub-contracted out. My company employs a former fireman as the company fire safety officer and it is his intention to have a designated person in each building/area made responsbile for ensuring the requirements involving the daily maintenance and upkeep of the fire precautions are strictly adhered too. One building houses 6 different disciplines and he requires a designated person in each area) My question is "is this strictly necessary and what are the daily maintenance and upkeep of the fire precautions?" We have in place a full weekly inspection regime carried out by a competent person employed by the fire safety officer which includes fire alarm testing / emergency lights / fire extinguishers and even furniture (for damage). Additionally he employs an electrician (fully trained and competent) to carry out minor works. Has my fire safety officer gone overboard or am I just not as clued up as he is and generally speaking what do in your own firms? A bit long winded and I apologise. Adam

Posted By Coshh Assessor That's how I would interpret it also - a daily walk around looking for any obvious issues. Seems reasonable on the face of it.

Posted By tdunbar "Just look at the conditions they usd to put in fire certificates and you will see they over do things because it protects their jobs." What do you mean Bob?

Posted By Messy Shaw Bob. I too would be interested as to how you have concluded that the ex fire officer in question here may be going over the top with his suggested procedures (as that is the inference in your post). From the info supplied by the originator of the thread, it's almost impossible to determine whether the action he is suggesting is reasonable or not. With regards to fire certs - fire service staff involved with drawing up fire certs (like me) did so using a suite of Govt guides - in fact they were more than guides, they were bibles! (The Red book, Lilac book etc). So it wasn't really down to the firefighter what went in to a cert, it was pretty prescriptive and all down to the specific book he was referring to. In my everso humble opinion, most fire certs were reasonable, and of those that were 'defective', they were so due to omissions (didn't make enough FS provision) and not over provision as you suggest. Bob I assume you have had dealings with the minority of 'jobsworth' type of fire safety officers and that experience(s) have clouded your view. It may be worth bearing in mind that whilst I accept that there are some overbearing/bullying types doing this job, the vast majority are well meaning, well motivated and knowledgeable. The comment about 'protecting their jobs' is a little daft and probably says more about you than them.

Posted By tdunbar Yes there are FFs out there who have see the FRA process as an opportunity to recklessly exploit their past experiences on the trucks. Yes there are qualified persons out there who see the FRA process as an opportunity to recklessly exploit their university qualification badge. Fire Safety is a specialist position as is the operational side of the job and many firefighters can go about their operational duties very well without any need to know the hows and whys of fire safety. Those who do or did both are in a better position to understand the hows and why and use that experience to the benefit of others, particularily those on the outsdie who become Responsible Perons. Whilst many understandably lambast the non fire safety experienced self proclaimed consultant be also aware of the non fire safety experienced university qualified self proclaimed consultant who probably was no near to an operational incident than a member of the public looking on. Does a qualification mean an automatic right to claims of competency more so than Fire Safety experience?

Posted By Messy Shaw I agree there are many ex (and current!) operational firefighters involved in this game, & I too have seen many examples of unsuitable FRA reports peppered with fire service terms which does suggest an operational FF 'winging it'. Many operational FFs use their 20 year old IFE qualification as a way of proving 'competence' despite having no experience in fire safety. Some will be able to interpret the fire safety guides and do a reasonable job on lower risk properties. Others would be out of their depth assessing a phone box! This will all inevitably lead to some kind of 3rd party certification. It doesn't matter what background an assessor comes from, the most important characteristic is a mix of confidence and competence - and an ability to say 'I don't know"(and, where necessary, conducting research before coming up with an answer). In my experience, those with little competence will tend to guess if they don't know and that's where it gets dodgy.

Posted By tdunbar You can certainly nominate someone to take responsibility for an area (an assistant) who could be different from someone who to any extent has control. There is a difference between a Responsible Person and someone who has been nominated a person responsible.