Posted By Bob Youel Please note below - a recent press release - ................................ """New certfication scheme for fire risk assessors 16/09/2009 A third party accreditation scheme for fire risk assessors accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) has been launched by Warrington Certification, in association with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). The scheme is the first for fire risk assessors to be UKAS accredited and complies with BS EN ISO/IEC 17024: 2003, the standard for bodies operating the certification of competent persons. It is open to practising fire risk assessors who want to demonstrate their competence through third party assessment. For those affiliated to RICS, the scheme provides the basis for entry onto a register of competent fire risk assessors held and managed by the institution. Candidates who apply for certification must pass a two stage process to demonstrate their technical competence. The first stage involves a detailed review of previous work carried out by the assessor, and the second stage is a three-part technical interview. In order to maintain certification assessors are subject to surveillance criteria every two years. "'Responsible persons’ who wish to appoint a ‘competent’ fire risk assessor to carry out a fire risk assessment on their behalf, should ensure that any assessor they appoint is ‘competent’ to complete the assessment," said Simon Ince from Warrington Certification. "With no regulation or control from central government, currently anyone can set themselves up as a practising fire risk assessor regardless of knowledge, experience or training." Colin Todd, chairman of the Fire Industry Association's fire risk assessment council welcomed the development. He said: "The FIA fully support the principle of third party certification for those in the fire industry providing products and services. Given the significance of fire risk assessment as the underpinning for fire safety in non-domestic buildings under the current fire safety legislation throughout the UK, it is important that this principle extends to those carrying out fire risk assessment.""" ........................................ I ask 'is this yet another club being formed?' Whilst I strongly agree that RA should be undertaken by competent people each RA should account for all interactions and to date some fire RA's that I have viewed are narrow to say the least because the parties concerned were not all round professionals but were from a narrow background! I advise that IOSH members ensure that they keep informed re fire RA or else we will end up in the same situation that we are re CDMC's

Posted By DPK So as I understand it, I need a private organisation to tell me my nationally recognised qualifications and recognition within Institute of Fire Engineers only make me qualified not competent, MMMMMM. Surly isn't competence the judgement of the individual, company employing and ultimately the judge? I am beginning to wonder how many other professions require the level of checks, CPD, assessment etc etc that we have imposed upon ourselves? I can think of Doctors, Pilots and members of the Bar but i get stuck from there in. I often wonder if companies employee other professional people without checking what makes them competent e.g. accounts, managers and designers. I for one will not be rushing to join another scheme who ever sets it up, I will also be interested to see what take up there is for this scheme as others already exists with very limited membership numbers. I can see further regulation in the far distance if this isn't controlled, then those deemed competent to assess the risk of fire will increase prices because of additional costs and the business community will complain about the cost of FRA's and elf and safety etc. IMO there are already adequate measures in place to assess the competency of Fire Risk Assessors, if employers choose to ignore them then they run the risk of accidents, prosecution, insurance claims and more. I think we can sometimes be our own worst enemy and this is a good example of those within the profession looking at implementing another money making scheme, which will have significant ramifications on the entire industry if it is excepted as the standard. DPK

Posted By D. Hilton The Warrington certification requirements in order to demonstrate competence to their satisfaction are considerable, I would dare to suggest that quite a few FRA providers would struggle to pass first time round or even at all. However, I agree that yet another certification scheme is unnecessary and presents the potential to confuse a prospective client and adversely affect the livelihood of competent fire safety professionals who do not see any value in such schemes. Even if IOSH brought about a FRA register it would yet again be just another scheme. Competence is clearly defined and can be satisfactorily demonstrated without multiple schemes. My own personal opinion is that any individual providing the service of FRA should at least be a member of a relevant organisation at an appropriate grade. i.e. IFE, SFPE,

Posted By FAH Hi Bob - & you're obviously surprised? At it's most basic it would be very easy to see this as the culmination of one of the most blatant protectionist moves of the century and comes on the back of much vitriolic press columns that followed on from the repeal of the Fire Protection Act that finally removed the responsibility of the Fire Service to exercise their control by means of the premises Fire Certificate. My only surprise is the "parent" organisation being the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors as this initiative has been much championed by the Fire Safety trade 'till now!! I believe that this is really all about minimising those considered formally competent whilst generating revenue [lots of it!] for the remainder. As a consequence, we will see the pool of formally [UKAS] recognised FRA assessors decrease with a consequent rise in fees for those who are registered. I raised this on the IOSH Forums a couple of years ago but strangely enough no-one appeared particularly interested then. Too late now. Frank Hallett

Posted By martinw I suppose that it depends. The fire risk assessments which I carry out are on some of the most simple premises which are available for the purpose, which means the common areas of small blocks of flats(and I am not taking anything for granted..) That being said, I am not competent to do the risk assessments carried out by others on this forum and in practice generally. I do not have the experience or the relevant training. But I am happy that the FRAs which I carry out are fit for purpose, and have fire enforcement officers review them at every opportunity, so far in six areas. All have said that they are satisfactory. Would there be consideration, bearing in mind the LACORS premises of simple premises requiring relatively low levels of expertise, of different requirements for different levels of risk assessment? My point: does there need to be a strict and difficult qualification to obtain for those carrying out risk assessments on 'simple' premises'? Or will it be graded due to the nature and difficulty of the premises, such as the driving licence which tells you which class of vehicle you are allowed to drive because of which test you have passed?

Posted By peter gannaway I notice the initial report on the Lakanal fire formally raised the question of accreditation for fire risk assessors as a demonstartion of competence. To get this introduced would I understand actually require an amendment to the FSO 2005. This isn't undesirable or impossible, Warrington and others with systems alraeady in place are well positioned to become the national standard. IOSH may like to consider what part we should be playing.

Posted By D. Hilton A parallel stream of membership for those fire specialists who do not wish to get involved in mainstream H&S exists in the form of membership of the IFE or SFPE. How would many H&S professionals feel if the IFE set up a membership route catering for H&S.