The RR(FS)O 2005 requires a little more than simply recording the main findings. Article 9(7) defines the 'prescribed information' (which, in certain circumstances must be recorded) as: 1) as the significant findings, including measures that have been taken (measures in place) and will be taken (following the FRA)... and 2) persons especially at risk. Article 11(1) lists other items to be recorded - namely the arrangements for for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures. What often happens - especially if people follow simple 'tick box' type FRA formats - is that most of the requirements under Article 9 are recorded, but very few as required by Article 11 are. Recently I have seen one enforcement authority issue a notice stating the FRA was not 'suitable and sufficent' and compelling the Resp person to supply a 'fire safety strategy' despite them already paying plenty of ££££s to a large FS consultancy for a full FRA document- I believe the enforcers wanted additional info to fill in the gaps in their tick box FRA format. So a full FRA report may represent excessive costs to the RP, but a detailed FRA report will prevent any OTT enforcer (like this jobsworth) issuing a notice to a customer, with the inevitable comeback on me. That's why I always supply a full detailed report with the significant findings displayed in a 'summary' spreadsheet at the front of the report (as that's often all the client wants to see).

I work on the assumption that unless the arguement is shown to be built in the body of the report, that the controls cannot be justified. As we all know Controls = time, inconvienince and money, which organisation would be prepared to commit any of these today without good cause.

Chris - I always write a report - two main reasons: 1. So the client can understand how and why I have come to the conclusions and recommendations that I have come to. 2. So whoever next reviews the FRA (hopefully me!) has a record of the methodology by which the previous conclusions and recommendations were arrived at and can review and revise the assessment without having to start again from scratch. Ian - with respect I think some of your comments were uncalled for. Chris is not implying that he ever fails to do what his clients require from him. I'm sure if they asked for a report he would do one.

Heather - You need to stand back and think again. Those who think they are free to offer what is required, as defined by their own sometimes shaky opinion, rather than what is asked for - and now in your opinion what is needed also - are on very thin ice. I have recently refused payment in exactly that scenario - nothing to do with fire, but someone who had a clear brief of what was required yet decided that they new best what I needed. They delivered something far less that I had asked for, and when challenged told me that they thought it quite sufficient. They did not get paid. I asked someone else to do the job, it was done properly, and I will not go back to or recommend the first 'expert'. I also have grave concerns about the very negative approach to training and what seems to be a preference to keep that at a minimum. You have given reasons why there are sound reasons for a report. I have spoken of the business and contactual reasons. To suggest that trainees need not be taught to a level that allows them to deliver that report, which you believe is appropriate, harms many who will struggle to find work and establish their careers. Once more, and to remove all doubt, I don't think it an impressive approach to training and business.

Thanks all for your interesting comments. My fra is not a tick box checklist, I use a self made information gathering format that asks and answers all relevant questions taken from the Order. That satisfies Messey's article 11(1). My completed fra contains information required by the Order because I have based my format on the Order. The Main Findings are not simply a list but any exceptions to the Order's requirement plus my recommended actions to address any exception. I suppose I have two or three different aspects : 1. when I have been working for someone for a while and I recommend the fra is needed and then I am told to just get on and do it. 2. when someone has employed me specifically to undertake the fra on their behalf. Number 1 is slightly less formal so the completed fra with a final page of main findings with recommended actions, Number 2 would result in a more formal report, separate to the fra in the same format as 1. I recently started work as H&S adviser to a construction company on a CDM notified project. They gave me free reign to manage the H&S and as a part of this I have carried out a fra of the site and included it in the construction phase plan. No formal report just the fra. As I am the H&S adviser with hands on responsibility of all H&S I ensured that any exceptions were immediately addressed, no reason to make a song and dance about it. Just complying with the Order, as I see it?

No Ian I don't need to think again. I totally agree that the wishes of the client are paramount and at no time in my post did I ever suggest otherwise. I still found your comments to Chris ("if you enjoy the Job Centre, carry on") rather unnecessary in a professional forum.

quote=ChrisBurns]Thanks all for your interesting comments. My fra is not a tick box checklist, I use a self made information gathering format that asks and answers all relevant questions taken from the Order. That satisfies Messey's article 11(1).

Fair 'nuff Bob, I have seen some really abysmally inadequate examples too. The sooner we get mandatory registration through accreditation the better in my opinion.

Talking of tick boxes and inadequate FRA formats - What are the views of regulars here about the DLG's wonderful FRA format downloadable from here: http://www.communities.g...iresafety/firesafetylaw/ Whilst this template may allow SMEs to produce an adequate list of significant findings and thereby satisfy Article 9, there is no place on this simple one page template for satisfying Article 11. For instance, suggesting staff training frequencies, Fire Drill frequencies and maintenance frequencies and benchmarks etc.. In my old life as a FS Inspecting Officer, I would be happy with such a document for say a small family run corner shop with low risks. But a higher risk factory, workshop and all sleeping risks would have to provide more than this or risk a notice. Any views??

The course was a follow up to a One day course he did last year. that gave him the competence for fra's in small low risk premises. This three day course was to enable him to carry out fra's in more complex premises. Two days training with a full day of exams including carrying out a dummy fra and followed by the report to management, under timed pressure. Not specifically a management course. He has a certificate of attendance, if he passes the exam he can get on the IFE register of fire risk assessors.

Certainly not BigRab, I'm talking about fire risk assessors, there are a number of different third party accreditation schemes, not all with the same requirements for membership. I think those on the different registers act differently to each other. I would be interested to hear from some on the registers.

Dear Messyshaw, This document, whilst originating from a official site, definitely does not comply with the law as it does not identify the risks to the safety of relevant persons from fire; and it does not identify the measures being taken and required to comply with the general fire precautions; i.e. the measures: (a) to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises; (b) in relation to the means of escape from the premises; (c) for securing that, at all material times, the means of escape can be safely and effectively used; (d) in relation to the means for fighting fires on the premises; (e) in relation to the means for detecting fire on the premises and giving warning in case of fire on the premises; and (f) in relation to the arrangements for action to be taken in the event of fire on the premises, including— (i) relating to the instruction and training of employees; and (ii) to mitigate the effects of the fire. Unfortunately many of the guidance documents from this source are incorrect. Regards

Dear Chris, 1. You do have to find out the information to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment as the form does not contain the required information to comply with article 9. 2. Your in poop! Regards

Messy, I actually wrote to them pointing out that there were considerable errors and asked them to review the guidance. I was told that they would think about it! Regards