I was fortunate enough to meet some of the Govt advisors who effectively complied the Fire Safety Order. 

Let’s not forget, they didnt have a free hand in writing it and had to ensure it complied with Tony Blair’s Government’s commitments from the Labour Party’s previous manifesto promises.

One Labour promise was to reduce the burden on industry by cutting ‘red tape’. Indeed in 2006, Blair announced an ambitious plan to save £millions by cutting red tape by 25% by 2010.

Against such a background, the idea to make all businesses - and especially SME’s with a low fire risk - to employ a competent person was never going to be politically acceptable.

So, although the Responsible Person had to compile a ‘suitable and sufficient’ (legally compliant) FRA, he didnt need to be competent. It was a dangerous cop out to be honest and has had difficult consequences.

A better idea would have been to set a risk threshold. Any premises above that threshold would need a competent person to write the FRA. 

The Fire Precautions Act 1971 (replaced by The Fire Safety Order) already had a built in threshold when determining whether a premises needed a Fire Certificate  which were if:

1) More than twenty persons are at work at any one time

2) More than ten persons are at work at any one time elsewhere than on the ground floor of the building constituting or comprising the premises;

3) Factory premises, storing or using explosive or highly flammable materials are stored or used in or under the premises.

4) Hotels the numbers were as follows:

a) Sleeping accommodation for more than six, being staff or guests

b) Some sleeping accommodation is provided for staff or guests on any floor above the first floor

c) Some sleeping accommodation is provided below the ground floor of the building for staff or guests 

That perhaps would not have been an ideal definition of the Fire safety Order threshold, but you see what I mean.

So as there was no need to be competent to draw up a FRA, why have any system to register or lay down standards?

The result is that in places it was the Wild West out there with all sorts of cowboys setting up in business. One guy I knew was a former car clamper who had little competence but was very persuasive - a gold standard gift of the gab

He won contracts in a heritage shopping mall in Mayfair and a power station in Humberside. He often phoned me for advice and was constantly wanting me to work for him. That was never gunna happen!!!

I am optimistic that cowboys like him and H&S competent people chancing their arm in fire safety will be a thing of he past IF competency is managed properly.

We will see 

We are back to that single word, an amorphous intangible blob which to derive any clarity is like trying to wrestle an octopus into a pint pot, "competence".

Many have tried to pin the tail on this donkey and to date no one has provided a suitable and universal answer.

In the second phase reports overview competence appears sixteen times each occassion being used for different actors within construction - the contractors, the fire risk assessor, the test houses, the certification bodies, building control etc. - the whole of constructions competence has been brought in to question along with that of the clients.

That is before consideration of the integrity and honesty of manufacturers some of whom remain in denial.

If we look to the built environment bridges are not collapsing, sky scrapers are not falling down, most houses keep out the weather (some new builds excluded) are these all truly by accident rather than design?

We know all construction will continue whilst HM gov deliberates and despite their noises the vast resources to implement all the proposed recommendations in their entirety will be unlikely to appear.

One thing for certain is that any move to certified competence should not be a commercial operation (pay the money get the certificate) nor for the sake of public safety operate on a break even status given the need for stringent checks and balances of the provider and the recipient(s).

A limited scheme similar to that for Dangerous Goods Safety Advisors could be the template.

The British Safety Council (other providers are available) have a one day online course for £98. with certificate of competency issued on successfur completion.

I'm tempted to give it a go to see what it involves.

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

The British Safety Council (other providers are available) have a one day online course for £98. with certificate of competency issued on successfur completion.

Be interesting to see post recommendation implementation how many of these providers and courses the building safety regulator deems suitable and sufficient.

I'm horrified that anyone claiming to be at all reputable and not just a front for a scam would offer such a £98  online course.  That to me casts doubt on such an organisation's reputation.

So to be fair to the British Safety Council I checked that they do indeed offer this and so they do.  What's more, they say "This short course is for anyone who has to carry out fire risk assessments in the workplace."  Really?  Anyone?  With no reservations about what type of workplace the course equips the learner to assess?

I can see that this is in no way adequate but how would an employer wishing to fulfil their duties at a low cost realise this?

The recommendations of the report call for mandatory accreditation of fire risk assessors.  Given this cowboy element, I tend to think this is necessary, and would need to involve much more than just passing a course. 

But surely we do need something that distinguishes between the various scenarios of fire risk assessment which include, for example,  "a high-rise residential building some of whose occupants are vulnerable", "a busy railway station", "a large industrial site with many operational activities", and "a small rented office within a modern office block"?

I read these threads with interest and scribbled down some of my thoughts.

• The FRA registers have existed for years. Any Fire Assessor worth their salt would be well-versed in them and be registered if appropriate. Since the fire at Greenfield, these registers have gained significant attention in the field of fire safety, underscoring their importance.
• However, if professional safety people are not aware of the registers, then what’s the likelihood that the local hotelier, garage, or other high-risk business would also be aware of them?
• I wholeheartedly agree with these registers; I am particularly fond of the tiered one, which requires a certain competence level to conduct specific types of assessments.
• Roundtuit’s thoughts on competence have always been ambiguous within the field of safety and health. However, I do have confidence that these registers work. To get onto a register, you need experience and relevant qualifications, to submit a number of completed fire assessments, and to have professional indemnity insurance. I think you may also need to be a member of an institution or federation, etc.; this is where the CDP would kick in.
• But... I must agree with Messy regarding the commercialisation of these schemes, and maybe they do need to be more independent and appropriately controlled.
• I am not horrified regarding the BSC one-day course, as there are equally one-day safety risk assessors courses available. It’s ‘horses for courses’; Messy believes that a competent person is not needed for low-risk premises. However, a one-day course like this may give the person enough knowledge and understanding to conduct an assessment on low-risk premises, like a small shop.
• In my experience, I've encountered both excellent and subpar fire assessors. It's worth noting that some of the less competent assessors were fire officers from the fire and rescue service. One such officer believed that fire extinguishers were unnecessary, as it was the responsibility of the fire and rescue service to handle fires. This highlights the critical need for professional competence and independence in our field.
• Kate mentions ‘high-rise residential buildings’ which is an interesting and significant issue. After Grenfell, I had an opportunity to carry out assessments in communal areas of high-rise buildings in a large city in Scotland on behalf of the housing associations that managed them. What I found was shocking to the core. In one building, I found the air vents in the bathrooms of all the flats were connected with no fire dampening or fire protection fitted, meaning fire and smoke would quickly find their way into all of the upper flats from the fire. In another, there was a central lead acid battery charging room for the emergency lights. The charging system was not maintained, and the smell of hydrogen gas (rotten eggs) in the room was overwhelming. The vent Axia window fan was not working, and the door to the room was in disrepair and rotten. In addition, there were no controls by the housing associations to manage the common storage areas, usually on the ground or basement floors. These storage areas are typically cages so you can see what’s in them; it was not uncommon to find propane gas bottles for heaters or BBQs and e-bikes and electric wheelchairs. To add, some resident had changed their front doors (leading to the emergency stairwell) to non-fire-rated doors.
• The challenge with high-rise residential buildings is that one cannot control or manage what happens in an individual's home.

Note: Although I hold a membership with a fire institute, I am not directly associated with any registered scheme.

I have never liked the 'Common Areas' FRA as part of the FRA is to inspect the fire doors including self closers.

The last FRA I did was last year, October, it was a mid rise occupied former warehouse with flats on every one of 5 floors

The residents had been emailed to let them know we were coming, date and time, but when we knocked on doors most went unanswered so we could only see the outside face of the doors.

Every flat had fire doors inside but we saw hardly any.

Toe makes reference to Professional Indemnity insurance - what happens when this is not available?

We saw the underwriters run a mile when Grenfell happened and many are now noting apprehension amongst insurers about future remediation claims under the Building Safety Act's 30 year claw back.

Sadly what would have been the first test case at the end of August was settled out of court.

I hope Toe doesn't mind me pointing out that the smelly gas is hydrogen sulphide for which I suppose hydrogen was a typing error.

Hi Toe

PII might be available for fire risk assessors and probably will continue to be, but the question will be "at what price?" as the insurance market is likely to further harden.

We have been through this before e.g. with "Asbestos" and, in the US with "mold" as well - "Mould" with a U didn't really get the eye of the insurers in the way that it has in the US, though that might change going forward.

So, using the experience of Asbestos, many insurers just simply put a blanket exclusion on the A word on all their PII packages. Didn't matter what the level of risk might be.

Some consultants attempted to get round this by trying to get their clients to agree to the consultants not being liable for anything to do with asbestos. Others tried to decide that they would do no "work with asbestos" but that, in effect for some, meant not doing anything other than on a greenfield site. Others accepted that the PII was not available at a reaonable price and managed the risk.

Our insurers seemed to be fine with a project where there was a significant problem with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium but the A word EXCLUDED. 

Which is relatively OK for a supplier with deep pockets. PII is not compulsory so it is not illegal to work "at risk".

But for a small fire consultancy EXCLUSION could mean that their entire business model was at serious risk. Even the slightly lesser control of putting a smaller number on what the insurer might pay out and/or a huge "excess" on any fire claim might be the end of the line.

Might be 7 years since Grenfell but things have been moving slowly and the insurance market probably has some time before it settles down.

That possible first test case ended up a £70 million out of court settlement to one project by several "providers".

I have PI insurance but have taken off the PI for fire safety as I don't do FRAs any more.  I saved about  £10.