Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Kate  
#1 Posted : 14 September 2024 17:53:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

The report from the Grenfell inquiry is depressing reading.    It's good in a way to see that the report does not shrink from pointing at incompetence, inadequacy, defensiveness and downright lies.  What chance though that any more attention is paid to its recommendations than to those of the coroner at the earlier cladding fire?

Much of it goes over ground that is familiar to anyone who has followed the BBC's excellent coverage of the inquiry in podcast form. However here is a snippet that was new to me at least.  Back in 2013, something called the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council (an entity I'd never heard of) apparently published guidance entitled Guide to Choosing a Competent Fire Risk Assessor (guidance I'd never heard of).

Here's why I care about this.

Everything the government had put out about fire risk assessment with the Fire Safety Order had been encouraging the idea that you didn't need to be a specialist to undertake a fire risk assessment and that this task could perfectly well be done in-house.  Despite this, in around 2015 when I was employed as a health and safety adviser I correctly identified that I was not competent to carry out the new fire risk assessment which my employer would need for their premises as a result of a substantial enlargement.  I even had to argue my own incompetence with management who believed that all risk assessments could and should be done in-house.

Although I knew I was not competent, I was not able to give any advice on finding someone who was.  Fortunately for me, when I spoke to our outsourced facilities provider, they had a company on their books who they normally got to do this kind of thing and so eventually I persuaded my employer to authorise engaging them.  The result was of course a far more thorough risk assessment than I could possibly have compiled myself, and indeed I learned a great deal about building fire safety by walking round with the assessor on his visit.

Now, I don't know how good the published guidance was, but I find it disturbing that I had no notion it even existed.  I don't think it was something that I wilfully ignored, but something that was little publicised. If I didn't know about it as a health and safety professional concerned about the limits of my own competence, how on earth could the average employer be expected to know about it?

thanks 4 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
MikeKelly on 15/09/2024(UTC), toe on 15/09/2024(UTC), peter gotch on 15/09/2024(UTC), Yossarian on 16/09/2024(UTC)
Messey  
#2 Posted : 14 September 2024 18:42:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Messey

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 

thanks 3 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
Kate on 15/09/2024(UTC), MikeKelly on 15/09/2024(UTC), peter gotch on 15/09/2024(UTC)
peter gotch  
#3 Posted : 15 September 2024 12:28:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks Kate and Messey

I had never heard of this document published by "FRACC" in 2014 with the current 3rd edition being published by the Fire Safety Federation in 2020.

So the FRACC guidance does say that you might be able to do it yourself, but then provides some clues as to what to look for in an external fire risk assessor:

There are some simple steps and precautions you can take to help verify the competence and suitability of a prospective fire risk assessor:

• Be satisfied that the fire risk assessor providing this service is competent to do so. We recommend you check that those providing this service have independent registration with, or certification from, a professional or certification (see list below) body and that they meet the competency criteria established by the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council

• Check that they have experience of undertaking fire risk assessments for your kind of business and premises

• Request references from previous clients in premises of your type; ask these clients if they were satisfied and if any problems were later identified

Problem is that nothing here is set in stone!

Possibly as the Government in power when this was published and then updated was as keen to avoid "burdens on business" as its predecessor so the recommendations avoid making ANY stipulations as to minimum criteria.

So, the key bullet says "we recommend....", rather than even "we strongly recommmend..."  

Now, I do understand that the competency needed is on a scale depending on the nature and use of the premises.

However, if IOSH (Services Ltd) still approves a provider to run a 2 day course on "Fire Risk Assessment", then perhaps all Kate needs to do to become competent is to attend that and get an IOSH Certificate?

Edited by user 15 September 2024 12:30:10(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Roundtuit  
#4 Posted : 16 September 2024 09:51:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 16/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC), A Kurdziel on 16/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 16 September 2024 09:51:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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.

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 16/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC), A Kurdziel on 16/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC)
firesafety101  
#6 Posted : 16 September 2024 10:52:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
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.

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

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#7 Posted : 16 September 2024 11:16:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

If people are really serious about competence, then they will probably need the following steps:

  1. Formal training including an examination of knowledge and understanding-the easy bit
  2.  A probationary period where the assessor carries out assessments supervised by someone competent. The assessments are submitted to a regulator who checks then and only then does the person become competent to carry out the assessments on their own.
  3. Then now registered assessor has to complete some sort of CPD to show they are still upto date with  the latest knowledge etc.
  4. A mechanism  for removing the registration of anyone who fails to maintain a good standard of assessment.

This leads to loads of questions such as who runs it, who pay for it, do you need it for all FRA or only for serious risk assessments  and others.

So how to move from the current wild west to something approach what I have described? I don’t know and if I had the talent to come up with solutions to wicked problems like that I’d focus on things like solving the Middle East situation and winning Nobel Peace prizes.

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
peter gotch on 16/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 16/09/2024(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 16 September 2024 11:20:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: firesafety101 Go to Quoted Post
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.

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 16 September 2024 11:20:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: firesafety101 Go to Quoted Post
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.

Kate  
#10 Posted : 16 September 2024 17:30:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

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"?

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
Messey on 16/09/2024(UTC)
Messey  
#11 Posted : 16 September 2024 21:48:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Messey

My biggest concern is that the current registration schemes are all different and all commercial organisations - and we have all seen how successful  ‘privatisation’ of fire safety standards has been

I never went through the process of registering on a scheme as my employer would not allow accompanied site visits which was part of the schemes entry criteria that I looked at (Its a long story). 

And in any case, I was waiting to see which of the schemes would emerge as the leader.

Its a mess and I cannot see a realistic plan to sort it out.

To me its clear:

  1. Excuse low risk premises from requiring a competent person to complete the FRA (a corner shop, an office on the 1st floor above a shop etc) some SMEs can do it themselves. 
  2. Then introduce a Gas Safe type ‘Assessor’s Register’ run by a Govt Dept or quango like the HSE. Surely the risks from a dodgy fire professional are broadly similar to those of a cowboy gas fitter, so why not match the system in place for gas professions with fire safety assessors? 

https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/services/becoming-registered/path-to-gas-safe-registration/

thanks 3 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
Kate on 17/09/2024(UTC), A Kurdziel on 17/09/2024(UTC), peter gotch on 17/09/2024(UTC)
toe  
#12 Posted : 17 September 2024 08:23:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

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.

thanks 3 users thanked toe for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 17/09/2024(UTC), peter gotch on 17/09/2024(UTC), Kate on 17/09/2024(UTC)
MrBrightside  
#13 Posted : 17 September 2024 09:47:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrBrightside

Right of probably wrongly, I often say that you only find out if you are doing it right or wrong when you end up in court and if you have ended up in court, you are probably doing it wrong.

firesafety101  
#14 Posted : 17 September 2024 10:49:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

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.

Roundtuit  
#15 Posted : 17 September 2024 11:54:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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.

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 17 September 2024 11:54:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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.

peter gotch  
#17 Posted : 17 September 2024 14:02:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hi Mr Brightside

One of the problems is that consultants offering H&S and fire etc services VERY rarely end up in Court and even when it happens it usually gets done and dusted without a trial.

Which means that in practical terms the risks for consultants offering tickbox assessments etc have been extremely low.

Time will tell as to whether regulators and others will take a tougher stance going forward.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 17/09/2024(UTC)
Kate  
#18 Posted : 17 September 2024 15:25:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

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.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
toe on 18/09/2024(UTC)
toe  
#19 Posted : 18 September 2024 12:32:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

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.

Professional Indemnity Insurance is available, and I am not sure how it couldn’t be. There are hundreds of assessors on the current FRA registers, and they all need professional indemnity Insurance to be on them. My monthly fire safety newsletter subscription includes advertisements from a few businesses that offer insurance aimed at independent fire risk assessors.

If you are conducting FRA as part of a business and the assessments have an impact on third parties, an amendment to add Indemnity insurance to your existing insurance isn’t too much.

But yes, for independent Fire Risk Assessors, the insurance can be high, but available.

peter gotch  
#20 Posted : 18 September 2024 14:25:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

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.

Roundtuit  
#21 Posted : 18 September 2024 14:35:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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

Roundtuit  
#22 Posted : 18 September 2024 14:35:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

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

toe  
#23 Posted : 19 September 2024 08:13:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

My post was a reply to the question regarding whether insurance was available, to which I responded that, in my experience, it was. I am not an expert on PI insurance, but I appreciate your insights, Peter. I wasn't expecting a further debate on the intricacies of the costs of such things, but I hope this clarifies my intention.

firesafety101  
#24 Posted : 19 September 2024 10:17:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

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.

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.