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 : 01 June 2021 06:38:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

This may be of relevance to all fire risk assessors and H&S consultants out there.

This 42 minute audio is almost entirely about the evidence at the Grenfell inquiry of the consultant who did the fire risk assessment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09jz085

He was challenged on a number of things both fair and unfair, including an exaggerated CV, misuse of post-nominals, copy-and-pasting between reports, giving in to client pressure to downgrade the urgency of actions, and not taking responsibility for ensuring the fire safety measures were put in place (that is the bit I see as particularly unfair as evidently he was contracted to undertake fire risk assessments).

thanks 3 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 02/06/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 04/06/2021(UTC), aud on 09/06/2021(UTC)
Messey  
#2 Posted : 01 June 2021 09:54:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

I have been off sick so able to watch all of his evidence. It has not been a great performance.

A piece of advice he ignored was that I got when I set off in the fire service was: "Sometimes its better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, rather than say someting and remove all doubt"

Everyone in the room and watching online knew that his use of non existant post nominals were to impress and to win work. He denied this and lied until the QC had him against the ropes.

I made notes and intend using them in training lectures for how NOT to act as a professional in the fire safety industry

But the part that many observers missed is how 'interesting' his appointment was with the TMO when he failed to meet the tender crtieria for the TMO contract he had applied for. Indeed, he left some bits of the tender document blank.

The tender was one of three separate TMO contracts - all 12 months in duration and all needed a review before extending. However, he won only one of the contracts (medium risk premises) and was then automatically given the high and low risk contracts. All were extended without review for up to 6 years (I think)

But most curiously, he was attending meetings with the TMO manager responsible for dishing out the work and supplying written reports to the TMO.... 2 months before he submitted his tender for the contract with them. Under cross examination, he was unable to remember how that came about. Hmmmmm

I am not suggesting corruption or anything of the sort, but his behaviour and the use of public money by the TMO when awarding the contract do not feel like professional integrity has been maintained at all times

thanks 4 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
Kate on 01/06/2021(UTC), CptBeaky on 02/06/2021(UTC), Dazzling Puddock on 04/06/2021(UTC), nic168 on 09/06/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#3 Posted : 01 June 2021 15:40:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Kate - thanks for sharing the link.

That cringeworthy half hour is only the start. They have still to ask this "competent" fire risk assessor what they knew about things like flammable cladding.

Did remind me why I quickly turned down numerous opportunities to bid for similar consultancy. Did we have the right skills sets in sufficient quantities? OK for us, up to a point. For a one man band, virtually inconceivable (unless perhaps you are the expert witness at the Inquiry who knows their onions).

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 02/06/2021(UTC)
imwaldra  
#4 Posted : 04 June 2021 09:20:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
imwaldra

For those not familiar with the Granfell website - you can also view the cross examination evidence in written form, and that generally takes less time than watching the video.

I agree the start of his evidence didn't create a great impression of competence. But he was pressed equally hard for the next 3 days on more technical matters and, I thought, showed he knew what he was contracted to do pretty well. You can also read he statement of The TMO H&S Manager (an IOSH corporate member) who's due to give evidence next week and I judge that too reads pretty well - but of course she's yet to be cross examined.

If you've not been following in great detail, the cross examinations of both the manufacturer and the fire test people exposed both serious flaws and downright falsehoods from the manufacturer.

thanks 1 user thanked imwaldra for this useful post.
aud on 09/06/2021(UTC)
firesafety101  
#5 Posted : 05 June 2021 21:45:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

First let me ask Messey if he is well now following the illness that kept you away from work.  I know you are not a skiver so it must have been serious.

I thought this is the extent of a fire risk assessment in HMOs.

"A fire risk assessment is a legal requirement in the common areas of all blocks of flats e.g. stairways, corridors, landings, etc (including houses converted into two or more flats). A basic fire risk assessment will look at the communal areas and inspect the front doors of individual flats".

This fire risk assesser has been asked about the cladding and the material beneath the windows which is beyond his reference if carrying out the fire risk assessment.

I know about his inadequate qualifications and attempts to look better than he actually is but IMHO it is unfair to question him about anything beyond the above paragraph.

I would also expect him to look at test records, service records, emergency lighting test records etc. etc. and notice defects in fire seperation caused by building work.  I would also want to check the Fire Lift is operational which we now know to be clogged up inside the switch.

Messey  
#6 Posted : 05 June 2021 23:06:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

Hi FS 101. Thanks you for your kind words. The were kinder than mine were at an electric scooter rider on a pavement who hit me as I walked out of a shop. I am nursing some broken ribs and injured foot, but am getting there - slowly :(

As you may be aware, there are now four types of FRA in residential buildings and a type 3 covers the Fire Safety Order and Housing Act. The scope of the FRA will require entry into a sample of flats.

https://fire-risk-assessment-network.com/blog/types-fire-risk-assessment-flats/

But even a type 1 (FSO only and non destructive assessment of common parts as you referred to) may need a sample of flats entered to:

  • Check the condition of the fire doorset, in particular strips & seals plus any door closer, and;
  • Determine - where necessary - any heat detector behind the front door which has been installed as part of the BS5839-1 system covering the common parts

Incidentally, any cladding that extends between two or more residential demises is also considered a ‘common part’ in that it is common - like a staircase or corridor- to several flats 

This is part of the reason why I don't do residential FRAs any more!! Far too much hassle and professional risk for my liking 

firesafety101  
#7 Posted : 06 June 2021 19:55:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Hi Messey, sounds extremely painful, not risk assessing ha ha but your injuries.  Is there a claim on the way ?

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the Common bit.  I don't do HMOs that's why I didn't know.  As I always say "you don't know what you don't know".

I will have a look at the link anyway.

Take care and get well, cracked ribs are horrible as you are moving them continually.

CdC  
#8 Posted : 07 June 2021 08:09:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CdC

First 10 minutes of Wednesday's questioning and common sense gets mentioned as a valid emergency response strategy. 

Alan Haynes  
#9 Posted : 07 June 2021 08:59:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post

Hi FS 101. Thanks you for your kind words. The were kinder than mine were at an electric scooter rider on a pavement who hit me as I walked out of a shop. I am nursing some broken ribs and injured foot, but am getting there - slowly :{

Perhaps, as London is now starting to trial e-scooters, there could be a discussion on whether they are safe to use in public places.

My town has them.  Problems are                                                    ;-

1.  Use on pavements - not permitted, but a frequent occurrence

2.  Kids using adults 'account' to use them.

3.  Scooters with more than one person riding on them

4.  Scooters just 'dropped' at the end of their use.  Block pavements to puschairs, mobility scooters etc

5. [Local] Police not interested in unlawful use - tell you to contact Sccoter Operator, who appears to do nothing.  [Anyone know of a prosecution on a rider of a 'legitimate' e-scooter?]

6.  People that own their own e-scooters now seem to feel that if the official ones can be used on roads etc, then they can as well

Edited by user 07 June 2021 09:00:18(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

firesafety101  
#10 Posted : 07 June 2021 10:25:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

IMHO the problem is the silence.  Just like mobility scooters but they also have the problem of the rider being lower than pedestrians.

Electric cars have the same issue.

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
nic168 on 09/06/2021(UTC)
Messey  
#11 Posted : 07 June 2021 15:05:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

Originally Posted by: firesafety101 Go to Quoted Post

Hi Messey, sounds extremely painful, not risk assessing ha ha but your injuries.  Is there a claim on the way ?

I doubt it as the scooterist scooted away at speed……… probably as I threatened something that I was going to with his e-scooter that with time to reflect, I am not sure is autonomically possible ;)

These scoters are a bloody nuisance and a huge risk. Some can achieve 50 MPH!!! And I read from the RNIB that users of guide dogs are at particular risk as the dogs can be spooked by these silent vehicles suddenly appearing

I have been thinking of an early retirement but always found a reason not to. But I have had the calculator out today and am sorely (in more ways than one) tempted to hang up my clipboard

Sorry Mods, slight off topic 

chris42  
#12 Posted : 07 June 2021 15:29:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

The process does not sound correct with a Fire Risk assessor being responsible for checking the cladding. What are they going to do exactly? Sorry mate but that cladding that cost you millions has to all come off !. Surely this should be checked by building inspectors, part way through fitting to ensure it is being fitted correctly and before that the designer must take responsibility for the spec.

I fail to see it could be the responsibility so far down the line, when the dead has been done on something that big and costly.

I’m not in fire risk assessment, but that can’t be seen as the correct process can it.

Chris

thanks 3 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
Dazzling Puddock on 08/06/2021(UTC), A Kurdziel on 08/06/2021(UTC), aud on 09/06/2021(UTC)
CdC  
#13 Posted : 08 June 2021 09:30:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CdC

Originally Posted by: chris42 Go to Quoted Post

The process does not sound correct with a Fire Risk assessor being responsible for checking the cladding. What are they going to do exactly? Sorry mate but that cladding that cost you millions has to all come off !. Surely this should be checked by building inspectors, part way through fitting to ensure it is being fitted correctly and before that the designer must take responsibility for the spec.

I fail to see it could be the responsibility so far down the line, when the dead has been done on something that big and costly.

I’m not in fire risk assessment, but that can’t be seen as the correct process can it.

Chris

Hi Chris,

from listening to the investigation it's not the cladding that they are necessarily focussing on with the fire risk assessor, but the lack of thorough consideration of compartmentalisation inside the building and the support of vulnerable individuals. Not even noting that there was a lack of an emergency evacuation plan by the landlord and only relying on the fire services. There appeared to be a lot of copy and paste from previous years and the general standard of considerations was below par (not just in hindsight).

thanks 1 user thanked CdC for this useful post.
chris42 on 11/06/2021(UTC)
firesafety101  
#14 Posted : 09 June 2021 11:10:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

backing up to Messey and just to say I also get spooked by the sudden appearance of the silent killers.  I included cyclists who work for delivery food outlets and they ride on the pavement.  E-Bikes go very fast and are silent as well.

 

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.