When the UK’s draft Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) was published in 2005, it was heralded as a Risk Assessor’s Charter. The popular belief was that retired fire officers and fire safety consultants would make thousands by charging small and midsized businesses hundreds of pounds to compile a fire risk assessment (FRA) appropriate for their premises.
I think it is fair to say those predictions have not proven accurate. Many small and midsized enterprises have found the cost of an FRA prohibitive and have chosen either to tackle the task themselves or to carry on trading without one.
One aspect of the draft order that may not have been considered in 2005 was that, under Article 5, the fire risk assessor could become a “responsible person” and, as such, be liable to criminal proceedings if the FRA was not suitable and sufficient. The responsible person, defined under Article 3, is required to appoint a competent person to carry out this technical and, to the layperson, complicated task. But, in my view, there is no real definition of “competent” within the order.
Definition of a competent person
Article 18 says a competent person is someone who has “sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.” But how much training, experience, and knowledge is sufficient?
Guidance from the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) recognizes that different levels of competence are likely to be necessary for facilities that provide varying degrees of risk. As far as I am aware, there are still no recognized criteria or accreditation processes that give the layperson any indication of the competence of fire risk assessors.
In July 2011, the Nottingham Crown Court sentenced John O’Rourke of Mansfield Fire Protection Services to eight months in prison. He had pleaded guilty to compiling two FRAs that were not suitable and sufficient. Quite right, you may say, that the public should be protected from incompetent fire risk assessors.
What is suitable and sufficient?
But what about the situation where enforcing fire officers decide that an FRA compiled by a suitably trained and experienced assessor is not suitable and sufficient? Has an offense been committed? It has if the court agrees with the enforcing authority.
And what if a fire risk assessor were convicted of such an offense? Who would want to compile an FRA if a disagreement as to an appropriate escape route or an acceptable means of escape could lead to a criminal investigation?
The Nottingham case confirmed that the fire risk assessor could be held liable under Article 5. The uncertainty about who is and isn’t competent inevitably leads to a situation where the enforcing authorities consider whether an FRA is suitable and sufficient and work backward to evaluate the assessor’s competence.
This is a dangerous situation. How does the consultant defend himself, other than to pay thousands of pounds to another expert consultant, in the hope that this consultant will find support for his reasoned and well-considered viewpoint?
Article 36 provides for a resolution of any such disputes by the secretary of state, who will consider what measures are necessary to remedy an alleged failure to comply with the order. But that article requires the responsible person to admit to breaching the order. This would be tantamount to admitting to a criminal offense.
I understand that the CFOA is about to clarify its position on the competence of fire risk assessors. But will this guidance provides an adequate defense for a risk assessor whose assessment has been deemed not suitable and sufficient? I am not sure that it will.
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
@Warren, “sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures”certainly sounds like a very broad and vague definition.
There should be a more precise language here. I would imagine standards need to be upated to comply with new materials and laws etc… is that the reason for such a lack of specification?
Though I agree that the rules seem quite vague (and dangerously open to interpretation), the Nottingham case you cite does offer some examples of things that, it would seem, any fire risk assessor should address in conducting his assessment. For example, in one of the hotels, a fire exit door was locked, and “exits routes [were] obstructed by combustible materials.” And in both hotels, “there was no fire detection within the bedrooms.” It would seem that, regardless of how the fire authority interprets the rules, anyone touting himself as a fire risk assessor should point out things like these.
Privatizing such functions may be the biggest lacking in this proposition. The government should inspect these facilities and mandate plans just as surely as a building inspector tells a developer what needs to appear in a building plan. Passing that responsibility onto private parties is sure to lead to conflicts like this.
Amazing- seven years on from the legislation coming in and the interpretation is still causing major issues. As a civilian it makes me extremely worried as to who has a grip on this plus the wide ranging regional variations. It was botched from the start and as a result we’re still in a fog of legal interpretation and enforcement.
Isn’t that always the way with the law? Interpretation too often is up to the party with the best lawyers.
Would treating liability as a civil, rather than a criminal, matter solve the problem? The inspector could get insurance, the insurance company would enforce standards on the inspector. The private sector works! Everybody wins!
Or am I missing something here?
I think it’s not the definition of competence that is the real issue “sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.” Is as good as your ever going to get in a piece of legislation. It’s how you prove competence that really matters. I think the best way is the use of third party certification backed up by UKAS for example the BAFE SP205 scheme. It’s the best way of proving competence to the Responsible Person so they know they have employed a competent person. The… Read more »
But is this not another example of tossing tins of worms out there and see what happens? If there are blatant mistakes then yes slap his legs – but so much of the fire legislation is open to’ reasonable in the case’ I note a new organisation is offering training the ‘Fire door inspection service’ Backed by some muscle and probably a very good idea but who is going to pay an inspector to certify doors and not the alarm, the housekeeping – why oh why did they cut professional fire officers from doing the job? Having family members who… Read more »
Absolutely agree, of course, Will. Sometimes it seems that risk assessors are slow to gain accreditation, though. Why is this? Clearly, it’s not harming their business, otherwise they’d be desperately scrambling to get on the next training course they can!
It seems as though the entire concept and training program needs to be re-evaluated. When there is trouble of the kind you describe, both in the results and in the training schedule, it’s worth examining the basic assumptions and structure of the function, no?
Tim has presented a red herring in my view
as it has always been the case that if somebody has provided a less than adequate service they become accountable – costs; the cost of a fire risk assessment should be no different to the costs that any other professional charges for a service and if a company decides to break the law then it is at their risk
regards all
It is fine for the Enforcing Authority to decide whether a FRA is suitable and sufficient but who judges the Inspecting Officer. I have had to deal with an officer who stated that the fact that a hotel was fully sprinklered, didn’t count towards the fire precautions and on the reviews of the FRA where I had put the actions from the original FRA and the previous reviews together with the actions taken, he didn’t want that because he could look back to the older documents! OK but I am not writing the document for him I am writing it… Read more »
Warren says “As far as I am aware, there are still no recognized criteria or accreditation processes that give the layperson any indication of the competence of fire risk assessors.” I am amazed at this comment from a Solicitor who is showing an interest in Fire Safety. Have you not heard of BAFE SP205 or Warrington Fire FRACS Schemes? Both are UKAS accredited and the Schemes were welcomed by all sides of the Fire Safety Industry as the right direction for Accreditation of Fire Risk Assessors or Fire Risk Assessor Companies. Any person or Company will have shown through examination… Read more »
I have to confess that I wasn’t aware that these accreditations were a pre requisite for being able to provide fire risk assessments, or that they would provide a defence to a risk assessor whose report was not deemed suitable and sufficient.
Is this really the case?
December 2011 – Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council published the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors. This month the Council published a Guide to Choosing a Competent Fire Risk Assessor recommending RP’s should verify competence and suitability of a prospective fire risk assessor recommending Those Fire Risk Assessors named on registers being UKAS accredited or professional body schemes. The forward of the competency criteria indicates the objective is to establish agreed, industry-wide, criteria against which the competence of a fire risk assessor can be judged. Further more it is anticipated that these criteria will be used by professional bodies and… Read more »
Good Idea, and when they have done this the RP can be given a certificated document complete with floor plans etc. And we could, just for good measure call it ‘a fire certicate’ Could catch on I suppose.
The BAFE SP205 scheme which is UKAS accredited uses the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessors. For its base of what makes a fire risk assessor competent.
It also carries out regular surveillance assessments of companies which include the competency of Fire Risk Assessors which looks at personal CPD etc and the under pinning methodology used.
If everything does go wrong and you end up in court and asked to prove that you are competent, UKAS accredited schemes like BAFE SP205 are the best way to prove your competence
As you say Will ‘If everything does go wrong and you end up in court…………. everyone can have an off day, we are all human and can make mistakes combine that with an audit by (fortunately not too many) a jackbooted enforcing officer with a downer on his ex colleagues doing consultancy work, who ‘knows best’ then it doesnt matter if you tick all of the boxes for accreditation, competency, CPD, IFE, PI insurance, Cbeebies and Tesco clubcard you are in for a load of hassle, that’s Warrens point, how many ex fire officers who can offer a good service are going… Read more »
Warren, I think you’re right – there remains no pre-requisite as far as I’m aware. A 2-day course and you’re good to go albeit st your own risk if prosecution should you be found to have issued an insufficient assessment.
There have been two prosecutions as far as I am aware of an article 5 (3) person. Yet there have been thousands and thousands of inspections by the FRS officers. During those inspections I believe around 40% of risk assessments are unsatisfactory. There is no thirst for prosecution unless there is an absolute risk to life safety and even then I believe the RP would be the easiest choice to go for as they may have been less than diligent in selecting a fire risk assessor as happened in the case in Nottingham. The assessor got sent to prison… Read more »
I have read through the threads, it must be said there have been some very well balanced, and thought provoking replies to other peoples comments. I’m not sure i can contribute anymore than what has already been posted, but i will comment all the same. My apologies in advance if i offend anyone. The thread heading is ” The end of Fire Risk Assessors” is this a topic for discussion, or do individuals really beleive this? There is little evidence to suggest that Assessors are less in demand now than they were when the RRO was intoduced in October 2006.… Read more »
@Simon King Maher
I have read through all the attached threads and find them all very interesting, This is a topic that I raised in an email to IFSEC middle of last year asking who actually sets the Qualifications or levels to the Assessing Companies who now train the Fire Risk Assessors? and Installers! I have been working in Passive Fire Risk specifying, assessing and products for nearly 9 years.When the legislation changed in 2006 I saw many normal building and painting companies, Suddenly become Passive Fire Installation engineers / builders/ painters/installers!!!! there were no main training companies and only a few product supply… Read more »