Third-party certification can give customers significantly more confidence in the competence of the suppliers they are looking to use to provide fire safety services or products. This is crucial because the law states that the buyer of a fire safety service has to ensure that the supplier is “competent.” Proving that they have ensured a level of competence could be crucial if something were to go wrong and the customer were to end up in court.
The two FIA guides, which explain what third-party certification (TPC) is, are aimed at two groups of readers. One is for customers looking to employ a person or organisation to provide a fire safety service or product.
The other guide is for people who work for a company that supplies fire safety products or services. It explains how TPC would “differentiate your company from others” and could help you attract better-quality clients and be involved in better-quality work.
The advantages for a customer seeking a fire safety solution are almost self-evident; being sure that the company that you are employing to help you look after your legal fire safety obligations is up to the task brings a huge level of peace of mind. A responsible employer (and therefore responsible person) should see fire safety, not as a burden, but as a necessary step in protecting their business and their staff members’ lives.
If you use a company with TPC, you can be significantly more confident that the risk of loss to your business, and the risk of fines for inadequate fire safety precautions, is reduced.
The whitepapers also cover:
You can download both whitepapers from the FIA website now.
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.
Third-Party certification gives you the piece of mind that some one else has evaluated (hopefully without bias) a product or system and reviewed it in a way that gives the customer or potential customer and insight as to what they could typically expect. I will admit that sometimes you can run into cases where third-party certification can be biased but for the some products and services this is as close to regulation as you can get.
Agreed. I think there is always some risk for bias, but it does add credibility and peace of mind when there are third parties involved in the certification process.
I appreciate the link to the whitepapers, Rob–thanks!
It’s got to be absolutely essential in areas such as life safety surely? The products are in place to be failsafe so we need the reassurance they’ve been thoroughly stretched to the nth degree.The same applies to the trade, you need the peace of mind to know that they’re fundamentally competent. Indeed it should be incentivised for anything to do with life safety. The argument that it’s expensive doesn’t stack up- if you can’t afford TPC you’re in the wrong market. Third party approvals need the highest possible profile!!
I tend to agree. Failing legislation to make TPC a requirement, i’d like to see customers voting with their wallets. If business for non-third party accredited companies dried up, you’ll see businesses having to invest in TPC just to win business. I’m sure there’ll be an argument against making TPC a requirement, and I’d be interested to hear it…
If a TPC-scheme is approved by th Govenment (in the UKs case the UK Accreditation Service) then you can trust it won’t display any bias.
‘Sometimes you can run into cases where third-party certification can be biased’. I agree, but how often are ‘sometimes’ and what would be the consequences? Furthermore, what to do in the cases when even Standards cannot be relied upon? I shall point to just one example: the currently certified ‘fire rated’ letterplates may meet the UK Standards BS 476:1987 Pt. 20/22 and Pt. 31.1 or BS EN 1634-3: 2004 on the surface and they are allowed in fire rated doorsets. However, everyone knows that the letterplate is an opening element of a door and in open position it has… Read more »
I agree with you to a point but wouldn’t this letter plate need to be interfered with by a (excuse the pun) third party? If functioning correctly the letter plate stops the fire then it’s done the job. A fire door is no different, if it’s faulty or misused (eg propped open) it’s also useless
A letterplate is established opening door hardware element. It is designed to be opened by anyone anytime from the publicly accessible side of the door. Unless the letterplate is openable it cannot function as designed. Therefore opening a letterplate cannot be called ‘interfered with’ or ‘misused’ per se. So, the openable letterplate product is different to a faulty or misused (e.g. propped open) fire door, which is not designed to be faulty or misused. The unprotected letterplate can expose the premises and its occupants to all four main risks defined by the insurance industry: from fire, water damage, malicious… Read more »
agree and you are right… in Canada we have this problem where third-party certification is sponsored by manf…
could not agree more, I think you are right, Rob… as a lot of the time end result is lip service only… it sad but reality…
it all depends on the point of view, also many factors are in play…
same here, thank you for the link… interesting info….
also it depends on the country… as example in Canada we have a lot of the political agenda… in the mix… as example on the unrelated matter… Lysol manf… created fake med ass. and put they seal on the Lysol products…
One more thing that I find strange about the way third party certification works in the UK is that there is no transparency where the transparency should be the key. I mean if a manufacturer claims that his product was third party certified at the approved certification centre, for example under Warrington Certifire scheme, you would expect to get confirmation from Warrington. As far as I am aware, you will be disappointed. There is no way for the customer to verify the manufacturer’s claim. If you expect to get confirmation from Warrington they will tell you that the test… Read more »
Interesting, not something I’ve specifically tried to do. Very interested to hear if anyone knows different.
All test reports issued from Warrington have detailed product descriptions on them and therefore are likely to be commercially sensitive. For certification purposes these could also be from a different notified laboratory. The company who paid for the test own the test report and if they confirm we can issue a report we will. However it is not unknown for competitors to try and get copies of test reports and therefore they will not normally be issued to anyone but the sponsors of the test. Therefore you are best approaching the owner of the report and not Warrington. If… Read more »
Simon you wouldnt happen to know the accrediting body here in the states would you?
ANAB ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board
I don’t have much involvement in North American certification or testing but I believe they have three versions of the body all doing slightly different accreditations
http://www.anab.org/about-us.aspx
Rob, we should be grateful to Simon for
the comprehensive cover of the third party certification scheme. So, I was
right after all – there is no transparency.
I think that the assurance comes from having an independent and accredited third party look at test evidence; confirming that in conforms to the relevant harmonised standard or technical schedule. That expert evaluation, combined with audit sampling and factory production control audits, offers the end user a great deal of assurance that the product is fit for purpose. It doesn’t mean that third party certification has no transparency, it just means that test evidence, for the reasons explained in my previous post isn’t generally made available. The ‘checkers’ (the CBs) have been checked (by UKAS) but you want another check,… Read more »
Simon, sorry for the late answer. This is partly because I was seen by the dentist last week. He took my tooth X-ray and showed me the result. He explained the picture. He suggested the treatment. This was straightforward and transparent. There was no need to start checking which university he graduated and to see his exam results. In case with Exova Warringtonfire the situation as you explained it and from my experience too is totally different. Recently I came across a product with the following claims by the manufacturer:’ Our new model … has intumescent lining to both …… Read more »
Thanks for explaining the process, and the reason behind the sensitivities. As you say, I’d agree that knowing a product has been 3rd party certificated by a UKAS-accredited body should be enough for most. But it’s good to know that if you really did want to delve further, you could, albeit with commercially sensitive information removed. I just wonder why you’d need to? Perhaps if a product had failed, exploring that the certification tests were done correctly could be one avenue, along with all the other questions eg. was the product correctly installed, was it damaged etc. etc.
If a manufacturer is making claims that you perceive to be untrue, then I’d have thought trading standards would be the first port of call. Or at least a different avenue to consider.
I see the problem now. The company has made a claim in their marketing material about the test performance of their product and mentioned the test lab. That is not third party certification in any way, shape or form. To validate the claim they need to show you the test reports. See my previous posts. You can have access to your own dental records, but if you requested the records of your neighbour or a friend; you wouldn’t get them! They are confidential. If the performance is essential, seek the test evidence they are basing the claim on. Ask them… Read more »
Simon, your valuable comments have cleared my mind.
Thank you very much indeed. I am sure that the larger audience of this website
will share my view that the comments are useful for better understanding of what
to expect from the third party certification. I am particularly grateful for your
kind invitation to call you when there is a need for more help.
Trading standards would be a good idea. I wish they could monitor the
market and sort out stuff like that without the need for the customers to
complain to them.
Yes, that would be nice, but that wouldn’t be very “big society” would it?
proactive aproach to address customers needs/complaines…