BFC urges end users to accept their limitations
By Ken Day FIFSM MIIRSM Chartered MCIPD (Training officer, British Fire Consortium)
Many products have been introduced post-RRO professing to equip business owners and managers to conduct a risk assessment effectively and safely in commercial premises. These include hard documents, IT software and a variety of training courses. Whilst there is always a market for the right product to assist businesses in meeting their legal requirements much of the material available including, in some instances course content , has limited value according to Ken Day, training officer at the British Fire Consortium. Day and his colleagues, at what is the largest trade association for companies installing and maintaining fire safety equipment, believes it’s crucial that end users fully understand the legal and practical implications of fire risk assessment and their personal limitations in this complex area.
Because the Regulatory Reform Order, by its very nature, is not definitive about how much and what type of training and experience actually constitutes a ‘competent person’, many small and medium sized businesses who decide to self assess are left to define the level of competence themselves. Consequently the individuals conducting fire risk assessments today in many business premises are business owners or managers with no previous experience in fire safety and who have maybe spent a few hundred pounds on a fire safety awareness course or on IT software and a few hours of their time to complete fire risk assessment for their premises. This is a situation which even the most conscientious end user would have no reason to doubt is perfectly acceptable. However, experienced fire industry professionals such as Ken Day are understandably left very nervous. The situation is further exacerbated by lack of regulation that sees instances of inappropriately experienced individuals offering themselves as professional ‘fire risk assessors’ on a commercial basis to all types of company on the strength of having attended a very basic course in fire risk assessment.
Day says, “Basic fire risk assessment awareness training of this type or suitable software applications may well equip a business owner with the skills to conduct a fire risk assessment in the most straightforward, low risk premises. But how many premises are truly very low risk? Would the actions of that responsible person, however well meaning, stand up in court as demonstrating due diligence? And, all too frequently when the responsible person delegates responsibility to other staff in managing the fire safety of the premises or appointing fire wardens, my experience tells me these individuals have not received the necessary level of training and don’t really understand how important their role is.”
Day adds that some businesses, including some larger employers, are cutting corners by using basic on-line or cd based materials to ‘train’ their staff. He explains, “This type of basic training may have relevant applications but will not necessarily meet the definition of ‘suitable and adequate training’ for all staff. And, even when a responsible person properly appoints a competent fire safety company to manage the installation and maintenance of equipment in their premises, it’s equally important that the staff in that premises understand the provisions and functions of both the passive and active fire safety systems present as well as what their role is in preventing fire and coping if it happens.”
“My concern is that much training material is generic and does not address the particular risks within the actual business premises, the additional areas of information relevant to specific functions e.g. persons working with flammable materials and essentially fails to address the findings of the risk assessment”
“Company Directors and other ‘responsible persons’ in many businesses today simply don’t appreciate the gravity of their legal responsibility and some have resorted to abdication rather than delegation in respect of appointing assistance in undertaking the necessary preventative and protective measures. Hence they are failing to fully consider the necessary training or qualifications of such persons. In my experience, staff often don’t comprehend the importance of their ‘inherited’ role and the legal implications if a fire should take place and cause severe damage to the premises, serious injury or in the worst case - fatalities.”
“By using the disparity between the level of competence achieved by someone who has spent an hour or two on the internet or who attended a short training course and the experience and qualification of someone selected from say any of the IFE, IFSM or RICS registers of assessors, a lawyer is likely to have little difficulty in proving whether the person who had completed the risk assessment was competent or not.”
So, how should organisations be persuaded to take their fire safety responsibilities more seriously? Are scare tactics about potential legal implications the most useful approach? Day doesn’t think so.
He believes it’s better to take a “cool, calm and considered approach with people” and to make them understand the full extent of specialist knowledge and, more importantly, experience, that’s required to conduct a ‘true’ fire risk assessment. He advises BFC members to caution potential self assessors just how much there is to know about the science of fire, how people behave and the depth of knowledge you need about fire safety in structures, building design etc.
And, if the perceived cost of employing a professional is still a factor in their resistance, Day says it’s important to explain that whilst the cost of simple software based self assessment package might look tempting, the license conditions can be restrictive. Also the true cost after factoring in time spent by managers undertaking such assessments can be substantial and the outcome may still lack a suitable standard of expertise resulting in inadequate identification of relevant matters or indeed may lead to further expenditure due to a lack of expertise in undertaking the task and the subsequent implementation of inappropriate and unnecessary measures. Day says that he has experience of many businesses who having initially gone down this road only to subsequently employ the services of a qualified BFC member to do the assessment – particularly where the original assessment has been deemed inadequate by the enforcing authority.
The British Fire Consortium in conjunction with Vulcan Training already offers its members a 9 day Fire Safety Manager Certificate which is accredited by the Institute of Fire Safety Managers and bestows the Institute’s ‘Technician Status’ on successful candidates. As well as covering the practicalities of conducting a fire risk assessment this course focuses on wider fire safety issues including Fire Safety Management Systems and Training. Like ‘Fire Risk Assessment’ courses offered by other bodies such as the FPA, IFE etc., fire safety training whilst having ‘stand-alone’ elements, tends to be of a modular nature and provides progressive qualifications. However, Day believes it must be recognised that whilst qualification provides evidence of underpinning knowledge, competence involves additional elements, not least experience.
Day continues, “We try to get across to businesses that if they prefer not to appoint a professionally qualified and experienced assessor then there are three possible outcomes. The first is they might just get it right; secondly they might on the other hand get it wrong - resulting in a variety of outcomes when inspected by an enforcement officer or finally, having got it wrong, they may actually incur fire losses prior to any visit by an enforcement officer. The latter scenario is very likely to result in both prosecution and in difficulties with insurance claims”.
The fear of cost is also understandably a factor preventing companies from employing suitably qualified assessors despite the benefits to be gained. Ken cites a typical example of how confusing it is for businesses and other organisations to know who to turn to when so many inappropriate people are ready to dispense ‘advice’.
“I was recently asked to conduct a risk assessment at a small community hall. An electrician had told the management committee that to comply with the RRO, they needed a sophisticated fire alarm/detection system which he could install for them for around £9,000. Their extinguisher supplier (not a BFC member!) told them this was unnecessary and all they needed to do was to go to B & Q and buy two battery operated combined smoke detectors/lights. Both sets of ‘advice’ were of course very wide of the mark. A professional and cost effective assessment determined that in this instance provision of a BS5839 Category M fire alarm system together with some internal and external Emergency Lighting complying with BS 5266 and some other minor works would satisfy all needs. The total cost being under £1,500.”
This is a typical example of what many BFC members witness when customers rely on their own minimal knowledge or the advice of unqualified suppliers. Businesses quite often fail to recognise their limitations and their lack of understanding often leads to either understating the risk or wild over-specification of equipment.
As in any type of business transaction, including paying for a fire risk assessment, Ken believes clients should be reminded of the importance of ‘best value’. “We encourage our BFC members who conduct assessments to tell their clients that they will back up the findings of their assessment and stand by them. If, for example, there is a query by an enforcement officer, the BFC member should be prepared to liase directly with that officer on behalf of the client at no additional cost to the client”.
The RRO advises that the Responsible Person should demonstrate due diligence by using third party accredited suppliers there is however, despite various bodies and trades organisation schemes being in place, few specific mandatory requirements. In such circumstances competence may be demonstrated for example by manufacturers’ approved installer status – such as that offered by our manufacturer member, Amerex, on the installation of its suppression systems.
BS 5306 of course provides a definitive interpretation of competence for persons installing and maintaining portable fire extinguishers. The Code of Practice states a competent person will have attended a training course run by a recognised body, undertaken on-the-job training and have passed an examination supervised by an independent body. For this purpose there are three recognised independent bodies British Fire Consortium, FIA and IFEDA. Day’s view is that it’s important that the courses themselves are not just geared to getting the candidates to pass the exam but also focus on good background knowledge, an understanding of the Code of Practice itself and the associated new legislation.
For the young technician entering the industry a BAFE approved qualification will undoubtedly open up more avenues in their future career. Day states that nearly all BFC candidates score highly in both the practical and theory papers of the BFC’s own ‘Extinguisher Technician Examination Course’. Recently BFC member company, North Staffs Fire Extinguisher Maintenance Service, technician, Julie Stanway, scored 100% in the BFC’s practical Extinguisher Technician examination. Day said, “I expect high scores from BFC technicians but, in over 32 years of personally assessing many fire industry related examinations, I can’t ever remember previously awarding a candidate 100%!” Julie also scored commendably in the written part of the BFC examination which is available for members and non members of the British Fire Consortium. The intensive 3-day course covers the requirements of BS5306 part 3: 2003 and part 8: 2000 and includes an introduction to the causes and means of preventing fires occurring, fire legislation, types and safe operation of fire extinguishers and service and overhaul procedures. On day 4 a two hour written paper is followed by the one-to-one practical test.
Day concludes that the key message for businesses is to consider fire safety management carefully, do as you would with all other aspects of your business – manage what you are best at and seek professional advice for those areas that are not within your area of expertise. And, whilst scaremongering is neither desirable nor necessary in marketing initiatives, what must be understood is that effective fire safety management is not a lesson that can be learned overnight and the task cannot be dismissively delegated to the most convenient member of staff.
Reproduced by kind permission of Fire Risk Management
Many products have been introduced post-RRO professing to equip business owners and managers to conduct a risk assessment effectively and safely in commercial premises. These include hard documents, IT software and a variety of training courses. Whilst there is always a market for the right product to assist businesses in meeting their legal requirements much of the material available including, in some instances course content , has limited value according to Ken Day, training officer at the British Fire Consortium. Day and his colleagues, at what is the largest trade association for companies installing and maintaining fire safety equipment, believes it’s crucial that end users fully understand the legal and practical implications of fire risk assessment and their personal limitations in this complex area.
Because the Regulatory Reform Order, by its very nature, is not definitive about how much and what type of training and experience actually constitutes a ‘competent person’, many small and medium sized businesses who decide to self assess are left to define the level of competence themselves. Consequently the individuals conducting fire risk assessments today in many business premises are business owners or managers with no previous experience in fire safety and who have maybe spent a few hundred pounds on a fire safety awareness course or on IT software and a few hours of their time to complete fire risk assessment for their premises. This is a situation which even the most conscientious end user would have no reason to doubt is perfectly acceptable. However, experienced fire industry professionals such as Ken Day are understandably left very nervous. The situation is further exacerbated by lack of regulation that sees instances of inappropriately experienced individuals offering themselves as professional ‘fire risk assessors’ on a commercial basis to all types of company on the strength of having attended a very basic course in fire risk assessment.
Day says, “Basic fire risk assessment awareness training of this type or suitable software applications may well equip a business owner with the skills to conduct a fire risk assessment in the most straightforward, low risk premises. But how many premises are truly very low risk? Would the actions of that responsible person, however well meaning, stand up in court as demonstrating due diligence? And, all too frequently when the responsible person delegates responsibility to other staff in managing the fire safety of the premises or appointing fire wardens, my experience tells me these individuals have not received the necessary level of training and don’t really understand how important their role is.”
Day adds that some businesses, including some larger employers, are cutting corners by using basic on-line or cd based materials to ‘train’ their staff. He explains, “This type of basic training may have relevant applications but will not necessarily meet the definition of ‘suitable and adequate training’ for all staff. And, even when a responsible person properly appoints a competent fire safety company to manage the installation and maintenance of equipment in their premises, it’s equally important that the staff in that premises understand the provisions and functions of both the passive and active fire safety systems present as well as what their role is in preventing fire and coping if it happens.”
“My concern is that much training material is generic and does not address the particular risks within the actual business premises, the additional areas of information relevant to specific functions e.g. persons working with flammable materials and essentially fails to address the findings of the risk assessment”
“Company Directors and other ‘responsible persons’ in many businesses today simply don’t appreciate the gravity of their legal responsibility and some have resorted to abdication rather than delegation in respect of appointing assistance in undertaking the necessary preventative and protective measures. Hence they are failing to fully consider the necessary training or qualifications of such persons. In my experience, staff often don’t comprehend the importance of their ‘inherited’ role and the legal implications if a fire should take place and cause severe damage to the premises, serious injury or in the worst case - fatalities.”
“By using the disparity between the level of competence achieved by someone who has spent an hour or two on the internet or who attended a short training course and the experience and qualification of someone selected from say any of the IFE, IFSM or RICS registers of assessors, a lawyer is likely to have little difficulty in proving whether the person who had completed the risk assessment was competent or not.”
So, how should organisations be persuaded to take their fire safety responsibilities more seriously? Are scare tactics about potential legal implications the most useful approach? Day doesn’t think so.
He believes it’s better to take a “cool, calm and considered approach with people” and to make them understand the full extent of specialist knowledge and, more importantly, experience, that’s required to conduct a ‘true’ fire risk assessment. He advises BFC members to caution potential self assessors just how much there is to know about the science of fire, how people behave and the depth of knowledge you need about fire safety in structures, building design etc.
And, if the perceived cost of employing a professional is still a factor in their resistance, Day says it’s important to explain that whilst the cost of simple software based self assessment package might look tempting, the license conditions can be restrictive. Also the true cost after factoring in time spent by managers undertaking such assessments can be substantial and the outcome may still lack a suitable standard of expertise resulting in inadequate identification of relevant matters or indeed may lead to further expenditure due to a lack of expertise in undertaking the task and the subsequent implementation of inappropriate and unnecessary measures. Day says that he has experience of many businesses who having initially gone down this road only to subsequently employ the services of a qualified BFC member to do the assessment – particularly where the original assessment has been deemed inadequate by the enforcing authority.
The British Fire Consortium in conjunction with Vulcan Training already offers its members a 9 day Fire Safety Manager Certificate which is accredited by the Institute of Fire Safety Managers and bestows the Institute’s ‘Technician Status’ on successful candidates. As well as covering the practicalities of conducting a fire risk assessment this course focuses on wider fire safety issues including Fire Safety Management Systems and Training. Like ‘Fire Risk Assessment’ courses offered by other bodies such as the FPA, IFE etc., fire safety training whilst having ‘stand-alone’ elements, tends to be of a modular nature and provides progressive qualifications. However, Day believes it must be recognised that whilst qualification provides evidence of underpinning knowledge, competence involves additional elements, not least experience.
Day continues, “We try to get across to businesses that if they prefer not to appoint a professionally qualified and experienced assessor then there are three possible outcomes. The first is they might just get it right; secondly they might on the other hand get it wrong - resulting in a variety of outcomes when inspected by an enforcement officer or finally, having got it wrong, they may actually incur fire losses prior to any visit by an enforcement officer. The latter scenario is very likely to result in both prosecution and in difficulties with insurance claims”.
The fear of cost is also understandably a factor preventing companies from employing suitably qualified assessors despite the benefits to be gained. Ken cites a typical example of how confusing it is for businesses and other organisations to know who to turn to when so many inappropriate people are ready to dispense ‘advice’.
“I was recently asked to conduct a risk assessment at a small community hall. An electrician had told the management committee that to comply with the RRO, they needed a sophisticated fire alarm/detection system which he could install for them for around £9,000. Their extinguisher supplier (not a BFC member!) told them this was unnecessary and all they needed to do was to go to B & Q and buy two battery operated combined smoke detectors/lights. Both sets of ‘advice’ were of course very wide of the mark. A professional and cost effective assessment determined that in this instance provision of a BS5839 Category M fire alarm system together with some internal and external Emergency Lighting complying with BS 5266 and some other minor works would satisfy all needs. The total cost being under £1,500.”
This is a typical example of what many BFC members witness when customers rely on their own minimal knowledge or the advice of unqualified suppliers. Businesses quite often fail to recognise their limitations and their lack of understanding often leads to either understating the risk or wild over-specification of equipment.
As in any type of business transaction, including paying for a fire risk assessment, Ken believes clients should be reminded of the importance of ‘best value’. “We encourage our BFC members who conduct assessments to tell their clients that they will back up the findings of their assessment and stand by them. If, for example, there is a query by an enforcement officer, the BFC member should be prepared to liase directly with that officer on behalf of the client at no additional cost to the client”.
The RRO advises that the Responsible Person should demonstrate due diligence by using third party accredited suppliers there is however, despite various bodies and trades organisation schemes being in place, few specific mandatory requirements. In such circumstances competence may be demonstrated for example by manufacturers’ approved installer status – such as that offered by our manufacturer member, Amerex, on the installation of its suppression systems.
BS 5306 of course provides a definitive interpretation of competence for persons installing and maintaining portable fire extinguishers. The Code of Practice states a competent person will have attended a training course run by a recognised body, undertaken on-the-job training and have passed an examination supervised by an independent body. For this purpose there are three recognised independent bodies British Fire Consortium, FIA and IFEDA. Day’s view is that it’s important that the courses themselves are not just geared to getting the candidates to pass the exam but also focus on good background knowledge, an understanding of the Code of Practice itself and the associated new legislation.
For the young technician entering the industry a BAFE approved qualification will undoubtedly open up more avenues in their future career. Day states that nearly all BFC candidates score highly in both the practical and theory papers of the BFC’s own ‘Extinguisher Technician Examination Course’. Recently BFC member company, North Staffs Fire Extinguisher Maintenance Service, technician, Julie Stanway, scored 100% in the BFC’s practical Extinguisher Technician examination. Day said, “I expect high scores from BFC technicians but, in over 32 years of personally assessing many fire industry related examinations, I can’t ever remember previously awarding a candidate 100%!” Julie also scored commendably in the written part of the BFC examination which is available for members and non members of the British Fire Consortium. The intensive 3-day course covers the requirements of BS5306 part 3: 2003 and part 8: 2000 and includes an introduction to the causes and means of preventing fires occurring, fire legislation, types and safe operation of fire extinguishers and service and overhaul procedures. On day 4 a two hour written paper is followed by the one-to-one practical test.
Day concludes that the key message for businesses is to consider fire safety management carefully, do as you would with all other aspects of your business – manage what you are best at and seek professional advice for those areas that are not within your area of expertise. And, whilst scaremongering is neither desirable nor necessary in marketing initiatives, what must be understood is that effective fire safety management is not a lesson that can be learned overnight and the task cannot be dismissively delegated to the most convenient member of staff.
Reproduced by kind permission of Fire Risk Management