Whilst unfortunate, it is sometimes the case that our customers are given advice which conflicts with that
that we have provided. To complicate matters further still, sometimes this advice is given by those who are often expected to “know better” than us. The purpose of this sheet is to provide guidance
and reassurance for our customers that are placed in this unfortunate position.
We have an unrivalled reputation for quality that is rigorously and
independently verified, quality-checked, certified, monitored and
controlled by BAFE,
BSI,
FIA, IFE,
IFEDA
and UKAS.
We carry appropriate and comprehensive certification by UKAS-accredited independent third party (in this case
BSI) to BS EN ISO 9001
as set out here.
Accordingly, we have great faith that the advice we give is in accordance with these standards. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the advice given by all other organisations, even those that have a great deal of credibility and those which should know better.
The above British Standards are the de facto standards applicable to this
trade and are recognised by a great many bodies including the
Fire Industry Association (“FIA”), the
Independent Fire Engineering & Distributors Association (“IFEDA”), the
British Standards Institute (“BSI”), the
United Kingdom Accreditation Service (“UKAS”), the
Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA) and the
Association of British Insurers (“ABI”). These standards are held in very high regard.
Ensuring one’s compliance with the British Standards is of considerable importance; It is the surest way for one to ensure one’s obligations in law, one’s obligations as an employer, any insurance requirements, and, not least, of securing peace of mind
Disregarding the British Standards could mean that, if push came to shove, one would have to justify why the British Standards’ expert recommendations had been disregarded in preference to the opinions of another individual or organisation. The certainty of such a position should clearly be very seriously questioned.
More information on this subject can be found in our “The Value of Accreditation & Compliance”
guidance sheet. Additionally, the many good economic reasons are discussed
in our Guidance Sheet “Effective Fire
Fighting: The Economic Argument”.
Conflicting advice can generally only fall into one of three categories:
- Claims that our advice, service or supply is contrary to, or in excess of the above British Standards.
- Advice that whilst (1) above does not apply, different (not lesser) advice/service/supply would also meet the requirements of the British Standard.
- Advice that, whilst not stating either (1) or (2)
the above, still nonetheless suggests that a lesser level of advice,
service or supply would be ‘adequate’.
For the reasons mentioned above, we take great care in the quality advice, service and supply. As a result of this, there has never been a sustainable claim of type one made against us.
Should such a claim be made, we can of course investigate the matter in line with our
Complaints Procedure.
The British Standards above quite correctly allow for some flexibility in their implementation. Accordingly, it follows that two different pieces of advice could be given, both of which meet the requirements of the British Standards above. In such cases there is not a problem
per se with the advice given, although we would always have a good reason for making the recommendations we make where other seemingly comparable alternatives are available.
In these cases, please feel free to contact us for more details.
This last case is by far the most common type of conflicting advice scenario we come across.
In these cases, the third party providing the advice has raised no issues with the conformance of our advice, but merely claimed that an alternative and lesser level is ‘adequate’, often utilising phrases such as “all that is required”, “sufficient to meet your needs”, “sufficient to meet your legal obligations”, “sufficient to secure the safety of your staff and members of the public”, etc.
Absent any allegation that our advice, service or supply is non-conformant, the third party in question is saying that their views are superior to those represented by the British Standards and that the British Standards are excessive. Statements implying such a level of expertise should be taken with a great deal of caution.
For the reasons given above, the advice we give in accordance with the British Standards is correct and competent advice. Less competent advice given by other organisations is clearly no reason for any investigative or corrective action on our part unless they also make claim of non-conformance under
type 1 above.
Whilst saving lives is undoubtedly of the highest importance, it is also vital to a business that
its interests are also protected
as discussed in our Guidance Sheet “Effective
Fire Fighting: The Economic Argument”. For example, according to an
estimate by FETA (now the
FIA) in
one
of their publications, “more than 75% of companies that experience a serious
fire go out of business either directly as as result of the fire or within
3 years of reopening”. However, according to the
Fire Extinguisher Survey by FETA (now the
FIA) and IFEDA (requires
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader), 80% of all fires are successfully extinguished by fire
extinguishers. Accordingly the need for effective levels of properly maintained portable firefighting equipment becomes abundantly clear. The above British Standards are the
de facto standards that specify this.
The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers’ Association (“CACFOA”, now “CFOA”) formerly recognise this as part of the agreement contained in the ‘Protocol for Portable Fire Extinguishers’ (the ‘Joint Protocol’) duly signed by Jeff Ord,
the then president.
This has been effectively communicated to the vast majority of Fire Officers. Unfortunately a small minority remain
that are:
- working to outdated or poorly drafted documents that don't
reflect the current British Standards; and/or
- ill-informed with out-of-date views on portable firefighting equipment that concentrate on the issue of saving lives
(a good thing) without proper consideration of other aspects such as
property protection, business continuity or
standards/insurance/statutory compliance (a bad thing).
Such views fall beneath the requirements of the British Standards, are contrary to the Joint Protocol and almost certainly contrary to the Policy of the Brigades to which the Fire Officers in question belong.
Where we are made aware of Fire Officers acting contrary to the Joint Protocol, we bring the matter to the attention of the relevant
FIA-CFOA Liaison Committee for their action. Unfortunately the resolution of such problems is often a slow process.
It is also worth noting that we are aware of no Fire Brigades or Fire Officers at the time of writing that carry certification by
UKAS-accredited independent third party to
BS EN ISO 9001 to ensure their ability to assess in accordance with
SP101, ST104,
BS 5306-3 and
BS 5306-8. Accordingly, where their advice runs contrary to ours one should perhaps question their expertise in assessing compliance to these standards or otherwise making recommendations as to appropriate levels of cover or maintenance.
The conflicting competitive interest should be abundantly clear. Many such parties feel it serves their interests to tell prospective customers that it can make good commercial sense to not adhere to the levels of the above British Standards.
|
