Navigating Fire Safety

Lisa: Hello and welcome everyone to today's webinar. We are going to be talking about fire safety. Some of the key challenges industry are facing. Areas we need to improve in and what the future may hold. I'm joined today by experts in fire safety, Andrea White, and we welcome your questions, which you can put in the Q&A section.

So if you look down at the bottom of your screen, hover your mouse at the bottom, there should be a ribbon and the Q&A you can see in the middle of your screen. So pop any questions that you have during the course of the webinar into there, and we'll answer as many of them as we can live today. We are also offering free downloadable resources.

So that is a fire safety flow chart, which is going to help you identify whether you are a responsible person under the Fire Safety Act 2021. And there's also an accompanying checklist. So if you are a responsible person, that gives you some really actionable practical steps that you can go through to ensure that you are compliant.

Andrea: So at this point, I would like to hand over to our guest speaker today, Andrea White, to introduce herself to you. Thanks very much, Lisa. Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us. My name is Andrea White, as Lisa has said, and I am an independent fire engineer. I'm also a third party accredited fire risk assessor, and I have my own consultancy, which is a W Fire Limited.

Um, I'm an incorporated engineer. With both CA and with the IFE, and I'm very proud to be a fellow of three professional institutions. That is ca the IFE, and I'm also a chartered fellow with iosh. And then on top of all of that, I am an expert witness for the courts, primarily on fire safety issues relating to.

Lisa: So I think it's fairly safe to say that we're in safe hands with you today, um, for a lot of knowledge to share with the audience. So thank you very much, Andrea for, um, for taking your time to, to spend with us today. So recently I had the pleasure of interviewing Dame Judith Hackitt about building and fire safety.

We're going to be playing three clips from that interview today, and we're going to listen to Andrea, our guest speaker's, thoughts on what Dame Judith Hackitt had to say. So let's roll clip number one please.

Dame Judith Hackitt: What do the enhanced fire safety obligations mean for maintenance professionals? Personally, and I'm not trying to play this down, believe me, I, but I genuinely think. What we are in the business of doing here is ensuring that people do what they always should have been doing. I don't think this is a massive leap in new responsibilities, new standards.

The problem we're trying to address is one of people not performing properly. In the past, you've given the examples from Grenfell, and so what we are about is actually getting people to do the job they always should have been doing. Okay, so then Dame Judith Hackitt says that people should have been doing the job they always should have been doing.

Andrea: So Andrea, what do you think the problems are specifically around competence and what tips would you give to maintenance professionals? Okay. So, um, if we think about the wider construction industry, um, we've become very, very good at getting things done. What we haven't been very good at doing is getting things done right.

We've been good at getting them done quickly, getting them done, but not necessarily focusing on getting things done Right now, if I look at my industry in terms of fire safety and how people can, uh, reach that right relative competency, I think what's probably most important. It's for those procuring fire safety services.

So that's people who are looking for consultants to do perhaps fire risk assessments or fire strategies or um, fws external wall assessments. Um, those people who are procuring those services really need to understand the competence landscape and um, then ask the right questions of their potential contractors and consultants Now.

Not everyone realises that at, at this moment there is no requirement for an individual to hold, um, either professional memberships or professional registrations, both to call themselves a fire risk assessor or to call themselves, um, a fire engineer. So I think, you know, number one for me would be to, uh, understand the competence landscape.

So, understand the. Individuals do not need to hold those, um, those registrations or, um, qualifications or memberships and then to undertake due diligence. So ask lots of questions. I would be delighted if more of my clients asked more questions. Um, ask about our qualifications, ask about our experiences, uh, ask about our professional registrations.

Lisa: Um. And I would say assume nothing. Um, you know, don't be fearful about asking those questions and then make an informed decision rather than, um, a decision based on assumptions that may or may not be right. Mm. Okay. Um, I think the, the issue goes broader than competence as well. So maybe you can talk about the other areas that industry needs to improve on, about working together, building information management, those sorts of things.

Andrea: Yeah. So, um, I said just now about we've got a cult, uh, culture at the moment of getting things done rather than getting things done necessarily right. Um, collaboration is definitely something that we need to get better, uh, better at doing. That takes time. So we haven't been keen in the past on collaborating because time is money and, and the client, you know, in the past has, has wanted it done.

And, and I get that. Um, I think if we're now talking about doing things right and doing things properly, then, then collaboration has to be a big part of that. I think the days of just expecting someone. Maybe to do a fire risk assessment without talking to the caretaker or the property manager, or having access to perhaps all parts of the building.

I think. Those days need to be a thing of the past if we want to do things properly Now, um, yes, it does mean that client side, uh, there needs to be input and that is time. Um, but I do want to access some flats. Um, I might even want a trades person who can remove some light switches and some ceiling roses so I can see, uh, what the compartmentation is like, or pop some ceiling tiles and just understand what level of fire resistance there is.

But what I say to clients is that if we can collaborate more, you can have a much more comprehensive document. So that's what I'd say on on collaboration. Yes, it does involve more time on both sides. The outcome, the output of that is, in my opinion, far, far better than, you know, a lot of questions left in the report or some, you know, huge, huge gaps in that report.

Um, you mentioned building information. I think similarly we need to get much better at collecting and properly labelling and storing useful building information. Um, I've been doing fire safety work now for golly. 25 years. Um, and I would say I can count on two hands how many times I've visited an existing building and been supplied with, uh, good quality current information.

Now, um, you know. Fire strategies are, are one example that would be good. Um, but just being given relevant information about the building is, is really important for me to be able to, to do my job properly, uh, and provide the client with a quality doc document. Um, I think. On the flip side of that, um, I've seen organisations who were adopting perhaps a more extreme approach at the other end, um, and perhaps having 3D BIM models created.

Um, and for me, having managed buildings at the beginning of my career. I am not necessarily convinced that those models will remain current for very long. I understand how quickly, um, uh, a model or information can, can change and can become out of date. So I think, you know, in terms of building information, what we have to work towards is, is a single source of truth, which is what the Golden Thread, um, is all about.

Lisa: But I think it's information that's comprehensive and well documented. But it's also accessible and proportionate. Great answer. Thank you. So I then go on to ask Dame Judith Hackitt about some buildings such as hospitals, which fall outside of the scope of being a high risk building as defined by the Building Safety Act for the occupation phase.

Dame Judith Hackitt: So I asked Dame Judith Hackitt, what are their responsibilities under the fire safety order? Um, for me this is about a change in attitude and although they hospitals may not be covered by the Building Safety Act per se, we all know that over time there is a scope within the act for the, for the, for the scope of what is covered by high risk buildings to change and whether that changes or not.

Lisa: The philosophy that sits behind it that says, the higher the risk in a building, the more effort you need to put into ensuring that you understand the safety case for this building and its occupants that principle applies no matter what. So I'd like to pick up on what Dame Judith Hackitt says there about the philosophy of taking a risk-based approach.

Andrea: So is that something that you agree with? And if so, how can it work practically? Okay, so the concept here is that in higher risk buildings we need to have a higher level of fire safety measures and probably a higher level of management and, um, accordingly, higher correspondingly, higher level of regulation as well.

Um, and that makes sense to me. Higher the risk, higher the, uh, higher the oversight if you like. Now, in terms of risk and fire safety, we look at different things in terms of, uh, of risk. So we might look at whether occupants are awake or asleep because people who are asleep for us are a higher risk. Um, and, and people who are awake, um, generally respond more quickly, which makes sense.

We might look at whether people are familiar with the building or not familiar. Um, so an office block, we'd expect perhaps to be a lower risk than something like a hotel where people don't necessarily, um, have that familiarity with the building. Um, and then. We might look at perhaps the occupants, their age, their independence.

So if we compare the risk in a nursing home, uh, we might find that people can't get themselves out of the building. Whereas in a leisure centre, we might find that people can leave the building unaided and they're, they're quite independent. Um, so our fire safety measures that we, we put in place and the guidance stipulates, they already account for those, um, sorts of.

Differing levels of risk. Um, so for situations where these risks are higher, we have, um, a higher level of fire safety measures. Um, we'll put detection, for example, in a sleeping risk building that we might not put in, um, in a, a building where people are awake. Um, but I think following the Grenfell Tower fire, we've decided the height of the building.

Lisa: Is an important factor. And um, we've already had additional measures for taller buildings in terms of perhaps, um, building regulation changes. Um, but we've also strengthened those on the basis of risk. Okay. That's great. Can I put up a poll question at this point, please? So what you can see on screen are three different options.

You can choose to, um, elect one, two, or all three if you would like to. The first option is to see SFG20 software, which is called Facilities-iQ. Now, that software is the best way to access the latest version of the SFG20 standard. That changes on a very regular basis. It also allows you to make your own maintenance strategy and to tailor the SFG20 standard to suit your organisational requirements.

Also, you can connect a via an API to your operational systems such as CAFM. So that's number one. The second option, which I'm glad to see, almost everybody that's attended the webinar, um, has it, um. Opted for is to receive the fire safety resources that we're offering today. So that consists of a fire safety flow chart, which allows you to identify whether you are a responsible person within the Fire Safety Act 2021.

And if you are, then the accompanying checklist that we're offering will give you a really clear set of steps that you need to go through. To, uh, make sure that you are fully compliant, so that is well worth, um, raising your hand to receive. Um, they say that you get no such thing as a free lunch. Well, that's, that's our offering for you today, this lunchtime.

And the third option is to be contacted by one of our experts to learn more about the SFG20 industry standard. So our experts can screen share with you. We can show you what is contained within a, uh, a maintenance schedule so that you can see the kind of content that we produce. The technical guidance through our team of technical authors, you can see what different types of information are and how you tailor and apply that to derive the maximum benefit from the standard.

Okay, so I think everybody's responded. So we're going to end that poll now,

and we are going to, uh, move on by playing the third and final clip from the interview. What do you think can be learned from sectors such as oil and gas, chemicals and aviation to help improve building safety? I think the learning is, is first of all about this is a journey. Um, and you can't fix everything overnight.

Dame Judith Hackitt: So, so if you, if you talk to, if you talk to. The oil and gas industry or, or more generally the major hazards industries. Uh, they would tell you about the journey they went through on introducing the safety case regime, which is very much what we are doing for high-rise buildings in, in this sector, and, and they will be able to, I think, give people that reassurance that.

The regulator acts in a proportionate way in relation to existing facilities. It doesn't immediately raise the bar for existing facilities to the same standard that it would expect from new build. The evidence is there and clear in that sector that that's the kind of proportionate approach that the regulator takes, and that the regulator is willing to sit down and talk about a programme of work to get to where you've got to get to, rather than a, a massive panic to get things done instantly.

Andrea: Okay, so then Dame Judith Hackitt is talking about the major hazards industry there. So what are your thoughts, Andrea, on applying a similar approach, um, to major hazards industry? Um, to what extent do you think that works and are there limitations? Okay, so I agree with Dame Judith Hackitt. Um, this is a journey that our industry needs to go on.

Uh, the Building Safety Act has introduced the safety case regime to tall residential blocks of flats. Uh, just like the safety case regime that was introduced to the major hazards industry. Um, I think this was foreseeable. With Dame Judith Hackitt’s background as a chemical engineer and chair of the HSE for several years in the early two thousands, this is a regime that she understands.

Um, but in the UK we have approximately 950 COMAH sites. So those are the major hazard sites. And those sites I would suggest have. Really quite extensive technical expertise within them, um, to implement and assess, uh, their risk management processes and to write those safety cases. Now we're introducing that same regime to about 12 and a half thousand of our tallest residential blocks and flats.

Uh, that will go up every year because we build about 2000 more of those. Right now that's about 13 times the volume of expertise that we need, and 13 times the amount of regulatory staff that we need to oversee and check those safety cases compared to those under the major hazards, um, regimes. And that's a significant resource, um, that's needed.

I think the other thing that I see is the costs associated with the safety cases for high rise or residential. Uh, you know, there's, there's lots of things that make up a safety case. Uh, so you've got maybe a retrospective fire strategy that you need to do. You now, we're now told you have to have a structural survey every three years.

You have to collate all that building information and make sure that it's current. There are also, um, additional checks, um, and tests that you need to carry out as part of the new, uh, legislation. Um. I don't know if all this cost is proportionate or if those who own those flats can absorb all those additional costs.

I think going back to your risk-based approach, I do think there's potentially a place for safety cases, but perhaps. In a slightly paired down version of its current guise. Um, and, and definitely for less buildings than 13 times. Um, you know, the, the number that the major hazards industry, um, has. Um, but I don't think it's just about height either.

So I think height is, is a factor, but I also think there's other things that we should be looking at if we're looking at a risk-based approach and implementing safety cases. So, um, let me give you two examples. I think fire engineered solutions are another one. Perhaps we should be considering for, um, safety cases.

Lisa: And I also think combustible structures are another one that we should be considering and, and, and contemplating in that mix in terms of, uh, a risk-based approach. Okay. Um, it's an interesting thought. I I didn't realise that statistic about, we're building about 2000 new high rise residential buildings each year.

Andrea: Do you think that those modern new. Buildings pose the same risk to the 12 and a half thousand legacy buildings. Oh, that's an interesting question. Um, well we had the new, uh, building regulation seven two and seven three. So now over 18 meters you may not use anything from the plasterboard on the inside wall to the cladding on the outside wall that isn't a two or better so of limited combustibility or better.

So, you know, in terms of the issues around external fire spread. Those new buildings, in theory, there should be nothing, you know, not one piece of ply board, um, in, in, in that wall that, that can burn. Um, or that can burn to a Yeah, 'cause you've got limited combustibility. But, but that can, that can burn to a significant extent.

Um, that is, um, you know, worse than a two. So I do, I think, I think, I think. I think it's an interesting one because for me. I, I have a particular love of the 1960s tower blocks, and I know a lot of people visually hate them. Um, but they're all made of concrete, you know, they're concrete walls, they're probably brickwork or block work, internal walls.

They are concrete floors, concrete external walls. You know, there's nothing in them that can burn. Um, in terms of the structure, we then move towards, um, you know, uh. More modern methods of construction. I think those are a concern. Um, and then we moved into the, um, you know, tighter regulations around external walls.

Lisa: So I think, I think there's sort of periods in our construction history where I would say I'm more comfortable with that. I'm a little bit less comfortable with that, and we probably need to consider that more. That's fascinating. I'm gonna turn to some of the Q&As that, uh, or the questions that have been coming in from our audience as, as you've been talking, and I must say Andrea has not seen any of these, so, you know, if we can't answer anything on the spot, we'll we'll follow up on afterwards.

Andrea: Um, so we've got a question here. Do you need a qualification to carry out fire stopping remedial work? Oh, uh, no. No. Um, what do they say? A bread knife in a van. At the moment. Yeah. Um, so no, there's no legal requirement for fire stopping either. Um, I mean the guidance, the government guidance for any of this is third party accreditation.

So you can get third party accredited fire risk assessors, you can get third party accredited fire stoppers. Um, there's professional registration, uh, from the Engineering Council for fire engineers. But even then, you know, we, we've got company wide accreditation, third party accreditation schemes, um, that hasn't necessarily looked at the individuals.

So I would be wanting to know a little bit more about the individuals who are coming to do the work. Um, and, you know. It. There, there's, there's it. It's not, it's not a panacea. It's, it's not a be all and end all third party accreditation. You know, it, it sets a basic standard. I think to assume otherwise or to expect otherwise is, is a fallacy.

Lisa: So, um, know the answer to your question. You don't need, um, third party accreditation. Yes, it's a good thing, but I would still, you know, I would, I would take that third party accreditation as just, you know. Uh, providing confidence in a basic level if it's, if it's accrediting the individual. Yeah. It comes back to what you said at the outset of this webinar, doesn't it?

About, you know, ask the questions, don't assume anything, do your due diligence to ensure that people are competent to, to carry out the work. We had loads of questions coming in now. Oh, um, we've got one that's, uh, relating to legislation. So what are the main differences between the RRO 2005? The Building Safety Act and the Fire Safety Act?

Andrea: Oh, goy. Okay. So, um. Uh, forgive me, I'm not gonna cover everything, but I'll give you a snapshot. Um, the RRO, uh, was the replacement for the Fire Precautions Workplace Regulations. Uh, and that basically brought together lots of different pieces of legislation, um, and put it all in one place as the fire safety order, what we call the RRO, um, for fire risk assessment.

Um, and, uh. Responsible persons having to provide reasonable fire safety measures and giving enforcement, um, authorities, um, powers to, to act. There, there are other things in it, but that's, that's the biggest one is, is sort of, that's our fire safety legislation, if you like, for existing buildings. Uh, the Fire Safety Act 2021, excuse me, 2021 was a response to Grenfell and that.

Uh, provided some clarification. So it clarified that when you do a fire risk assessment of, um, a residential block flats, the structure must be considered. Um, and also that flat entrance doors must be considered. Uh, there's probably some extra bits, but for me those are the two biggies. In terms of the Fire Safety Act, it kind of clarified some aspects of having to do fire risk assessments.

Uh, building Safety Act are totally different, kettle of fish, so, um, massive, massive piece of legislation. Hundreds of pages and hundreds of pages of associated guidance and then secondary legislation on top of that, um, that really changed our landscape. So that brought in all the building safety regime in terms of the building safety regulator in terms of safety cases.

Lisa: Um, and it also applies to every single building in terms of, um, uh, due diligence in terms of, um. The, the building control system that we have. Um, yeah. It, that, that is really a sea change in terms of, uh, let me just think. Yeah. Construction of new buildings. Yeah. So Jonathan and, and the wider audience, I think Andrea is explaining how complex and how much change there has been over the past 10, 20 years.

And that is what we. Offer as SFG20. So our team of technical authors are experts in scanning all of the new and the changing regulations and legislation, and then translating that into really simple tasks, which are then colour-coded by criticality. So do you need to do this to be legally compliant or do you need to do this for, um, optimal, um, operational efficiency?

Andrea: Thank you for your question. We've got a question in from Paul, which is, where is accountability and responsibility for undertaking RAs? For example, defined particularly in large organisations such as the NHS? Oh, okay. So, um. So RAs are fire risk assessments. Um, and I think what the question is asking is who's responsible and who's accountable.

Um, it is the responsible person. So we have a term, uh, like the Building Safety Act has a term accountable person in the first safety order, the RRO, we have the responsible person, um, that does not need to be a human being. So even though it says responsible person, it can be a body corporate. So I don't know how the NHS works.

Um, the NHS and and hospitals are one of the few, um, areas of industry that I do not choose to work in, um, just because it's very particular. Um, but whoever is. The responsible person will be the organisation, the NHS organisation. So I'm just trying to think. Maybe a trust. I, I don't think it would be the NHS that you were talking about.

Hospital. I think most hospitals are within trust now, so it would be whatever the name of the trust is. Um, in terms of accountability, that's a really good point. It would be the trust. Hmm. Ultimately it's the building owner, isn't it? Um. We've got another question in from John. What about fire dampers? Is there any legal requirement to be qualified to test?

Oh, I think I know the answer. Um, no. No, I, I refer you back to my answer to do with, um, uh, fire stopping. No, there is not. So there's a requirement for the responsible person to maintain fire dampers. Um, but in terms of the competence of individuals who do it, um. You are expected as the responsible person to determine that these people are competent.

Um, so it is then your responsibility to ask the right questions, assume nothing, do your due diligence in order to ascertain that I say it again, not just the company, but the individuals who are coming to your site are competent to do, uh, the testing and maintenance on those dampers. Yes. Thank you.

Andrea: Question from Marianne. How can you encourage facilities managers and the staff within buildings and sites that we need their assistance in building and fire safety? Oh golly. Um, that sounds like a psychology question. Um, I'm, I'm an engineer. Um, golly. I mean, I do, I do find that there's a lot of psychology involved in doing what I do.

So I deal with a lot of different people, uh, and a lot of different roles. So I might deal with architects, I might deal with regulators, I might deal with clients. Um, and I think. Yeah. Okay. So I think it's about emotional intelligence. So I think it's about perhaps stepping back from the conversation, you know, thinking about it before you, you are having the conversation and thinking, okay, w why is this relevant to them?

Mm. We're we're all here about what's in it for me, aren't we? So, so can you make it relatable to. What's important to them? I think, I think that's, you know, and also no jargon. Um, you know, in, in my industry we, we are guilty of talking, um, in, in too much jargon and, and plain English that there is absolutely no shame in plain English.

So I think, you know, just, just talking to people in, in, in simple terms that they can understand and explaining it in terms of. What's important for them. Yes. Yeah, I think that's a great answer. Um, onto the next question, we're really grilling you here. What are the legal ramifications for a client or building owner that does not conduct annual fire damper testing?

Oh, okay. Well, um, um, uh, well, that depends, doesn't it? Um, so it, it depends if anyone knows. Um, it depends if, you know, uh, are you being negligent, are you not? I mean, the reality is that, that there's, that there's probably not going to be any ramifications for you, um, because nobody's going to know. Um, but actually that the test is, are you put putting someone at risk of, um, death or serious injury by, um.

By not doing that test, um, you know, what do those dampers do? Um, so, so, you know, your, your goal is to make sure that when they're needed, all these fire safety measures work as intended. Um, and also that you understand that they're there, that you know they exist in order to make sure that that's the case.

So I think, you know, if we look at one, you know, are you doing your tests every week or every month or whatever it is for, for, for that. I can't remember what the British standard says for the dampers, but, you know, um. One isolated damper with one isolated test is probably not an issue. It's, it's the overall concept of are you making sure that the fire safety measures in your building will actually function when they're needed and they'll function the way that's intended?

Lisa: Because you never know when they're going to be required. No. Okay. Um, question from David. Please, could you define a fire strategy and when is it needed? He's supplemented that with the fact my organisation is confused between retrospective fire strategies for the envelope of a building and the compliance requirements, such as provision of fire evacuation plans and fire risk assessments, et cetera.

Andrea: Okay, so, um, fire strategy, a fire strategy considers building regulations B one to B five. Um. And it, if I was writing a fire strategy, I would look at those five building regulations. Um, for, let's, let's talk first about a building that's being designed and built. So I would look at the designs with the architect and I would go through building regulations B one to B five, choose an appropriate guidance.

So that would be either approved document B, the current version, or it would be 9991, or. Be 9999. Or if I was feeling really, um, enthusiastic, I might use a fire engineer solution. Um, but I would have some sort of guidance that pointed me towards what the acceptable, um, criteria that the measures might be to cover B one to B five, building regulations B one to B five.

Now, um, if I had an existing building, I would, uh, write a retrospective fire strategy, which would do exactly the same. It would consider the age of the building when it was built and the guidance that was in place at the time. And it would cover B one to B five. And it might suggest that some of the things that were constructed in that building at the time of build, um, need to be brought more up to date.

Or they've, you know, being damaged in some way. I'm thinking, um, ceilings or walls and things. And that there are some remedial works that need doing. Um, so that is in terms of. The building. So anything that you can't pick up and walk out the building with. So not the furniture, not the processes that happen inside it and not the people.

Now when we're looking at a fire risk assessment. That assumes that the building to a certain extent has been built to building regulations B one to B five. Um, because fire risk assessors are not, um, fire engineers, it's generally fire engineers that write fire strategies and they will then look at, um.

How the building is being used. So in terms of the occupants, in terms of the layout of the building, in terms of the means of escape, um, and also, uh, in terms of uh, sources of ignition, sources of fuel, sources of oxygen. That's what a fire risk assessment does. And there's a legal. Uh, duty, as I've explained earlier, under the fire safety order or the RRO that requires, uh, responsible persons to carry out a fire risk assessment and keep that under review.

Now, um, your, uh, your person asking the question seemed to confuse one of those with an external wall assessment. So that is a post Grenfell thing. Um, and I do those. So that is where you will find people, uh, standing on the outside of your building, pointing at various places on the building and then going up in a cherry picker or a crane of some kind and.

You know, pulling bits off the building, having a look inside, understanding what the makeup of that external wall is, and then deciding, um. Whether that's okay or not in terms of residential blocks of flats and from those FRAEWs, we call them under PAS 9980. Um, you may get an EWS one.

That's where the insurer's EWS one comes from that assessment and that's called uh, an FREW Fire Risk Appraisal of external wall systems. So that is not a fire strategy and that is not a fire risk assessment. I appreciate that every single one of the documents that I write has the word fire in it. Um, there are other documents.

So I think your, your question also covered, uh, emergency plans. There are other documents in terms of, you know, how are we gonna evacuate everybody? What's gonna be the signal? Is there gonna be a delay or not? Are we gonna investigate? Um, those are other documents, but I think probably in terms of.

Lisa: Buildings in general. The fire strategy and the fire risk assessment are the main ones. And then if you've got a residential building, um, the external wall assessment, the FRAEW is, uh, your third document. Thank you, Andrea. Um, so we've got a question. If we want to test and maintain our fire alarm systems in-house, would our fire technicians need to be accredited to BAFE, et cetera?

Andrea: No. So if you're only doing weekly testing, um, no disrespect to me, but even I can do weekly testing. Um, there is no qualifications needed. You just need some training, um, and you just need to make sure that you're testing it in line with the British standard. So I, I see a lot of people who have no qualifications in, uh, fire alarms who do weekly testing.

Um, and the only thing I would say is that you don't wanna be testing from the panel. You wanna be doing a round robin of each of the call points and then using some sort of test peg or, um, if you've got. Reusable, um, plastic on the front of the, um, call points. You can use that. Um, but you should be testing each call point on a round robin basis, and then that means you're actually testing the wiring from the manual call point to the panel, as well as testing if the Sounders work.

Now if you're talking about maintenance, that's a different kettle of fish. Um, you don't have to be third party accredited. But, um, again, government suggests that that's a really good idea to, to find someone who's third party accredited to do the maintenance on the, um, on the, um, fire alarm system. And whether that's quarterly or six monthly.

Lisa: Okay, thank you. I think we're just gonna go to our last question now. So apologies for the 15, some questions that we're not going to get to, but we will provide answers to all of those via email and we'll follow up in, in the coming days. So, last question, uh, from our audience, and then I've got one that I'm going to ask you, Andrea.

Andrea: Um, so from our audience, um, does legislation state how often fire stopping slash com compartmentation needs to be checked? No it doesn't. Um, but your fire risk assessment. Needs to be done periodically, needs to be reviewed periodically. Um, and you know, I would suggest to you that if you've had major works done, I don't know, um, what could we say, telephone lines.

That's probably an old fashioned thing now, but, but, you know, cables or something drilled through. Walls, then you probably, you know, it would be reasonable to assume that you should check that those have been suitably fire stopped. Um, so no, there is nothing to say how often, but I would hope that any conscientious fire risk assessor would be looking at compartmentation and any fire stopping issues, including going into rises.

Lisa: Um. Going into roof spaces if they need to. Um, so you know that that sort of check will be picked up on the cycle of the fire risk assessment. Okay. That's great. So my final question to you is thinking about some practical advice that we can give away from today's session to our audience. What steps should building owners and maintenance professionals be taking?

Andrea: Okay, so, um, I had a think about this one 'cause you, you were kind enough to give me this before and I wanted to give you some good advice. So, um, I think if you are gonna work with fire safety consultants, I'll, I'll give you four uh, points. So, uh, number one, be informed. So, um, understand for yourself what the regulations say and what you're required to do, uh, rather than rely on your consultant.

And then clarify the scope of their works, um, with them so that you know, you know that what you are doing meets the legal requirements and you are clear and they're clear that what they're going to do fulfils that obligation. So that's number one. Uh, number two is assume nothing, which I've said earlier.

Um, I can't stress enough the importance of due diligence when you are. Procuring for safety services and taking on consultants. Um, ask questions, request insurances. Ask about exclusions on insurances. Ask them for examples of previous work. Um, ask them for evidence of professional memberships. You know, just 'cause someone says, well, I'm a fellow of the IFE.

Well, okay. Um, how can I check that please? Have you got a, a card or a a something? Um, is there an email address that I can, I can contact, um, and, and, and do that, verify them? Um, I, I think. You know, it, it's really important that you understand when you're procuring that those services actually what each of those demonstrates.

So if I say to you, I'm a, a fellow of the IFE, which I am, uh, and you go away and check that, do you understand what that means in terms of me being a fire risk assessor? Because actually it means absolutely nothing. I could be a fellow of the IFE because I am, uh, a, a very competent, uh, firefighter who has done a lot of charitable works.

Being a fellow means I've, I've done charitable works, so understand what you are verifying and what, what that actually means. So that's number two. And then number three I've touched on before, but I'll say it again. Collaborate. I think, I think that's gonna be a step change in our industry and it's gonna, it's gonna really pay dividends, so, so work with your consultant.

Um. Give them the information that you have. Um, but don't give them all the, um, useless, unhelpful information that you have. Um, give them access to you and give them your time. Give them your knowledge. I think you know that that will help them to do a good job, which is, you know, ultimately what you know most of us want to do.

And also it will give you the best quality report. And then the last one is. Please read the report, whatever it is, when it's sent to you. Um, do you understand it? Is it written in clear English? Does it cover everything you want it to cover? Is it factually correct? And is it based on, on what you know internally?

Lisa: And, and if there are red, red flags, then, then, then speak up and, and say, look, you know, I'd like to have a conversation. There's a couple of points here that I don't understand or I don't quite think are correct. Um, don't, don't be afraid to do that. That's great advice. I'm sorry we've run out of time. I could talk to you for many more hours.

I'm, I'm sure, um, but we don't want to keep you any longer. So to everyone that's joined us today, we hope you found today's session valuable. Um, why not check out the full interview with Dame Judith Hackitt on fire safety. Hopefully one of my crew in the background will put the URL to that, um, interview in the chat for you.

Um, and in that interview we discussed some of the findings from the Grenfell Tower Phase two inquiry. What can happen to building owners if their building is not maintained in a compliant fashion? The level of maturity of the fire safety sector compared with other areas of engineering and much, much more.

So I'd like to say thank you to our guest speaker, Andrea White today. Um, and now we're going to turn off our cameras and our mics, but we will leave the chat open just for a couple more minutes. So that you can post any final questions to us, and as we said before, we'll make sure that we respond by email to you all.

So thank you and look out for our next webinar, which will happen later on in the year. Goodbye.