Guidance on the concept of competence

HAVING READ both articles on the letters page of the November journal regarding the new fire legislation, I found both very interesting and believe I may be able to give some guidance on the concept of competence. Earlier this year, I used Article 18 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (among other articles) to defend a company director in the Coroner’s court.

The facts are as follows: an individual died in a flat fire and the landlord – that is, the managing director of a property company – received letters from three areas. Firstly, a robust letter from the local authority suggesting deficiencies in fire precautions within the flat of the deceased; secondly, a letter from the fire authority making clear the requirements of the Fire Safety Order; thirdly, a letter from the Coroner’s office requesting disclosure of certain documents, one document being a fire risk assessment of the building housing the dead person’s flat. I became involved at this point and was asked to advise and represent the managing director at the forthcoming session at the Coroner’s court.

It became very clear in the early stages of the investigation that the landlord was compliant with existing Building Regulations. However, with regards to the Fire Safety Order, could more not have been done with regards to the risk assessment process? Because of the robust approach adopted by the local authority, it crossed my mind that there could easily be an unlawful killing verdict by the Coroner, which I am sure requires no explanation to readers with regards to the seriousness of such a decision and the ramifications for my client. First question: could my client provide the risk assessment documents required for disclosure? Answer, no – the reason being that, at that point, they had no-one adequately trained and prepared to carry out the assessments.

Our defence was as follows. How competent would a person need to be to carry out a risk assessment on this type of property to meet fully the requirements of the Fire Safety Order? I questioned a group manager of the fire service for over 30 minutes with regards to the expertise and level of knowledge a lay person would require in order to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment to satisfy the Fire Safety Order. The fire manager accounted for himself very well, refusing to be led by my leading questions and staying clear of personal opinion. However, the coroner allowed for a degree of opinion from the fire manager with regards to the competency required by an assessor in this situation.

Having heard all the statements and considered all the evidence, the coroner said the following: ‘The owners had complied with whatever statutory regulations were in force, but felt the new Order was of a complexity that went beyond the usual approach of health and safety assessments and required a degree of competence that encompasses knowledge, training, qualifications, an understanding of one’s own limitations and the ability to seek professional assistance.’

I have no doubt that training specific to fire risk assessment in order to meet the rigours of the Fire Safety Order is essential, and a process of verification through examination and subsequent qualification would ensure a level of competence beyond experience. I am sure we have all encountered well-meaning individuals. I have met two recently, both retired firefighters giving advice on fire risk assessment well below the requirement of suitable and sufficient.

It is realistic to expect employers to understand the complexity of fire legislation in a way that allows them to meet fully their legal obligations in this self-regulatory piece of law. If they cannot, who will be competent to assist? The law gives little guidance. Good luck, responsible person.

R Pearson GIFireE
Woodward SHE Limited