But I think we're sadly no stranger to such documents across the health and safety sector, Bernie. It's part and parcel that some people believe documentation is something measured in weight rather than content. Edit: In fact, I now remember several funny stories about that and pre-qualification questionnaires!bernicarey wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:34 am Well I've just had a bit of a speed read through of the 2012 FRA and at 32 pages it seems quite comprehensive.... yet there is one glaring omission in my book.
Page 10 states:That's my BOLD above.(Note that, although the purpose of this section is to place the fire risk in context, the above approach to fire risk assessment is subjective and
for guidance only. All hazards and deficiencies identified in this report should be addressed by implementing all recommendations contained in the following action plan. The fire risk assessment should be reviewed regularly.)
Yet there is no 'Action Plan'.
Page 1 of the document states in bold:But there is no 'Action Plan'; there's not even a management summary page of Significant Findings...just random comments in each heading.The significant findings and action plan of this Fire Risk Assessment are inserted next with this document continuing on page 2.
Anything could be buried in here because as a management document, it is terribly written.
The fact that I missed that note and the lack of an action plan indicates your point. Along with the fact that almost everyone here has had to note that they'll have to take time to read it back: it's not a document which is readily accessible to the reader.
One point that made be shiver: a reference to the lifts being firefighter/evacuation standard lifts? I wonder how many residents actually knew they could possibly evacuate via the lift in the dire circumstances they were in rather than crawl down up to 23 flights of stairs? The TMO's "stay put" signage only referred to the stairs as a route.