Regards it being the clients responsibility to appoint a fire risk assessor, here is a comment in an IET Wiring Matters article about the BS7671 corrigendum issued last year and escape routes:

It is important to note that the fire strategy and fire engineering requirements are the responsibility of a fire engineer. It is not the job for an electrician to determine which areas are considered protected escape routes or not. Professional advice from a fire engineer should be sought.

electrical.theiet.org/.../

Regards it being the clients responsibility to appoint a fire risk assessor, here is a comment in an IET Wiring Matters article about the BS7671 corrigendum issued last year and escape routes:

It is important to note that the fire strategy and fire engineering requirements are the responsibility of a fire engineer. It is not the job for an electrician to determine which areas are considered protected escape routes or not. Professional advice from a fire engineer should be sought.

electrical.theiet.org/.../

Presumably, unless they can get insurance, very few will be happy to step into a fire risk assessor/advisor role if it means carrying the can for omissions in a design/ construction of something you cannot see in totality - which may be the case for most projects on existing buildings. Which may risk leaving only the cowboy types in operation.
I also wonder where it leaves the £50 drive-by EICR. Should fire stops be checked at the same time ?

Mike

mapj1 said:

Should fire stops be checked at the same time ?

Just put that on the long list of "limitations" with whatever else is too hard or requires "update course" (CPD).

And that is the problem, like surveys where no-one goes in the loft because that would be 'working at height'. Well meant rules have an unfortunate side effect, and does not help the victim of any fire, flood or whatever very much.
Mike

Agreed ... apologies I was very dry in the last post. I wasn't being 100 % serious that I agree that's the way it ought to happen; however, I'm sure many have seen similar approaches, so it will happen.

To stop the £50 drive by EICR the HSE need to start to prosecute offenders of false EICRs.  CPS (Competent Person Schemes) need to make their members aware that they should report suspected EICR breaches.

As always there are many caveats but the 2 biggest are

1)  The need for 1 governing body for Electric contractors/employees

2  Who pay for this

Sergio Fernandez said:

2  Who pay for this

Always the consumer

Ultimately, every time.

So if fire risk assessors have to pay shed-loads for PI insurance, the price will reflect that.

Indeed - perhaps meaning that at the shallow end it does not happen properly or in some cases at all - roughly where we are now of course. At some point things are not worth doing. In the limit if it is expensive enough you could decide not to bother with electricity at all,though we are long way from that in the UK, and in places where there is not the money the work is much rougher (thinking places like Africa and South America).

Mike.

What about using OpenAI / Chat  GPT 4 (other brands are available) to do the risk assessment?  I think that would make for a very interesting experiment.  Can AI read the room and spot the issues a human can?

Could a AI generated Risk assessment beat a AI generated Fire Combustibility Exclusion Clause?

Would AI need insurance?

Could a AI generated Risk assessment beat a AI generated Fire Combustibility Exclusion Clause?

That's a truly frightening thought - how (and who) would you train the AI system ?

I'm not a great believer in adding to paperwork that no one reads.

Mike