Hertfordshire 2021/22

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at understanding risk.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. Arrangements should be put in place through the service’s prevention, protection and response capabilities to prevent or mitigate these risks for the public.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s understanding of risk is improving

During our round one inspection in 2018, we found that the service couldn’t be sure that it understood current and future risk. It also couldn’t be sure it was allocating resources appropriately to manage those risks. The service has now assessed a range of current and future risks and threats after an IRMP process. For 2019–23, it has produced an up-to-date plan.

When assessing risk, it has considered relevant information collected from a broad range of internal and external sources and datasets. The service makes good use of its position within Hertfordshire County Council to access community intelligence. Its IRMP is supported by an FCR.

But the service has undertaken only limited consultation on its plan and had only limited meaningful dialogue with communities and others, including elected members and representative bodies, to both understand the risk and explain how it intends to mitigate it. The service knows that it needs to improve its consultation methods to involve more people and include a wider representation of its communities.

Activity isn’t clearly linked to the IRMP

After assessing relevant risks, the service has recorded its findings in an IRMP. But it isn’t fully clear from the plan how the service intends to use its prevention, protection and response resources to mitigate or reduce the risk and threats the community it serves faces, both now and in the future. For example, it is unclear how teams that carry out prevention work will be suitably resourced and trained to meet current or future demands. And the IRMP contains limited information on what steps the service plans to take in response to any anticipated change to risk levels in the future.

The recently published FCR had 43 recommendations for how the service can improve its work for the public. It is too early for us to review how effective these recommendations are. We are interested to see the progress the service makes.

Planning has started for a new community risk management plan. This will replace the current IRMP when it expires. The service should make sure that the new plan is based on a thorough assessment of risk and that it gives clear direction. Resources should be allocated appropriately for prevention, protection and response activity.

The service needs to improve how it gathers, maintains and shares risk information

The service routinely collects and updates the information it has about the people, places and threats it has identified as being at greatest risk. We found from the records we reviewed that site-specific risk information (SSRI) visits are carried out within the time frames set by the service. The visits we checked were carried out in accordance with service policy. Staff at fire stations provided good examples where response staff and protection officers had worked together.

But risk information isn’t always disseminated well throughout the service, and it isn’t readily available or understood by all staff. The service’s systems aren’t robust and include paper-based and manual processes. This means the sharing of risk information isn’t efficient. More work is needed for the service to assure itself that staff in prevention, protection and response roles can access all the information they need.

At the time of this inspection, the service was migrating information from its existing risk visits to its new system, which should improve the handling of risk information and how staff access it.

There is a process for dealing with short-term and temporary risk information which are dealt with locally. Due to this, the service couldn’t demonstrate how they manage short-term and temporary risks in a consistent way.

When necessary, the service must make sure that the risk information it holds is exchanged with other organisations, such as police, health, social services, and local authorities.

Site-specific risk information isn’t quality assured

We found there is no specific training for staff carrying out SSRI visits. This can lead to inconsistent collecting and recording of risk information. Our inspection highlighted that the data collected wasn’t quality assured. For example, we found that important information such as building use, number of floors and the presence of flammable cladding, was unclear or wasn’t highlighted well enough. The service should assure itself that all risk information is accurately recorded so it is more useful and relevant for staff who need it.

The service builds an understanding of risk from operational activity

The service records and communicates risk information from operational activity effectively. It also routinely updates risk assessments and uses feedback from local and national operational activity to inform its planning assumptions. For example, it used operational information to develop the recommendations in the FCR.

The service has used learning from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to reduce risk

During this round of inspections, we sampled how each fire and rescue service has responded to the recommendations and learning from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has responded positively and proactively to learning from this tragedy. The service had assessed the risk of every high-rise building in its service area by the end of 2021.

It has carried out a fire safety audit and collected and passed relevant risk information to its prevention, protection and response teams about buildings identified as high risk and all high-rise buildings that have cladding similar to the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower.

At the time of this inspection, the service was making good progress with its Grenfell action plan.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at preventing fires and other risks.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, including giving fire safety advice. To identify people at greatest risk from fire, services should work closely with other organisations in the public and voluntary sector, and with the police and ambulance services. They should provide intelligence and risk information with these other organisations when they identify vulnerability or exploitation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s prevention strategy isn’t effectively directing activity

The service’s prevention strategy isn’t clearly aligned with the risks in its IRMP. The IRMP’s proposals for prevention lack detail and don’t clearly direct activity. The staff we spoke to felt that prevention wasn’t prioritised as well as response and protection. It is unclear how resources are allocated.

Prevention work generally happens in isolation, and we found little evidence of relevant information being provided to protection and response functions. Information is stored in different places, with limited access. This means the central prevention team can’t access post-incident activity. There are also no clear links between prevention work and protection activity. As a result, vulnerable people and others may not be getting the support they need.

The service needs to improve how it targets those most vulnerable

The service doesn’t have a clear, risk-based approach that helps it to direct prevention activity towards the people most at risk from fire and other emergencies.

The service could do more to identify and target people who are most at risk. It uses only limited information and data to target its prevention activity. There is a disconnect between the data that the service has access to, and local activity.

It provides only a limited range of interventions that don’t always match the level of risk in its communities. For example, the service has a campaigns programme which follows national themes. But it isn’t effective or aligned to local risks. Staff told us the approach to prevention work is inconsistent.

Safe and well visits are inconsistent

We were disappointed to find that firefighters aren’t carrying out full safe and well visits. Some firefighters were trained to carry out full safe and well visits as part of a trial a few years ago, but the service told us that this was stopped due to being unable to reach agreement with representative bodies. Firefighters feel that they don’t have the right skills or confidence to do them. Instead, they carry out home fire safety checks and fit smoke detectors. These checks don’t cover the full range of hazards that can put vulnerable people at greater risk from fire and other emergencies. Full safe and well visits are carried out by a central team and trained volunteers instead.

The standard of visits that firefighters carry out are inconsistent and the service can’t be sure it is doing enough to help those who are at most risk of harm.

The service uses paper-based systems and manual processes, which also hinder the understanding and assurance of progress and completed work.

The service responds well to safeguarding concerns

The service is a valued member of the Hertfordshire Safeguarding Adults Board and has led on serious case reviews. The service has improved how it handles safeguarding and dealing with vulnerability as part of a multi-agency approach.

Staff we interviewed told us about occasions when they had identified safeguarding problems. They told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly.

The service works well with other organisations

The service works with a wide range of other organisations, such as other emergency services, community safety partnerships and businesses, to prevent fires and other emergencies. We found that the service has good access to information through its position in Hertfordshire County Council. It also has strong partnerships with other organisations and departments within the council. For example, it is an active member of the Hertfordshire Road Safety Partnership and supported a council-led scheme called Fit, Fed and Read.

We found good evidence that it routinely refers people at greatest risk to other organisations which may be better able to meet their needs. Arrangements are in place to receive referrals from others such as adult care services. The service acts on the referrals it receives. For example, it prioritises safe and well visits based upon risk.

The service routinely exchanges information with other public sector organisations about people and groups at greatest risk. It uses the information to challenge planning assumptions and target prevention activity. For example, the service has arrangements in place with other organisations to share information on high-risk individuals when relevant.

The service tackles fire-setting behaviour

The service has a range of suitable and effective interventions to target and educate people of different ages who show signs of fire-setting behaviour. This includes working with known fire setters through a dedicated programme led by the youth engagement team, carrying out joint interventions with the police, and making school visits. The service also has web pages where the public can access information or request a visit to talk to individuals.

When appropriate, it routinely shares information with other relevant organisations such as the police, to support the prosecution of arsonists. Fire crews have worked with the police to support arson campaigns. They regularly carry out arson patrols in local communities to identify areas at risk.

The service needs to improve the evaluation of its prevention work

We found limited evidence that the service evaluates how effective its prevention activity is or makes sure all its communities get equal access to prevention activity that meets their needs. This includes prevention activity following an incident. The service doesn’t routinely use the feedback it receives to improve what it does. As a result, the service is still missing opportunities to improve what it provides the public.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at protecting the public through fire regulation.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services should assess fire risks in certain buildings and, when necessary, require building owners to comply with fire safety legislation. Each service decides how many assessments it does each year. But it must have a locally determined, risk-based inspection programme for enforcing the legislation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service has a protection strategy linked to its IRMP

The service’s protection strategy is linked to the risk it has identified in its IRMP.

Staff from all parts of the service are involved in protection activities, and when needed, they feedback information effectively. For example, operational crews carry out fire safety visits at medium-risk premises and can refer them to specialist fire safety officers if necessary. The service uses information from these visits to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity. We were pleased to hear examples of fire safety inspecting officers supporting firefighters when carrying out SSRI visits.

The service adapted its protection activity well during the pandemic

We considered how the service had adapted its protection activity during our COVID‑19 specific inspection from 21 September to 2 October 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its protection work well. Since then, we are encouraged to find that protection activity has returned to visits in person. The service has maintained effective communication with other organisations and local businesses.

The service aligns activity to risk

The service has a well-planned RBIP which focuses on the service’s highest risk buildings. The audits that we reviewed were completed in the timescales the service has set itself.

Operational crews support the RBIP by carrying out medium-risk fire safety audits. All supervisory managers are given non-fire safety specialist training to do this.

In 2020/21, the service conducted 519 fire safety audits (1.1 per 100 known premises). This is lower than the England rate of 1.7 per 100 known premises. The proportion of unsatisfactory audits was 71 percent, which is much higher than previous years. This indicates that the service is targeting audits at premises that need them.

The service has carried out fire safety audits at high-rise buildings

The service has carried out audits at all high-rise buildings it has identified as having cladding similar to the type installed on Grenfell Tower. It makes information gathered during these audits available to response teams and control operators, so they can respond more effectively in an emergency. But the service didn’t take the opportunity to share relevant information with prevention staff.

By the end of 2021 it had visited all the high-rise, high-risk buildings identified in its service area.

Fire safety audits are completed to a high standard

We reviewed a range of audits of different types of premises. This included audits:

• which were part of the service’s RBIP;
• which were carried out after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies;
• where enforcement action was taken; and
• at high-rise, high-risk buildings.

The audits we reviewed had been completed to a high standard, in a consistent, systematic way in line with the service’s policies.

But we did find some evidence that relevant information wasn’t shared with operational teams and control room operators. The service should make sure all relevant information from the audits is made available to those who may need it.

Poor technology affects the management and use of protection information

We were disappointed to find examples of the service using paper-based and manual processes when carrying out audits. Systems aren’t linked, and the service isn’t making best use of technology.

The service acknowledges that its systems are “clunky”, inefficient, and could be improved. New technology is being introduced, but the service isn’t yet clear exactly how it will be used to support activity.

There isn’t enough quality assurance or evaluation of protection activity

The service carries out limited quality assurance of its protection activity. It also doesn’t routinely collect equality data as part of its inspection programme.

It doesn’t have good evaluation tools in place to measure the protection activity’s effectiveness against the IRMP. Nor can it make sure all members of its communities have equal access to the protection services that meet their needs.

The service’s use of enforcement powers is proportionate

The service consistently uses its full range of enforcement powers, and when appropriate, prosecutes those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations.

In the year to 31 March 2021, the service issued:

• 0 alteration notices;
• 362 informal notifications;
• 0 enforcement notices;
• 5 prohibition notices; and
• 0 prosecutions.

In the past 5 years, from 2016/17 to 2020/21, it has completed 6 prosecutions.

Protection work is well resourced

The service has enough qualified protection staff to meet the requirements of the service’s RBIP. Staff are trained in line with national standards. This helps the service to provide the range of audit and enforcement activity needed, both now and in the future.

Staff get the right training and work to appropriate accreditation. Operational crews are well supported to carry out medium-risk audits, including having a station liaison officer who is responsible for fire protection support and guidance.

The service works well with other enforcement agencies

The service works closely with other enforcement agencies to regulate fire safety and routinely exchanges risk information with them. For example, it carries out petroleum licencing inspections on behalf of the county council. It also has a service level agreement with ten local authorities which relates to houses of multiple occupation.

The service responds promptly to building consultations

The service responds to most building consultations on time, so consistently meets its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings. The service has an online portal through which it receives building control and licencing applications. In 2020/21, it responded to 97.7 percent of licencing applications and 93.6 percent of building consultations within the expected time frame.

The service works well with businesses and other organisations

The service proactively engages with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation. It is notable how well the service makes the most of opportunities to engage with others.

The service has strong links with regulatory partners and local businesses and works well with them. It promotes and contributes to a ‘better business for all’ model as part of the Hertfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. This has led to a charter between Hertfordshire regulatory teams and businesses, helping them to provide regulatory services in a more efficient way and to promote business growth.

The service recently consulted with businesses in the partnership before successfully carrying out a trial to reduce the amount of unwanted fire signals that it attends. It also contributes to improving local business productivity with guidance and advice.

The service has produced professional development updates for partners and other fire and rescue services to share learning and promote good ways of working. It ran an accredited online seminar for local businesses and fire risk assessors to increase awareness and understanding of fire risk assessments. Around 1,200 people attended the seminar, and continuing professional development credit was available.

The service is reducing the number of unwanted fire signals

Since our last inspection the service has taken action to address the burden of unwanted fire signals with a long-term phased trial that it introduced in June 2021. An effective risk-based approach is now in place.

It gets fewer calls because of this work. In December 2021, during phase 1 of the trial, the service reported a 66 percent reduction in attendance to office-type premises. Fewer unwanted calls means that fire engines are available to respond to a genuine incident rather than responding to a false one. It also reduces the risk to the public if fewer fire engines travel at high speed on the roads. We are interested to see the full results of the trial when it is complete, and to see how the service adapts its future policies as a result.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to fires and other emergencies.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must be able to respond to a range of incidents such as fires, road traffic collisions and other emergencies in their area.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

Resources are aligned to risk

The service’s response strategy is linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. Its fire engines and response staff, as well as its working patterns, are designed and located to help the service to respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. The resourcing model is based upon a clear methodology and makes sure that the service meets the standards it has set itself.

The service meets its own response standards

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. But the service has set out its own response standards in its IRMP. The service has set out that it will attend dwelling fires:

• in 10 minutes on 90 percent of all occasions for the first fire engine attending;
• in 13 minutes for the second fire engine; and
• in 16 minutes for the third fire engine from the time the resources are assigned.

The service consistently meets these standards.

Home Office data shows that in the year to 30 September 2021, the service’s average response time to primary fires was 8 minutes and 21 seconds. This is slower than the average time for services classified by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office as predominantly urban, which includes Hertfordshire, but the county does have areas that are rural in nature.

The availability of fire engines supports the response strategy

To support its response strategy, the service aims to have 40 fire engines available at all times. The service consistently achieves its own response standards, often with less than 40 fire engines available.

We are pleased to see that the service recently introduced a new system to manage the availability of on-call staff. But some on-call staff feel that they need more training and familiarisation with the new system. Due to this our previous area for improvement remains.

Staff understand how to command incidents safely

The service has trained incident commanders who are assessed regularly and properly. This helps the service to safely, assertively and effectively manage the whole range of incidents that it could face, from small and routine ones to complex multi-agency incidents.

As part of our inspection, we interviewed incident commanders from across the service. The incident commanders we interviewed are familiar with risk assessing, decision-making and recording information at incidents in line with national best practice, as well as the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).

Fire control should be more involved in wider service activities

The shared fire control function with Humberside, Lincolnshire and Norfolk has increased the service’s resilience and freed up training capacity. It can now handle calls in a timely and consistent way, and can share call handling with other members of the consortium.

However, we are disappointed to find that the service’s control staff aren’t always included in the service’s command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. We heard from staff who felt that it was improving but they still don’t feel they are as involved as they could be.

The service is prepared to handle multiple fire survival guidance calls

The control room staff we interviewed are confident they could provide fire survival guidance to many callers simultaneously. This was identified as learning for fire services after the Grenfell Tower fire. We found that the service has carried out exercises to test procedures when handling simultaneous fire survival guidance calls. Some of the exercises involved operational crews.

Control has systems in place to exchange real-time risk information with incident commanders, other responding partners and other supporting fire and rescue services. Maintaining good situational awareness helps the service to communicate effectively with the public, providing them with accurate and tailored advice.

Some staff don’t have confidence in mobile data terminals

Firefighters can access risk information through mobile data terminals (MDTs). It is positive that control staff have access to the same risk information as firefighters responding to incidents. The risk information we sampled on MDTs was easy to access.

But we found that some operational staff still feel that MDTs are unreliable. Worryingly, we found paper copies of risk information being held on fire appliances because of this lack of confidence in the MDTs. Therefore, this area for improvement from our last inspection remains.

The service is good at evaluating operational performance

As part of the inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events.

We are pleased to see the service routinely follows its policies to assure itself that staff command incidents in line with operational guidance. Internal risk information is updated with the information received. The end results of any learning are now tracked and actioned quickly, and are shared with staff. We are encouraged by the improvements in operational assurance since our last inspection. The service should make sure it has enough resilience to sustain and develop this good work.

The service has responded to learning from incidents and exercises to improve its service for the public. For example, we were shown a detailed and comprehensive completed debrief template after a large exercise in November 2021. The information had clear recommendations and stated who is responsible for carrying them out.

We are encouraged to see the service is contributing towards, and acting on, learning from other fire and rescue services or operational learning gathered from other emergency service partners. This includes contributions to joint organisational learning with the local resilience forum (LRF).

The service hasn’t yet fully implemented national operational guidance

It is disappointing to see the service hasn’t yet fully adopted national operational guidance. But some policies are aligned with the guidance, and the service plans to fully implement it by 2023.

The service is good at communicating information about incidents to the public

The service has good systems in place to inform members of the public about ongoing incidents, and to help keep them safe during and after incidents. It uses a range of social media platforms, as well as traditional press releases. It has also improved the accessibility of its website.

It has good communication arrangements with other organisations throughout the county. For example, it is part of the ‘warn and inform’ group in the LRF.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to major and multi‑agency incidents.

Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services must be able to respond effectively to multi-agency and cross-border incidents. This means working with other fire and rescue services (known as intraoperability) and emergency services (known as interoperability).

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is prepared for major and multi-agency incidents

The service has effectively anticipated and considered the reasonably foreseeable risks and threats it may face. These risks are listed in both local and national risk registers as part of its integrated risk management planning. For example, it recently tested a major incident plan for the HS2 railway workers’ village. Major incident response plans are regularly reviewed, including with other county council teams.

It is also familiar with the significant risks that could be faced by neighbouring fire and rescue services that it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. These include training with neighbouring services on road traffic collisions, fires in high-rise buildings and marauding terrorist attack (MTA)-type incidents.

Firefighters and control staff still can’t access cross-border risk information

Firefighters and control staff don’t have readily available access to risk information from neighbouring services. We were told that an officer with a laptop is mobilised to incidents in neighbouring counties as a temporary solution to support firefighters in accessing risk information. Therefore, this area for improvement from our last inspection remains.

The service is well prepared to respond to major and multi-agency incidents

We reviewed the arrangements the service has in place to respond to different major incidents, including for high-rise, wide-area flooding and MTA incidents.

The service has good arrangements in place, which are well understood by staff. For example, all firefighters are trained to respond to MTA-type incidents. This is in addition to the specialist response team.

The service works well with other fire and rescue services

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. For example, it attends some major risks and is first to attend some incidents in other counties. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi-agency response. Cross-border liaison officers are mobilised to support safe working with other services. The service has a policy for this.

The service understands how to deploy its resources to other services and is confident in calling on national assets when required.

Staff take part in cross-border exercises

The service exercises and trains with neighbouring fire and rescue services on specific risks so that they can work together effectively to keep the public safe. Exercises and training that has taken place with neighbouring services includes MTA-type incidents and high-rise incidents. But there is no formal service-wide planning and scheduling.

We are encouraged to see that feedback from exercises is gathered and used to inform risk information.

Incident commanders have been trained in the JESIP

Incident commanders are trained in and are familiar with the JESIP. We found that incident commanders were confident in their knowledge of the JESIP.

The service gave us strong evidence that it consistently follows these principles.

It also showed it had participated effectively in the LRF during the pandemic.

The service is an active member of the Hertfordshire Local Resilience Forum

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with other organisations in the Hertfordshire Local Resilience Forum. These arrangements include comprehensive plans for COMAH sites, as well as specific risk information for sites that pose additional risks.

The service is a valued partner in the forum. It has chaired strategic and tactical co‑ordinating group meetings, and the training sub-group. It also takes part in regular training events, and it uses the learning to develop planning assumptions for responding to major and multi-agency incidents. The service takes part in regular training events with other members of the LRF and uses the learning to develop planning assumptions about responding to major and multi-agency incidents. This includes at the Buncefield oil depot and HS2 construction sites.

The service uses national learning

The service keeps itself up to date with national operational learning from other fire services and joint organisational learning from other emergency services partners, such as the police and ambulance services. It uses this learning to inform planning assumptions that it makes with other organisations.