When the owner or occupier of any property finds that there has been a fire in his or her property they frequently find themselves excluded and confused. The Police and Fire Service appear to close ranks and the insurance loss adjuster(s) treats them with suspicion. The owner often does not know who to turn to or who is in overall charge of a property which, up until the fire had been entirely his domain and responsibility.
It is an unpleasant truth that owners and occupiers are often suspects or, at the very least, biased witnesses. The various agencies concerned with investigation of the fire have little choice but to treat them as such.
But who is in charge?
Probably the clearest scenario is, or should be, where there is any suspicion of crime. The Police have full primacy of the scene. The crime scene is entirely under thier control. But who is in charge? Owners and occupiers may see uniformed officers at the entrance controlling access, Fire Service investigators, Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs), Forensic scientists and others on the scene some of whom will wish to question him. But who is in charge?
At all crime scenes it will be a Detective Constable (CID) officer. There is no minimum rank but at large loss or fatal fires it will almost certainly be a Detective Chief Inspector. Fire is not a volume crime for the Police so the detective will delegate various tasks and some agencies may behave as if they are in charge.
Where there is no crime the Fire Service has a legal right to conduct an investigation, interview witnesses and remove relevant samples if they wish. The only proviso is that they must give 24 hours notice in writing of thier intention.
The person in charge is the Fire Service Incident Commander if still present or the Watch Commander on whose ground the fire occurred. The Fire Service investigator will be the person who the owner will actually deal with but that officer acts as an agent of the Incident Commander or Watch Officer.
Where there is no Police or Fire Service presence then the owner will probably be dealing with the Insurance agencies. Now it gets really confusing!
The Insurer appoints a Loss adjuster.
The Loss adjuster may appoint an independent fire investigation agency.
That agency may appoint specialists.
Insurers of other affected premises or of other related policies such as business loss may appoint thier own Loss adjusters (and thus other agencies).
Manufacturers or suppliers of equipment may find themselves implicated in the incident and thus also need to attend and to appoint agents on their behalf.
The owner may be approached by Loss Assessors who may also appoint independent investigation agencies.
There can be six or more separate interests in one fire all requiring information from the scene and from the owner.
But who is now in charge? It is often very difficult to determine. The owner must asscertain the identity and interests of ALL parties on his property but should defer all questions to the Loss Adjuster representing either the property or the contents loss, whichever is the greater.
The owner often feels like he or she is the accused. It requires firmness and patience to ascertain exactly who is is in charge. Only then can the owner get back on track to feeling that the property is still theirs. Because actually, it is the owner who should always be in charge. That authority is usurped temporarily, allbeit with good reason, by the various agencies above at various times during and after a fire event.
Unless there is good reason to do otherwise I treat owners as part of the team. They have the best knowledge of the history of the building and occupants. They can save me much time and effort at any fire scene and help me to get to the root cause or at least to confirm or support any hypothesis. Of course there are cautions because, as I said at the beginning, they are biased witnesses. But they are important and, after all, it is thier building.
Wednesday, 29 December 2010
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Bias and integrity
Now here is a tricky subject. So tricky that I have never seen or heard it discussed in this field.
I hope that all professionals value their integrity. The trust and faith that victims, authorities and clients place with them. But there are pressures on that integrity:
Victims in need of revenge, frequent offenders who may not deserve the benefit of the doubt, fire officers who failed to fully extinguish a previous fire, an employee who may lose his job, the tennent who may be evicted, the uninsured, the underinsured the list is long. And it is the fire investigator or fire expert who may be pivotal in the outcome for those persons.
It may appear callous and hard-faced to declare one's findings with no apparent regard for the effect on others but that is how it must be. I have been in these positions many times: I have had to tell surviving relatives that the fire that caused the death of their loved one was their fault. I have told a friend and colleague that he had failed to ensure a previous fire had been properly extinguished (a re-kindled fire) and I have told a paying client that he was responsible for the fire he was paying me to investigate!
These are difficult moments but rigid holding to the truth no matter what the findings makes the good news more pleasureable: To tell a man he has been wrongly accused of arson and to see it through to trial. To discover, prove and have withdrawn from sale a defective product. To tell a fire officer that the second fire in the same propery was in fact arson or to assist an insurance recovery.
This is easy when it is all about facts but often there are suppositions and informed judgements. Assessments as to the weight or significance to be applied to witness statements, efficiencies of systems or management. Even the science of fire and its application to real events are often debatable. At a single fire incident there may be up to six investigators. Each representing a different party or authority. Each with their own reasons to be there and sometimes seeking different information. Police, Fire Service, agents for insurers or loss adjusters for the building, the contents or business loss, loss assessors and private investigators.
The facts of any investigation are rarely disputed but the less well-defined or clear aspects can be given bias or exagerration according to the pressures mentioned above. Again the professional investigator will avoid this pitfall, particularly if the incident involves other investigators, for those investigators will see that bias or it will show in court.
What can and is reasonably done is to find extenuating circumstances. Plus factors if you like. In my report, for example, of the re-kindled fire I was able to look deeper and to show that the fire officer had in fact not been negligent at all. Just unlucky. In fatal fire reports it is right and proper to find ways to make the truth easier to bear.
I certainly value my integrity and hold to the truth. In private practise I sometimes need to inform clients that my findings may not be in their favour and when engaged overseas it is sometimes advisable to take payment upfront!
I hope that all professionals value their integrity. The trust and faith that victims, authorities and clients place with them. But there are pressures on that integrity:
Victims in need of revenge, frequent offenders who may not deserve the benefit of the doubt, fire officers who failed to fully extinguish a previous fire, an employee who may lose his job, the tennent who may be evicted, the uninsured, the underinsured the list is long. And it is the fire investigator or fire expert who may be pivotal in the outcome for those persons.
It may appear callous and hard-faced to declare one's findings with no apparent regard for the effect on others but that is how it must be. I have been in these positions many times: I have had to tell surviving relatives that the fire that caused the death of their loved one was their fault. I have told a friend and colleague that he had failed to ensure a previous fire had been properly extinguished (a re-kindled fire) and I have told a paying client that he was responsible for the fire he was paying me to investigate!
These are difficult moments but rigid holding to the truth no matter what the findings makes the good news more pleasureable: To tell a man he has been wrongly accused of arson and to see it through to trial. To discover, prove and have withdrawn from sale a defective product. To tell a fire officer that the second fire in the same propery was in fact arson or to assist an insurance recovery.
This is easy when it is all about facts but often there are suppositions and informed judgements. Assessments as to the weight or significance to be applied to witness statements, efficiencies of systems or management. Even the science of fire and its application to real events are often debatable. At a single fire incident there may be up to six investigators. Each representing a different party or authority. Each with their own reasons to be there and sometimes seeking different information. Police, Fire Service, agents for insurers or loss adjusters for the building, the contents or business loss, loss assessors and private investigators.
The facts of any investigation are rarely disputed but the less well-defined or clear aspects can be given bias or exagerration according to the pressures mentioned above. Again the professional investigator will avoid this pitfall, particularly if the incident involves other investigators, for those investigators will see that bias or it will show in court.
What can and is reasonably done is to find extenuating circumstances. Plus factors if you like. In my report, for example, of the re-kindled fire I was able to look deeper and to show that the fire officer had in fact not been negligent at all. Just unlucky. In fatal fire reports it is right and proper to find ways to make the truth easier to bear.
I certainly value my integrity and hold to the truth. In private practise I sometimes need to inform clients that my findings may not be in their favour and when engaged overseas it is sometimes advisable to take payment upfront!
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Fire investigation - Who does it and who does it best?
Fire investigators originate from very diverse backgrounds. Broadly speaking there is the Public service route and there is the academic route.
The public service route is predominantly via a career in the fire service. All fire service investigators will have the distinct and significant advantage of experience of live fire and fresh fire scenes. Hands on fire fighting and command and control will also enhance their skills. But few fire services maintain full time investigators. Most perform the duty in addition to other middle management tasks. The skills of those individuals may thus be somewhat diluted. There are many who believe that the best fire investigators are those with a fire service background. Whilst I would generally subscribe to that view it must be pointed out that the fire service background should be substantial and of good quality. 10 years service at stations commanding over 3000 calls per year will be better than at stations commanding less than 1000. But what percentage of those calls are primary fires (In buildings)?.
The academic route is generally by employment of graduates by private companies. There are only three such companies in the UK. The graduates would normally have science or engineering based degrees. These companies seem to work on the ethos that fire dynamics is a science thus it is best investigated by scientists. The companies provide the graduates with a basic commercially available fire investigation training course. They then shadow an existing company practitioner until judged to be suitable to work solo. They have no real fire experience or background and are effectively taught in-house. But what is the subject of their degree? Sometimes it is not relevant to fire at all! Fire is a subject that encompasses many aspects of all of the sciences so is a Chemistry degree sufficient? It is these practitioners that almost exclusively investigate fire on behalf of the insurance industry. This is because the insurance industry utilise only these private companies and appear unaware or unwilling to seek alternative practitioners.
Other routes to fire investigation are:
Forensic Science: There are are some forensic science companies that provide various analysis services, principally for the Police. Many of these companies also promote fire investigation services and some specialise. The background of the practitioners will again be exclusively academic.
It must be noted here that the term "Forensic Scientist" has become very much misused since the advent of TV's CSI etc. Universities now offer courses in "forensic Science" but, essentially, there is no such thing!. There is no career path. A scientist, just like any other specialist trade, may put his or her skills to use in a forensic manner but in such circumstances it is more accurate to express those skills in terms of the actual science. Thus he or she may be a "Forensic Chemist" or a "Forensic Geologist" etc.
Police: Few practitioners have originated purely via the Police but in doing so they have usually served for a substantial period as Scenes of Crime Officers and supplemented their knowledge voluntarily.
Which is best?
This very subjective. All practitioners work to broadly the same accepted National Operating Procedures and read the same books and reference material. All seek the same information: cause of fire, fire spread, liability etc. but it is not uncommon for investigators at the same scene to disagree. This clearly reflects their varied knowledge, learning, experience and ability.
No one investigator in the world possesses ALL the necessary knowledge and experience to single-handedly determine EVERY cause accurately over a full working lifetime. I once heard on a TV documentary a US fire investigator state "In 35 years I have never yet returned a cause as 'Unknown'". He lost all credibility with that statement in my eyes.
The trick is to know and accept your limitations. Fire Service investigators will sometimes call upon a scientist or other specialist to assist with certain aspects. Sadly I have not yet seen an occasion where an academic based investigator has called upon a fire service based expert to assist with real fire burn pattern interpretation. It is a skill that cannot be learned from books alone. Besides, who wrote the books?
So. If you need a fire investigator you must quiz in detail to ensure that the person you engage has the skills to deal with your incident. This is particularly true for legal teams seeking expertise on casework only. Interpretation of reports, statements and photographs without access to the fire scene is a particular skill that, to my knowledge, nobody is formally trained for in this field.
The public service route is predominantly via a career in the fire service. All fire service investigators will have the distinct and significant advantage of experience of live fire and fresh fire scenes. Hands on fire fighting and command and control will also enhance their skills. But few fire services maintain full time investigators. Most perform the duty in addition to other middle management tasks. The skills of those individuals may thus be somewhat diluted. There are many who believe that the best fire investigators are those with a fire service background. Whilst I would generally subscribe to that view it must be pointed out that the fire service background should be substantial and of good quality. 10 years service at stations commanding over 3000 calls per year will be better than at stations commanding less than 1000. But what percentage of those calls are primary fires (In buildings)?.
The academic route is generally by employment of graduates by private companies. There are only three such companies in the UK. The graduates would normally have science or engineering based degrees. These companies seem to work on the ethos that fire dynamics is a science thus it is best investigated by scientists. The companies provide the graduates with a basic commercially available fire investigation training course. They then shadow an existing company practitioner until judged to be suitable to work solo. They have no real fire experience or background and are effectively taught in-house. But what is the subject of their degree? Sometimes it is not relevant to fire at all! Fire is a subject that encompasses many aspects of all of the sciences so is a Chemistry degree sufficient? It is these practitioners that almost exclusively investigate fire on behalf of the insurance industry. This is because the insurance industry utilise only these private companies and appear unaware or unwilling to seek alternative practitioners.
Other routes to fire investigation are:
Forensic Science: There are are some forensic science companies that provide various analysis services, principally for the Police. Many of these companies also promote fire investigation services and some specialise. The background of the practitioners will again be exclusively academic.
It must be noted here that the term "Forensic Scientist" has become very much misused since the advent of TV's CSI etc. Universities now offer courses in "forensic Science" but, essentially, there is no such thing!. There is no career path. A scientist, just like any other specialist trade, may put his or her skills to use in a forensic manner but in such circumstances it is more accurate to express those skills in terms of the actual science. Thus he or she may be a "Forensic Chemist" or a "Forensic Geologist" etc.
Police: Few practitioners have originated purely via the Police but in doing so they have usually served for a substantial period as Scenes of Crime Officers and supplemented their knowledge voluntarily.
Which is best?
This very subjective. All practitioners work to broadly the same accepted National Operating Procedures and read the same books and reference material. All seek the same information: cause of fire, fire spread, liability etc. but it is not uncommon for investigators at the same scene to disagree. This clearly reflects their varied knowledge, learning, experience and ability.
No one investigator in the world possesses ALL the necessary knowledge and experience to single-handedly determine EVERY cause accurately over a full working lifetime. I once heard on a TV documentary a US fire investigator state "In 35 years I have never yet returned a cause as 'Unknown'". He lost all credibility with that statement in my eyes.
The trick is to know and accept your limitations. Fire Service investigators will sometimes call upon a scientist or other specialist to assist with certain aspects. Sadly I have not yet seen an occasion where an academic based investigator has called upon a fire service based expert to assist with real fire burn pattern interpretation. It is a skill that cannot be learned from books alone. Besides, who wrote the books?
So. If you need a fire investigator you must quiz in detail to ensure that the person you engage has the skills to deal with your incident. This is particularly true for legal teams seeking expertise on casework only. Interpretation of reports, statements and photographs without access to the fire scene is a particular skill that, to my knowledge, nobody is formally trained for in this field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
