Who is in charge?

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 may treat 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 or her 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 where there is any suspicion of crime: The Police have (or should have) full control. They will take possession of keys and will arrange secure boarding up. Perhaps even keep an officer posted on site.
Where there is no crime then often the insurer effectively takes possession but, under normal circumstances, cannot exclude the owner. It is the insurer who is going to be expected to pay for the loss so it is entirely in the insurer's interest to keep the scene preserved in the same manner as a crime scene. There will be crucial evidence that the insurer may rely upon in order to refute the claim or to make a full or partial recovery of costs from another party.
There will often be multiple insurance interests from other policies, buildings, installers or manufacturers.
The Fire Service? after the fire is fully extinguished they have the legal authority to investigate, to conduct interviews and to take samples. They should give 24 hours notice but they have no authority to exclude the owner from access.
Gas and electricity? They have right of access in order to make systems safe.
Each of these agencies may engage the services of an investigator and those investigators may engage specialists. So yes, it can be very confusing for the owner. It is often the investigator or the loss adjuster who explains the situation. It is they who tend to have the most direct and frequent contact.
I always try to engage the owner or principal occupier. It is the best way to get cooperation and good information (of course with the usual caveats). They know the building better than any other.

Fire Risk Assessor in the frame

Fire investigation has for many years now been far more than only a matter of cause and origin. With the general increased awareness of the value of thorough and complete fire investigation its tentacles soon developed to include fire spread, materials, structure, systems, management and of course .... culpability.
The fire risk assessor from its beginnings, after the enactment of the Regulatory Reform Order, was regarded by many a a safe bet because the "Responsible Person" carried the can.
Safe from legal consequences perhaps but those who had had experience with the Coroners Courts were aware of the fact that the fire risk assessor was not so safe. The case at the link below is the first that I have seen where a fire risk assessor is named and effectively blamed.
It was only a matter of time.
From a fire investigators point of view a Fire Risk Assessor is just another contractor, designer, manufacturer or installer: If something he or she has done may have been a contributory factor then it will be duly noted and reported.
This is another example of how fire investigation closes the feedback loop into many branches of the fire safety industry. It is one of the key drivers in the identification of fault and the subsequent improvement of products and systems.
But what about the fire investigator? Are we not also possibly culpable? Of course we are. Our reports are often crucial in the actions taken by others. Actions that will cost other parties. Litigation is always potentially knocking on the door and where fire has been involved then there will probably be a fire investigator behind it.
Link:
http://idighardware.com/2014/05/coroner-open-fire-door-resulted-in-death/