"You vs Us"

[CivvyFSO]

Here it is, a thread for you Fire Professionals and consultants etc to air your views regarding enforcement of fire safety. Also for FSO's to defend themselves if possible.

I'll start the ball rolling...

I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants. In our defence, 95% of our work is dealing with extremely sub-standard premises, trying to get them up to scratch is not easy, and we are often not dealing with H&S professionals during those inspections.

Also as part of the inspection procedure we attend premises after fires, so tend to see what happens when it goes wrong. I try to include lessons learnt from this when giving advice during audits, and it is often because of this that I may err on the side of caution when coming up with fire safety solutions to 'help someone comply'.

When someone pays for the services of a consultant it is likely that the premises is already of a good standard as that person is clearly not scared of spending money to meet requirements. We are generally dealing with people who don't want to spend money, so sometimes they might get you in to save them money in the long run.  If that is the case your 'job' would seem to be relaxing the guides where you can account safely for the relaxation? As such your remit is slightly different from ours, hence the clear difference in opinions sometimes?

[PhilB]

A valid point Civvy but don't confuse relaxing guidance with lowering of standards, I have never advocated that. However rigid adherence to the guidance does not always produce the best solution.

[CivvyFSO]

I wouldn't imagine for a moment that you would leave somewhere unsafe. After all, you have your reputation to look after as well as the premises you are dealing with.

[jokar]

Most have sat on both sides and want to do the best for the client whether as a consulatant or as an FSO.  The issue in a number of cases is that a consulatnt may well be aware of cost and pricing implication whereas FSO's tend to live in an unreal world of not knowing how much anything costs and just go fro the most expensive option at all times.  Yes, all have to comply but getting to compliance is a vehicle that has implications.  Not all can buy an Aston Martin, not all can afford a second hand ford sierra.  In the real world everyone has to live within their specific budget.

[ST1878]

Does not the RRO guidance for premises now identify 'suggested minimum standards'?

If anyone can demonstrate that any departure / relaxation of the guidance matches or even surpasses these minimum suggested standards then are responsibilities not met?

However, I am led to believe that a recent case in the North West, may result in case law that will draw into question the adequacy of existing fire arrangements in relation to the new guides.

Remember, FRA FSO's now audit fire arrangements, not inspect. Therefore it is up to the Responsible persons and their consultants to make the case, why their premises are compliant with the Order.

Interesting times ahead for us all I would suggest

[kurnal]

Civvy FSO
If you are trying to bring very substandard premises up to scratch, how detailed do you make the schedule in the improvement notices?

In my old days as a FSO we used to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s  and leave them in no doubt whatsoever of exactly what to do to comply.
Nowadays the schedule appears to be much more general- I have had several jobs recently in very dodgy premises in which the improvement notice has been very general eg as brief as

"improve the means of escape from the top floor and provide measures to protect the staircase in the event of a fire in the lower floor,  and provide suitable means for the detection of  and raising the alarm of fire" as an example.

To me this is the new order working exactly as intended. The burden and cost of devising a suitable scheme is shifted from the public purse onto the responsible person who can devise a strategy to comply and if necessary appoint competent advice if he needs it.

We used to have large fire safety departments who used to help architects to design buildings free of charge, whilst at the same time the architect was charging the client an exorbitant fee for "consultation with the fire authority"- ie designing the building for them.

I used to be the most helpful fire safety officer ever. At the public expense. Was that fair on society? It really used to push the definition of giving fire safety advice (sect 1.1.F of the 1947 Act) to its limit.

[CivvyFSO]

Kurnal,

To bring a very substandard premises up to scratch, I am assuming that it is through an enforcement notice:

First the notice stating the legislation contravened.

i.e. In the event of an emergency it is not possible to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible.

First step to complying would be something simple like: Provide suitable means of escape for all relevant persons. (This is not part of the notice though)

Then a third part, which would be my 'suggestion' of how to comply. i.e Smash 6 doors out in the following places: blah blah blah, make them all outward opening, sprinkler everything, including the cat.

The schedule for complying with other articles are often quite long winded but generally just simple cut and paste into the form, especially article 11.

[jokar]

If FSO's want to give advice then that is fine but they do this under the Fire and Rescue services act not the RR(FS)O,  Section 6(2)b informs them that they should give advice on fire prevention, restricting the spread of fire and means of escape.

[PhilB]

"improve the means of escape from the top floor and provide measures to protect the staircase in the event of a fire in the lower floor,  and provide suitable means for the detection of  and raising the alarm of fire" as an example.

To me this is the new order working exactly as intended. The burden and cost of devising a suitable scheme is shifted from the public purse onto the responsible person who can devise a strategy to comply and if necessary appoint competent advice if he needs it.

That is fine in the early stages but no good for the wording of an enforcement notice. If the FRS have reached the stage where an enforcement notice is necessary they must specify exactly what to do or it becomes impossible to prove that the notice has been contravened. If there are other ways of achieving a suitable solution they should also be included.

If FRS are enforcing in accordance with the Concordat there should, unless it is so risky, be full discussion and consultation to resolve the matter before an enforcement notice is served. The fact that the notice needs to be served would generally indicate that the discussion option has failed so now it is time to be specific.

[Chris Houston]

I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants.

I think the forum has healthy debate, but I hope no contempt.

[jasper]

I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants.

I think the forum has healthy debate, but I hope no contempt.

agrees

[kurnal]

Thanks for that Phil. But in both the premises I referred to recently(in different areas)  the enforcement notices were nowhere near as specific as you describe - more like the general terms I suggested- and I was hoping it was the start of a brave new world (of more business).

So nothing has changed in terms of enforcement notices then- except the need to point out alternative solutions. If the fire authority do not point out all reasonable solutions in their enforcement notice, if the responsible person follows their instructions and then the consultant suggests a much cheaper way of achieving the same level of safety presumably the RP could seek redress using  civil law?

[AnthonyB]

My main problem with FSO's has resulted through the nature of our work in the propery management sector - yes our client, the landlord (via agent) is obviously bothered about fire safety, but the tenants who also get included in inspections can quite often vary from those who are good to those who don't give a damn.

My problem occurs when the don't give a damn tenants have had a FSO round in the past who doesn't pull them on their clear breaches of safety (i don't mean pedantisms such as a sign above an extinguisher) and thus defends all attempts at getting them to improve by saying the FSO was happy. I appreciate that you may have had thresholds for enforcement action, but even if your hands were tied re formal action you could have at least said things were not OK.

Since the RRO I've noticed an improvement in a short amount of time and have found even in the few months since inception more agreed action plans etc than ever before, although sadly it does vary between different brigades.

You do get some tenants saying the FSO has passed them despite not having actually been near the place for years (or it was only local station staff, not enforcers), but you can usually tell when this is the case and in at least one place the FSO for the area has been around for real afterwards extrmemly peeved he'd been named by the occupant as Ok'ing a clearly bad situation (the place was so bad it was important for the client and FRS that it wasn't let lie)

them and us? no it shouldn't be, in fact with some places I wish the FSO would come around more when for the nth year in a row a virtually identical report bar the date goes into the client - not all companies hire consultants because they have good intentions - a few just want the paperwork despite the fact their premises are substandard and never act on findings

[PhilB]

if the responsible person follows their instructions and then the consultant suggests a much cheaper way of achieving the same level of safety presumably the RP could seek redress using  civil law?

Possibly but I wouldn't think that he is likely to win.

The responsible person should have complied with the order, he did not hence the need to serve a notice. If he is not happy with the notice he could of course appeal the notice.

I dont think a Court would be too sympathetic to such an idividual who goes through all the aforementioned and only then decides to appoint a consultant who discovers a cheaper alternative.

The greater danger is that if the notice is too woolly it may be deemed invalid by the Court.

 Case law B.T Fleet Ltd  vs McKenna 2005

Improvement notices under s.21 of the Health and Safety at
Work Act 1974 should state what was wrong and why it was
wrong. The notice had to be clear and easy to understand. If the
statutory option was exercised so as to proscribe how a recipient
could comply with a notice, any directions given as to
compliance formed part of the notice and, if confusing, could
operate to make the notice invalid

[Chris Houston]

Civil courts provide a means for individuals to pursue others for money due to them, not for authorities to prosecute.