FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: kurnal on May 10, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
-
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firedoors
A very significant determination with excellent background and research information into this recurrent topic.
-
This forum discussed this very problem and IMO the consensus of opinion was very similar to this determination. Check out this very extensive thread http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4696.0
-
Yup, a very WISE decision yet again, by that good ole boy Big Ken. As you say Tam, a bit of a no brainer isnt it, but you do get these very prescriptive old geezers who cant understand risk and can do no more than blindly try to follow guidance as though it were rules, merrily throwing away the duty holders' money like confetti, or, in this case, throwing away the ratepayers money on a determination, with the use of lawyers and "experts" all to no avail.
You have to wonder what it cost the fire and rescue authority havent you.....................
JUST AS WELL THERE ARE GOOD CONSULTANTS OUT THERE TO KEEP THEM RIGHT ISNT IT, Tam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yours in total euphoria,
Colin S Todd :) ;) ;) :D ;D 8) :P :-X
ps YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
Nothing like a little self gratification!
-
Nothing like a little self gratification!
Self gratification? Is that something that some people do on their own, somewhere that they can't be seen that when they're finished they have a sense of accomplishment?
-
I wonder how much the fact that the bedrooms had smoke detection, rather than heat detection, influenced the decision?
-
Theres another important twist in this determination in my opinion.
A number of us have discussed the wording of article 36 and had interpreted this article as meaning that a determination cannot not take place unless the responsible person accepts the enforcing authorities view that he had failed to comply with the order and only disagrees over the technical solution. In previous postings we have assumed this is the case and was so written to avoid the Secretary of State becoming an alternative route for appeal bypassing the Article 35 route.
Does this case show that the RP does NOT have to accept that he has failed to comply in order to proceed to a determination- clearly in this case the RP was of the view that his technical solution in respect of the doors and the lack of seals was satisfactory?
Has the outcome of the determination (that the RP has to review his fire risk assessment) something to do with this?
-
I also found this to be a bit odd. If the FA did not agree then they could have just served Notice leaving the RP with the only option of an appeal which when heard by a magistrates court I suggest would have had a different outcome. I experienced this with a FA a while ago where we wanted to go to determination but they didn't agree on the issue so served Notice.
-
Theres another important twist in this determination in my opinion.
A number of us have discussed the wording of article 36 and had interpreted this article as meaning that a determination cannot not take place unless the responsible person accepts the enforcing authorities view that he had failed to comply with the order and only disagrees over the technical solution. In previous postings we have assumed this is the case and was so written to avoid the Secretary of State becoming an alternative route for appeal bypassing the Article 35 route.
Does this case show that the RP does NOT have to accept that he has failed to comply in order to proceed to a determination- clearly in this case the RP was of the view that his technical solution in respect of the doors and the lack of seals was satisfactory?
Has the outcome of the determination (that the RP has to review his fire risk assessment) something to do with this?
My reading is that both parties had agreed that there was a failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks from fire, namely not recording that some doors had not got seals and the argument was that the brigade thought that a suitable assessment would acknowledge this and require upgrading as a significant finding, but the RP disagreed and that although a suitable assessment should have noted they were missing, it should not have required replacement as a significant finding citing the other controls as successfully argued in the determination.
-
Tony, Thank you for keeping Big Al's fire engine on the main highway and stopping him going off the road and through a ploughed field yet again. I love the old boy to bits as he well knows, but the reason there are no red light districts in Matlock Bath is that every time he passed a red light outside a house of ill repute, he assumed that it was the glow of a fire and blasted it with a main jet.
-
Willie, it begs the question as to why a FRS would not wish to use the determination route and should choose to block it. In Scotland, the power of an FRS to block the use of determinations in this way will soon be taken away from them.
Having acted on two of the four determinations in E&W to date, and succesfully won each, I rather like the route. It always seems to result in a WISE decision.
-
St Peter of course!
-
Willie, it begs the question as to why a FRS would not wish to use the determination route and should choose to block it. In Scotland, the power of an FRS to block the use of determinations in this way will soon be taken away from them.
Having acted on two of the four determinations in E&W to date, and succesfully won each, I rather like the route. It always seems to result in a WISE decision.
I agree determination is a great route but there is little that can be done if the FA say they don't agree. As we know they have more chance of convincing a magistrate as they tend to go with the person in uniform as oppose to the guy in the suit.
The comment about Kurnal was a little unkind but very funny. ;D
-
I think you are all rotten taking the mickey (apart from Anthony). I shall go away and sulk for the next 100 nanoseconds.
The simple truth that comes out of this is that there must have been some (welcome) process of negotiation over the way this case was handled. I bet the first focus of the enforcement officer was not the adequacy of the fire risk assessment but the absence of the doorseals and that by protracted discussion and negotiation they engineered their way back from potential enforcement action to a determination.
The crux of this for me as an interested bystander is at what stage in the enforcement process the RP took competent advice over the seals and the case was steered towards determination rather than enforcement. I bet it was not in the initial stages. The RP must have stood by their initial fire risk assessment right through to the end of the process. That is curious.
How would it have worked if the RP had two identical hotels in different parts of the UK both of which had been audited at the same time?
-
The RP must have stood by their initial fire risk assessment right through to the end of the process. That is curious.
How would it have worked if the RP had two identical hotels in different parts of the UK both of which had been audited at the same time?
I guess either the Fire Authority mentioned that the determination process was a possible route to resolution (and I sincerley hope they did it out of fairness and proportionality) or the RP appointed a consultant who advised them to go down this route, or perhaps the RP simply did their homework and pushed for it.
Eitherway common sense prevailled (in terms of the judgement) and it is pleasing to hear that the determination process is being used.
In respect of your identical hotels in two seperate counties scenario. In my opinion if a determination stood in favour of the hotel in County A, for example, then it would also have to apply by default,to the hotel in County B - if they were truly identical in design and management and I think the enforcing authority would be on a losing streak to contest otherwise.
-
Midland,you would hope so. , However, determinations are on a case by case basis and to get the same design of hotel with the same criteria may be a stretch. As been mentioned before a number of FRS would miss out the determination and go straight to enforcement, forcing an appeal that the uniform would win whether just or not.
-
However, determinations are on a case by case basis and to get the same design of hotel with the same criteria may be a stretch.
True, although I believe some national chains are starting to utilise standard building designs / footprints not just in respect of hotels but other types of buildings too.
As been mentioned before a number of FRS would miss out the determination and go straight to enforcement, forcing an appeal that the uniform would win whether just or not.
Agreed. Enforcing authorities should follow the principles outlined in the Enforcement Concordat and Hampton report, and as such you would hope they would make the RP aware of the determination process, offering it as a way forward where appropriate.
Determinations benefit everyone in the industry, they create lines in the sand and additional guidance.
-
Retters, there is hope for you yet. Sometimes you talk a lot of sense, though your promise of food and wine at Retty Towers never materialises.
Kurnal, will you please put that main jet away, as you are drenching the place with water. I keep telling you there is no fire. Return to home station, play a game of pool and go to bed. Most of your surmising is way off beam. I go on holiday to America every August. I heard of this matter on the last day of a holiday in America when I logged on to the office server to check what chaos the English fire and rescue service had been causing during my absence. I have had two holidays in America since then and have booked a third.
Willie/Jock R look at it this way, if an enforcement action is generic application of guidance with no suggestion that there are any particular circumstances of a case taken into account, a determination on that action, albeit case specific has major implications for both the matter in question and prescriptive application of guidance in general. But like the telephone, television, copper wire, tarmacadam, sportsmanship in football, penicillin, deep fried Mars bars and Stornoway black pudding, Scotland led the way with a determination that guidance is just guidance and is not a minimum stndard or one that should ever be applied prescriptively.
-
Retters, there is hope for you yet. Sometimes you talk a lot of sense, though your promise of food and wine at Retty Towers never materialises.
What do you mean "sometimes"? Funnily enough Cardinal Todd your job offer never materialises either ;D
-
We are currently recruiting Monsignor Retters.
-
We are currently recruiting Monsignor Retters.
Yep. Great barsteward when other barsteward was away for a while. Inclined to wipe out profits though with his unquenchable thirst for all things alcoholic. But here, you gets what you pays for ;)
-
We are currently recruiting Monsignor Retters.
Yep. Great barsteward when other barsteward was away for a while. Inclined to wipe out profits though with his unquenchable thirst for all things alcoholic. But here, you gets what you pays for ;)
Cheers NT - can I put you down for a reference ?
-
We are currently recruiting Monsignor Retters.
Yep. Great barsteward when other barsteward was away for a while. Inclined to wipe out profits though with his unquenchable thirst for all things alcoholic. But here, you gets what you pays for ;)
Cheers NT - can I put you down for a reference ?
Absolutely Ratty old mate. Write it down and I will sign.
-
Back on track now we have sorted Midland`s future employment out.
A few points I would add –
Colin you point out the waste of tax payer’s money, sorry I have to disagree. at some stage somebody has to take a stance and go to determination to assist assessors and enforcers on what is acceptable.
One point I would make from reading determination is there appears to be some emphasis on time taken to evacuate (7 minutes) now I have been a firefighter for 25 years in that time I have been to a couple of fires in hotels and numerous calls to alarms operating and I have never in the middle of the night seen a hotel of over 200 rooms evacuated in that time. Has anybody?
Some guides quote pre movement times of up to 20 minutes. Colin, I have to admire you on getting that believed
-
What if the new risk assessment is deemed not to be S&S by the enforcing authority? Who is the enforcing authority for the new re-written risk assessment come to that....sorry Colin closing down home station.
-
Good man, Big Al. Now stay at the pool table until the bells go down. I will ring 999 if I need you.
Dinner, I am sure the taxpayers of the county were pleased to sort out the matter that most people already knew and many other FRS regarded as a no brainer. But I will ask them and revert.
-
Hi DTD
I have to agree with Colin. This particular case shouldn't have gone for determination.
Both parties agreed that the fire risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient, and instead of going for a determination the fire authority should have asked for the risk assessment to be reviewed to take into account of the lack of strips and seals on fire doors.
I believe the hotel operators agreed to renew the assessment and replace or upgrade the doors during the next major refurb of the premises (no specific time frames mentioned). That should have been the end of the matter (in my opinion) as there was no immediate need to upgrade.
-
Colin and Midland, I personally don`t disagree but I do know officers who have been happy to enforce strips and seals in all premises including non sleeping some of them work in he same brigade as me. It doesn`t matter what I or others say - Their response is that is your opinion this is mine
Without a determination they will contiue.
-
I see where you are coming from Dinnertime Dave, but to use the determination process to inform enforcers not to guide hug is inappropriate.
-
thats what it is for
-
Brian, are you saying that private sector companies have to spend thousands to teach fire and rescue service officers the basic principles of enforcement???? What do they pay their taxes for (apart from you to have a day off for the queen's jubilee?)
-
thats what it is for
Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.
-
13.
The responsible person considers, on the basis of their risk assessment, that sufficient protection to allow occupants to make an escape in the event of a fire is in place and that it would be disproportionate to provide the bedroom doors opening into the escape corridors with intumescent strips and smoke seals. Those fire doors which directly protect the stairways are fitted with intumescent strips and smoke seals.
Why are the ones on the protected stairs needed? The corridors are certainly less likely to have a fire than a bedroom, there should be very limited combustible material in the corridors and the escape stairs will be sterile. So if they are fitted for life safety; what’s the risk? Fire from a hotel bedroom perhaps! Surely everyone will be out by the time the corridor becomes untenable. I am sure someone will enlighten me about FRS needing access to fight fires etc, but in that case why not fit seals and strips on a bedroom door to restrict the danger to FRS personnel. Possibly the bedroom doors met the requirement of the time but so does the door on to the stairs. Where does the line get drawn and why?
I stayed in a hotel last year with a plastic bag taped over the detector; a fire in that room would have been very developed before it got detected.
-
Just as a side line, there is an interesting paragraph in the determination. In Para 17 under the Responsible Persons' case the last section reads: "The Lead Authority Partnership arrangement in place with another fire and rescue authority, which agreed the risk assessment approach without reference to the absence of intumescent strips and smoke seals on bedroom doors."
This could explain the decision to go to determination rather than following the enforcement notice approach.
-
Brian, are you saying that private sector companies have to spend thousands to teach fire and rescue service officers the basic principles of enforcement???? What do they pay their taxes for (apart from you to have a day off for the queen's jubilee?)
No, I'm saying that the Determination procedure allows DCLG to put people (FRSs and Consultants) back in their box.
-
thats what it is for
Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.
Why not? Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.
-
I tried to list the lessons learned from this interesting determination and am struggling to quantify them.
The outcome was that the fire risk assessment is to be reviewed and the Secretary of State says it will then be found to be satisfactory. I see that as one of the most interesting aspects of the case.
I would wager that had this been an appeal against an enforcement notice that the appeal would have been lost in a magistrates court.
As always the technical aspects were absolutely specific to the case and we cannot say, for example, whether the presence of smoke detection in the room was an important factor taken into account or whether the outcome would have been different had for example the doors to the stairs not been fitted with seals. And rightly so, otherwise the determination would have undermined the technical standards- eg RRO guidance and BS we all use as benchmarks against which to make a judgement in our risk assessment.
Am I being thick (as usual) or is anyone else able to add to my list of the lessons have been learned?
My list:
1-The Benchmark Guidance is exactly that and not intended to be applied in a prescriptive manner.
2-Fire and rescue services should have regard to 1 above when carrying out their enforcement duties.
3-?
-
Kurnal,
I would add that this case underpins the basic risk assessment principles given that the risk should be considered with respect to the best guidance available balanced with other factors in the equation such as existing compensatory measures and fire safety management exercised by the RP, plus the cost of putting right any deficiencies. Some of these issues are a matter of fine judgement, sometimes personal opinions and sometimes blatant prejudice - fortunately it is in this grey and fuzzy world that fire engineers/officers/risk assessors ply their trade and what makes us think sometimes rather than merely ticking a few boxes on the pro-forma.
For me it also clarifies something that I have always done on my risk assessments and that is to clearly describe any deficiencies/compensatory features as significant findings and write down why I consider them to be acceptable - or not. Clearly in this case the lack of IS/SS had not been noted and therefore any inspecting officer would quite rightly consider the FRA not to be sufficient.
A further point is that Lead Authority Partnership agreements are, in my opinion, very dangerous and set precedents that are generally used and abused around the country without the specific details being available to all of the interested parties and comparisons are made for premises where the conditions are not 'like for like'. A bit like this determination is being touted as a reason for not providing IS/SS by some 'risk assessors' in other forums!!
-
It would assist everyone if RA's would explain the decisions they make in the assessment. In this case if the absence of S&S had been explained, and I do not know whether this was the case or not, and a justifiable logic given in writing then perhaps the FRS staff would have a clearer picture of why a particular stance has been taken. That said a number of FRS use the guidance as "Tablets of Stone" to beat everyone to death and get the courts to agree that the words are correct.
-
thats what it is for
Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.
Why not? Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.
Both the RP and the fire authority agreed that the fire risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient as it did not highlight the fact that the strips and seals were missing from fire doors in the hotel.
So to me there should have been a very clear way forward in resolving the issue. Determination was not it.
Would any of you here ask a hotel (with an appropriate alarm system fitted) to upgrade x amount of doors if strips and seals weren't fitted within a fairly immediate time frame?
Or would you recommend that the hotel address the issue during it's next major refurb? Is anyone going to die because strips and seals aren't fitted?, or because the fire doors don't conform to current guidance?
The answer to me is that the Fire Authority should have asked the RP to review the assessment to acknowledge lack of strips and seals and to justify why they weren't going to immediately upgrade the doors. It is a no branier, and to me the fire authority were completely in the wrong.
Thankfully Sir Ken agreed. And thats my point, any decent fire safety professional will have due regard to current guidance and standards, and apply them where appropriate and where practicable, but they won't guide hug, for guide hugging sake. They assess the risk in a balanced and measured way. To me the fire authority did not do this, and that frankly is rather poor.If they can't get the bread and butter things into perspective and be proportionate then what does that say about their level of competence? .
-
thats what it is for
Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.
Why not? Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.
Or would you recommend that the hotel address the issue during it's next major refurb? Is anyone going to die because strips and seals aren't fitted?, or because the fire doors don't conform to current guidance?
The determination would suggest not MR so from the point of view of the risk if it can wait until the next refurb, which could be 10,20,30 years is it really that important to have the strips and seals fitted at all? To wait that long is not a control measure but a box ticking exercise.
To my mind if their is a risk it should be sorted within a reasonable time frame otherwise it isn't needed at all.
-
But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!
-
But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!
That's my point. If the doors without Int and SS are ok for 30 years then they pose no significant risk.
-
But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!
What is the evacuation strategy stay put or full evacuation?
-
But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!
That's my point. If the doors without Int and SS are ok for 30 years then they pose no significant risk.
Agreed with you both but picking up on the point the lack of strips and seals is either a risk or it isn't. If it is then upgrade within a reasonable time frame, if the doors are sound why upgrade at all unless they are damaged or cease to be effective due to wear and tear? The FRA just needs to clearly state this and why the risk if any, is acceptable or not.
-
So far as I can glean, this Determination has some fairly straightforward implications:
1. When you assess fire risk, you should be able to identify where there are significant ‘departures’ from established guidance & good practice;
2. You should record these & assess whether they’re acceptable or not;
3. You should document the above & act on your findings.
Hardly ground-breaking stuff.
It doesn’t mean that you don’t ever need to upgrade bedroom doors in hotels with intumescent & smoke seals. It does mean that you should consider doing so, & if you don’t then you need to record why this is acceptable.
In this case, it would appear to me that the view that was taken was at least partly due to the fact that there was smoke detection within the rooms (which was more than the guidance requires) which acted as a compensatory risk reduction measure. It arguably gave a level of fire safety at least equivalent to the recommendations in the guidance. Would the outcome have been the same if there had only been heat detection in the rooms... who knows?
-
Midland, you are right that any competent fire safety professional would have known these things, but this case came about from an inspection by a fire and rescue authority...........
And many of your F&RS chums are making people fit strips and seals to flat entrance doors. You might not but there are not many Rettys in this world.
One frs made a freeholder in a tower block upgrade all FEDs with strips and seals AND then made them install a communal fire alarm system that evacuates all 13 floors in the event of fire. I offered to take Civvy for a tour of the block and buy him a bag of chips at the south coast seaside, but he declined. Perhaps you would care to drop down and see the mayhem incompetent enforcement causes.
-
Hotel bedroom doors
This determination should not now be considered a standard. The determination is only for the specific hotel and does not constitute a precedent for hotels or any other type of premise. A previous determination in a hotel did state that intumescent and cold smoke seals were necessary it depends on the circumstances.
Of the 215 bedrooms 48 of them would appear to be fitted with seals as they were not in question and smoke seals were also fitted to the staircase doors.
What is not mentioned is the standard of the doors to other rooms such as bars, storage areas such as linen rooms which can be within hotel corridors.
What causes me concern in this determination is that it appears to be a global decision on the 167 bedrooms on whether to upgrade or not. The reason for not upgrading being that 25mm rebates are fitted and are suitable based on various other submitted evidence, the cost involved and the provision of smoke detection.
I would prefer to have seen a more detailed assessment of the condition of the individual doors. This hotel was built in 1980 therefore these doors could be 30 years old. Are the doors still in perfect condition, is there any warping of the doors; do the latches hold the door fully against the rebates on all edges?
Are the rebates integral to the frame or planted and if so how fixed.
An old Fire Research Note (No.652 Movement of Smoke on Escape Routes Part 2. Effect Of Door Gaps On Movement Of Smoke), details a series of tests carried out with varying size of door to frame gaps, including an adhoc fire test on smoke leakage and the best results for this was with a perfect fit at the jambs and head of the doors, is this still the case in this hotel?
BS 476-31.1: 1983 is the current standard for smoke control relating fire resisting doors in the UK and this relates only to cold (ambient temperature) smoke.
The introduction to this standard states “Leakage of smoke can occur through the clearances between the door leaf and the frame and other openings. This (test) method simulates the conditions which door sets and shutter assemblies may be subjected to in practice during either the very early stages of fire development or at positions remote from the seat of the fire”. So what is necessary for a fire resisting door close to the seat of a rapidly developing fire?
There is no current requirement in the UK for control of warm or hot smoke. The permitted air/smoke leakage through a typical single leaf FD30S door is 3m3/hour whilst without smoke seals one estimate is that the same door would leak 200m3/hour.
Door leaves are rarely perfectly flat and allowable tolerances exist for door flatness as given in BS EN 1530: 2000 in respect of cup, bow and twist. In addition, door leaves will take up and lose moisture depending upon in-use conditions and it is not practicable to suppose that they will remain perfectly stable in use.
The quantity of smoke that is likely to pass through the gaps will be influenced by pressure differential, rate of smoke generation, and the gap dimensions, all issues that should be considered for each door.
Quantifying the costs which was an important part of the determination is not possible from the determination but if it was based on the removal of each door routing out a groove, installing dual strips and re hanging the door. Then agreed it would probably be considerable for a 167 doors. However if surface mounted smoke seals were used they could be very quickly fitted without door removal and would be very cost effective.
Brush, blade or fin type seals are more tolerant to imperfections and can take up variations in the door to frame gap or warping of doors.
I am concerned that a determination based on possibly imprecise data, guides and standards, one of which has been superseded can be stated as a common sense.
Common sense tells me that based on my experience of smoke spread and some of the above issues raised, that 25mm rebates only, on 30 year old doors are unlikely to provide adequate smoke stopping on every one of the 167 doors.
-
Midland, you are right that any competent fire safety professional would have known these things, but this case came about from an inspection by a fire and rescue authority...........
And many of your F&RS chums are making people fit strips and seals to flat entrance doors. You might not but there are not many Rettys in this world.
One frs made a freeholder in a tower block upgrade all FEDs with strips and seals AND then made them install a communal fire alarm system that evacuates all 13 floors in the event of fire. I offered to take Civvy for a tour of the block and buy him a bag of chips at the south coast seaside, but he declined. Perhaps you would care to drop down and see the mayhem incompetent enforcement causes.
Absolutely, hence the reason for my rant, Sir Ken's time, and that of the RP's should not be wasted on coming to the inevitable conclusion that certain IOs that they have training needs
-
OOh, I know lets forget risk assessment and do prescription, after all all those deaths in hotels make me very nervous of spending any time there! We can have tablets of stone and no functional requirements, "make em ave it" we cry. The smoke will set off the detector in the room and the one in the corridoe and warn the occupants that it is time to leave, preferably by one of the two exits available. There is more smoke comimg from the idiot next door with his barbecue than we will see before the guests and staff are out on the street.
Ok, rant over. Understandable, concerns, this is a case by case basis and should be read as such, it is not applicable everywhere and nor should it be.