Public Building...Locked Fire Escape!

[Midland Retty]

I wouldnt, and didn't even consider it...panic not!
Nope I will keep, phoning and emailing...it will be quite interesting to see how far Ive got to go to get a fair question answered!
I would never do a 999 (unless for a real emergency)

Hiya Donna

This is a really intresting story and im dissapointed the Fire AUthority hasn't been more helpful to you.

I cant really add anymore to the advice others have given you, but definately do contact fire control and request a duty fire safety officer to attend the premises. (As Clevelandfire points out this is best done using the standard contact number for the brigade concerned rather than the 999 system)

ALso write to the Cheif Fire Officer and Chair of the Fire Authority

[nearlythere]

Donna. Do I read from your posts that despite the fact that there are locked fire escapes and you knew about them you still entered or remained in the premises?
Is it not the case that if you did not enter the building because you know that the means of escape is not adequate your right to free access and egress has been removed?
If you did enter the building and you thought that the arrangements for your safety where being compromised should you not have left immediately?
Is there not a DDA issue here?

[Donna]

Nearlythere,

The DDA issue only covers the "lack of service" that could be provided to the Disabled person, and does not cover the Fire Exit, (My DDA barrister has told me this)

To answer your first question,
In hindsight I  did not know that THIS entrance was the Fire Escape, until I had actually got right inside, and realised, after I had adjusted to the sudden light change, and getting my bearings....and then simply because I was in the building, circumstances were changed at an alarming rate, that then caused, (the reason I was there in the first place) me to have this "appointment"  be brought forward and technically Queue jump...which then resulted in a disasterous result! (disaster for the person I was supporting...not a "Disaster")
Yes, If I was able to leave immediately I would have, I HAD to stay, as someone was relying on my help and support, and I had a duty to try and assist them,
Secondly, When I next entered the building with my solicitor, the Staff knew beforehand that I was going to be visiting...and because of the complaint they received from my first visit a year earlier...they were at the entrance and all doors were pre opened and were left open....no locks...so I assumed that this was NOW how they were running things, thanks to my bringing the issue's to attention!
I now (recently) find out that they were conducting a PR stunt, as the building was closed to the public at that particular time, simply because I had my Solicitor with me! So on face, it "appeared" that they were doing things by the book!

I hope the above makes sense?

[MonkeyBoy]

Donna - this building is sounding less and less like a typical, publically accessible building.

If you have to be escorted through several doors, each being unlocked/locked by a member of staff en-route then may I have a guess at this being some form of Court / Judicial building (part of which may be open to the general public - i.e. front entrance hall) etc.

This might explain why the doors are locked (it stops the "accused" from running away).

More information on the building = more specific advice.



Re:999 calls - ONLY to be made when there is an immenent potential for loss of life due to the locked exit and ONLY when all other avenues have been exhausted (or are unavailable).
The Fire Service, in general, will not prosecute somebody who is trying to prevent a loss of life due to fire.

[nearlythere]

Donna - this building is sounding less and less like a typical, publically accessible building.

If you have to be escorted through several doors, each being unlocked/locked by a member of staff en-route then may I have a guess at this being some form of Court / Judicial building (part of which may be open to the general public - i.e. front entrance hall) etc.

This might explain why the doors are locked (it stops the "accused" from running away).

More information on the building = more specific advice.



Re:999 calls - ONLY to be made when there is an immenent potential for loss of life due to the locked exit and ONLY when all other avenues have been exhausted (or are unavailable).
The Fire Service, in general, will not prosecute somebody who is trying to prevent a loss of life due to fire.

I have to agree with MonkeyBoy on this one. Seems an awfully long running matter and I would certainly think that your Fire & Rescue Service would be doing a lot more , if they were able to. I can't see any F&R Service dragging their heels on a complaint of blocked means of escape. It would help if you cut out the all the secrecy and lay your cards on the table for all to see.

There is a lot of withheld information here that needs to come out before a proper assessment can be made of the situation. Can you advise as to the precise nature and use of the building please and why you use it? Or is that a client confidentiality issue?

[Donna]

The info is all on this forum, I was open about the whole lot about 18months ago....its just that as another matter about this building, is actually at court stage, my barrister has advised me to NOW not say anything, at the Moment untill the matter has been resolved,

Yes the Building is used as a Non custodial Magistrates court 5 days of the week, but as I have stated, it is used as a wedding venue, and a craft fair venue at the weekends, and the fire escape is locked at these times! when in my opinion it is absolutely not neccessary! you would STILL have to go through locked doors with the said Council member of staff, if you were a guest at a wedding!
Thats what I am mainly concerned with!

Down this Fire Exit corridor is the Barristers gowning room! I cant see why that ONE sole private room, cannot have one of those push button combination lock gismo's that you see on doors to medicine cupboards in hospitals and use in banks! so any members of the public would be denied access, especially as the room doesnt have another door!

Why lock 3 doors to a fire exit, when my idea above (about a combination code lock) is a cheap and safer option?

I think there were many red faces when the first complaints were issued, because after all the years they,
1, Were operating in a corridor that was far to dim to see properly
and
2, A simple member of the public had to tell them about putting fire escape signs up!
None of this Was picked up before...but nevertheless, They should still remain proffessional, now that it has been bought to their attention (albeit by the same person) that they should look at why it is neccessary to lock this exit, when it is being used at its busyist times..The weekend!

[nearlythere]

The info is all on this forum, I was open about the whole lot about 18months ago....its just that as another matter about this building, is actually at court stage, my barrister has advised me to NOW not say anything, at the Moment untill the matter has been resolved,

Yes the Building is used as a Non custodial Magistrates court 5 days of the week, but as I have stated, it is used as a wedding venue, and a craft fair venue at the weekends, and the fire escape is locked at these times! when in my opinion it is absolutely not neccessary! you would STILL have to go through locked doors with the said Council member of staff, if you were a guest at a wedding!
Thats what I am mainly concerned with!

Down this Fire Exit corridor is the Barristers gowning room! I cant see why that ONE sole private room, cannot have one of those push button combination lock gismo's that you see on doors to medicine cupboards in hospitals and use in banks! so any members of the public would be denied access, especially as the room doesnt have another door!

Why lock 3 doors to a fire exit, when my idea above (about a combination code lock) is a cheap and safer option?

I think there were many red faces when the first complaints were issued, because after all the years they,
1, Were operating in a corridor that was far to dim to see properly

and
2, A simple member of the public had to tell them about putting fire escape signs up!
None of this Was picked up before...but nevertheless, They should still remain proffessional, now that it has been bought to their attention (albeit by the same person) that they should look at why it is neccessary to lock this exit, when it is being used at its busyist times..The weekend!

Is the building owned by the Crown?

[Donna]

No,
But I am not going to wait a week or so, until the Legal side of it has been resolved, and then I will be able to tell everyone ALL the details, as I fully understand that I cant expect anyone to help me with only knowing half the details...
But thanks to everyone anyway.

[AnthonyB]

For those who think keys in boxes are OK just because we have always had them, remember in both the Woolworths & Summerland disasters these were in use and ended up with several bodies in front of them & these mechanisms were implicated as contributing to their deaths.

30 years is long enough to afford to upgrade to one of the dozens of different mechanisms available instead & when pricing up remedial found you could convert a key lock to an escape mortice deadlock for only £50

[PhilB]

For those who think keys in boxes are OK just because we have always had them, remember in both the Woolworths & Summerland disasters these were in use and ended up with several bodies in front of them & these mechanisms were implicated as contributing to their deaths.

30 years is long enough to afford to upgrade to one of the dozens of different mechanisms available instead & when pricing up remedial found you could convert a key lock to an escape mortice deadlock for only £50

are you sure about the Woolworths fire?, I know that they were in use at the Rose & Crown Saffron Walden and a victim was found next to it. We really shouldn't be accepting them now if the public are expected to use the exits.

But from Donnas posts I cant be sure whether or not this door is actually required for the public for means of escape, as we know the fact that it has an exit sign on it does not mean that the building requires it for means of escape.

[Donna]

Good Point Phil,

I know the first time I entered the building there was NO sign, and then on my second visit (a year later) there WAS, so I am assuming that they were told to put one there, simply as apart from the front entrance this is the only other way out, It is used as a public entrance and exit as it invites ones to a ring bell at the back door for entry, it also has one of the buildings public toilet down this locked corridor for use of people in the building,
Other members of the public can use this toilet from outside the building...(if they are not actually in the building) if they have a radar key!

I am reading peoples comments on "Keys in glass boxes" and sorry if I have misled anyone...the keys to these doors are in a keyring on someones belt, which is all well and good, if the said person hasn't gone down the corridor locking the doors behind them as they go, as they go to let someone in, who has rung the bell from the outside of building!

[PhilB]

Good Point Phil,

I know the first time I entered the building there was NO sign, and then on my second visit (a year later) there WAS, so I am assuming that they were told to put one there, simply as apart from the front entrance this is the only other way out, It is used as a public entrance and exit as it invites ones to a ring bell at the back door for entry, it also has one of the buildings public toilet down this locked corridor for use of people in the building,
Other members of the public can use this toilet from outside the building...(if they are not actually in the building) if they have a radar key!

Donna

the fact that someone has placed an exit sign on a door does not mean that it was required, it would depend on the competence of the person who recommended the sign.

If the corridor is locked then surely public can't use the toilet so there is no problem. How big is the building? Is the rear exit required or could everyone reach the front door within a reasonable distance?

[nearlythere]

Nearlythere,

The DDA issue only covers the "lack of service" that could be provided to the Disabled person, and does not cover the Fire Exit, (My DDA barrister has told me this)

I'm sure your barrister is a very clever person but disabled persons are quite entitled to an adequate means of escape from any part of the premises they have access to just as any able bodied person is.
I would research this issue further.

[Donna]

nearlythere,
I am actually pulling my hair out from the roots, arguing this with her, but she's on my side but NOT listening to me either. She said Ive got to take this up with the fire safety officer seperately, So thats what ive done! and he/she (whoever) wont respond either!

and PhilB
The reply I had from the original complaint (received November 06) From "THE" Fire Safety Officer, mentioned in the letter that THEY had implemented all the adequate signage, and this concluded their investigation. This was the result of their Audit carried out early Nov 06.
You Questioned the competence of the person who reccomended the sign?  I do too!

[PhilB]

But Donna, how big is the building? does it need an alternative escape route?