Warehouses and insurance

[AnthonyB]

Picture a large warehouse that was previously a warehouse, bottling and production area for spirits on a single occupancy site.

The site is now multi occ. and this warehouse has an occupier with high, but non racked storage of palleted ordinary combustibles and sometimes aerosols

It's about 60,000 sq ft split into 6 interconnected units with wide openings making them effectively one for smoke and fire spread purposes.

Now the sprinkler system is long drained and probably rotten, the AFA fire alarm including call points heat & "Lifesaver" detection long disconnected, the hose reels disconnected and largely missing, virtually no signs, panic bolts jammed, about 6 extinguishers not checked for years and fire shutters between sections not operable or missing.

They work dawn till dusk but the site hasn't had back up generators for decades and no EL has been put in since.

They claim that their insurers are happy with this and cover them and the fire brigade haven't said anything (they are a major UK company)

Spinning a yarn or what?

They are insistant that they aren't responsible for any of this and that it's OK to operate (their only concern was they might be in trouble for no extinguishers).

I think they are ever so slightly wrong, but am interested in what others think of the situation and which bit worries them the most.

[Chris Houston]

I, an insurance surveyor, very much doubt that the above situation is acceptable.

Surely a case of needing to comply with Fire Precautions Workplace Regs?  Maintain fire safety equipment.

I am pretty sure most insurance companies require their customers to comply with legislation.

Typically insurance companies have stricter requirements (in terms of property protection) than legislation.

It might be the case that the surveyor has yet to visit, or even missed the failings (or wasn't told the full picture) but I can't imagine them accepting it as you have described.

[AnthonyB]

I know it isn't and am having to write a long report........

The size of the warehouses is such I would have thought a surveyor must have been.

Do you think that they may not be insured (there responsiblity - FRI lease) hence why no ones picked it up?

[Chris Houston]

There is no legal requirement to have fire insurance.  Only employers liability (which probably wouldn't get a survey) is required by law.

Surveys can be infrequent and even large places might not get surveyed, especially if they form part of a much parger portfolio.

I don't know what "FRI" means.

[AnthonyB]

FRI - Full Repair & Insure lease

The tenant is responsible for all matters pertaining to the premises including all elements of the fabric of the structure, both inside and out, and all insurances, legal compliances, etc.

Normally used for single occupancy leasing so the landlord can "let & forget" and just sit back and collect rent

BTW I assume a wet pipe sprinkler system that has been dormant for years and drained would be too rotten to recommision?

I'm trying to find solutions that are likely to happen (i.e. not too dear). It may also be possible to reactivate the ancient fire alarm as it's still all their and although only a 240V system covers the whole area and is zoned and is better than nothing

[Chris Houston]

I'm not a sprinkler engineer, so can't comment on the system.

As for the mains powered fire alarm system - does it have battery back up for power failure?  If not then it contravenes the Health and Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 and is therefore illegal.

I suspect their insurers might have something to say about the high racked storage or combustible and aerosols (extremely flammable?.)

What's all this about square feet?  60,000 of them?  Is that not about 6,000 square meters?  All one fire compartment?  No sprinklers?  It sounds horrible to me.  DO you know what the contents and building are worth and how much business interuption insurance they want?

[AnthonyB]

As for the mains powered fire alarm system - does it have battery back up for power failure?  If not then it contravenes the Health and Safety (Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 and is therefore illegal.

I know that, but I can't see them stopping using the premises during the weeks it takes to install a proper 24V system and surely a technically illegal alarm is better than none at all.

Plus perhaps you ought to inform West Yorks Fire Service about mains powered alarms being illegal - they've just inspected the building we are in (very large 19th century office and shop building) in response to a complaint about the fire alarm (Gent 240V system with call points, klaxxons and no indicator panel) and said that it is fine. Also the lack of emergency lighting to all the internal protected escape routes (no windows) is fine and a few photoluminescent signs will do 'next time they redecorate'
What hope the RRO with enforcement like this?

I suspect their insurers might have something to say about the high racked storage or combustible and aerosols (extremely flammable?.)

What's all this about square feet?  60,000 of them?  Is that not about 6,000 square meters?  All one fire compartment?  No sprinklers?  It sounds horrible to me.  DO you know what the contents and building are worth and how much business interuption insurance they want?

If they restored the fusible link steel fire shutters it could probably be classed as 6 compartments, but thats costly........

As for value, not my shout, but theres probably a couple of million for the structure alone before the contents.
As the occupier is a distribution firm I'd love to see the reaction of their customers to the means of storage of their goods.........

[Chris Houston]

The issue of a mains powered fire alarm system with no battery backup being illegal is supported by "Fire Safety and Employers Guide" which states:

"The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 require that in a workplace, fire safety signs and signals requiring some form of power (mains powered smoke alarms and other fire warning systems) must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of apower cut"

In the Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 all revelvant parties were given until 24.12.1998 to comply.

[AnthonyB]

You know that, I know that, but the enforcing authorities don't appear to!

It's extremely annoying to advise on matters that are as clear cut and straightforward as the alarm example, only to have nothing done because the local FSO say it isn't needed and the 40 year old system is still OK.

If the fire authority were directly liable for any incident occuring because of their acceptance of sub standard precautions then they'd soon change their tune.

Although it's not all that bad, I've seen quite the opposite from FSO's - one is threatening a Prohibition Notice if a company doesn't implement the Action Plan in the FRA we did for them