No need for fire extinguishers cos we've got sprinklers

[Thomas Brookes]

I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.

Really?

Where?

If you look at the RRO it says very little about very little, how ever if you read the goverment guides on the RRO Sleeping Accomadation on page 22 it states on fire fighting equipment that "Fire fighting equipment can reduce the risk of a small fire developing into a large one etc" then later states that "the equipment will need to comprise enough portable extinguishers that must be suitable for the risk".

Unfortunately as per normal actual goverment orders and acts are vague to say the least and normally need another reference book to go with them.

[nearlythere]

I would put a complaint into his Chief Fire Officer, they are not above the law and the RRO does recomend extinguishers as a means of controlling a small fire.

Really?

Where?

If you look at the RRO it says very little about very little, how ever if you read the goverment guides on the RRO Sleeping Accomadation on page 22 it states on fire fighting equipment that "Fire fighting equipment can reduce the risk of a small fire developing into a large one etc" then later states that "the equipment will need to comprise enough portable extinguishers that must be suitable for the risk".

Unfortunately as per normal actual goverment orders and acts are vague to say the least and normally need another reference book to go with them.

Thomas. Recommendations and requirements are two different things.

[Thomas Brookes]

I agree, how ever a fire officer saying because a building has sprinklers it does not need any fire extinguishers or other equipment or services is a complete nonsense.

I would, and have made formal complaints over this sort of poor information given out by Poorly Informed Fire Officers, the last one went as far as the Dep-Primeministers Office and ended with a Countys Fire Services Risk Managers having take re training & a massive climb down by the County's Chief Fire Officer and over 200 business owners being written to describing how the information given out was incorrect. Unfortunately so many fire industry people just accept everything the fire officers say as being correct, and no matter how well meaning their advice is sometimes they are wrong. "but saying that we all can be wrong sometimes"

[SidM]

Article 13(4) & 13(5) covers what?  Let's not engage in pedantry.  The Order requires FFE and requires training to use it.

[SidM]

Sleeping for naughty little boys.

 Brand new build, L1 system, smoke extraction, full sprinkler coverage, fire blanket in kitchens and 1 extinguisher in staff office.

Sleeps about 10, fairly large building with day resources a few staff always on site.

Extinguishers in place would be constantly discharged by naughty boys.

Article 4(f)(ii) talks about measures to mitigate the effects of fire and if they can't stop the naughty boys then their management has to be called into question and if that's the case then that's a contravention of another Article.

[jokar]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

[Paul2886]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.

[SidM]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

In other words you can, as I have seen, use risk assessment to develop spurious arguments and dispense with Articles 13, 14, 15 & 17.  If that's the case, what is the point of having legislation and an enforcing authority or the courts for that matter.

Put differently, the risk assessment would have to provide a jolly good justification as to a why a measure was unnecessary and if it went to court, I wonder who would be "listened" to.  Would it be the enforcing authority or some individual with a spurious argument in a risk assessment?

[CivvyFSO]

If an argument is spurious then we should have no difficulty in challenging it, and also by creating that spurious argument their risk assessment would be deemed as not suitable and sufficient, to add to the other failings. In some ways the whole fact they were aware of a problem and have made a poor excuse to avoid doing anything about it could easily go against them in a court.

There is a common misconception that you can "risk assess" all sorts of problems away. You cannot risk assess a problem away, you can justify that it is not actually the problem that it seems to be, but a piece of paper with lies/excuses on does not make a premises safe.

[SidM]

If an argument is spurious then we should have no difficulty in challenging it, and also by creating that spurious argument their risk assessment would be deemed as not suitable and sufficient, to add to the other failings. In some ways the whole fact they were aware of a problem and have made a poor excuse to avoid doing anything about it could easily go against them in a court.

There is a common misconception that you can "risk assess" all sorts of problems away. You cannot risk assess a problem away, you can justify that it is not actually the problem that it seems to be, but a piece of paper with lies/excuses on does not make a premises safe.

I've read risk assessments which basically state that there is going to be no problem in this area because there is no ignition source and no problem in this area because there's nothing to burn.  Although it is a very basic argument, it is one a lot of people make to justify why a measure is not necessary.

[FSO]

I suppose you want FFE in common areas of purpose built flats then?

[CivvyFSO]

OOH!!! Bit of a bone of contention there.

Fire service approves: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/03/11/firefighters-back-the-removal-of-fire-extinguishers-from-a-block-of-flats-89520-20347594/

Chair of CFOA does not approve: http://www.fia.uk.com/objects_store/NEWSLETTER7.pdf

The jury is out.

[nearlythere]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.

In a block built tin roofed storage facility for keeping milk bottles in metal crates, a brick store, a water tank store, an empty store and a premises where the employer has told all of his staff that the only action that they should take if they discover a fire is to sound the alarm, evacuate to the assembly point and stay put. The Fire & Rescue Service will then be called to extinguish the fire.

[SidM]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

Have difficulty with that one. Setting the common areas of flats aside give an example of a situation where extinguishers would not be needed. Sprinklers in an office block is certainly not one.

In a block built tin roofed storage facility for keeping milk bottles in metal crates, a brick store, a water tank store, an empty store and a premises where the employer has told all of his staff that the only action that they should take if they discover a fire is to sound the alarm, evacuate to the assembly point and stay put. The Fire & Rescue Service will then be called to extinguish the fire.

Articles 8-22 apply to relevant persons none of which would be present in a store excpet to pick up the milk, which would take about 2 seconds.  That has to be one of very limited excpetions.

[Dragonmaster]

SidM, no it does not.  It states "Where Necessary" in Article 13 for fire fighting equipment, warning and detection and anything else you wish to add.  The definition of this term is in the Glossary at the back of each of the 11 premises guides.  This means that if the outcomes of an FRA decides that it is not necessary then it does not have to be provided.

Far be it for me to argue with Jokar, my interpretation of Article 13's 'where necessary' is that FFE should be provided, and then the RA would decide what type and how many etc. As i've said before, without FFE, how do you comply with Article 8 - provision of GFP's and then Article 4(f)(ii) - measure to mitigate the effects of fire i.e. the assumption in Article 8 that a fire will occur?

Phew! By the way, it's good to be back on the forum since i've now finished being knocked of my very fast motorbike (obituary for the bike to follow!)