FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: tmprojects on May 27, 2011, 03:51:46 PM
-
This new guidance for Regulators of the Fire Safety Order was released by CFOA in April 2011
http://www.cfoa.org.uk/11541
-
well it must be right then.
-
It makes it quite clear that it doesn't claim to be "right." But it does appear to strive to be helpful. Whether or not it will be effective or, perhaps more importantly, cost effective remains to be seen. It does appear to contain some pragmatic guidance and may prove to be a catalyst for cohesion among FRSs.
Stu
-
Cohesion-what like the CFOA false alarm policy that none of the FRS bother about? Great! I can hardly wait.
-
They try. Effectiveness is not something I'll argue about but I will say that a positive perspective is probably more generally beneficial than a negative one.
We can all be cynics but someone has to be positive otherwise we'll all be going backwards.
On the other hand:
"From now on I'm thinking only of me."
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."
"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"
-
I think it is a helpful document. It went out in draft for consultations with enforcing authorites and they seem to have reacted to any comments made.
People are quick enough to moan about inconsistent enforcement, but then knock any attempt to counteract that. I guess some people just like to moan.
-
Cohesion-what like the CFOA false alarm policy that none of the FRS bother about? Great! I can hardly wait.
Many critics of enforcing authorities would agree that the lack of consistency is the biggest issue. Well this new regulators guidance has attempted to address that, to provide guidance and therefore consistency.
Ok, so like many other documents some authorities take them up quicker than others and some more zealously apply them than others, but that doesn't mean the document is wrong. Just its application
Let time show whether the application of this document was or wasn't consistent across brigades.
For now lets talk about the guidance, is there anything wrong with it?
-
Thee will almost certainly be lots wrong with the people applying it, Terence. not least that, while I like optimism, the reality is that CFOA are in disarray and are not the best people to catalyze consistency. The reality is however that they are the only body that might have a hope of doing it because of Government policy on localization.
-
The link to the cfoa web site does not work, anyone else had the same problem.
Does anyone else have an alternative ?
Cheers
-
Go to the CFOA site it is easily accessed from there
-
The website has recently changed and it appears you need to be a member. http://www.cfoa.org.uk/11937
-
If anyone has a problem downloading it pm me with your email address and I will forward a copy.
-
Yes, CFOA launched a new website on Friday late afternoon, and hence the existing link became void. The new link is: http://www.cfoa.org.uk/12002 (http://www.cfoa.org.uk/12002)
-
Thanks Edita you have saved me some work there. Welcome to the forum, good to have you on board.
-
Sorry to be a crashing bore guys.
Has anyone read it? does anyone have any comment?
-
I've skimmed it - looks like a handy reference. It doesnt have all the answers but it saves you a bit of time researching some of them.
-
Are the CFOA not aware that the Equality Act 2010 replaced and repealed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
-
Obviously not!
-
Having taken the time to read the document i have loads of observations to make. each probably worthy of their own thread.
From the prespective of an enforcering authority this document has answered many questions and is long overdue.
As is the nature of these documents they can sometimes raise as many questions as they answer. Here are mine, i will list them here but am more than happy to discuss each in its own thread should it prove necessary.
At article 7(4), compliance with articles 8-22 do not apply to armed forces, police forces and members of the emergency services but only insofar as compliance with the Order would prevent them from carrying out their primary duties.
what does this mean? what constitutes primary duty? is the running of a police custody suite primary duties?
Q. 30(4) Can this be used to rectify the same deficiencies in different premises? e.g. if we inspect 2 or more premises with the same responsible person and find the same or similar problems can we issue one enforcement notice to cover all the premises?
A. 30(4) is about acting out of normal jurisdiction (i.e. where a company has premises in another County) or the premises would not normally be enforced by the authority serving the notice i.e. to cover a branch of a shop in a designated sports stadium. A notice under 30(1) served on a responsible person could cover multiple outlets (e.g. if it appeared that the management policy was flawed or no risk assessments had been carried out) but whether that is appropriate.
Does this mean one notice can ONLY be served on two premises as long as they are not within the same enforcing authorites jurisdiction. If so whats the difference. surely it makes sense to implement this strategy within an enforcing authorities jurisdiction?
Finally;
Q. Can more than one enforcement notice be served with stepped timescales for completion?
A. Yes, there may be occasions whereby it is appropriate to serve an enforcement notice and based upon the risk the timescale should be staged. A practical example would be where it may be appropriate to expect a responsible person to undertake a fire risk assessment in a shorter timescale than that expected for them to procure and install a fire alarm and detection
and,
Q. Would a single enforcement notice that specified different timescales for completion be legally robust?
A. No. The wording of the Order allows for one period to be specified within a notice. Where there is an indication from responsible persons that they would prefer to complete any works over various periods of time, it may be more expedient to agree an action plan with the responsible person, which is periodically monitored by the enforcing authority.
About time this was clarified. but i think they conflict a little. shouldn't the latter read 'it may be more expeidient to issue two notices.'
-
I think the police should produce a document interpreting the law instead of having lawyers and regulators, because, just like CFOA, they are the right people to do the job. Like CFOA they are experts in law and are totally unbiased with no axe to grind. In fact, I do not think we should even waste time with Courts, we should have trial by CFOA. We would have a one stop shop. In fact, why do we not get CFOA to actually WRITE the legislation and then they could be regulators enforcers judge and jury rolled into one. They could not do worse than the gudiance they once produced on door hold open devices that showed a circuit that did not make any electrical sense.
Ps why are my taxes being wasted on having fire safety people at the CLG (other than wee b, who can distinguish between his humerus and his sit upon.
-
Was their any point to that rant CT? If there was a response to my question in there then I’m sorry but I didn't see it.
If there was, would you mind explaining it more clearly? Because obviously I don't know my humorous from my sit-upon as you so eloquently put it.
Ps why are my taxes being wasted on having fire safety people at the CLG (other than wee b, who can distinguish between his humerus and his sit upon.
Why! To give you something to moan about of course! Or could it be to keep you in business dear boy! Without CLG to appose on a regular basis would you have anything else to do?
-
totally unbiased with no axe to grind
:-X
-
Calm down Colin its just a commercial! Pour yourself a generous glass of Talisker and take a deep breath!
I'm sure this document isn't worthy of becoming total "Toddy fodder" (my term to explain something which is the subject of Sir Todd's razor sharp critique).
Whilst I'm not saying the guide is brilliant, we can all be critics, and sceptics (myself included)
Let's not knock it until we've tried it! If it means there is more consistancy out there, then surely that is a good thing?
-
Terence, I will try to make it simple. We used to pay our taxes for an HM Fire Service Inspectorate. In terms of fire safety, it had people who had long experience in fire safety. They drafted guidance. They expressed policy on fire safety issues through the medium of Dear Chief Officer Letters and they presented policy on legislative issues at fora such as BSI technical committees. Sometimes they wrote stuff that was in engineering terms quite wrong, but you always knew they were independent of the fire service and that, when they were wrong, it was straight down the middle impartial stuff.
Now the "centre" has abdicated responsibility for this. The not very good guides CLG produced were farmed out for others to write, and then knocked around, sometimes by fire service personnel, whose job is to enforce the legislation, not tell the world how it should be interpreted. And now in the light of government localization policies, we will probably never again see even guidance like that.
The void has been filled by CFOA, who the "centre" used to support financially to do the job that the Inspectorate once did. I thought the point I was making was that, if I want to know how the Road Traffic Act should be interpreted I might only have passing interest in how PC Plod the traffic cop interprets it. I might on the other hand be much more interested in the views of an expert on the legislation at the Ministry of Justice (assuming they employed any) because , although he is a civil servant (because he cant find a proper job) he will not be telling me how the police want to interpret it.
For further avoidance of doubt, ask yourself how determinations are done under building regulations or under the Fire (Scotland) Act and then compare and contrast with the FSO in not more than 1000 words.
Returning to CFOA, they dont have funding to do the job properly, and I am very uncomfortable that they tell us how to interpret legisation that they then enforce. In an case, in England, they are in disarray, and as for Retty.s forlorn hope that they can catalyse consistency, I have only one thing to say: Unwanted alarms policy!!!!!
-
Sorry to be a crashing bore guys.
Has anyone read it? does anyone have any comment?
I wouldn`t say that I have read it cover to cover, although I have been using the draft guide for some time. I have found it useful for reference. I think the idea is that as it will be updated regularly with more FAQ.
-
That's all very well CT. But its still a rant!
I honestly consider you to be one of the top experts in fire safety and would genuinely be very interested to hear your views. But i'm a bit fed up of your rants. Considering we all know i work within one of the departments you refer to, its starting to feel a little personal.
We're all quite aware of your views on how fire safety is being mismanaged. And you may be surprised to find we all agree with you on most of it. We just choose to focus on how best to manage what we have to work with rather than constantly criticising.
But you still haven't at any point commented on the contents of the document or my observations.
So CT. Demonstrate your point within the context of the post. If everything is in complete disarray this document must be equally so.
-
I will let you know my views on the "perceived insights" of CFOA in due course. In the meantime, its people failing to rant that has got us into the mess we are currently in. Bad things are what happens when people have not got the balls to be critical.
-
CT,
It seems you posted whilst i edited my post. please re-read.
Terry
-
I can't agree more, there's nothing wrong with being critical.
But i think airing critisism at every opportunity, regardless if they're relevant to the prevailing discussion or not, simply devalues your comments.
Quality, not quantity dear CT
-
Reading this thread I would say that Mr Todd comes across as having an almighty anti-establishment chip on his shoulder.
Shame. ;)
I too would like to read critique, not ranting about the private sector vers the public sector argument.
It’s all too boring. :'(
-
Thanks Sam,
more precisely put than me.
-
Samuel, Only incompetent establishment, of which there is much.
-
Samuel, Only incompetent establishment, of which there is much.
Is there no incompetent private industry then? :-\
Or private industry where profit overrides safety?
Of which there is much. ;D
-
As I see it, right or wrong the guide has its place. What it tells me is, this is the way the guides, law etc. (good and bad) will be interpreted by the enforcing authorities.
It is useful when dealing with a difficult client as I can show him what the enforcing authority will be looking for.