FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Tom W on August 04, 2011, 04:39:35 PM
-
I have read quite a few of these letters now. They are not being sent with any rights of appeal and they confuse me.
Can someone in the service explain to me why so many of these are being sent out?
So you have found for example a site that Deficiency from Article 9 (1)
The Fire Safety Risk Assessment was not suitable and sufficient
This would produce an Enforcement Notice, no?
Are these now being used as an easy way to get things done without taking it through an enforcement notice.
I would like it explained to me if you guys can.
-
Northern Ireland would not normally issue an enforcement in the first instance unless there was a serious risk to peoples safety.
Gently does it first and failing that formal enforcemment would ensue.
-
Thomas a NoD is a courtesy used by EAs where the risk is not serious and the deficiency is not only minor but there is some confidence in the duty holder to get things sorted. It follows the principles of the Enfocement Concordat and the HSE Model of Enforcement.
-
I have no problem with the approach but it can sometimes seem like a threat, do this or we will prosecute.
They have no details of appeal and the letters don't really explain themselves.
Im guessing its easier as an FSO to send out a NoFSd than an Enforcement notice so things are slipping into them that are not required by law but have been asked for.
So when other agencies such as the CQC see these letters if the RP hasn't done everything they will be marked down.
Im trying to write this in a way that im not lumping the whole of the F&RS into one basket im just recalling the ones I have recently read.
-
I have no problem with the approach but it can sometimes seem like a threat, do this or we will prosecute.
They have no details of appeal and the letters don't really explain themselves.
Im guessing its easier as an FSO to send out a NoFSd than an Enforcement notice so things are slipping into them that are not required by law but have been asked for.
So when other agencies such as the CQC see these letters if the RP hasn't done everything they will be marked down.
Im trying to write this in a way that im not lumping the whole of the F&RS into one basket im just recalling the ones I have recently read.
Mostly the notice can be quite lean on information as to how matters can be remedied and only quotes the specific Regulation(s), but any FSOs I know will visit, explain the situation and offer advice.
Any I have been dealing with has been because the employer or AP does not quite understand the issues in which case the FSO recommends using an outsider.
-
Just to expand on Colin's post:
The Enforcement Concordat does say that if a person is willing to rectify faults without the need for formal enforcement, then that course of action should be taken.
The Enforcement Management Model used is the CFOA's version of the HSE's EMM. Each article that is not complied with gives a number of points, these points add up to give a distinct course of action. (With some other factors taken into account such as previous history etc) The more points, the more severe/formal the action.
As there is no Enforcement Notice given there is no appeal as it is more in the realms of our advice, but on that subject, I personally believe that it is wrong for the notice to say that not doing the work could lead to prosecution. If there is such a risk there that a prosecution would be possible by virtue of the failings putting relevant persons at risk, then it is our duty as enforcers of the RRFSO to follow that through at the time. What a NoD should say, in my opinion, is that if you don't follow the advice given then an Enforcement Notice WILL be issued to rectify the failings, and a failure to comply with such a notice IS an offence.
-
Also I believe that this belongs in Q & A, not Operational
-
Good points Civvy and sorry for posting in the wrong place
-
Thomas, He will forgive you if you give him a free Dorgard to adorn the lounge of Civvy Towers.
-
No need to apologise, I was really pointing it out for the benefit of the forum admins who might have taken the trouble to actually move the thread to a section where it might get more comments.
-
Hi Piglet
The F&RS I have worked for give the option to rectify their deficiencies, i.e.
"Should you wish to propose an alternative method of complying with the legislation, this may be acceptable to the Fire and Rescue Authority. Any such proposal should be submitted in writing to the above named officer".
This gives the option for the buisiness to formulate a risk assessed solution, in my opinion complying with both the FSO and enforcement concordat.
-
Civvy dont be so forgiving, go for the Dorgard I went to the trouble of getting you.
-
No, no, no, Sir Colin!
The dastardly CivvyFSO tends to loiter almost exclusively in dead end conditions, just for the fun of it whilst pondering very complicated calculations relating to smoke stratification and other fire dynamics.
Thus the use of a Dorguard®™ (other similar acoustic hold open devices are available) would not be suitable for his working environment.
-
So you're the one person who read BS7273-4?!
-
Piglet, I believe those that read it are many. I believe that those that understood it are few!
-
Thus the use of a Dorguard®™...
*Dorgard ;)
So whats the difference between a NoFSD and a letter of non compliance?
-
Sorry for the spelling deficiences Piglet ;)
To answer your question they are one and the same thing.
As Civvy has already stated a letter of no compliance (or notice of deficiences as some refer to it even though it isn't a notice in legal terms) should state something along the lines of "failure to comply with the requirements detailed in this letter / report could lead to the issue of an enforcement notice".
It should not state that "failure to comply with this letter / report may lead to prosecution", as that is misleading and too heavy handed.
-
Not an enforcement option so why use it? It has no legal standing just perhaps a cross over between the FRSA and the RR(FS)O. Be big and brave let the RP's do their job or enforce/prohibit or prosecute.
-
Believe it or not some companies actually request them. Companies that have strict audit procedures like to have it to 'close the loop', others might need it to warrant any money being spent.
-
Not an enforcement option so why use it? It has no legal standing just perhaps a cross over between the FRSA and the RR(FS)O. Be big and brave let the RP's do their job or enforce/prohibit or prosecute.
A letter of deficiences is enforcement. By your logic a copper should charge me from driving even if Im found to be 0.1mph over the speed limit. There are varying degrees of enforcement and if you want fpos issuing notices for small to medium failings then good luck to you but its not what i or most rps want.
-
And I quote
"The visit was not a comprehensive audit of all fire safety matters but looked into a variety of aspects from which our findings a drawn. Failure to address the items specified in the report could result in enforcement action being taken. The letter and attached schedule are raised without prejudice to any legal action which may be subsequently be taken regarding failures to complying with the legislation."
One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.
How can you raise any points when you have not even bothered to read the risk assessment!!
FYI no rights of appeal were given. The RP is simply left with a schedule and told that a further visit will be carried out to ensure the requirements of the schedule are met.
-
And I quote
"The visit was not a comprehensive audit of all fire safety matters but looked into a variety of aspects from which our findings a drawn. Failure to address the items specified in the report could result in enforcement action being taken. The letter and attached schedule are raised without prejudice to any legal action which may be subsequently be taken regarding failures to complying with the legislation."
One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.
How can you raise any points when you have not even bothered to read the risk assessment!!
FYI no rights of appeal were given. The RP is simply left with a schedule and told that a further visit will be carried out to ensure the requirements of the schedule are met.
Failing to read the Fire Risk Assessment is a significent issue which I would follow up. It is quite common for IOs to carry out a sample audit but, without fail, if an issue is identified the Assessment must be referred to.
-
One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.
I dont know why the IO didnt look at the fire risk assessment.
But to suggest the IO didn't want to raise an enforcement notice is incorrect. Again as has already been stated there are varying levels of enforcement. if you want a regime which issues enforcement notices as a minimum you enter a very unfair enforcement system.
-
Difficult to comment on the IO not looking at the FRA without knowing the type of inspection being carried out.
I will give the following as an example.
local shopping centre built to BS588 10 units not having the alternative exits marked.
I give verbal advice to all of them - 5 of the occupiers signed the exits within days. However, 5 don`t more verbal advice given. still have`nt looked at FRA. 6 weeks later the occupiers aren`t playing ball. I issue a notice of fire safety deficiencies. Still haven`t looked at the FRA. (Do I need to?) All the work is done within the week. as Piglet says there are various levels of enforcement. I don`t want to issue an enforcement notice to get the above item done. Althought if they don`t do the work I would eventually, but only after a full inspection looking the FRA.
-
Although you could argue that the lack of signs should trigger a review of their FRA as signage should be considered in the FRA and it could indicate that it (& other precautions) may be inadequate.
What annoys me is when IO's deliberately take a blinkered look at a part of the premises & miss something major - a site I've revisited is liable for a jump straight to enforcement notice for general site wide issues and one area for prohibition, but the IO visits the 3% that looks perfect & says all is well.....until something in the other 97% catches fire and the general fire precautions don't do their job....
-
Anthony you are probably right
But thats why the fire safety order puts the responsibility on the RP.
My example identifies the most efficient use of my time in my opinion, and as i said I would have carried out an audit before taking any further action.
My fire authority has identified approx 50,000 business premises. we have limited number of IO. we can`t be everywhere. Unfortunately, that is the sad truth.
But compare the fire safety IO to the HSE officer. the HSE officer is nearly completely reactive not proactive.
-
I know resources are tight & fire enforcement still retains more pro-activity than others.
It's just that trying to get the RP to do something that is genuinely needed is difficult if an I/O has visited and not bothered to mention anything. (When they do it's like you are given a blank chequebook by the RP to correct it & you feel justified that the actions you've been telling them for years were essential after all)
-
It is not up to you to get the RP to do anything. You simply tell them what is required in your opinion, it is up to them to do it, or not, as the case may be.
RP's tend to want to know that once an inspector has been that they have a complete clean bill of health which is essentially 'signed-off' by the Fire Authority. That was clearly the ethos of certification, but that has gone and people are going to have to get used to less "holding of hands" and accept their responsibilities. However, this needs to be made very clear by the FSO both during the audit and in any paperwork that follows.