FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: black arts on June 14, 2006, 04:48:08 PM
-
ok the guides have been out for a week, I would like to hear your views ,comments,
likes, dislikes.
I find an awful amount of duplication extending thoughout the guides.
Apart from attaining extra revenue I cannot legislate for so many guides.
I would like to see a precis of all the guides in one book, but overall the contents are quite good
If you have read any of the guides and have produced a powerpoint lecture please post
-
Not too many changes from standards that we know and love at the moment. Slight differneces in the wording of Significant findings and changes to how the 5 steps are looked at but other then that Fire Safety is Fire Safety is.... Yes I have aPPt but against the draft guides and I need to check it against the real deal before it is readily available.
-
I have a comment.
The guide for sleeping accommodation (page 55) states that an LD2 or LD3 system has "...detectors sited in the escape routes (including rooms that open on to escape routes), detailed in BS 5839-6"
You sure DCLG? I don't think BS 5839-6 makes any mention of "rooms that open on to escape routes" for an LD2/3 systems.
-
Peanut. There will always be gtrammatical and other errrs in these guides due to the process undertaken. We all see waht we want when drafting things. We all know what it really means, although unfortunately the RP may not but those who enforce can do a bit of eduaction as well.
-
Grammatical error? It is a complete misinterpretation of the BS, and even more unacceptable when you consider who the guides are aimed at - people who won't have access to the BS.
Who writes these guides? Do they not take the time examine their reference material? Does nobody read these things before they get printed? If a mistake like this is so easy to find, imagine what we will find when we scratch the surface.
-
Only trying to be helpful. You will probably find many errors if you look hard enough and then the DCLG will revise each one, providing that people let them know. I am sure Andy Jack at DCLG will embrace your point of view and make the necessary amendments as and when. As one who didn't want the guides in the 1st instance because of the trials and tribulations that they will bring I can only sympathise with your viewpoint.
-
Offices page 16
"Radiation heats the air in the same way as an electric bar heater heats a room."
I would considered the above definition incorrect heating the air is convection not radiation. The second paragraph I accept.
Offices page 7
"Where you agree that there is a need for improvements to your fire precautions but disagree with the enforcing authority on the technical solution to be used (e.g. what type of fire alarm system is needed) you may agree to refer this for independent determination."
By whom?
-
Twsutton
Determination will be take place under Article 38 (I think) by a panel set up by the DCLG. Probably a CBI representative, a fire service representative and a civil servant chairing.
We still await details from the DCLG
-
Peanut
You are right, there are some errors. This is regrettable but don't think that these haven't been through the mill a hundred times. Every man and his dog, (except you of course), has had their pennys worth.
Believe me...it was really, really difficult to accomodate everyones views.
Give them a chance...they are not only reflecting modernish fire safety but also having to accomodate a non-prescriptive regime.
-
I wonder how long it will be before it is generally accepted, within the Fire Service, that the only opportunity we have ever had, at a key stage in the modernisation process, to establish a direct correlation (if not a common identifer) between fire safety standards, building regulations purpose groups, IRMP inspection categories, and the Fire Service Emergency Cover business identifiers, and mobilisation FDR1 codes has just been lost - probably forever. It hasn't been a matter of defeat being grasped from the jaws of victory - we never got anywhere near victory.
Interestingly the RRO refers to 'any place' yet the guides seem to be pointed towards the 'main use' of the building. As a result we are now in a situation where many premises are likely to require more than one guide (pubs with sleeping accommodation for instance)
We now have computer codes that no longer differentiate between a residential care home and a nursing home; 23 levels of life risk (from 2-8 in 0.25 graduations); surgeries that Building Regulations consider are places of Assembly and Recreation, but require the RRO guide on 'Healthcare' ..... and so on and so on
Sorry to bore you chaps with my personal thoughts but what a wasted opportunity.
So sad .....
-
Peanut
Every man and his dog, (except you of course), has had their pennys worth.
Believe me...it was really, really difficult to accomodate everyones views.
If only that were true Val. They only consulted certain stakeholders. Whilst the guides were in draft form I and many others like me gave constructive criticism that was largely ignored. The result, as expected is poor guidance.
One of many examples is the guide for sleeping risks. Take a look at the diagrams showing fire alarm requirements. Bedrooms on upper floors shows AFD in rooms and corridors. In the same building lower floors with no sleeping areas, AFD in corridors only. I would like early warning of a fire in any room in a building containing sleeping risks not just the bedrooms or the floors containing bedrooms.
This is just one example of many errors that will lead to confusion.
-
I see 274 people have viewed this item, you must have a view please express
right or wrong we will shoot you down!!
Some people have suggested that only certain steakholders were invited to
participate, that might be true, certain steakholders as, consultants ,had a strong vested interest in all areas of training were it is complusary yet other areas are wishywashy.
Others have moaned after the Act and guide notes have come out, well, fire safety has a history of 'stabledoor legislation'
As a serving fire safety officer I'm stuck with it, in two years I too can become a
gamekeeper
-
Having perused several of the guides, my feeling is that they are generally appropriate for their target audience, bearing in mind the fundamental need not to be prescriptive. I'm sure there are parts that will need revision and we all have a responsibility to bring those areas to light.
-
But thats what they are ............. Guides, not a book that states "you will do .....", although there is reference to "as a responsible person you must"
I hope that people use the guides, and to good effect, so long as they can be understood!!
-
Baldyman, the bits you reference that state, must, are absolute duties from the RR(FS)O and just copied out in the Guides for information. The rest as you say is guidance. I have read all those in draft and published now and agree that they are a reasonable solution providing all that need to use the guidance in them do so in a reasonable manner. No "must do" from FRS and reasonable recommendations from consulatants and others.
There is a problem though and that is with HMO's. A number of local councils and Boroughs in London are using their own guidance which is very prescriptive for these types of premises. 12/92 was repealed on 5 April with the 1985 Housing Act. New builds, ADB exsisting buildings from 1 October Sleeping Riks Guidance. In the meantime, what?
-
As far as I am aware, the housing has a responsibility to apply the new Housing risk rating system (replacing 12/92) which is effectively a risk assessment carried out by them which covers fire safety and will give the property a risk rating which will determine any enforcement action. Once the RR(FS)O comes in, the premises becomes 'ours'. The risk rating system will continue for the EHO's as it covers all the other aspects, cooking, washing etc. but fire safety will be our responsibility. There is an article in the order that negates any advice or requirements imposed by the EHO's and gives the RR(FS)O primacy. Another point is that landlords will be required to record their findings by virtue of the fact that they are registered and therefore have a 'licence' as defined in the order
-
The HHSRS that you speak of is merely a tool for determining the level of risk, it does not give solutions to the problems found.
I disagree that once the Order comes into force in October FRS will look after fire safety in these premises. It is true that the RRFSO will apply to the common parts, but the Housing Act applies to all parts and that legislation requires adequate fire precautions.
It is true that larger HMOs will need a license and therefore the prescribed information must be recorded. This may assist housing officers when they come to assess the building using HHSRS.
It is not the Govt.s intention that FRS should be very involved in HMOs. The Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation.
FRS must be given an opportunity to make representations before licenses are issued, and must be consulted before enforcement action is taken.
Housing officers and fire officers should be working together now to agree protocols for managing the fire risk in these premises.
-
It is not the Govt.s intention that FRS should be very involved in HMOs. The Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation.
Housing officers and fire officers should be working together now to agree protocols for managing the fire risk in these premises.
It would be handy if the 'governments intention' was made clear. I am aware that many FRA's out there are going to take responsibility for HMO's unless told differently. I agree that we should be working with housing on a protocol but we shouldn't be coming up with about 44 different ones. It was noted that the original drafts of the CFOA directives included a protocol for HMO's but this seemed to disappear by the time the final versions were made available. Can anyone clarify this situation further?
-
If you look at FRS Circular 12 - 2006,section 2.2, it suggests that FRSs should be reporting inadequate (temporary) accomodation to the Housing Authorities and that FRSs fit battery smoke detectors as an interim measure.
Article 43 deals only with licence conditions and has nothing to do with Part 1 of the Housing Act, the part that empowers them to improve social housing. Or, to put it another way, the Housing Authorities do not need to put fire safety conditions on licences.
Another point is that, according to independent legal opinion, an Act takes legal preference over an Order.
-
The problem as I see it is that you've got three different government departments dealing with fire, housing & licensing...and they don't communicate very well.
Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.
The Govt. believe that the Housing Act is the appropriate legislation for HMOs but the Order requires any licensing autrhority to give the FRS a chance to make representaion before issuing licenses.
The RRFSO does not apply to domestic premises i.e. the private living quarters in an HMO.
The order does apply to the common parts. To assess the safety of the common parts the FRS I would suggest needs to look in rooms that adjoin the common parts. The Order provides no power of entry to domestic premises!
Confused dot.com!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I agree with PhilB. Who does the door of a single private dwelling belong to? Is it the Landlord as part of the common parts or the occupier as there private front door?
-
certainly not FRA
maybe employer, occupier, or owner i.e it must be the landlord
Question for all the guides
do the travel distances,AFD systems, EL, all reflect the same figures,
another words can I read just one book?? I except sutile changes
-
Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.!
Phil,
If this is the case, why under Article 42 (3) (b) does it say, "licensing" includes certification and registration and licensing is to be construed accordingly. It is quite specific, any registration or certification or licensing scheme takes second place where the RRO applies.
Also under IRMP Note 4, HMO's are 2nd or 3rd in the relative risk hierarchy and FRS are meant to develop their inspection policies around this.
Also, it is the government's intention that FRS should be involved in HMO's
Also, Many FRS (London, GMC, Lincs have been working for some time to develop locol protocols.
Also, CFOA do have a 'loose' working group to develop a national model for MOU between Housing and FRS
Also, many Housing Authorities have long established prescriptive guides on standards in HMO's and are struggling to reconcile these with HHSRS
-
Jokar,
Inside of door belongs to occupier, outside to landlord...simple really. Wait for the fisrt clued up landlord challenging a Housing Authority post 1st October who tries to enforce fire safety standards quoting Article 43.
Nuva villa for my learned friends!!
-
Question for all the guides
do the travel distances,AFD systems, EL, all reflect the same figures,
another words can I read just one book?? I except sutile changes
Thats a bit like saying can I just read one BS5588.
The formats are the same but there are differences.
I actually quite like them for the peol;le they are attended for.
-
Inside of door belongs to occupier, outside to landlord...simple really.
talk about siting on the fence. Does that mean the FRS can only ask for the front bit to be FR if deemed neccessary.
-
Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.!
Phil,
1)If this is the case, why under Article 42 (3) (b) does it say, "licensing" includes certification and registration and licensing is to be construed accordingly. It is quite specific, any registration or certification or licensing scheme takes second place where the RRO applies.
2)Also under IRMP Note 4, HMO's are 2nd or 3rd in the relative risk hierarchy and FRS are meant to develop their inspection policies around this.
3)Also, it is the government's intention that FRS should be involved in HMO's
4)Also, Many FRS (London, GMC, Lincs have been working for some time to develop locol protocols.
5)Also, CFOA do have a 'loose' working group to develop a national model for MOU between Housing and FRS
6)Also, many Housing Authorities have long established prescriptive guides on standards in HMO's and are struggling to reconcile these with HHSRS
1) I know that Val, but many people interpret this to mean that licenses or registration schemes cannot require fire safety measures, of course they can.
2) I know that too Val, they will be high up on a risk based inspection program, but FRS have no power of entry.
3) FRS will be involved with HMOs but the Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation...the RFSO does not apply to the domestic parts!!!!!!
4) Yes of course many have, but some have not.
5) I know.......good!
6) It would surely be better for some good new guidance to replace 12/92. I am not advocating precriptive standards but a set of reasonable benchmarks that could adopted nationally would assist consistency of enforcement and be of use to those who are required to comply. The HHSRS uses ADB as an ideal. That document is totally inappropriate for many existing HMOs
-
Blackarts, the easy answer is no. There are subtle differences in each of the guides dependent on the risk. For example each guide has a para on basements, 2 x 30 min doors and 60 min floor. However, the factory guide states that 1 x 60 min door at basement level is acceptable and a small basement can have a 30 min floor. Also, the sleeping risk guide states that accommodation staircases have to be enclosed at all levels other then the ground but the other guides do not say this. Read and weep at the minor changes.
-
FRS's will look at HMO's. The major fire risk is in domestic premises and they will be bound by this to undertake risk inspection of HMO's. How they interact with local authorities will be a question for each local authority. RR(FS)O applies to all premises except single private dwellings and the Local Authority is not an enforcer for fire under this legislation.
-
RR(FS)O applies to all premises except single private dwellings and the Local Authority is not an enforcer for fire under this legislation.
Not so Jokar. The RRFSO does not apply to domestic premises, the wording is important.
There will be power to prohibit or restrict the use of everywhere except premises consisting of or comprised in a house that is occupied as a single private dwelling. So FRS can prohibit the use of an HMO.
Apart from Article 31(Prohibition) The RRFSO will not apply to all parts of HMOs, it will only apply to the common parts. Therefore the Housing Act is the answer for ensuring adequate fire precautions are provided in the 'domestic' parts.
-
PhilB
Why will it apply to common parts surely they are part of the domestic premises.
-
Article 2 defines domestic premises as 'premises occupied as a private dwelling'. All the other parts, therefore, are covered by the Order.
-
Seems logical to me that if the new Housing Act covers domestic dwellings (and common areas), and gives Local Authorities powers to issue Improvement and/or Prohibition notices under their own legislation, then FRS's have no need to get involved in HMO's at all - except in the case of the requirement for immediate Prohibition Notices (as opposed to the 28 day notification period the Housing Act requires).
-
Fred - when di logic have anything to do with enforcement policy?
Some brigades are bound to idntify HMOs as their biggest problem and so put them on top of their inspection plan.
This will bring the whole system into disrepute.
At the moment we get EHOs applying 12/92 to flat conversion the day after building control sign them off.
The new act puts a stop to this but this just gets replaced with the overlap from the Order. Unless you count a HMO license as a "License" in which case it wont cover fire safety!!!!!
One step forward.......
-
FRS's have no need to get involved in HMO's at all - except in the case of the requirement for immediate Prohibition Notices (as opposed to the 28 day notification period the Housing Act requires).
I agree Fred and love the idea of using logic...what a novelty!!! The new Housing Act gives housing officers immediate prohibition power so FRS should not be used for this purpose.
-
The Housing Act seems to be entirely self-contained and geared up towards LHAs being the appropriate authority. We still get our say, though, through the consultation required by section 10 of the Act - the LHAs have to consult the FRS before taking any (fire safety) enforcement action. Unfortunately FRSs will have a duty to enforce the RR(FS)O. Maybe we will get some indication of what the govt actually intended some time soon.
-
The Housing Act seems to be entirely self-contained and geared up towards LHAs being the appropriate authority. We still get our say, though, through the consultation required by section 10 of the Act - the LHAs have to consult the FRS before taking any (fire safety) enforcement action. Unfortunately FRSs will have a duty to enforce the RR(FS)O. Maybe we will get some indication of what the govt actually intended some time soon.
Pigs are more likely to take wings ....I think there will also be an argument that FRS's should be consulted by the LA (under Art 42 of the RRO) before they (the LA) issue a HMO licence. Just what we need ..... along with Care Standards and OFSTED etc we'll still have Agencies wagging our tails. No change after all.
-
The requirement under Article 42 is that FRS are given the opportunity to make representation before licenses are issued. Being given the opportunity to make representaion does not and should not always involve full consultaion. But FRS and EHOs need to set up protocols for dealing with this.
-
Being given the opportunity to make representaion does not and should not always involve full consultaion. But FRS and EHOs need to set up protocols for dealing with this.
Absolutely agree PhilB - but with the ceaseless change of Goverment departmemts, new legislation, changes in Agency status we never stand still long enough to agree a protocol. It took three years to produce a Memorandum of Understanding with Care Standards in the SW.....by which time everyone was doing their own thing anyway. It's a tough nut to crack, and joined up legislation could make it all so much easier. Here's hoping .....
-
Can't believe it...I am in agreement with both Phil and Fred!
Having been involved in endless negotiations for various MOU's/parnerships/protocols etc. we have come to the conclusion that most are a waste of time. We intend to draw MOU's up in the future, spend a reasonable amount of time trying to get other agencies to sign up and then just tell them this is what they are getting! Care standards Agency are the worst by a country mile.
Disapplication of licensing conditions dealing with fire give us the opportunity at last.
In future, this is what we are going to do...work with us or we'll just do it anyway!
-
Disapplication of licensing conditions dealing with fire give us the opportunity at last.
In future, this is what we are going to do...work with us or we'll just do it anyway!
Sounds good to me ..... just what we need - decisions !
-
The HHSRS has all the answers.........
-
It certainly seems to but where does the RR(FS)O and FRS duty to enforce fit in?
A suggestion: FRS can be seen to be enforcing RR(FS)O through their consultations with the Housing Authorities (required by the Act before any fire safety action is taken). End of our involvement, except Article 31 (and only then when a housing officer can't be found)
What do you think?
-
It will be interesting when a fire death occurs in an HMO when the RRFSO is in place. A relevant person will have been placed at risk of death or serious injury in a premises for which the FRS are the enforcing authority. The enforcing authority would be duty bound to take enforcement action in my opinion.
Furthermore I could see the FRS being criticised for failing to adopt a suitable risk based inspection programme!
As for the HHSRS having all the answers, I disagree. It is a means of identifying that deficiencies exist....it does not provide solutions to the problems identified.
-
It will be interesting when a fire death occurs in an HMO when the RRFSO is in place. A relevant person will have been placed at risk of death or serious injury in a premises for which the FRS are the enforcing authority. The enforcing authority would be duty bound to take enforcement action in my opinion.
Furthermore I could see the FRS being criticised for failing to adopt a suitable risk based inspection programme!
As for the HHSRS having all the answers, I disagree. It is a means of identifying that deficiencies exist....it does not provide solutions to the problems identified.
Don't quite follow your drift here PhilB - a fire death in a HMO is in most cases likely to be caused by a fire originating in the area the fire death occurred - an area not covered by the RRO. The Housing Act gives LA's adequate powers to issue improvement or prohibition notices on any part of the HMO - I don't see how FRS's could be criticised for not enforcing under the RRO when the Housing Act is far more appropriate - or am I missing something ?
-
It is not the Govt.s intention that FRS should be very involved in HMOs. The Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation.(page 2)
Furthermore I could see the FRS being criticised for failing to adopt a suitable risk based inspection programme!
(page 3)
.
PhilB
Can't have it both ways.
I would agree that FRS should be setting up protocols with their local Housing Authorities on inspection and enforcement, but only because there is no direction from the government. We will therefore end up with inconsistent inspection and enforcement across the country. Whilst I agree with both statements above the simple answer would be to end this speculation and interpretation by the issue of a circular directing the issue one way or the other.....CFOA,DCLG...anybody out there?
-
I totally agree Zimmy, some guidance would be nice. I don't want it both ways.....I want a circular to tell us what to do. Perhaps Andy Jack could come out of hiding and speak to us.
Fred I also agree that the Housing Act is the appropriate legislation, however the new fire safety order will also apply and surely the FRS would be expected to act if an offence under that legislation has been committed.
I'm just playing devils advocate here......Consider this.............a FRS has decided not to inspect HMOs because they feel the Housing Act is the correct tool....there is a fire death that is caused by the failure of the responsible person. Could the FRS be failing to comply wih the duty to enforce the order?
Under the FPA the FRS had many dutys, to inspect, to serve notices to inform applicants about interim duties etc. etc. The RRFSO imoses only one duty on FRS...TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.
-
Perhaps it will all be made clear in the long awaited Guidance to Enforcing Authorities ... though there does seem to be a deafening silence from DCLG and CFOA on this ... but the latter do seem to be more interested in fitting sprinklers in schools for life safety ...... ooops - pardon my french!
-
CFOA are always very keen on spending other peoples money.
-
I drove past a police car last night 2mph over the limit. They didnt stop me (end of shift?) could they be held responsible if I crashed. No of course not.
The duty to enforce the order doesn't mean watching over everybody's shoulder all the time, there aren't that many Fire Safety Officers.
The link between the fire safety order and the housing act is clearly a problem. We can only wait with baited breath for guidance from on high.
-
I take your point Wee Brian. But to use your example , if you did crash...and upon investigation it was discovered that your police force had not stopped anyone for speeding in the past 12 months.....they had relied on other legislation and another enforcing authority to control speeding.....might they not be found to be failing in their duty?
-
No I dont think they would - so long as they could show that they had made the policy on the basis that others were dealing with the issue so it was not in the public interest.
In the end, only a court could decide and they never make any sense.
-
I'm just playing devils advocate here......Consider this.............a FRS has decided not to inspect HMOs because they feel the Housing Act is the correct tool....there is a fire death that is caused by the failure of the responsible person. Could the FRS be failing to comply wih the duty to enforce the order?
Under the FPA the FRS had many dutys, to inspect, to serve notices to inform applicants about interim duties etc. etc. The RRFSO imoses only one duty on FRS...TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.
That's a bit like blaming the HSE because Environmental Health didn't prosecute over a Food Hygiene contravention - I'm sure the Local Authorities also have a duty to enforce the Housing Act ....
-
That's a bit like blaming the HSE because Environmental Health didn't prosecute over a Food Hygiene contravention - I'm sure the Local Authorities also have a duty to enforce the Housing Act ....
No it's not Fred......the EHO is the enforcing authority for HASAWA in the type of premises you refer to not HSE. However if someone was killed as a result of EHOs failure to enforce the HASAWA I expect the HSE would have something to say.
Can FRS neglect to enforce the order and rely on housing officers to do so under the Housing Act?
-
As we have appeared to be talking HMO's, my own Brigade believe
that after 5 minutes intensive training they can send the operational
crews to inspect these premises.
We have a habit of making these fo pars, years ago our esteemed
leaders thought up the idea of a lapsed fire certificate, that idea
crashed and burned five years later.
That was followed by humbled appologies to every office, shop, and
factory we had told lies to
-
Habits that go back a long way. We had exactly the same following the cunningham report in the early 70s when overnight the focus switched to crews inspecting every corner shop, bandstand and bus shelter. My diary shows that in 1974 we were out doing the 28s (small shop/ office inspections) and 29s ( bit bigger shops) every shift and I recorded that we did not go on drill at all between June and September that year. The next years HMI showed we had all forgotten how to pitch ladders and tie knots so the pendulum swung the other way.
At least this time you will be working to a risk based program- or may be like us in the 70s you will start the troops on the little ones for practice....