FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stewbow on August 30, 2006, 04:57:22 PM
-
Hi (new poster)
I was just wondering what people's views were on this.
Our local Fire Service are saying that Fire Risk Assessmnets must be carried out, but the significant findings can be rectified over a period of time (unspecified).
So if a new fire alarm system is required, as long as installation plans are in the pipeline (however long) then the Fire Service are happy.
In one enquiry today, I was told that a fire Officer has suggested that the customer puts in Stand Alone battery detcetors to be going on with (3 storey building) until a new system is installed.
My query really is, in the event of a fire, and a possible fatality, would the same Fire Officer be as user freindly, or would he be on the side of the prosecution giving evidance that the correct fire precautions were not in place?
-
Its all about doing what is reasonably practicable. The responsible person decides his view of what needs to be done and a reasonable timescale based on the level of risk, difficulty, disruption, cost of implementing the plan. The fire authority has powers to review the risk assessments and the proposed action plan and serve a notice or give advice according to the case. If it all goes pear shaped the courts will determine whether the plan was reasonable or not - its the responsible person not the fire officer in the dock.
If an alarm is needed it may not be easy to install immediately. Smoke alarms may be a useful short term measure to reduce the level of risk pending a permanent installation. Or linked detectors may be an answer in themself depending on the size and use of the building
-
So, just to try and clarify.
IF........ the resposible person of say a hotel arranges to have an L2 Fire Alarm System installed by christmas,(replacing his 1974 system) and in November, a fire breaks out, people in their rooms don't hear the sounders (because the nearest one is on the landing of the floor below) and there are fatalities that could have been avoided by having had the now required 75dB in the bedrooms, would the outcome of an enquiry/court case possibly produce a manslaughter verdict against the resposible person? Or would they be leniant? I am aware of 2 recent local cases where hoteliers have been fined heavily for not having the correct Fire Precautions in place when there has been a fire, thankfully in both cases nobody was harmed, but I am pretty sure if there were casualties, they would have faced more than a fine.
-
It all would depend on the circumstances of the case and only the judge would decide whether the responsible person had shown all " due diligence". In the circumstances you describe it is likely that the the responsible person would be enjoying the inside of one of Her Majesty's hotels because it doesn't take months to replace an alarm system and
It may be reasonable to balance the loss of a few rooms income against the risk - and for example not put people in rooms where they can't hear the alarm unless other measures are in place such as walking patrols to ensure the alarm is raised.
But for a day or two- if say the panel dies and is obsolete a package of alternative measures may be appropriate.
Had a similar case recently in a care home where an external fire escape failed its inspection by a structural engineer and needed replacement- for two nights the home moved as many residents as possible elsewhere and put in additional safeguards including an additional waking member of staff on the landing as an additional precaution, and all doors normally on magnetics were kept closed. And if that had gone pear shaped I would have been defending my advice in the dock alongside the owner no doubt.
-
Risk assessments are not new. They've been required since 1997, so to be fair there has been time for existing occupiers (ie rather than new occupiers) to have completed their FRA and introduced whatever systems the FRA produces.
However, all FRS will (OK, should) have an Enforcement Policy. Most allow reasonable time for works to be completed. This should take into account the size of the job involved and perhaps the financial implications.
Eg. I know of a major Hospital with massive AFD problems. They have been in negotiations with their local FRS and produced a mutually agreed action plan. This plan sets certaingoals which must be reached by a certain time. The FRS have issued an enforcement notice which - in effect - mirrors this action plan and has a three year time scale to allowthe NHS Trust to spead the cost.
The FRS will monitor the action plan and have reserved the right to act upon the enforcement notice (ie prosecute) if any goal is not reached in the specific timeframe.
This is the type of enforcement policy which is the way forward. Gone is the 'one month for a fire door' pick and mix list when it comes to setting times, and in comes a flexible mutualy agreed plan based on what is achievable.
This will work when say, a responsible businessman is dealing with a 21st century FRS Fire Safety Officer. But will this work if you throw a irresponsible businessman together with a old-school 'dinosaur' FSO wearing a 'I love the FP Act' tee shirt????
Probably not!
-
FRS are trying to engage in Partnerships with the business community-to drive down risk as required by the government.Achieving this is the trick;Risk assessed with a flexible response from both parties.I am currently inspecting a large building stock belonging to one owner who has a limited budget-I could make them fix every little thing that is wrong-or I could concentrate on the high risk elements with an action plan to address the minor ones so that their money is concentrated in the right areas.Better to work on the High risks and live with some of the low ones (with a management and action plan in place) a bit longer methinks.Ok so not perfect but that is the reality.
Then of course we can bring Politics in as well:
Should a council spend £120K on a sprinkler system in a new school?, or should they spend it on bringing up to standard those 4 storey single staircase teaching blocks?
If you don't agree with an FSO put forward an alternative.R.A means flexibility but also inconsistency (not that we really ever had it anyway-and will always be a holy grail).Individual FSO's should not be deciding on an enforcement notice alone-it should be reviewed by their line management before issue.
Until there is a lot more case history none of us will really know what is 'reasonable in the circumstances', just a personal judgement-some better than others!
-
Interesting point about Enforcement Notices ....
The Enforcers (the Fire Authority) must state why they are of the opinion that the Responsible Person has failed to comply, and why: they must also specify what provisions (of the Order) have not been complied with; and they must also specify a timescale for putting it right.
Curiously they are not required to tell you what you have to do to put it right - but they MAY (my caps). See following extract:
"Artilce 30(3) An enforcement notice may, subject to article 36, include directions as to the measures which the enforcing authority consider are necessary to remedy the failure referred to in paragraph (1) and any such measures may be framed so as to afford the person on whom the notice is served a choice between different ways of remedying the contravention."
Even more curious is that the draft Enforcers Guidance says that the Enforcement Notice "must therefore explain what they (the FA) consider needs to be done to rectify the situation"
The Order says you MAY and the Guidance says you MUST - from a legal perspective this is a big difference and just serves to confuse all the players.
ho hum
-
I read this differently. The Enforcement Notice "must therefore explain what the FA consider needs to be done..." would mean that the FA has to say that for instance "the means of escape from the upper storey are inadequate and need to be improved". The Order says that "the FA may include directions as to the measures...." which would mean that the FA could say "this could be achieved by means of an external fire escape at this location" but "may" means the FA does not have to give this guidance.
I assume the aim is to keep the responsiblity (and work) away from the FA.
-
If I am inspecting a property and find a severe defficieny in the standard of fire safety around the building I might decide to do one of the following:
1) If the risk to life is low I may give the proprieter a timescale to rectify whatever defficiency was found.
2)Implement some form of temporary measure to negate the situation whilst the defficiency is addressed
3) Close or prohibit use of the building or part of it because in my opinion the risk is just too high.
If I accepted the temporary measures and something were to happen as per the example you gave then it would be me, the fire officer, who would be brought under the spotlight not you.
Whilst the initial defficiencies that were found maybe due to negligence on the part of the building owners any temporary measures implemented at the request of the local fire officer that were later found to be inadequate resulting in injury or fatality would render the fire officer mainly responsible .
That is not to say I'd be necessarily in the dock so to speak, but nevertheless you would have defence by saying " The Fire Officer said this was acceptable - what else can I do?"
If the premises were that unsafe then really the fire officer should close the building.If s/he doesn't and something happened it would be on his or her shoulders.
-
where there might be some defence, it is the responsible person in the dock, not the FSO.Of course a civil court may be a different matter.
-
Under the new CFOA audit procedure, to ba adopted by all fra's nationally, if there was an issue, the form (aligned to the HSE's enforcement management model (EMM) will lead the Fire Inspector.(no longer FSOs after 1st Oct according to the Fire Safety order2005) to a compliance level, which when cross referenced with the EMM Table will lead to a level of enforcement, i.e an ageed action plan (non prescriptive), a Notification of deficiencies (again non prescriptive) or of course Enforcement or prohibition notices that by there very nature need to be more direct therefore are as prescriptive as we get.
Professional judgement comes in when assessing level of management for rating the relative risk, however the days of the FSO, humming and haaaring over whether it is bad enough to serve a notice or not, and having to call out another FSO for a second, usually conflicting opinion, which led to the inconsistancy of enforcement that we were always criticised for have well and truly gone. (with prescription.)
But remember sect 6.2 of the FRS act 2004....we still have to provide goodwill advice 'on request'. The line being us telling the responsible person what guide he/she needs and clarifying any point without going into the detail we have in the past....anyway we have been told a number of times in the past to stick our goodwill advice where the sun dont shine, cos they said if you want us to do it...enforce it!!!
Hey Ho fun and games ahead for us all i reckon.....
-
crmd259, You are another Tesco convert then!!
-
the enforcement model can lead you to the number crunching to give a first indication of the level enforcement-and if it stopped there it might be simple.But then other factors have to be applied-ie public interest,whether financial gain was the reason not to comply etc.Thats when it gets more complicated and why there will continue to be a lack of consistency.
-
pip, agree in some part however isnt the evidential test and public interest test seperate to what you allude to i.e. whether financial gain was expected etc...this i think is part of the EMM??
-
Yes, they are, but they are part of the overall audit prosess-so the 'Audit ' form process may spit out an 'Enforcement notice', but application of a whole ream of other factors, which have to be reviewed by a Fire Safety Manager,may revise it to a'notification of fire safety deficiencies', or it may confirm an Enforcement notice,plus a recommendation to prosecute.It means an informed decision can be made in the circumstances of the case.I would not like to be in the position where the 'decision' is made simply by a number crunching exercise and enforcement happens simply because the 'offence' exists-we don't want to be like traffic wardens.
-
Is that not the whole ethos behind Fire Safety Reform? Culture change?
How are we any different to traffic wardens? They enforce parking regulations cos thats what they are paid to do! What are we as Fire inspectors paid to do?
Ok, you may want to mention 'goodwill advice' again, but ive been there already and 'the customer' has made it clear what they think of that re: tescos (yes jokar....converted!!).
I think, like it or not we need to change and evolve with the reform.
Pip, I totally agree where you are coming from, but its what weve got!
-
I finished installing a Fire Alarm system today on a road full of guest houses, the owner has taken on board all of the advice about the RRO that I have offered him.
At the end of the afternoon there was a conversation at his front gate with a couple of other guest house owners, and they are all convinced that they don't have to upgrade their fire alarm systems until they eventualy get round to doing it, because the Fire Officers have told them that "as long as they are making plans to do the work at sometime in the future (unspecified)," then he is happy.
These people are talking about "maybe" doing the work next year.
I keep telling these owners that IMO, if in the meentime there is a fire in their premises, they may very well be prosecuted for not having the required level of fire protection, irrespective of the fact that the FO has given them more time to put their plans into opertation.
I am right here aren't I?
Only yesterday, a local hotelier was fined £3,500 with £3,000 costs for exactly the same thing.
This is the link about the orrginal fire, the court case was only yesterday and as such has not made it onto the website just yet.
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=15936358%26method=full%26siteid=50142-name_page.html
-
It seems to me that the fire officer in question is being unprofessional by not impressing some sense of urgency on these owners; it wouldn't look good in court if the enforcing authority was was saying to people "Do it at your leisure".
-
Sorry, maybe I am either not making myself clear, or misunderstanding your points.We are not supposed to be prescriptive, the concordat is against that.My FRS will not be taking the 'enforcement' line without taking into account the concordat.Therefore we will not be like 'traffic' wardens ie non negotiable.
-
.................and any work required should be done in an agreed action plan with a time frame(what those 'time frames are going to be who knows,FRS will have a reasonable stab at them, but ultimately it will be for the courts to decide.)
-
So, if I as a guest house owner was to say the the fire officer that I'm going to have my alarm system upgraded but due to budgetry constraints it will not be for the next 8 months, that is not acceptable?
An action plan is an agreed arrangement between the Fire Authority and the Responsible Person which will set both realistic and reasonable timescales to have work completed, even if this means having it done in stages or as in my hypothetical instance, 8 months later.
If these are not met, then an enforcement notice can still be issued ........ and it's still within the concordat as the fire authority have been reasonable.
-
i would suggest that 8 months is too long,going on old guidance for 'certificated work', 3 months would be the norm.If the occupier did not like it, they could challenge in a court, and may be we would have an answer!
-
stewbow
what's wrong with the existing fire alarm system ?
Conquerot
-
The majority of the fire alarm systems in the seaside guest houses that I am talking about still have Gents Model 85 Panels.
These were I believe state of the art systems, mostly fitted around 1973-74.
They generaly consist of the one bell in the panel, and one bell on each floor level.
Heat detectors (the old bi-metal mercury type) in the ground floor rooms, and one smoke detector at the top of the stairs.
There is no detection in the bedrooms (rooms where people sleep leading onto an esacpe route), and the sound pressure level is well below the required 75dB in the bedrooms.
These buildings, I am led lo believe require a BS 5839 Part 1:2002 L2 type system installed.
-
Ideally yes, but at least it has a working alarm. A hotel I inspected last year has two floors and approx 40 bedrooms. Due to statutory bar it has no detection whatsoever and only call points on landings and exits. It has been like this for decades. personally I think it is unreasonable to enforce a L2 system within 3 months. I would agree an action plan something on the lines of MoE and common areas in 3 months, groung floor rooms next year and possibly first floor beds the year after. Every case will be different, every inspector will agree different action plans...so much for consistancy of enforcement!
-
And here was I thinking that we were getting away from the presrciptive methods!!
How do you enforce when my hypothetical guest house has fire detection fitted, which I am prepared to upgrade folowing the information in the guide which I have so diligently read and applied and as a result produced an action plan based on my significant findings?
Will I be making an appearance in court because I can't produce the money for 8 months?
I certainly hope not!!!
-
Stewbow
So that I am clear about this seaside guest house situation, what is your role in this, are you a fire safety officer, [ or ex FSO[] or a fire alarm installer ?... your narrative so far is not clear.
Conqueror.
-
Conqueror
I am indeed a Fire Alarm Installer with 25 years experience (still scratching my head with confusion).
It's all very interesting, there is a hoteliers conference locally next Wednesday, some "Risk Assessment guy" is going to give a little talk on the subject, but I can see him only dishing out grey because there doesn't appear to be much black and white.
Stew
-
Grey is all that's available. "Due Dilligence" and "Reasonable Provision" is what any court will be looking at. That's pretty grey stuff.
I think a written action plan is going to be a good defence but nothing is certain.
-
'guidance' =inconsistency.live with it or change your job.
-
I Love it personally - What other branch of engineering allows you to never be wrong.
-
I have just been to the hoteliers meeting that I mention ealier. It turned out that the risk assessment speaker was in fact a sales person for an online-downloadable do-it-yourself risk assessment package.
I found it very frustrating, it he was giving out the impression that once you had bought the software and filled in the boxes that that was the end of it.
He answered a few fire alarm questions wrongly. He told people that "if, once thay had done the online risk assessent, they were happy that there was enough detectors and sounders in the building" then they could stick with thiet 1974 set up-------WELL OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THE STATUS QUO, IT WON'T COST THEM ANYTHING.
I eventually got up and asked him some BS5839 Part 1:2002 L2 type questions which he neetly sidestepped, but I managed to trap him by reminding him that to do a fire risk assessment, it says that you must be a competent person, I read out the definition of a competent person from the new guide, and suggested that it would be wrong to place the burden of resposiblity of defining fire precautions on a hotel owner, who had until recently been a bus driver for 25 years.
I approched him after the meeting, now I need some clarification here , He had said that the fire risk assessment requirement was a new thing, coming into force on Oct 1, I pointed out to him that the requirement to carry out a FRA had been there since 1999 under the MOHASAW act 1999, to which he stated, "that only applied to the employees". ( but at the same time he'd already told people that the assessments should be carried out by Oct 1)
Now please, and I'm sure you will, tell me if I am wrong.
-
Stewbow
You are very brave getting in the way of a businessman and his profits.
A FRA has been required since 1997 and must consider the safety anyone who resorts to the building and not just the employees - if that's what he meant
Perhaps just another example of the sheer amount of rip off risk assessors out there atthe moment
-
Messy,
I would disagree with your comment. A risk assessment that include fire has been in the MHSWR since the WFPL was enacted. The term Fire Risk Assessment will only come into use on 1 October 2006 with the full enactment of the RR(FS)O.