FireNet Community

THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: wtfdik on September 10, 2006, 01:58:42 PM

Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: wtfdik on September 10, 2006, 01:58:42 PM: The new order says it is an offence if the responsible person fails to comply with articles 8-22 and 38 and that failure place one or more relevant persons at risk etc.
As FF are not relevent persons does this mean, as an example , if the FB attended a high rise and the FF lift was not working and that delay could be attributed to the death or injury of a person that would be an offence.
Any clarification greatly recieved.
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: Ricardo on September 10, 2006, 06:57:02 PM: R.I. Skassessment

If you take a look at some of the comments from a previous thread below called"reg reform order clarification please",(Q & A section) it may give you some interesting food for thought.
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: jokar on September 10, 2006, 09:26:01 PM: it may be an offence but as offences can only be against relevant persons and firefighters are not relevant persons nothing could happen. An enforcement notice any other enforcement action or can still be issued though.
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: kurnal on September 11, 2006, 07:53:40 AM: An enforcement notice could be served and failure to comply with that would be an offence.
But thats no use as retrospective punitive action after an incident. It would however leave the responsible person wide open to civil claims.

The plaintiff ( injured person- firefighter) would have to prove that:

1- that the responsible person had a duty of care to the injured firefighter ( not easy to prove if you just have regard to the RRO but there is case law on this)

2- that the RP was in breach of the duty of care- ie the facilities for firefighting were not being maintained. The enforcement notice would make this easier to prove but the plaintiff would have to show that the conditions that warranted the serving of the enforcement notice were present at the time of their injury,

3- That the injury or loss arose as a result of this breach of duty of care.

It makes you wonder why Firefighters were excluded from the definition of relevant persons. It is a huge hole in the new order - perhas it is because firefighters are one group of visitors over which the the RP has no control, due to powers given under the fire and rescue services act? But if thats the case why aren't H&S officials or Police similarly excluded?
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: John Webb on September 11, 2006, 10:08:27 AM: Article 13 (3) says "The RP must, where necessary - .... (c) arrange any necessary contacts with external emergency services, particularly as regards firefighting, rescue work, ......."
So if the RP is aware that the FF Lift in a highrise for which they are responsible is not working, then surely they are obliged to inform the FRS for that area and failure to do so is an offence under the RRO?
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: Mike Buckley on September 11, 2006, 05:01:30 PM: I suppose this depends on the interpretation of "where necessary". I thought this refered to the old 11d visits and that the responsible person should give that type of information, the lay out of the premises, hazardous areas, storage of hazard materials etc. not the everyday state of fire fighting equipment.

So playing the devil's advocate does this mean that if I take the sprinkler system or alarm system off line for servicing I need to inform the FRS? Do I have to inform them if an extinguisher has been discharged and I am waiting to have it refilled?

Or will it be enough to inform the crew of the first attendence "I'm sorry the FF lift is out of action"? or leave a sign on the FF lift saying it is out of order? Afterall I have informed the FRS.

Changing the line of attack, if I do inform the FRS that my sprinkler system is out of action due to service etc and I have a fire, will I have a case for negligence against the FRS, if the FRS did not increase the attendence to compensate for this and greater damage is caused to my factory?

Fun and games for all!
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: jokar on September 11, 2006, 08:39:21 PM: The supposed resonong behind firefighters not being relevant persons is to do with sprinklers. Business was wary that FRS would enforce sprinklers in every building to protect firefighters on entry. That, was one of the last changes but they did not look at all the document and therefore we have the situations described above.
Title: Offences under RRO
Post by: wtfdik on September 11, 2006, 09:27:15 PM: thanks for that but I am saying that a relevant person is injured because the facillities for firefighting were not working could this happen?