FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stewbow on October 24, 2006, 05:37:50 PM
-
A local Tanning Shop manageress knows that she has to do a FRA, and knows that she needs her Extinguishers servicing, but her boss (I think there are 3 shops owned by the same guy) has told her not to bother doing it, or spend any money.
She doesn't want to rock the boat, but what if she is the RP?
Would it be right in this sort of case for somebody to inform the FO. What would the FO do if he received such a call?
thanks
Stuart
-
I think she should write a polite memo to the boss about it, mentioning her concern about her position as she is likely to be the RP as the shop manager. If the boss doesn't respond then at least she'll have a copy of what she has done. If she informs the local fire service I would expect them to be very careful about implicating her as their informant, perhaps they could write to several other businesses in the immediate area about FRAs. She could also carry out her own FRA using one of the downloadable versions that exist, it would be better than nothing!
-
Lets be clear, the boss is the RP as an employer. The manageress could be the nominated person under Article 5(3). The shop has to be licensed and as such the FRA would need to be recorded. Whether the FRS would visit such a low risk premises is debatable, they are supposedly only targetting high risk stuff. The boss is breaking the law but as many do in lots of legislation only when they are caught out will they rectify the situation. A couple of bits of paper never made a building safe and providing the premises are reasonably safe then it may never arise as an issue.
-
Yes the boss is the RP as the employer - that is clear.
Could the manageress also be considered to be a responsible person - this depends on her job description and contract of employment. I would assume that the employer is probably based at head office and each shop managed locally by a manager- who may therefore have some control over the building to some extent.
The Fire Safety Order 2005 gives all responsible persons duties in so far as they have control over a building or any part of it.
If the manager identifies significant findings and keeps mum because the employer wants to save money, then the manager is vulnerable to legal action and civil claims. If however they identify the hazards, record their concerns and can show evidence of having gone to the limit of their authority to rectify it then, and only then, have they shown due diligence.
In my opinion of course.
-
It is quite simple to inform the fire service of a concern. ring their switchboard (No. would be in any local directory) and ask to be put through to the Fire Safety team, explain the situation to them, it would not even be necessary for you to leave your details.
The fire service would then attend the workplace on the premis of a routine inspection. once under the radar the RP 'boss' would then have to comply.
doing it this way would maintain annonymity of the employee.
also, any member of the public can use this facility, you do not have to be involved with the workplace in any way.
hope this helps
-
But are the extinguishers needed at all?????
I agree with Jokar that for lower risk premises the FRS probably wouldn't and shouldn't in my opinion, be too interested. They should be concentrating on scary places indentified in their risk based inspection programme. Surely all FRS have implemented their risk based inspection programmes by now!!!!!!
I also agree with Kurnal as to who could be responsible and would add that all employees also have a responsibility by virtue of article 23 to take care of themselves and others and to report any deficiencies that they are capable of noticing to their employers.
So the manageress has to take action so far as relates to matters within her control......she also has a duty to inform her employer of deficiencies she is aware of. If her employer choses to ignore her and it takes the form of a pear....he will probably have to appear before the man in the fuuny wig!
-
All complaints made to the Fire Authority are treated in the strictest of confidence and have to be followed up normaly within three working days.
So if the manageress did decide to "dob" in her boss there is no way the fire officer would or could divuldge where the complaint was made.
I agree with what PhilB said about not getting worried about smaller premises to a degree, but by virtue of the national complaints procedure we would have to visit the premises anyway to investigate the complaint. And while we are there we can do something proactive. We can improve things.
The Manageress could do one of two things:-
a) As someone already mentioned - write a memo to the boss saying that she has concerns
b) Make a complaint - tell the local fire officer who she is and why she is concerned - remember the Fire Officer would not divulge who the complainant is to the boss of the company.
If its on file that she complained I perosnally think it would help exonerate her should anything happen on the premises i.e;:-
"I've tried to tell my boss to get this sorted, he wont listen and im still worried that we arent complying with the law - I just dont have the authority to implement change or do anything about it. I don't know what to do and fear my neck is on the line"
Im sure a judge would look at that favourably.
-
Come on guys...."a tanning shop manageress" with an unserviced fire extinguisher - my guess is that the fire officer would drop whatever he was doing and get round there pronto with blue lights and two tone horns!
-
:lol:
-
All complaints made to the Fire Authority are treated in the strictest of confidence and have to be followed up normaly within three working days.
So if the manageress did decide to "dob" in her boss there is no way the fire officer would or could divuldge where the complaint was made.
I agree with what PhilB said about not getting worried about smaller premises to a degree, but by virtue of the national complaints procedure we would have to visit the premises anyway to investigate the complaint. And while we are there we can do something proactive. We can improve things.
The Manageress could do one of two things:-
a) As someone already mentioned - write a memo to the boss saying that she has concerns
b) Make a complaint - tell the local fire officer who she is and why she is concerned - remember the Fire Officer would not divulge who the complainant is to the boss of the company.
If its on file that she complained I perosnally think it would help exonerate her should anything happen on the premises i.e;:-
"I've tried to tell my boss to get this sorted, he wont listen and im still worried that we arent complying with the law - I just dont have the authority to implement change or do anything about it. I don't know what to do and fear my neck is on the line"
Im sure a judge would look at that favourably.
Cough Cough!
I wish I could agree, "with the 3 working days" bit, I made a formal complaint back in August, to my local FSO, about, 1. A BUILDING WITH NO FIRE ESCAPES (other than the entrance stairs),
2. PARTIALLY BLOCKED CORRIDORS,
3. The only DISABLED ACCESS, HAS THE DOOR LOCKED, AND 2 MORE INTERNAL DOORS LOCKED ON ROUTE TO MAIN PART OF BUILDING,(stannahwheelchair lift makes this an unsuitable fire exit)
4, When I telephoned the tenants of the building that do the wedding venues, to ask about responsible persons, whos in charge out of the "2" staff imployed on such a day, they didnt know, "anything about that"
They (the FSO) STILL havent visited building yet, and this building holds 200 people, its now 28th Oct!
I was told last week that they have to notify the owners and tenants of the building that they are planning to visit, (what, so to give them time to "act all safe" so nothing gets seen as it is) I am so confused dot com!
-
Hi Donna
Under the 'local authority enforcement concordat' fire inspectors should notify premises owners that they intend to inspect their premises. But this applies to routine inspections only.
When investigating a complaint fire officers can just turn up on the door step and enter the premises without warning.
As far as I was aware fire authorities nationwide have all signed up to the "three working day" complaints procedure.
If you still wish to pursue this further my advice would be to phone the fire officer again, ask him/her to confirm their brigade's complaints procedure - ask how much time are they supposed to act on them, and if you dont get a satisfactory response contact the headquaters of the brigade and pass on your concerns .
There may be a valid reasons why the officer has not acted immediately but wherever possible the officer should explain why (bear in mind however that the data protection act applies here so s/he wont be able to discuss the specifics with you).
If the fire officer states "that it is being dealth with" im afraid thats all you can do - youll just have to leave it with them. If you are not satisfied put in a complaint to the brigade's headquarters.
-
Cheers Firewolf,
I will chase them up again tomorrow, it just seems to be treated as "too laid back" for my liking, I am dissapointed in the system, as the complaint I made was justified and warranted a little more positiveness. ps, and it wasnt an annonymous complaint either, I was up-front about it and they have my full name etc
-
It could be Donna that there isn't really a problem. FRS cannot be expected to drop everything and inspect every time someone asks them to. In an ideal world it would be nice but there are limited resources. The responsible person has a duty to comply with the law, the FRS have a duty to enforce the order but that will be done using a risk based inspection programme.
In the example you give the existing exits may be perfectly adequate, you say there are partially blocked corridors, do they need to be completely sterile?
But I would agree with firewolf that you should raise your concerns with the FRS, they should explain what action they have taken or intend to take.
-
I understand your view Phil, but there is definately a problem, quite a big one!
If you scrol down the "fire safety" topics on this particular forum, to " Listed buildings, olde worlde hotels etc" go to post num 14, and I have gone into more detail, (to save me repeating myself)
Since that post the HSE have NOW admited that my comments about the dark corridor (that I was locked in ) was infact breaking the regulations, and the owners have been given notification to comply, but I only got this outcome from sending loads of emails, AND going to the complaints dept, as the first team wished just to read some documents!
I am also taking the matter to the DDA to whom are funding me, but thats just because of the disables side of things.
If you just tap in your toolbar "mum to sue court over poor wheelchair access" it brings up the paper it appeared in.
-
Thanks Donna, I have read the posts you refer to. I would question wether this is really a fire safety issue or a DDA issue. As you know under the DDA there is a requirement to make reasonable adjustments, but please remember the word reasonable. This problem can be managed in other ways.
As far as fire safety is concerned not only does the responsible have to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate acces(DDA) they also have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of all relevant persons including persons with special needs. However it would not be reasonable to require all listed buildings to install new means of escape to solve the problems .
What regulations are you refering to that the HSE admitted were being breeched? The HSE are not often the enforcing authority for fire safety law.
-
Phil, it was regarging to the poor light in the area that had obstuctions in, HSEs exact written words via email was this;
"We have now finalised our enquiries into the lighting issues which you have raised, and your concerns in respect appear to be justified.
Tests have provided evidence that the lighting in the area concerned are below the reccomended minimum levels for"traffic zones" in indoor workplaces which are specified i BS British Standard en 12464-1:2002 "light and lighting"
As there is no specific illuminence levels contained within H&S legislation itself, HSE would use the BS as its benchmark in terms of lighting requirements to reduce the risk of slips/trips.
HSE have therefore written to ????????? ???????? ???????, specifying the minimum amount and a timetable in which this must be acheived.
Phil this is the same corridor that one is locked in! from the outside door, you go in and they lock the external door, then the staff of the building overtake you so they can unlock the next internal door! (so at this time one is in between two locked doors and in the dark, oh with obstructions that you cannot see!, then you go through the same process to go through the third door, this is not a DDA matter, this is just HSE and Fiire I think? it was the DRC that advised me to make the complaint to the two authorities in the first place.
-
Donna
I cannot really comment further as I do not know the building you refer to.
However the fact you are accompanied by staff who lock and unlock doors as you enter does not concern me greatly. Yes you are locked in but you are accompanied, I know of many buildings that have similar procedures, banks for example.
The fact that llighting levels are below those recommended for traffic zones does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with means of escape.
I repeat my recommendation to contact the FRS, they will be happy to explain what action they intend to take.
-
I think Donna should be commended for her tenacity.
As someone who is a Responsible Person, and has the job of pursuading the 'Bean Counters' to dole out money for risk reduction measures that I regard as necessary, my life would be made much easier if the occupants of buildings were more aware of and vocal about these kind of safety issues. Fire safety is, in my experience, a complete 'Grudge Purchase', in the eyes of premises managers.
If the Fire Authority is not willing to follow up her concerns (and let's remember, she pays their wages), then shame on them. I would have thought that this is just the type of community vigilence that they should be encouraging.
-
Thanks Fishy, Guess who got a letter from the fire service today, (a copy to the owners of the above mentioned building), it read; (cutting out the in-betweeny bits)
Notification of Deficiencies,
Further to the recent visit carried out on **/**/2006 the fire authority is in the opinion that you are not fully complying with the above legislation, (regulatory reform (fire safety) order 2005
blah blah blah.....you are strongly advised to obtain the appropriate "Fire Safety - Risk Assessment publication for your premises, blah blah.....
REPORT
Deficiency from article 9 (1)
The fire Safety risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient
REMEDY, blah blah.... "you guys know the wording"
Deficiency from article 9 (3)
The F.S.R.Assessment has not been reviewed on a regular basis
REMEDY, "ditto"
Deficiency from article 11 (2)
The F.Safety arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventative and protective measures have not been recorded where appropriate,
REMEDY, The responsible person must record F.S Arrangements......blah blah...
a) He employes five or more employee;
b) A licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
c) An alterations notice requiring this is in force in relation to the premises.
(this bit above "b" anc "c" Im not to sure what it means, so if anyone can post the answer, that would be great)
and finaly
Deficiency from Article 14 (2)(g)
The escape routes were not provided with adequate signage.
REMEDY, Suitable and sufficient signage indicating all emergency routes and exits is to be provided.
so thanks so very very much for all your help and patience with this on going problem, (and you all know who you are)
I will keep you informed of the above in regards to the DDA, that bit will take a bit longer, slow..slow process.
Donna
-
a) He employes five or more employee;
b) A licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
c) An alterations notice requiring this is in force in relation to the premises.
(this bit above "b" anc "c" Im not to sure what it means, so if anyone can post the answer, that would be great)
Donna
There is a requirement to record certain information if the premises has any kind of licence regardless of the number of persons employed. This would include a wedding license. However I would have thought that the organisation you are dealing with employs five or more employees anyway.
An alterations notice is a notice that the enforcing authoriity may serve that prohibits making changes without their approval. Not relevant in your case.
I am glad to hear you are getting a response.
-
Thanks for your response, as far as the 5 or more employees, yes I would have thought that they would already employ 5, because that would be common sense, but the fact is that up to the point of the fire report being received, they only had 2! and that was the "2" Ive been refering to that neither is the "said" responsible person, and they (one of the said, 2) also told me that they wouldnt know what to do in the event of an emergency, and have not been told either,
But hopefully now, this wont be a problem in the future, its all to well to assume that there will never be an emergency, but in reality anything can happen! I am so glad I pushed with this one, but it does just make me think how many members of the public notice safety bits and bobs, and think " oh well I'll leave that to someone else, It wont affect me because I dont have to access that building again" the mind boggles....