FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: CivvyFSO on November 15, 2006, 09:46:21 AM
-
Does anyone have a definition of "Serious and Imminent Danger" as per Article 15 of the FSO? (And article 8 of MHSW)
Or, can I have your interpretations of it, as it seems to be causing a difference of opinion here.
Some interpret it as including general fire and fire drills. Others interpret is as a seperate entity. i.e. explosive atmospheres, special risks of spillage/explosion etc that require special procedures / further evacuations / extra quick evacuations.
I am leaning more towards it being relative to the type of procedures you would possibly see more on COMAH sites and around specific process risks, but I seem to find alot of published procedure documents on the internet that seem to address this article with their general fire drills/procedures.
-
It simply means You must have procedures in place to evacuate the building in the event of fire...i.e an emergency action plan. Nothing to do with COMAH sites.
Article 16 requires additional procedures if dangerous substances are present.
-
Whilst this Article is a cut and paste from the Managment Regs, it has a completely different meaning under RR(FS)O. Why is not clear as evacuation plans are also required under Article 13. In the drfat of the guide for enforcers the stance is as suggeated above by Phil, the difficulty with that is the meaning associated under MHSWR and its code of practice which H&S professionals have used for a long time. Perhaps a question to the DCLG website will provide the all important answer.
-
Thanks. The reference to COMAH was just to demonstrate the type of 'imminent danger' I was assuming it refers to.
It can seem like all of this should be covered in article 21, training. Or could it be classed as: Article 15 is the responsibility to make these procedures etc, and article 21 is the responsiblity to pass these procedures on to staff through training?
-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmdereg/684/684.pdf
page 44
-
Excellent. Issue resolved! :)
-
I agree that Article 15 is the 'emergency action plan' but what about Article 11?
Is that not also about the 'emergency action plan'? if it is, whats the difference?
-
Article 11 is more to do with the management of the preventive and protective measures. i.e Some sort of formalised plan so that the whole fire safety subject is not something that is done once then left to stagnate.
I suspect you are looking at the audit form and not the legislation? If so I would suggest that the audit form is missing the point, as it seems to in other sections too.
-
funny you should mention the audit form, it certainly is an issue. i have addressed this issue only to be told flat it is about the EAP. I don't agree.
I do agree with you that Article 11 is not really about the EAP, i see it being more about ensuring that there is sufficient content contained within the RA, and its management.
i.e. article 9 states the requirement of a risk assessment and 11 goes on to state what should be considered and/or contained within it.
With regards to leaving it to stagnate would'nt this be covered by Article 9 (3)?
Reads as follows:-
Any such assessment must be reviewed by the responsible person regularly so as to keep it up to date particularly if-
(a) there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid; or
(b) there has been a significant change in the matters to which it relates including when the premises, special, technical and organisational measure or organisation of the work undergo significant changes, extensions or conversions.
-
I think that is just the review of the risk assessment, not the monitoring/management of fire safety in general.
The risk assessment to me is really just something showing where/what the risks are. Once this assessment has taken place then they can address the risks.
If I am marking someone as compliant for Article 11 it will generally be because fire safety is taken seriously, and they have procedures in place such as daily checks, weekly checks, reporting procedures in place and a system to deal with any faults found.
I split them up as follows:
Article 9: Do they have a good risk assessment that is reviewed 'regularly'?
Article 10: Have they taken preventive and protective measures as appropriate?
Article 11: Are these measures monitored/managed to ensure they remain effective.
i.e. A change in work processes would not necessarily make existing measures ineffective, they would generally create new risks possibly warranting new measures.
This is just the way I see it, I am sure other people will see it all differently, and I am always open to suggestions.
-
Article 11 is about managing fire safety planning, organising, controlling, monitoring and reviewing the preventive and protective measures. Nothing in article 11 refers to emergency action plans, they are dealt with in article 15.
The confusion is probably being caused by the audit form that you are using. In my humble opinion that form is seriously flawed.
-
Which audit form are we all talking about?
-
Its a standardised form for Inspecting Officers to use while 'auditing' someones compliance with the RRO. It is split into sections with reference to each article of the RRO, but some of the condensed 'explanations' of the articles given on the form do not seem to match up with the actual desired meaning of the actual articles. (In my opinion)
-
Always worth keeping a copy of the fire safety order to refer to and get the full written article from.
I have a folder with all the articles on the audit form printed in full with some interpretation as a reference for myself. Works for me!!
-
So can anybody get a copy of this dodgy form or is it a secret?
-
Whilst the Audit form is supposedly standardised across Brigades, some have adapted it slightly. It is used for the auditing process and is spoken about as the contemperaneous notes of the IO. They are not secret copies and are available under FoI.
-
I went looking on the CFOA website
http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives/tfs-audit-procedures.htm
Looks like a lot of bean counting to me
-
So can anybody get a copy of this dodgy form or is it a secret?
Wee Brian you can download it from Hamphire FRS website http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives.htm
-
Yep........hopefully soon some FRS will recognise this and start enforcing the Order rather than wasting their biro ink.
-
Biro's, some Brigades are in the present and are using palm pilots to do this work, only a couple mind you. The form is connected to some nice flow charts and links with the Enforcement management model. This gives standardisation across Brigades and enables consistency to be a good point. Ok, its crap but it is what the Government and CFOA came up with to pursue their agendas.
-
I went looking on the CFOA website
http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/forbusiness/firesafetyregs/fsrpolicydirectives/tfs-audit-procedures.htm
Looks like a lot of bean counting to me
We are doing alot of data collecting as part of the process. Some data is for risk levels that may affect turnout. i.e 2 buildings on fire at 3am, 1 generally has 1000 people in at that time of day/night and 1 is derilict. If we have the data we know where to send more resources.
Alot of it is making more sense now as the problems are being ironed out. I am sure you are all aware that different enforcement officers have different methods and views on fire safety, this is supposed to make it less based on personal opinions and more equal across the board.
I guess the thought behind it is you should be able to put 2 different officers in the same building, and they should come up with the same enforcement expectation. It quite obviously won't quite work like that in reality, but it will be a much closer decision than before.
In my opinion the worst part is that we are supposed to give people 5 weeks notice of the inspection/audit. This can give a false picture of the level of compliance. If inland revenue gave people 5 years warning of the year they were going to audit their tax returns I doubt they would catch many people evading their taxes.
-
Interesting. Its always good to hear from the guys actually doing the job.
I can see the sense in gathering firefighting intelligence. I just worry that it all takes too long. As for giving people notice, what kind of a daft idea is that. I'm all for the enforcement concordat but blimey......
How long does it take to do this in a "typical" premises?
-
Depends on how you look at it. Is the aim of the audit to catch people out or to ensure that they are complying to the order. If you want to catch people out, serve enforcement notices etc. then yes you want an unannounced visit. On the other hand if you want people to comply with the order then five weeks notice serves as a wake up call and the audit should show everything in order and you may only need to give advice.
In a way, do you want to be the friendly local bobby who makes sure everything is running smoothly and legally on his patch who people come to for help or the policeman who judges his success by the number of arrests, bookings etc. he makes and people steer clear of him? Which is the better role model for the Fire Service?
-
I agree with the friendly bobby approach. there are a lot of small buisnesses out there who are willing to comply they just don't have a clue (in the nicest terms). Giving them the opportunity to get their house in order is the only fair way of Auditing/enforcing in my opinion.
bearing in mind, although there is a period of notice recommended prior to carrying out the Audit, this does not always need to occur. If a member of the public was to raise concerns about a premises it would be acted on immediately
-
Terry will have witnessed, as I have, the difficulty of the more dinosaur IOs who were weaned on the FPA and seem incapable of letting go of the prescriptive 'jobsworth' approach.
For instance, with regards to the bullet point lists on the LH side of the audit forms, they are supposed to be 'aide-memoires' to help the IO. However, I have heard experienced IO's quoting them as if they are law. The maintenance section refers to 'records' being kept. It's already been discussed here that records do not need to be kept (although it's best practise etc). These IOs will issue enforcement notices if FPA style records are not in place.
My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.
It will all end in tears
-
Assuming that when we left the premises people followed the advice given and fire safety was dealt with as required by the legislation then the 5 weeks notice would be good.
The large companies with specific H&S managers etc tend to be almost faultless. Chances are if you have enough interest in fire to be in this forum you are either an I/O or work in the industry. If so then I am sure that wherever you work is run very well. We also have to deal with the smaller companies who generally couldn't care less about fire safety until something happens to make them care. Giving them 5 weeks to unblock their exits etc, and then leaving them to block them up again in the knowledge that they get warning of a visit, is not ideal. (IMO of course)
-
My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.
It will all end in tears
It is all supposed to eventually point us towards inspecting the premises where the higher risks are. That should all come out in due time.
What is the point in me going to inspect some company who has a dedicated team running H&S and fire safety and is doing a good job of it? I could waste 5 hours going through their documents and walkng the building and not finding a fault. Big pat on the back for the company, and the H&S people tend to like showing how good they are, but me being there has not reduced their risk.
-
FRS are supposedly directing their resources at high risk premises and not every one. This will ensure that the targetted premises continue their compliance and that advise can be given to the medium and low risk premises demonstrating how to comply. The compilation of data is for IRMP, the new fire cover, and will have an effect on the Government Modernisation agenda for the Fire Service. I would have assumed that most Brigades have done a workload analysis for their inspection programme and that it meest the needs of the National Framework Document and IRMP Guidance Note 4.
-
My problem with the new audit process is the revised frequency of inspections which give worrying long durations between visits. Some Hotels which were yearly are now every 5/6 years. Other buildings were 4/5 years are now 15 years.
Isn't that depending on the database being used?
It is possible to bring forward the date of next inspection so it throws it out way before the 5/6 years are up by manually programming the date of next inspection ....... or altering the date.
With regard to the large companies with H&S teams ...... I seem to find the ones that are not particularly well managed, or have issues surrounding maintenance, training, poor risk assessments etc ........ or is that just my bad luck?!! :D
-
Nothing I have seen dictates inspection frequencies. Guidance note 4 and the draft enforcers guidance specifically state that individual Brigades should target their inspections at high risk premises, taking into account not only the inherent risk of occupancy type, size, etc determined by the risk rating, but also the management compliance level determined by section B of the form. Brigades will therefore lay out an inspection programme in this manner but can only do this with the available resources.
My Brigade has started a process as above which will give, for example, a hotel that scores highly on the risk rating and also highly on the management compliance a reinspection frequency of 12, 6 or even 3 months. Alternatively, a low scoring hotel on both counts may well attract a reinspection of 60 months.
For lower risk premises such as offices shops etc, if audits are carried out and the scores are low enough, they may never be visited again as in practice, we will never have the resources to inspect every premises.
-
or is that just my bad luck?!! :D
I think it is fairly standard. :)
On the subject of reinspections: If I inspect somewhere that is a low risk then the risk rating will probably point towards reinspecting every 5-10 years. So regardless of its low risk rating that premises will pop up again in 5-10 years time and will be inspected alongside the high risk premises at the time.
So at some time in the future we will be inspecting both high risks and some premises that haven't been inspected for a long time. So hopefully the 'good' premises will only make up a small % of the workload and we can spend more time where we can make more of a difference.
-
i am surprised at the frequency that Zimmy's brigade is scheduling reinspections. not that i disagree with it quite the opposite. my brigade seems to be at the opposite end of the scale. for us the frequency for a high risk hotel is 2 years. For very low risk premises its a 1% sample each year, which means a premises 'in theory' would be inspect once every hundred years.
when you think that the most important part of fire safety is the management, how can a premises remain unchanged for that length of time? certainly not in the area i cover, occupiers change virtually every six months in some premises.
The cynic in me thinks the overall objective of the government seems to be that they want us to be like the HSE and just carry out reactive inspections.
i should say at this point these are my views and not my employers
-
Apparently the whole 'audit' procedure is akin to HSE's enforcement model. I am not from a H&S background so I guess someone else could clarify that?
I would be likely to agree with the cynic in you. I can picture an office of 6 inspectors being dwindled down to 1 or 2, visiting complaints and visiting after a fire in someones premises.
-
Devon have already commenced this. The CFOA model is that the FRS across England and Wales all do the same thing, but apparently not from the responses thus far. Why Brigades are adapting something that they agreed to is beyond me.
-
So we should not be undertaking a reinspection programme? Or has devon got it wrong?
Am I remembering correctly that there's nothing in the Fire Services Act to specifically say we are obliged to inspect premises?
-
The cynic in me wonders how long it is going to be before targets are set for the number of inspections carried out putting the pressure on so that good premises are inspected (I can knock off 7 or 8 a day) as opposed to the bad (Oh God this is going to take me all day to inspect and the rest of the week to write up). I know it shouldn't happen but when the stats are demanded what is going to happen?
-
Am I remembering correctly that there's nothing in the Fire Services Act to specifically say we are obliged to inspect premises?
the FSO states
Enforcement of Order
26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.
this is probably the closest you'll get, it mentions we must enforce the order but not how.
some may argue that to enforce you need to periodically inspect, others may say we'll deal with each premises as and when they appear on our radar (i.e. AFR or after fire inspection).
this is probably why different brigades are enforcing the order to different standards.
personnally i think there should be a national standard, to have an act enforced differently just because of your geographical location to me seems ludicrous.
-
If article 15 talks about emergency plans and only article 9 & 11 require recording arrangments where is the requirement to record the emergency plan?
-
Inspection programmes are required by FRS by virtue of the National Framework document that goes with the 2004 Act and also IRMP Guidance Note 4. As regards the comments by Terry, all Brigades have signed up to the CFOA audit model and the risk calculator that goes with this informs of the next re-inspection date.
-
If article 15 talks about emergency plans and only article 9 & 11 require recording arrangments where is the requirement to record the emergency plan?
Article 11 requires the arrangements for the effective planning, control, monitoring and review of the preventive & protective measures to be recorded.
These preventive & protective measures are defined in Article 2 as the measures identified as the general fire precautions.
General fire precautions are defined in Article 4 and include measures in relation to means of escape. I would suggest that an emergency plan is one such measure.
-
I am new to this forum but I would like an opinion on the following. The question is in regard to fire risk assessments on flats. The flats in question would not have been built in accordance with the current B Regs in fact some of them are in the region of 70yrs old. All have timber floors and generally only one staircase. The front doors to the flats are suspect but substantial ie heavy but no seals or in most cases no self closers. The FSO asks for fire alarm for the common area based on BS5839 pt1 but also Pt6 Grade A LD2. The question is should this installation include fire alarm call points and if so where would they be installed. My first thought was that at least one call point at the panel may be suffiecent., but on reflection perhaps no call points only detection. I realise that call points in the public domain may in many properties give rise to abuse and false alarms but these properties are in the top end on the market both cashwise and socially. The flats are being advised to install their own smoke detection system that will not be linked to the building alarm (so no burnt toast evacuations)
PeteG
-
Thanks Phil that was similar to my understanding along with the measures to be taken in the event of a fire including instruction and training that is also in the GFP.
What about the guidance documents definition of significant finding which includes the action to be taken in the event of a fire?
-
I'm not a great fan of the new guides or their definition of significant findings but I would agree that action to be taken in event of fire would constitute a significant finding.
It would have been easier for all if they kept the same definition of SFs from the ACOP to MHSW Regs i.e
1) A record of the preventive & protective measures
2) An action plan for rectifying deficiencies and most importantly ....
3) Proof of due process i.e.reasoning to support the conclusions
The new guides do not consider the last item to be relevant....when in fact it is the most important........but I've jumped on my soapbox many times on that subject
-
Inspection programmes are required by FRS by virtue of the National Framework document that goes with the 2004 Act and also IRMP Guidance Note 4. As regards the comments by Terry, all Brigades have signed up to the CFOA audit model and the risk calculator that goes with this informs of the next re-inspection date.
As i thought, but from hearing others in the forum it seems the frequency of reinspections is differing between brigades. if all brigades are following the same Audit model how can this be?
-
Now, your guess is as good as mine. Political shenanigans perhaps. The theory is that a national chain will have consistency across Brigades.
-
DCLG wanted a certain amount of statistical returns and they want all brigades to risk grade premises using the same toolkit but they allowed indiviual brigades to decide on re inspection programmes depending on resources and differing risks for differing brigades.