FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stewbow on December 07, 2006, 08:03:23 PM
-
I have a customer who owns a hotel, and he's painted all of his Fire Extinguishers to match his decor.
Anybody know the regs on this?
Thanks
Stuart
-
hi
tell him he isnt allowed to paint extinguishers under bsen3 1996 they MUST be red with 5% colour dipicting the type
-
I have a customer who owns a hotel, and he's painted all of his Fire Extinguishers to match his decor.
Anybody know the regs on this?
Thanks
Stuart
I've heard it all now.
I suppose he may get away with it if his decor is red.
I was once talking to the manager of a large hotel who was training his own staff and doing his own FRA.
We got chatting about competency and he stated that he was competent because the last hotel he was the manager of had burnt down, so as he had experienced his building burning down this made him competent.
-
hi
tell him he isnt allowed to paint extinguishers under bsen3 1996 they MUST be red with 5% colour dipicting the type
The extinguishers may not comply with BSEN3 but that is a standard not stautue law. There are no musts Richard, his risk assessement may be able to justify this. But it's a big MAY!
-
But if it is an extinguisher made before BS EN3 with the old body colouring in total, it should surely remain that way? I recall much publicity being given to this to reassure occupiers they didn't have to repaint older extinguishers - provided they were not life-expired, of course.
I think there was concern that operating instructions, date of manufacture and LPC/BAFE markings etc might get covered up, hindering maintenance etc.
-
They are supposed to be coloured as per the recognised colours.
So if he has a water extinguisher in a room with blue décor and he has painted it blue, then that would not be acceptable.
Hopefully he hasn’t got any rooms with camouflage décor, otherwise the extinguishers may be difficult to find.
-
Fire extinguishers do not have to be red - only those seeking kitemarking and approval to BSEN3 need do so.
Where aesthetics are important stainless steel/polished aluminium extinguishers are available and always have been - they are perfectly legal and widely used.
Go back long enough and you could buy them in different colours - in my archives I have a 30's brochure for the konus kemik extinguisher with 9 different finishes illustrated so they could complement the decor of the home or workplace.
The servicing company should be noting the deviation on the maintenance label to cover themselves - if operating instructions etc are obscured they should be deemed 'unfit for service' as they would not be safe as a layperson would not be able to identify the contents, safe usage and operating method. Each extinguisher would need to be suitably signed as they are not red & staff training to include how to identify them.
Ideally if the hotelier was that bothered he should have put his hands in his pockets & bought stainless effect extinguishers and a load of signs.
If I was an enforcer i'd go over the whole place with a fine toothcomb as litle tricks like painiting extinguishers are normally indicative (in my experience) of poor management and usually I find more dangerous 'quirks' & breaches.
As for law, its difficult - if the type, size and location are suitable then they could only be picked up on the maintenance side if they aren't being serviced, or are marked up as unfit by a maintenance company if they are serviced. If they are serviced and not marked as unfit then you could do the servicing company as not competent and the hotelier as not using competent persons to maintain systems.
-
Anthony
I agree about the fact that the extinguishers do not have to comply and there are many steel/polished versions available; but surely if we are using the new guides as reference we should abide by their recommendations.
Fore example, the guides state.
'Extinguishers manufactured to current standards (BS EN 3-7)79 are predominately red but may have a colour-coded area, sited above or within the instructions, denoting the type of extinguisher. Most older extinguishers, manufactured to previous standards, have bodies painted entirely in a single colour which denotes the type of extinguisher. These older extinguishers remain acceptable until they are no longer serviceable.'
'The following paragraphs describe the different types of extinguisher. The colour referred to is the colour of the extinguisher or the colour coded area.'
They then go on to describe the use and colour of each extinguisher.
There is no mention of any other colour being used; or not used for that matter.
This obviously leaves a lot of scope for debate. At the moment steel/polished versions seem to be acceptable, but if a company started to produce purple or camouflage extinguishers, do you think that they would be accepted in the same way?
What about the RP who has a shop full of polished extinguishers, I wonder if they are aware that their extinguishers are not manufactured to current standards.
-
:mad:
hi
tell him he isnt allowed to paint extinguishers under bsen3 1996 they MUST be red with 5% colour dipicting the type
The extinguishers may not comply with BSEN3 but that is a standard not stautue law. There are no musts Richard, his risk assessement may be able to justify this. But it's a big MAY!
in 2000 bs revised 5306 part 3 to say extinguishers should comply to bsen3 , if they need replacement. it is only incompitent people/companies who will allow anyone to paint extinguishers a different colour bar red/ on the old cream, black etc.
even with a risk assessment it is absalutly stupid to allow this to continue.
as for stainless steel, i have been told by bafe ithey arent best practise to mix and match them.
i think we need to apply basic common sence here and tell the person to replace them asap
-
I don't think it illegal for the owner to paint them - although you'd need a good explanation as to how the occupants will readily recognize the different types in an emergency situation - so as to make adequate provision for their safety.
-
even with a risk assessment it is absalutly stupid to allow this to continue.
as for stainless steel, i have been told by bafe ithey arent best practise to mix and match them.
i think we need to apply basic common sence here and tell the person to replace them asap
Richard,
You cannot tell the person to replace them, you may consider it appropriate to advise them. But the fact that they do not comply with BSEN3 or keep BAFE happy does not necessarily mean they need replacing. Prescription is not the way forward, even if you consider this to be ABSALUTLY SToooopid.
-
I had a similar situation with a customer who painted his mcp pink to match the walls.At fisrt glance you can't notice it and in a situation i would bet it would be missed.
-
Stainless steel extinguishers comply in all aspects other than colour if supplied by reputable manufacturers & are as good at putting fires out and not exploding as their red counterparts. Suitable signage and staff training overcomes other objections.
If you got rid of stainless exts you would just end up with them being hidden away unsigned where no one can get them - & with the current inspection regime unless a high risk buliding this wouldn't get spotted for years
-
I am amazed at the angry 'Tell them they can't do it' and 'tell them to replace them' precriptive attitude here.
I work on the principle that the customer is (nearly) always right and if they can justify them being orange, brown or dayglo pink - with certain safegaurds- what's the problem?
They are designed to extinguish fires and perhaps assist in keeping an escape route available. As long as they can forfill these roles (and safely) I am happy.
As has been mentioned before, issues such as: staff training, not painting over instructions and maintainence (especially as rusty, overpainted extinguishers are not ideal) are what I'd be looking for.
I'd probably expect wall signage and a colour which is not in use by other types of extinguisher (ie a water ext painted blue). I'd also advise the RP to record the details on their FRA and inform their Insurance company of the non standard kit
As an IO, my role has changed from precriptive FPA Gestapo to helping the punter (RP) achieve a safe building even if that means thinking outside the box. Perhaps I am in the minority as I still regularly hear in my office (and on this site) "You can't do that". In fact in this FRA led world, often you can!
-
Perhaps Messy's comments gets to the real point, who actually 'owns' the Fire Risk Assessment? We, collectively, give the best of our competent advice based on British Standards, and European Standards, and this guidance document ,and that published information, but if the 'owner' chooses to ignore this, surely it is only the Courts who will actually decide if the 'owners' decisions are wrong. And the 'owner' will only end up in Court if an Enforcing Authority consider the departure from normally accepted customs and practices to be an offence. Painting fire extinguishers a non-standard colour would be open to much 'will we, won't we' discussion within Enforcing Authorities before the topic darkens the doorstep of a Court. So, assuming the correct type of extinguishers are in place, in sufficient numbers, with instructions and all necessary labelling legible, does the colour change cause enforcement action, because it is 'different' if the 'owner' decides to do their own thing?
-
I agree the RP owns the FRA but if he if he ignores recommendations in the Guides, British/European Standards and he ends up in court, the court will most likely accept the standards as good practice and most probably find against him. Consequently any fire risk assessor should bring any such matters to his attention.
-
I agree absolutely, the competent fire risk assessor would bring such matters to the attention of the RP. But if the RP rejects the advice and does their own thing has an offence been committed? Where does the fire risk assessor stand after such a rejection of competent advice? I also agree with Anthony B earlier that such a rejection would normally indicate a cavalier attitude to fire safety, but it may be the cavalier approach would be accpetable. As for Courts accepting the published, recognised guidance, well that is open to debate too
-
Well done...For it will be the court to decide whether the responsible persons actions were appropriate taking best practice as the bench mark. After all we a still just about surviving as free country without state nanny control. I am concerned about his decision but he is free to make it. After all we must assume that all his staff are fully aware of location and appropriate use and Fire safety management procedures and practices are of the highest order. Otherwise if the proverbial hits the fan he should spend a long time in prison.
-
Looking at the RRO guidance on provision of fire fighting equipment, the words "should" and "good practice" are used which follows the general line that people are free to paint their extinguishers. In the case of a prosecution I would think the onus would be on the prosecuting authority to make the case that the fire extinguishers were not appropriate to the risk, how can you argue that a yellow fire extinguisher is not suitable just because of its colour?
Obviously you cannot sell a yellow fire extinguisher and claim it complies to the current standards but I can't see anything that says you cannot sell or buy it. Think about it how many old brass ctc extinguishers do you see in antique shops, vehicles etc.
-
even with a risk assessment it is absalutly stupid to allow this to continue.
as for stainless steel, i have been told by bafe ithey arent best practise to mix and match them.
i think we need to apply basic common sence here and tell the person to replace them asap
Richard,
You cannot tell the person to replace them, you may consider it appropriate to advise them. But the fact that they do not comply with BSEN3 or keep BAFE happy does not necessarily mean they need replacing. Prescription is not the way forward, even if you consider this to be ABSALUTLY SToooopid.
Absolutely or sorry "absalutly" correct PhilB. As an enforcing officer I think I may have a hard job taking the hotel owner to task over the colour of his extinguishers.
Yes the BS would say they must be red etc etc but please remember guests should not be fighting fire - they won't necessarily have received suitable training (Guests may have done a bit of training in the course of their work or other pursuits but they certainly wont have received training by the hotel!)
If the hotel owner has put up accompanying signage with the extinguishers and given adequate staff training I would suggest it would be laughed out of court if I attempted to prosecute over that.
It would also probably culminate with the judge having a quiet word with me for wasting his time and discussing how much the fire authority owed on court costs!
If accompanying signage wasn't present and there was zero staff training then maybe I'd have an avenue to pursue - but it would be more about the lack of staff training than the colour of his extinguishers!
-
If the hotel owner has put up accompanying signage with the extinguishers and given adequate staff training I would suggest it would be laughed out of court if I attempted to prosecute over that.
Surely if the hotel owner is painting his extinguishers the same colours as the decor then he is trying to merge them into the background. If this is so the last thing he is likely to do is use signs or labels that indicate the location and type of extinguisher, this would defeat his purpose. Consequently is he in breach of the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations?
-
Bovvered? I aint. As an IO, I am more than aware that there are 1001 dodgy places out there - some of them sleeping risks- which may need enforcement, 'educating' or intervention of some sort to make them safe(r).
So I am unlikely to ponce about comparing the colour of an extinguisher with a Dulux colour chart when the Hotel next door may be operating with a blocked exit and no working alarm.
With regards to merging the extinguishers with the background. Where can I buy this wonderful stealth camouflage paint? it sounds great!
-
Bovvered? I aint. I would be a little; however it would be low on my priority list. Providing the owner had not gone completely mad with his paint brush and I was able to identify the type of extinguisher. I would not want a trained employee using a water extinguisher on a deep fat fryer. This would push it up higher on my priority list.
-
i have also been informed by BAFE that in signs and signalling act 1996 ALL fire equipment must be red or full colour code ie blue cream etc etc with no signs i will not provide a good risk assessment and as proffesionals i feel this is a rediculous stance to take that he isnt really doing anything wrong, in this day and age i feel we must advise stongly he replaces them as we all now more and more people are being trained on fire fighting equipment so their is a high posibility of a hotel guest using the extinguisher.
i cant belive this can cary on with out a problem????
sorry gents just my own thoughts
-
I agree Richard it is completely foolish to paint extinguishers because someone doesn't like the colour. This cannot be justified from any viewpoint. Of course BAFE will recommend best practice. And their advice is good- but if we took everybodys best advice on everything all the time our clients would soon be bankrupt. And we would live in a world full of prescription and every building would be exactly the same. The whole point is that if you come across fire extinguishers that are the wrong colour, before throwing them away you really should ask the responsible person if they can justify a good reason why they should be kept. If they can be justified and its a big if- make that decision, record it as a significant finding and stand or fall by your judgement.
There may be more significant issues in the building that would be far more worthy of investment. A professional risk assessor will not try and make everything 100% bombproof but will settle for what they think is the right balance between safety, cost , inconvenience and difficulty.
-
Richard, what the Health and Safety(Safety Signs & Signals) Regualtions 1996 actually say is that red is the identifying colour for all fire fighting equipment. If the equipment itself is red, this will satisfy the regulations. Where the equipment is not red, then highlighting the position of the firefighting equipment by colouring the background behind the equipment red may be enough to comply. The point here is the Regulations recognise the equipment may not be red. Probably the Regs. anticipated manufacturers not producing red equipment, and were never written to 'allow' end users to decide their colour preference, but, despite what BAFE say the Regs allow a variance in colour. Or are BAFE suggesting that stainless steel extinguishers are breaching the Regs? However, your comment "we must advise stongly he replaces them" is fuly accepted, but, the point of the discussion is what do we do, as competent assessors, if the RP does his own thing despite our good advice?
-
Prescription cannot be the way forward Richard but I agree with your concerns. Advice not requirement is the answer.
p.s. chaps I'm having a collection to buy Richard a new dickshionery for Krissmus, any donations appreciated.
-
or just switch on the spell and grammar chequer like what I do
-
Afterburner the answer must be that if the RP does his own thing then there is nothing you can do. The RP has employed you to advise him and you have given him the best advice you can, if the RP chooses to ignore your advice then that is a decision that he has taken and he will be held responsible. What you need to do as an adviser is to ensure that your advice is clear, you give the reasons why he should follow your advice and the possible consequences if he does not follow your advice.
At the end of the day the RP is your customer and if he wants to pay out good money for your advice and then ignores it that is up to him, just make sure he understands what you are saying then if the proverbial does hit the fan, you can defend yourself that the RP was properly advised.
-
Ah... but could it be that you are also a 'RP'? It's my understanding that the RP's responsibility relates to the extent that they have "control" over the fire safety measures in the premises. If you are performing the relevant assessment, it could be pretty difficult to divorce yourself from the concept that you have, to some extent, control over the measures, and you are therefore the RP, in that particular respect? The result - if there is a breach in the law, you could be prosecuted directly, even if the employer isn't.
For consultants / suppliers of fire safety services, this should be a sobering thought - it ain't just your PI that's at risk!
-
Ah... but could it be that you are also a 'RP'? It's my understanding that the RP's responsibility relates to the extent that they have "control" over the fire safety measures in the premises. If you are performing the relevant assessment, it could be pretty difficult to divorce yourself from the concept that you have, to some extent, control over the measures, and you are therefore the RP, in that particular respect? The result - if there is a breach in the law, you could be prosecuted directly, even if the employer isn't.
If the premises is a workplace the responsible person must comply regardless of the extent of control. It is true that some other person could be found liable and prosecuted if he has shown all due dilligence.
-
The RRO defines the Responsible Person which is the person who has control over any part of the premises i.e. occupier or owner. In my view this means the person who can do things. For instance if I can decide what colour to paint the place, buy and sell stuff for the place, in fact do what I like in the place I would be the responsible person. If however I have to get approval to do these things I am not the responsible person, the person whose approval I must get is the responsible person.
It also goes on to say that in a multi-occupied complex there may be more than one responsible person all of whom must take all reasonable steps to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other. This is to cover places like shopping complexes, factory units etc.
So you cannot be the responsible person with control over just one field and in this case if you were the responible person there would be no problem because you have the power to get the "proper" extinguishers in.
-
I can't see that you have control of premises or the work activity of others as an advisor - unless your contract specifically gives you a measure of control. You can, however, be sued by the client if loss has been suffered through your wrong advice or prosecuted if in breach of statute law.
-
Re Fishy's comment that the person conducting the FRA might be an RP because they have 'control' over the premises - I don't think this is correct. If the person conducting the FRA is being employed from outside the firm using the premises they have no 'control' over the management of the building - they cannot dictate how the place is run, including the expenditure of money on fire precautions, the training of staff and other management procedures - they can only express their opinion on how it ought to be done for observation of the FSO requirements. Therefore they have no control and would only count as a "competent person", surely?
-
. Or are BAFE suggesting that stainless steel extinguishers are breaching the Regs?
Unlikely as many of the member companies including some of the powerful multinationals that founded BAFE make a tidy sum selling stainless extinguishers.
BSEN3 is a manufacturing standard and nothing more. It is good practice to use equipment to this standard, but the whole point of the new regime is to allow flexibility - hence why for aesthetics or hygiene stainless steel extinguishers with appropriate signage are acceptable in certain cirumstances and also why for example, despite EN3 stating CO2 extinguishers must be of no less than 2 kilo, Chubb manufactured a 0.427 kilo CO2 extinguisher for the RNLI.
I agree the user painting them is not the most appropriate thing and they should have gone for purpose manufactured aesthetical extinguishers with signage if not red ones, but at the end of the day they are responsible - as long as the maintenance contractor makes the appropriate comments on service records and the assessor makes their objections, rationale and consequence of non compliance and both ensure the user's attention is drawn to these, then they should both be covered.
-
. Or are BAFE suggesting that stainless steel extinguishers are breaching the Regs?
Unlikely as many of the member companies including some of the powerful multinationals that founded BAFE make a tidy sum selling stainless extinguishers.
BSEN3 is a manufacturing standard and nothing more. It is good practice to use equipment to this standard, but the whole point of the new regime is to allow flexibility - hence why for aesthetics or hygiene stainless steel extinguishers with appropriate signage are acceptable in certain cirumstances and also why for example, despite EN3 stating CO2 extinguishers must be of no less than 2 kilo, Chubb manufactured a 0.427 kilo CO2 extinguisher for the RNLI.
I agree the user painting them is not the most appropriate thing and they should have gone for purpose manufactured aesthetical extinguishers with signage if not red ones, but at the end of the day they are responsible - as long as the maintenance contractor makes the appropriate comments on service records and the assessor makes their objections, rationale and consequence of non compliance and both ensure the user's attention is drawn to these, then they should both be covered.
Why bother buying the kit in the first place? Why bother paying someone to maintain it? The guy obviously needs his insurers to have a quiet word before he is faced with a lawsuit from a disgruntled guest.
Some of the posts on this board seem to find this act almost trivial, which I cannot comprehend especially from people who are obviously keen to promote and enforce fire safety.
I agree with Anthony B, this is the Hoteliers responsibility, assuming all parties have written proof of their objections and advice. I wonder if he has cut any more corners in the name of aesthetics or personal preferences??
Whats the hotels name? Straitjacket Inn?
-
I was in a building last week which was provisioned with foam extinguishers. The extinguishers at various locations had been provided by different suppliers. Some of the foam extinguishers at the same fire points were red with the 5% cream colour coding and many others were all red with no colour coding. I asked a few people working in the building what they thought was in the extinguishers and most said that foam was in the ones with the colour coding and water was in the ones without.
Some of you are saying that untrained persons should not use extinguishers; how do you enforce that?
If someone sees a fire its likely that they will try to put it out, be it employee or visitor. You can train employees but you have no control over a hotel guest or unescorted visitor trying to extinguish a fire.
For me this thread has also highlighted the fact that if IO’s have wide differing opinions on this, what chance does the fire risk assessor have of coming up with a decision that is going to please all. A visit from one IO may say that they are acceptable and a visit from another may disagree.
What would be the consequences if the hotelier had a cream coloured corridor and had painted all the extinguishers in that area cream. A deep fat fryer fire then occurs in an adjoining kitchen and someone grabs a cream coloured extinguisher from the corridor (which in fact contains water) and kills himself whilst trying to extinguish the fryer fire?
Who would be responsible, would it be the dead person for not reading the label?
-
Afterburner the answer must be that if the RP does his own thing then there is nothing you can do. The RP has employed you to advise him and you have given him the best advice you can, if the RP chooses to ignore your advice then that is a decision that he has taken and he will be held responsible. What you need to do as an adviser is to ensure that your advice is clear, you give the reasons why he should follow your advice and the possible consequences if he does not follow your advice.
At the end of the day the RP is your customer and if he wants to pay out good money for your advice and then ignores it that is up to him, just make sure he understands what you are saying then if the proverbial does hit the fan, you can defend yourself that the RP was properly advised.
Mike, I think you have got this very concisely and correctly considered.
-
Davey
Foam would most likely not put the fryer out in any case. They should have bought a class F wet chemical for the kitchen.
And foam spray types are better than water on class A fires.
But dont worry about the IOs. Just tell them when they have got it wrong. They usually listen to sound resoning.