FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: PhilB on February 08, 2007, 11:20:17 AM
-
Under the FP Act 71 once a certficate was issued the FA could not require an alarm system to be upgraded. As you know there are many hotels out there that have systems that do not comply with modern standards.
A common problem is AFD in corridors only and not in rooms. Following the work by B.K Gosh we have known since the 80s that detection is necessary in rooms off corridors.
Many brigades, although unable to require hotels to upgrade did offer goodwill advice and strongly recommend upgrading. Many others did not. Many brigades made further attempts to upgrade using 97 Regs....many did absolutely nothing....except reinspect and say that all was well.
Consider this...an inspecting officer notices such a deficiency and serves a notice under Fire Safety Order.....responsible person appeals on the grounds that the FA had inspected his premises for the past 20 years, every year and never once mentioned such a deficiency before.
Has a FA demonstrated incompetence by not recommending upgrades?
-
Can't wait for the result of the first appeal - at least then both FRS's and hoteliers will may have some idea where we are with this hot potato.
-
This is something I have been asking my bossess about, but have not yet received guidance (nothing new there)
Also consider a similar once certificated building:
A WP regs FRA was completed prior to October 06 (and RRO)
Amongst the FRA findings was that the AFD was adequate as it was to be maintained in accordance with Fire Cert (which was written by the FRS)
The local FRA have visited under FPA and WP Regs with no problems noted
No changes have occured which may trigger a FRA review
The FRS arrive with the FS(RR)O and demand detection in all 100 bedrooms
It seems to me that the WP regs FRA is still valid as it hasn't needed reviewing and the AFD standard was imposed by the FRS who are now threatening enforcement
It's happening and it's a mess
-
My local FA made a decision in the 80's to insist that all inspecting officers issued such advice on a goodwill basis.
If my memory serves me right they also worded standard re-inspection letters in such a way as to indicate that the existing certificate standards were being maintained, nothing more.
The problem extends beyond the fire alarm system.
While we are discussing hotels and fire alarm systems I recently heard that a FA has 'opened discussions' with a hotel group who have carried out their own RA and decided to eliminate detection on the basis that the noise would disturb the guests. Spooky or not.
-
But the focus of the RRO is different. A risk assessment for a premises with members of the public sleeping there would have a different set of 'relevant persons' to consider than the WP regs did, and therefore a WP RA may not be valid and enforcement action could be taken. 'adequate' under the old regs does not mean 'adequate' now.
-
Messy
Of course things have changed- the fire certificate no longer exists (indeed my local area FRS have destroyed them from their files!!)
Also new duties eg to mitigate effects of fire require all FRAs to be reviewed
Davo
-
In addition, none of the old Risk Assessments, the ones which came under the MHSWR now meet the new standard incorporated within the DCLG Guidance documents and as discussed in this forum on many occasions the significant findings are entirely different. Therefore, under
RR(FS)O the RP has to undertake a proper FIRE Risk Assessment. That is in part why PAS 79 is up for review as it can no longer be used, from the 1/1/2006, as it is not a vaild FRA process under RR(FS)O. Look at the guides and determine what the Government are asking for an FRA. (around Page 11)
-
I would hope that a judge would direct the hotel to the (newly re named again?!) CLG guide for existing hotels that suggests L2 standard, no matter what a F.A. had/had not said before, as they would have been constrained in what they could comment on.
-
I agree with you all when you say a new risk assessment should be carried out because new duties are imposed by the Fire Safety Order..BUT......
I think many fire authorities will be in a very embarassing situation. They have inspected these places every year and not once recommended an upgrade.
They were hopefully competent to carry out the inspection and should have realised that the fire warning system was inadequate, surely they should have said something.
Or was it that they were incompetent???......a strong possibility!
-
I can only speak for my F.A., but after each inspection there was a policy for a recommendation to upgrade.I suspect it was not done sometimes, and there may be some embarresment to some, but I doubt whether the beak will see that as an excuse for a RP not to upgrade.Maybe one day we might find out in court.
-
I can only speak for my F.A., but after each inspection there was a policy for a recommendation to upgrade.I suspect it was not done sometimes, and there may be some embarresment to some, but I doubt whether the beak will see that as an excuse for a RP not to upgrade.Maybe one day we might find out in court.
lets hope for all hotel owners they come to the same point as all of us and upgrade, i am dealing with a hotel chain now who have had their 1st notice to upgade my mid 08, interesting to see what happens after nearly 18mnths notice ( i think the fa wont be happy)
-
I agree with you all when you say a new risk assessment should be carried out because new duties are imposed by the Fire Safety Order..BUT......
I think many fire authorities will be in a very embarassing situation. They have inspected these places every year and not once recommended an upgrade.
They were hopefully competent to carry out the inspection and should have realised that the fire warning system was inadequate, surely they should have said something.
Or was it that they were incompetent???......a strong possibility!
Phil, as ususal you're being deliberately provocative.
THe competence of a FRS, or any advice or lack of it in the past has absolutely no bearing on the current responsibilities of the RP to carry out a 'suitable and sufficient' FRA. (Something you keep telling us).
The Fire Safety Order is dynamic, just because something was unenforceable before and, in line with their legal duty, the FRS did not take action, doesn't mean it is never enforceable at some time in the future. (Blow me down, you'll be wanting fire certificates back next)!
As for FRS being embarrassed...well possibly, but I know of many occasions when they have had to admit past mistakes and have then gone on to enforce or even prosecute.
-
Val, provocative moi!!!
Perhaps we should let the Courts decide if the lack of advice from an enforcing authority who inspected annually and failed to offer advice when they should have noticed deficiencies has absolutely no bearing.
Please note I have never said it was impossible to enforce necessary requirements using criminal law. However the responsible person may seek compensation under civil law. I was merely asking a question....not trying to upset anyone...as if I would!!!
I certainly have no desire to blow you down!!!...and I definately don't want to see any more fire certificates, they are partially the cause of the current problem!!!.
-
Didnt Justice Popplewell clarify this after the Bradford City Football disaster?
I recollect that he found fault with the advice given by the Local Fire Authority because they had tolerated an ongoing hazardous situation rather than giving best advice?
Or have I got this wrong?
I think there may be very little opportunity for RPs to make a claim though- Whilst on the one hand many substandard premises exist and it is hard to understand why a fire authority should not have at least sent out a letter of recommendation (Mine did) but after all most Employers should have been carrying out their own risk assessment for the last 7 years cince the WP regs were modified in 99 so what is their excuse for not asking the question before now?
-
Yes Popplewell found fault because the FRS had not used a discretionary power to prohibit the use.
I totally agree that this problem of inadequate detection should have beed identified and acted on by the responsible person since 97........FRS knew of the problem since long before that.
Many FRS did recommend...but believe me...many did not. I know Val will accuse me of being provacative but those FRS who did not offer goodwill advice when they noticed deficiencies or indeed failed to recognise those deficiencies have certainly demonstrated their incompetence if not negligence.
The problem gets even scarier...from my recent experience many hotels are now being assessed by incompetent hotel owners/managers and some incompetent consultants who are unable to correctly assess the building and provide adequate measures.
I recently came across an hotel with no detection in corridors or bedrooms and no fire resisting construction protecting the escape routes.
The hotelier had recently purchased the property and did not know there was a problem, why should he??. The FRS had inspected the premises every year since the certificate had been issued in the 70s and said nothing.
The hotelier had appointed a "fire consultant" who the week before had spent four hours assessing his building. A risk assesssment was produced which totally missed the problems I have mentioned. It identified lots of ignition sources and fuels and contained lots of waffle and cost the hotelier £500.
Another hotel had detection in the corridors but not in the rooms, the hotel manager had carried out a fire risk assessment but failed to notice any problem. When I pointed out that the system was inadequate the director showed me copies of letters from FRS who had inspected every year and said that all was well. She asked me why this problem and not been raised before now....fair question I thought.
-
I came across a similar situation recently.
To make things worse although FR doors were fitted to storerooms in dead end bedroom corridors the walls were completely unprotected - a mx of hardboard or chipboard and papered over.
A lift shaft ran from the basement nightclub and bars through to the 5th floor bedroom dead end corridors with no smoke protection to the shaft at any level.
Escape lighting throughout the building not configured to sub circuit failure..................- oh and a nice fire certificate(no longer current of course) that had been fairly recently updated to show some new en suite rooms in which been provided with smoke detection. Some of the connections to new detectors were twisted together above the false ceiling.
On this occasion because my client was hostile to my report and was looking for another assessor who would be less picky I made a quiet phone call. (The first and hopefully the last I will ever need to make. Persuasion usually works).
The fire officer (the one who updated the certificate) visited the site and agreed with the owner that my report was over the top.
-
Nice to hear it's not just me Kurnal.
I know we have touched on this subject before.
Which is the cheapest option???........ upgrade fire alarm or pay a"consultant" who will justify why an upgrade is unecessary. You're client seems to have gone one better and found an inspecting officer who is prepared to support dangerous conditions!
-
There are a few about. I sometimes find that recently qualified FSOs, especially those with degrees in FSE, can be a bit too keen to relax things. I wonder if they are trying to look smart.
-
I fully agree with what you are saying PhilB but I understand why FSO`s considered submitting recommendations like urinating in the wind.
As you said there was no legal requirement for hoteliers to upgrade and all we had was recommendations and the bluff & persuasion act. I could not quote a single situation were a hotelier agreed to upgrade an alarm system, if the costs were likely to be high, which it would be in most cases.
If you had repeated those recommendation every year for the last 30 years and it did land in court the beak is likely to say “You knew about this problem for the last thirty years why did you not serve a section ten”. (Bradford Fire) Then could you justify a section ten considering nothing has happened for the past thirty years.
I think you were a loser no matter which way you jumped however I do agree there was a chance to resolve the problem in 97 and a much better chance now.
-
Stayed at a hotel recently on the east coast, panel indicated a system fault, apparently only the sounder over the panel worked... Owner stuck a baby alarm on the panel so he says he can wake every one up in an emergency.
Is this an upgrade?
-
twsutton has it right from my memory.
Trying to get 'recommendations' through senior supervisory officers and out to occupiers normally foundered on the rocks of "this is not a requirement therefore not enforceable. They won't do it unless forced so stick to requirements". This was common FB policy. Where were senior officers getting their 'steer' on what 'policy' should be from?
The observation from twsutton about being damned if you do and damned if you don't feels right too.
-
Redone
Sounds like it..............it works for Mum & Dad's!
Conqueror
-
I fully agree with what you are saying PhilB but I understand why FSO`s considered submitting recommendations like urinating in the wind.
As you said there was no legal requirement for hoteliers to upgrade and all we had was recommendations and the bluff & persuasion act. I could not quote a single situation were a hotelier agreed to upgrade an alarm system, if the costs were likely to be high, which it would be in most cases.
If you had repeated those recommendation every year for the last 30 years and it did land in court the beak is likely to say “You knew about this problem for the last thirty years why did you not serve a section ten”. (Bradford Fire) Then could you justify a section ten considering nothing has happened for the past thirty years.
I think you were a loser no matter which way you jumped however I do agree there was a chance to resolve the problem in 97 and a much better chance now.
Just a point to remember: Section 10 was a discretionary power - the Bradford City judgement did not alter this. The real issue was that the fire authority (officer) involved in Bradford City FC, did nothing. It was filing the 'critical report' and not following up that caused the problem.
-
If that is how it read Ian it is not the point I was trying to make. The club ignored the recommendations of fire authority (officer) if he had followed it up how could he have resolved the problem. At that time I could not see him getting his SFPO to accept a section ten, considering the advice from the Home Office, what would be his next move.
I can remember having problems getting owners and occupiers to accept legal requirements quite a few ended up in court.
-
You remind us about different decisions taken by different FRSs but we have also had differences between I/Os from the same FRS. Hasn't there always been the criticism of different requirements by FRSs?
On this particular question, we need to take the view that time and legislation have moved on and, in the light of experience, higher standards are needed. I still remember the days when those in control of HMOs were told to install asbestos and others advised to purchase CTC, BCF and BTM portable extinguishers.
-
By virtue of contract the contractor responsible for the maintenance of the alarm system has a duty to ensure that the system is risk appropriate. The responsible person has every right to expect competence from a supplier in this respect and seek adequate assurance of conforming to standard to satisfy legislation. If by virtue of acceptance by the enforcing authority by inspection or by consultation it would be a very brave court that would blame its own officers???
It would obviously depend when the inspection had taken place prior to October 2006 but from 1999 the risk assessment regime was required under the workplace regulations and therefore the FRS must have taken the view that the system satisfied legislation and was risk appropriate, Any RP must be able to rely on a positive local authority inspection as conformance to legislation.
-
and therefore the FRS must have taken the view that the system satisfied legislation and was risk appropriate,
I think that is taking it too far Jim. If I drive at 33mph in a 30 limit the policeman, in not prosecuting me, is not saying I am complying with the Law, but is using discretion in not taking procedures against me. Then because through his discretion he didnt stop me he didnt discover the bald tyres either.
If I carry out a poor risk assessment for a client, overlook some significant issue, I really dont think I could expect a court to absolve me from responsibility just because the fire officer had susequently visited and not taken any further action. It is always the duty of the RP to comply and the FRS has discretion in how they enforce. But then if they do choose to give advice then Popplewell said it must be best advice.
Going back to the thread the FRS could perhaps argue that between 1999 and 2006 there was an additional risk control measure in place- the fire certificate - and this additional level of supervision- with its conditions in respect of tests, maintenance, housekeeping, training, reinspections etc could be used as a balance against weaknesses elsewhere?
-
Absolutely Ken we were accused of inconsistence also belt, braces and a piece of string by business and Colin’s cohorts. This was in the days of prescription with little flexibility, consider the situation today.
I also agree with your second statement I can remember those days, but what you say was an acceptable practice then. It is only in the light of experience that we now hold our hands up in horror. It should have been corrected, if possible, my point was how?
-
If that is how it read Ian it is not the point I was trying to make. The club ignored the recommendations of fire authority (officer) if he had followed it up how could he have resolved the problem. At that time I could not see him getting his SFPO to accept a section ten, considering the advice from the Home Office, what would be his next move.
I can remember having problems getting owners and occupiers to accept legal requirements quite a few ended up in court.
I think you misunderstood me - although this is a complex matter. (And sorry to having to keep quoting like this)
The point I make is that NOT serving a s10 notice is not a problem. Not doing anything is!
In the Bradford City case no letter was sent by the fire authority to anyone. The structural engineer's letter was simply filed.
I agree, none of us would have served a prohibition notice. However, I think I would have passed on a critical letter from another Council Dep't. A simple 'goodwill' letter may have got the fire authority off the hook in that case as it did in the Oban Hotel Fire case (now we are going back a long time!).
-
If I can be forgiven for getting this back on the original thread - in hotels where there is no AFD in bedrooms and the provision of such (particularly in the bigger ones) is going to cost an arm and a leg and take many months, (because of both cost and the availability of installers) are any FRS's requiring the provision of (as an immediate interim measure of course) single point battery operated detectors in bedrooms ? If you are - are you requiring it in the same Enforcement Notice used to upgrade the fire alarm system ?
-
Sorry Ian I surrender I should not rely on my memory especilly when I have diffuculty remembering what day it is.