FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: CivvyFSO on March 14, 2007, 09:20:54 AM
-
Here it is, a thread for you Fire Professionals and consultants etc to air your views regarding enforcement of fire safety. Also for FSO's to defend themselves if possible. :)
I'll start the ball rolling...
I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants. In our defence, 95% of our work is dealing with extremely sub-standard premises, trying to get them up to scratch is not easy, and we are often not dealing with H&S professionals during those inspections.
Also as part of the inspection procedure we attend premises after fires, so tend to see what happens when it goes wrong. I try to include lessons learnt from this when giving advice during audits, and it is often because of this that I may err on the side of caution when coming up with fire safety solutions to 'help someone comply'.
When someone pays for the services of a consultant it is likely that the premises is already of a good standard as that person is clearly not scared of spending money to meet requirements. We are generally dealing with people who don't want to spend money, so sometimes they might get you in to save them money in the long run. If that is the case your 'job' would seem to be relaxing the guides where you can account safely for the relaxation? As such your remit is slightly different from ours, hence the clear difference in opinions sometimes?
-
A valid point Civvy but don't confuse relaxing guidance with lowering of standards, I have never advocated that. However rigid adherence to the guidance does not always produce the best solution.
-
I wouldn't imagine for a moment that you would leave somewhere unsafe. After all, you have your reputation to look after as well as the premises you are dealing with.
-
Most have sat on both sides and want to do the best for the client whether as a consulatant or as an FSO. The issue in a number of cases is that a consulatnt may well be aware of cost and pricing implication whereas FSO's tend to live in an unreal world of not knowing how much anything costs and just go fro the most expensive option at all times. Yes, all have to comply but getting to compliance is a vehicle that has implications. Not all can buy an Aston Martin, not all can afford a second hand ford sierra. In the real world everyone has to live within their specific budget.
-
Does not the RRO guidance for premises now identify 'suggested minimum standards'?
If anyone can demonstrate that any departure / relaxation of the guidance matches or even surpasses these minimum suggested standards then are responsibilities not met?
However, I am led to believe that a recent case in the North West, may result in case law that will draw into question the adequacy of existing fire arrangements in relation to the new guides.
Remember, FRA FSO's now audit fire arrangements, not inspect. Therefore it is up to the Responsible persons and their consultants to make the case, why their premises are compliant with the Order.
Interesting times ahead for us all I would suggest
-
Civvy FSO
If you are trying to bring very substandard premises up to scratch, how detailed do you make the schedule in the improvement notices?
In my old days as a FSO we used to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s and leave them in no doubt whatsoever of exactly what to do to comply.
Nowadays the schedule appears to be much more general- I have had several jobs recently in very dodgy premises in which the improvement notice has been very general eg as brief as
"improve the means of escape from the top floor and provide measures to protect the staircase in the event of a fire in the lower floor, and provide suitable means for the detection of and raising the alarm of fire" as an example.
To me this is the new order working exactly as intended. The burden and cost of devising a suitable scheme is shifted from the public purse onto the responsible person who can devise a strategy to comply and if necessary appoint competent advice if he needs it.
We used to have large fire safety departments who used to help architects to design buildings free of charge, whilst at the same time the architect was charging the client an exorbitant fee for "consultation with the fire authority"- ie designing the building for them.
I used to be the most helpful fire safety officer ever. At the public expense. Was that fair on society? It really used to push the definition of giving fire safety advice (sect 1.1.F of the 1947 Act) to its limit.
-
Kurnal,
To bring a very substandard premises up to scratch, I am assuming that it is through an enforcement notice:
First the notice stating the legislation contravened.
i.e. In the event of an emergency it is not possible to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible.
First step to complying would be something simple like: Provide suitable means of escape for all relevant persons. (This is not part of the notice though)
Then a third part, which would be my 'suggestion' of how to comply. i.e Smash 6 doors out in the following places: blah blah blah, make them all outward opening, sprinkler everything, including the cat.
The schedule for complying with other articles are often quite long winded but generally just simple cut and paste into the form, especially article 11.
-
If FSO's want to give advice then that is fine but they do this under the Fire and Rescue services act not the RR(FS)O, Section 6(2)b informs them that they should give advice on fire prevention, restricting the spread of fire and means of escape.
-
"improve the means of escape from the top floor and provide measures to protect the staircase in the event of a fire in the lower floor, and provide suitable means for the detection of and raising the alarm of fire" as an example.
To me this is the new order working exactly as intended. The burden and cost of devising a suitable scheme is shifted from the public purse onto the responsible person who can devise a strategy to comply and if necessary appoint competent advice if he needs it.
That is fine in the early stages but no good for the wording of an enforcement notice. If the FRS have reached the stage where an enforcement notice is necessary they must specify exactly what to do or it becomes impossible to prove that the notice has been contravened. If there are other ways of achieving a suitable solution they should also be included.
If FRS are enforcing in accordance with the Concordat there should, unless it is so risky, be full discussion and consultation to resolve the matter before an enforcement notice is served. The fact that the notice needs to be served would generally indicate that the discussion option has failed so now it is time to be specific.
-
I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants.
I think the forum has healthy debate, but I hope no contempt.
-
I have noticed a bit of 'contempt' regarding FSO's from the side of consultants.
I think the forum has healthy debate, but I hope no contempt.
agrees
-
Thanks for that Phil. But in both the premises I referred to recently(in different areas) the enforcement notices were nowhere near as specific as you describe - more like the general terms I suggested- and I was hoping it was the start of a brave new world (of more business).
So nothing has changed in terms of enforcement notices then- except the need to point out alternative solutions. If the fire authority do not point out all reasonable solutions in their enforcement notice, if the responsible person follows their instructions and then the consultant suggests a much cheaper way of achieving the same level of safety presumably the RP could seek redress using civil law?
-
My main problem with FSO's has resulted through the nature of our work in the propery management sector - yes our client, the landlord (via agent) is obviously bothered about fire safety, but the tenants who also get included in inspections can quite often vary from those who are good to those who don't give a damn.
My problem occurs when the don't give a damn tenants have had a FSO round in the past who doesn't pull them on their clear breaches of safety (i don't mean pedantisms such as a sign above an extinguisher) and thus defends all attempts at getting them to improve by saying the FSO was happy. I appreciate that you may have had thresholds for enforcement action, but even if your hands were tied re formal action you could have at least said things were not OK.
Since the RRO I've noticed an improvement in a short amount of time and have found even in the few months since inception more agreed action plans etc than ever before, although sadly it does vary between different brigades.
You do get some tenants saying the FSO has passed them despite not having actually been near the place for years (or it was only local station staff, not enforcers), but you can usually tell when this is the case and in at least one place the FSO for the area has been around for real afterwards extrmemly peeved he'd been named by the occupant as Ok'ing a clearly bad situation (the place was so bad it was important for the client and FRS that it wasn't let lie)
them and us? no it shouldn't be, in fact with some places I wish the FSO would come around more when for the nth year in a row a virtually identical report bar the date goes into the client - not all companies hire consultants because they have good intentions - a few just want the paperwork despite the fact their premises are substandard and never act on findings
-
if the responsible person follows their instructions and then the consultant suggests a much cheaper way of achieving the same level of safety presumably the RP could seek redress using civil law?
Possibly but I wouldn't think that he is likely to win.
The responsible person should have complied with the order, he did not hence the need to serve a notice. If he is not happy with the notice he could of course appeal the notice.
I dont think a Court would be too sympathetic to such an idividual who goes through all the aforementioned and only then decides to appoint a consultant who discovers a cheaper alternative.
The greater danger is that if the notice is too woolly it may be deemed invalid by the Court.
Case law B.T Fleet Ltd vs McKenna 2005
Improvement notices under s.21 of the Health and Safety at
Work Act 1974 should state what was wrong and why it was
wrong. The notice had to be clear and easy to understand. If the
statutory option was exercised so as to proscribe how a recipient
could comply with a notice, any directions given as to
compliance formed part of the notice and, if confusing, could
operate to make the notice invalid
-
Civil courts provide a means for individuals to pursue others for money due to them, not for authorities to prosecute.
-
Remember, FRA FSO's now audit fire arrangements, not inspect. Therefore it is up to the Responsible persons and their consultants to make the case, why their premises are compliant with the Order.
Interesting times ahead for us all I would suggest
Don't get too hung up between the word "Inspect " and "Audit"
We still do what we always did.
Most Authortities will do a pre-inspection Audit whereby they sit down with the Resp. Persons and audit the paper work and procedures of the premises - and then inspect the premises to see if those procedures are working or are correct in relation to the physical structure or process undertaken.
The only major differences are:-
1) Ownership of Fire Safety is now on the RP not the Fire Authority
2) Fire Authorties aren't being descriptive or prescriptive in their reports (until you reach the enforcement stage)
One thing I know myself and many FSO do is try and bring the premises up to the required standard without imposing too many onerous or expensive requirements on the punter.
I do live firmly in the real world! But sometimes there isn't any other option but to insist on the highest standards!
-
Civil courts provide a means for individuals to pursue others for money due to them, not for authorities to prosecute.
Quite so Chris, that was what Kurnal was referring to. Could a RP seek compensation from a fire authority if an enforcement notice did not offer the cheapest solution?
-
The claimant would need to prove that there was a duty of care, that the duty of care was breached, that the breach caused and injury or loss.......I'm not expert in this, but it sounds impossibly difficult to do this. I very much doubt it.
-
You do not always have to prove negligence to win a civil claim Chris, and that is what you are referring to. But as I explained in my earlier post I don't think such a claim would succeed.
-
It is within the remit of a Fire and Rescue Service when issuing an Enforcement Notice to just specify the area of non compliance; why they don't comply; identify the provisions not complied with; and then advise them to seek the opinion of a competent person for a solution - and give them a period of time to fix it.
The FRS is not obliged (under Art 30 of the RRO) to tell them how to fix it. "An enforcement notice may include directions as to the measures which the enforcing authority consider are necessary to remedy the failure". May doesn't mean must - and the words are carefully chosen in legislation aren't they?
(though I hasten to add these are not the views of my employer)
-
I quite agree Fred, but if they do chose to specify how to put things in order, it then becomes part of the notice and must leave no doubt as to how to sort it. So the notice would then have to specify exactly what to do.
See Case law B.T Fleet Ltd vs McKenna 2005 in earlier post.
Also if you take the approach you mention and issue a notice saying something like "provide a suitable means for giving warning," it becomes a nightmare to try and prove that the notice has not been complied with.
-
Agreed
The terms 'rock' and 'hard place' spring to mind ....
If FRS's decide to specify what directions should be taken - legal advice suggests that alternative solution's (if there are any) should also be offered. How many alternative solutions should be provided ? Taken to extremes I suppose FRS's could suggest the building be demolished.
Personally I think it would be easier not to specify directions to be taken - and leave the problem, and the solution to the problem, quite firmly in the RP's domain.
-
And what if they then seek fire safety advice using the FRS Act??? Oh no I need to have a lie down!!!!!
-
I was going to add the part about Enforcement notices having a "suggested remedy", but that's been done.
Action plans are being issued as an alternative to the enforcement notice, but only after the application of the HSE's Enforcement Management Model, which takes into accounr inspection history, general conditions and the attitude of the Responsible person.
Just because an action plan has been issued doesn't mean an enforcement notice can't.
Also, audits should be carried out within the guidelines of the enforcement concordat, which has not been mentioned up until now.
-
Also, audits should be carried out within the guidelines of the enforcement concordat, which has not been mentioned up until now.
Baldyman you missed my earlier post:
"
If FRS are enforcing in accordance with the Concordat there should, unless it is so risky, be full discussion and consultation to resolve the matter before an enforcement notice is served. The fact that the notice needs to be served would generally indicate that the discussion option has failed so now it is time to be specific."
You really must pay more attention.
P.S. How is Mr Wyss??
-
My apologies ..... I really must pay attention in class!!!
-
And what if they then seek fire safety advice using the FRS Act??? Oh no I need to have a lie down!!!!!
No No Phil ...... keep awake ... there's more ....!
I take the view that the FRS can quite legitimately respond to such a request by saying it does not consider it "reasonable to do so" because the RRO legislation specifically states that it is up to the RP and his competent person to make the place safe.
QED
-
Yes Indeed, quite right Fred, that is the beauty of this new law, the responsibility lies with the RP. When asked for advice the FRS could say buy a guide or appoint a competent person.........can I lie down now?
-
Or indeed they could give the advice themselves, which if it is not part of the enforcement notice, is not binding and therefore open to discussion.
As I see it if the enforcement notice states the measures that need to be carried out unequivically i.e. a staircase from point A down to point B then that is what must be done. If the FRS gets it wrong and let us say point B is 15 feet off the ground then the RP has still conformed with the enforcement notice if he builds it as told.
If the enforcement notice just states the MOE from the third floor is inadequate and an alternative needs to be provided. The RP is free to get advice from whoever they want, but if they approach the FRS then alternatives can be discussed and mutual agreement reached. If the RP goes elsewhere and the FRS disagrees then the appeals procedure is there to sort it out.
-
All notices (informal or enforcement) that I write point out the perceived problem and use rather wooly advisory terminology when offering a solution to overcome the problem of being over prescriptive.
eg:
- All six alternative final exit doors on ground floor and basement level found welded shut
- Providing final exit doors which are easily openable in the event of fire would satisfy this Article. Other methods of providing a solution may be available......
So I point the RP in the general direction - quoting specific quality benchmarks such as BS if appropriate- and then leave them to find their own way.
It seems to work.
-
All notices (informal or enforcement) that I write point out the perceived problem and use rather wooly advisory terminology when offering a solution to overcome the problem of being over prescriptive.
.
They may work until challenged Messy, I trust you have run this past your legal dept/adviser. Informal, no problem. However with an enforcement notice I would refer you to previous postings and look at case law Fleet vs McKenna.
I would also be interested to know what other notices you are referring to. There are only three.
-
Just completed a shiny new enforcement notice.
Got the actual enforcement notice, states provisions not complied with. i.e. Articles 13(1) and 13(2). Basic sentence claiming the fire alarm is inadequate.
There's a simple schedule, this HAS to be complied with: Provide adequate fire detection etc for dimensions, use etc, chemical properties, blah blah blah, number of persons etc etc.
Then there's "Advice on how to comply", which is a more detailed description of what I consider to be the minimum system to acheive compliance. What standard of system, where call points are to go, where detectors should be fitted etc.
It does state that the RP does not have to adopt this advice.
I have to agree a little with Kurnal, taxpayers have paid for me to come up with a system when it is in fact the RP's responsibility. But then again business pay high rates, and part of those rates go towards F&R services, so IMO under the FS act we should be supplying some advice, and to be honest it didn't take long to come up with the system needed. It was almost done on the spot. (Took longer to type it out.)
Off topic a bit: With the recent change in legislation and inspection procedure can anyone see us heading towards something similar to fixed penalties? i.e. 5 articles not complied with, that will be a 5x £100 fine please sir, payable within 28 days, or prosecution...? Then later on private companies contracted to go out finding problems... Such as safety camera partnership for speeding offences? Hmm, commission based fault finding...?
-
Similar in my area,enforcement notice states failiure,legislation applicable,steps to remedy, and then we list those in more detail,and if the RP wants to do it differently, we invite them to contact us.
not so sure about handing out on the spot fines,although it might focus the RP,not sure I would like to be judge and jury,also not sure whether we would then carry on being an advisory body, not what I want to do,prefer the educate/inform route.
-
If people were at risk of on the spot fines if checked by an Officer would it not be more likely they would comply? If so, then is it not making the countrys premises safer?
It generally works for traffic/littering etc, why not for fire safety? I think some USA fire departments use a similar approach already.
On the positive side, money made through fines could ease the rate-payers burden, so the businesses who are complying get a benefit from the system.
I am not advocating this at all, before people jump up and down on me. Just food for thought.
-
as I said, it may well do, just not my thing.
-
Yeah I agree to on the spot fines - so long as they also apply to the crown. (I bet)
I would like to be able to fine local and national government for failing to manage their budgets and squandering the revenue they raise through taxation and council tax.
-
Not keen on the term fire alarm, it smacks of something electronic, not all premises need such a thing. Perhaps sticking to the terminology of detection and warning woulf be a better bet. As regards on the spot fines, how do you value non compliance and what is non compliance if the role of the FSO is enforcement. I can understand fully if an FRA has not been completed but all the fire safety outcomes depend on the FRA. In addition, the first rule of Article 4 is risk reduction and fire prevention, that is not passive fire safety or electronic detection.
-
For anything other than a simple single storey, open plan area, the fire alarm will need to be electronic (Ref: BS 5839, Part 1, 2002).
Do you think a big company really cares about a £100 fine? I suspect some would prefer to pay 5 x £100 fine every time they get a visit than spend the necessary money to upgrade the premises. Prison sentences and fines that hurt is what is needed for unsafe work places. Hearing that there had previoulsy been a hundred quid fine would do much to appease any angry berieved after a fatal fire.
-
Perhaps the starting point for any argument should be the building regulations and what they suggest the method of detection and warning cpould be for some premises rather then the blind obedience to a recommendation in a British Standard. If justified by an RP, bells and whistles may be good enough or perhaps the building regulations and approved document B somehow sit below the recommendations in the BS. The point is of course that the legislation for fire safety in England and Wales sits, in both documents with the Building Regulations and the RR(FS)O. In both documents their is guidance available to individuals as regards methods of detection and warning which allows a person to make a choice, whatever that choice is. It may be that BS5839 is followed for whatever reason and then the expectation would be as mentioned above that once installed to a standard it will follow that standard for maintenance and testing, alternatively it may not and that then gives an enforcer the opprtunity to enforce the law and that in turn will give the right of appeal and then the true enforcers, members of the judiciary, will make a decision, which has happened in a recent case in Lancashire.
-
I think the Building Regs and the RR(FS)O provide the framework, the basics and then things like British Standards fill in the detail.
Bells and whistles? Did they not become obsolete with gas lamps. :lol: (And no, I have no interest in selling or servicing fire alarms)
-
Fire alarm systems
1.25 All buildings should have arrangements for
detecting fire. In most buildings fires are detected
by people, either through observation or smell,
and therefore often nothing more will be needed.
1.26 In small buildings/premises the means of
raising the alarm may be simple. For instance,
where all occupants are near to each other a
shouted warning “FIRE” by the person discovering
the fire may be all that is needed. In assessing the
situation, it must be determined that the warning
can be heard and understood throughout the
premises, including for example the toilet areas. In
other circumstances, manually operated sounders
(such as rotary gongs or handbells) may be used.
Alternatively a simple manual call point combined
with a bell, battery and charger may be suitable.
In all other cases, the building should be provided
with a suitable electrically operated fire warning
system with manual call points sited adjacent to
exit doors and sufficient sounders to be clearly
audible throughout the building.
The above is a section from the current ADB B1 on Fire Alarms, the bit that BCO's and FSO's have to look at when plans for any premises are submitted. This gives consultants the opportunity to look at a detection and warning system and fit it to the premises to be extended, altered or built. Once in existence, an enforcing body can challenge that provided, but they can not force an electronic system on a particular premises, that is my only point.
-
Jokar you said "Not keen on the term fire alarm, it smacks of something electronic, not all premises need such a thing." Chris said "For anything other than a simple single storey, open plan area, the fire alarm will need to be electronic". Both sentences are conveying the same understanding so what is your debate about? I would interpret both sentences as, if small it may not require an electronic system if larger, in almost all cases, it will.