FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Big T on July 26, 2007, 10:39:26 AM

Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 26, 2007, 10:39:26 AM
According to a LAFB who recently carried out a home safety visit at one of our tennants in shelterd housing accomodation; front door matts pose a significant threat to the other occupants fire safety and should be removed from the corridoor outside her front door.

They then issued a notice to the manager of the unit instructing her to get all occupants to get rid of there front door matts

Are the brigade taking the mick?

How does a door matt pose a significant threat?
Title: Important news
Post by: jayjay on July 26, 2007, 12:31:05 PM
The "Hot Nut Test" comes to mind but not necessarily for the door mats, unless friction from wiping ones feet is a risk.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 26, 2007, 12:36:32 PM
spontaneous combustion due to linseed oil contamination from someones shoe?
Title: Important news
Post by: fred on July 26, 2007, 12:39:06 PM
Hot shoe shuffle ?
Title: Important news
Post by: Big A on July 26, 2007, 02:48:19 PM
Trip hazard on an escape route?
Title: Important news
Post by: The Lawman on July 26, 2007, 03:35:51 PM
There was me worrying about Backdraft when I should have been doing a Dynamic Risk Assessment of the door mat!
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 26, 2007, 04:22:45 PM
I agree with the trip hazard but this is a health and safety issue rather than a fire safety issue. Why are the brigade getting involved?
Title: Important news
Post by: Midland Retty on July 26, 2007, 04:42:35 PM
Quote from: Big T
I agree with the trip hazard but this is a health and safety issue rather than a fire safety issue. Why are the brigade getting involved?
Fire Authorities do deal with trip hazzards and obstructions on means of escape.

Are the mats really a problem? yeah ok you could argue they are a trip hazzard potentially and yes ok they shouldnt really be there technically speaking, but so long as they dont encroach onto the escape routes too much I wouldnt be bothered.

You'll probably find the fire officer asked for the mats to be removed due to the fact that if they were allowed to remain it sends out the message that items can be placed or stored in common areas /escape routes.

First you have matts appear in the common areas, and then before you know it other things start creeping in such as decorative plant pots and then bigger stuff and as sure as apples are apples the common areas will get bombarded with all sorts of things. Ive seen it happen myself hundreds of times.

So yeah it does seem a bit over the top to ask for the mats to be removed I agree, but I'd bet it was for the reasons stated above.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 26, 2007, 04:55:12 PM
I totally agree with you that the fire brigade should get involved with issues of obstructions on the MOE, but in this instance for the brigade to suggest that the door mat was going to seriously endanger other peoples safety was laughable. Home safety visits should be constructive right?

The building was well managed and no pot plants etc had found their way into the escape route. (against the buildings policy)

If it had been an old fridge in the escape route, yeah i'd agree with the assessment, but an old grannies welcome mat being a danger to other occupants? the worlds gone potty.
Title: Important news
Post by: messy on July 26, 2007, 07:16:00 PM
I have had a word with Mrs Messy and she will no longer be leaving the empty milk bottles on our front door step now this trip hazard has been bought to my attention. Thanks.
Title: Important news
Post by: Graeme on July 26, 2007, 10:28:19 PM
This has also raised concerns in my household regarding our snake draft excludor.
Title: Important news
Post by: Chris Houston on July 26, 2007, 10:52:36 PM
This is as much an animal welfare issue, as a safety one.
Title: Important news
Post by: Wiz on July 27, 2007, 08:33:10 AM
Dangerous animals must be licensed with the Local Authority. Expect a further vist from another jobsworth checking on your license for the snake.
Title: Important news
Post by: fred on July 27, 2007, 09:46:15 AM
Quote from: Wiz
Dangerous animals must be licensed with the Local Authority. Expect a further vist from another jobsworth checking on your license for the snake.
I keep one in my car - I call it my windscreen viper ......!
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 27, 2007, 09:52:36 AM
Don't make an asp of yourself
Title: Important news
Post by: jokar on July 27, 2007, 06:23:56 PM
Perhaps, the Fire Officer takes his calculator with him to adder things up.
Title: Important news
Post by: Wiz on July 27, 2007, 08:49:00 PM
I won't be rattled by the scale of these comments slithering towards a poisonous conclusion.
Title: Important news
Post by: Graeme on July 27, 2007, 09:23:48 PM
Quote from: Wiz
Dangerous animals must be licensed with the Local Authority. Expect a further vist from another jobsworth checking on your license for the snake.
there is an obvious gag in this but i'm not going to go there as i am a mature adult.
Title: Important news
Post by: Brian Catton on July 29, 2007, 06:15:37 PM
If someone keeps a pet in their car it is a car pet. We are at last back to the original subject.
Title: Important news
Post by: Wiz on July 29, 2007, 10:06:58 PM
Quote from: Brian Catton
If someone keeps a pet in their car it is a car pet. We are at last back to the original subject.
Big T will be happy. It seems hisss original post was being taken as a load of old cobras.
Title: Important news
Post by: Ken Taylor on July 29, 2007, 11:43:58 PM
I can recall a London Borough housing department telling tenants of a block of flats to remove all the obstructions from communal balconies providing the only MoE. This included an assortment of doormats, planters, rubbish bins, etc.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 30, 2007, 08:53:41 AM
That sounds about right. I realy don't see the problem with a couple of planters and a doormat outside their front door. It is their home after all, and these people crave personalising their own space.

I appreciate that it could be construed as an obstruction on an MOE but surely within reason it can be tolerated?
Title: Important news
Post by: Big A on July 30, 2007, 10:34:01 AM
Quote from: Big A
Trip hazard on an escape route?
This was actually a flippant remark (as were the previous replies). If I really felt that doormats should be removed in case someone tripped over it causing others to be trapped inside a burning flat, I really would be in line for a jobsworth award. Not only that but Jokar and PhilB would never speak to me again.

:)=)
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 30, 2007, 11:25:44 AM
I still think its a serious problem. Whilst the members here aren't the jobsworths, the ones out there turning up at our premises are.

How can we do our jobs properly when we are told that pot plants and door matts are hazards. We know full well they aren't but when the brigade are insisting they are, what do you do?
Title: Important news
Post by: Chris Houston on July 30, 2007, 11:38:54 AM
They might not like it.  But if you have assessed the risk, what can they do about it?
Title: Important news
Post by: Bert on July 30, 2007, 12:14:13 PM
The problem is that many operational Ffs don’t have a clue about basic fire safety and fire prevention.  About five years ago, during a 11D visit, a watch commander told me to have all of the pot plants in a large pharmaceutical research site removed from the offices as the sap in the plants was potentially flammable. He really wasn’t joking either, even wrote to me about it. I didn’t have the heart to tell him about the thousands of gallons of solvents we used on a daily basis.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 30, 2007, 12:37:42 PM
All those pot plants: I'm surprised they didn't shut you down.
Title: Important news
Post by: afterburner on July 30, 2007, 01:35:12 PM
Have I got this right, Fred keeps a car pet in his car and uses it as a winsdscreen viper? And doormats are no longer a dormant problem? Ok Got that, off worrying about doormats and vipers, potty plants and all those really pressing fire safety issues I had inadvetently missed.
Title: Important news
Post by: nearlythere on July 30, 2007, 02:25:31 PM
I think I would have refused point blank to remove the door mats until the IO couild show me where it says that floor linings should be class "0" surface spread of flam, or that mats could be a trip hazard, or any sensible reason that warrants their removal. And thats me speaking as an IO myself.
It is pratts like this what gives the rest of us such bad press.
I wonder if the IO's boss knows what he/she is up to. It might surprise you to learn that a lot of Safety Officer's work is not checked or monitored.

May I take this opportunity to apologise most sincerely, on behalf of the IOs of the UK, to the victims of the IO pratts in our ranks.
Very shortly I will be in a position to provide a consultation service to help the victims of overzealous (read stupid) IOs.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 30, 2007, 02:33:50 PM
Reassuring to say the least. You will be busy with them. I certainly am. haha.

Perhaps an IO prat badge could be created? Nominations from the people in industry?

I get a lot of correspondance from excellent IO's but in all fairness the good stuff goes to the bottom of the pile when we have to justify mats and pot plants to the jobsworth officers.

I hasten to add they didn't mention the laundry without a self closer on it. Frightening.
Title: Important news
Post by: nearlythere on July 30, 2007, 03:15:53 PM
Here's a starter.
I want to nominate a Pratt who, during a home fire safety check in a private dwelling, strongly advised in writing, the occupants to remove lightweight B&Q type timber panelling from a toilet ceiling because it was a fire risk.
Title: Important news
Post by: Chris Houston on July 30, 2007, 03:40:57 PM
Are these people not trained before they are let loose on the public?  As a professional surveyor myself, I find it hard to imagine people being paid to give out such advice.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 30, 2007, 03:55:42 PM
Chris,

Worryingly it's the fire brigade giving out this information! The home visits are free. Guess it's true that you get what you pay for.

I've had a tennant ask me about why we hadn't installed emergency lighting in their home after a free home fire safety check recommended it. Yes folks, emergency lighting complying to 5266 in someones house.
Title: Important news
Post by: nearlythere on July 30, 2007, 04:17:43 PM
Don't knock the prats too much people. As long as we have pratts giving out so called advice there will always be the opportunity to make a living out of advising people how to ignore it.
Title: Important news
Post by: Pip on July 30, 2007, 04:42:59 PM
I would suggest that those carrying out these Home Fire Safety checks are not Inspecting officers,but that does not excuse the bad advice.I would advise that you write to the brigades and challenge them.If people are giving out duff(but maybe well intentioned) advice on behalf of a brigade,then they can't address it properly if they don't know its happenning.Each visit should be recorded so they will be able to pinpoint the individuals.
Title: Important news
Post by: Chris Houston on July 30, 2007, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Pip
I would suggest that those carrying out these Home Fire Safety checks are not Inspecting officers,but that does not excuse the bad advice.I would advise that you write to the brigades and challenge them.If people are giving out duff(but maybe well intentioned) advice on behalf of a brigade,then they can't address it properly if they don't know its happenning.Each visit should be recorded so they will be able to pinpoint the individuals.
Yes, but where I work, we don't replly on our customers to ensure we get things right, we make sure people have the right skills before we send them out!  I agree of the need to let people know when they get it wrong, but a brigade should have it's own way of ensuring quality.
Title: Important news
Post by: nearlythere on July 30, 2007, 05:42:24 PM
However, bad advice comes from all sources. I once had a telephone call from a concerned employee in a large factory with its own fire crew. The fire crew were issued with respirators to be used in the event of them firefighting in the building. This required an immediate visit by me with the proper advice to the person responsible for issuing the respirators - the health and safety officer.
Title: Important news
Post by: Pip on July 31, 2007, 11:04:22 AM
Quote from: Chris Houston
Quote from: Pip
I would suggest that those carrying out these Home Fire Safety checks are not Inspecting officers,but that does not excuse the bad advice.I would advise that you write to the brigades and challenge them.If people are giving out duff(but maybe well intentioned) advice on behalf of a brigade,then they can't address it properly if they don't know its happenning.Each visit should be recorded so they will be able to pinpoint the individuals.
Yes, but where I work, we don't replly on our customers to ensure we get things right, we make sure people have the right skills before we send them out!  I agree of the need to let people know when they get it wrong, but a brigade should have it's own way of ensuring quality.
Quite right-but maybe they are not supposed to be giving that much advice-just restricted to certain areas,and when they step over that and start giving additional 'advice' is where the problems lay.
Title: Important news
Post by: Graeme on July 31, 2007, 12:16:49 PM
Quote from: Big T
Chris,

Worryingly it's the fire brigade giving out this information! The home visits are free. Guess it's true that you get what you pay for.

 Yes folks, emergency lighting complying to 5266 in someones house.
nice

make sure they are 3hr maintained due to sleeping risk and occupants under the influence of alcohol.

They will also provide handy night lighting making a burglar think there is always soemone at home..
Title: Important news
Post by: Dinnertime Dave on July 31, 2007, 12:57:07 PM
Pip Wrote:

I would advise that you write to the brigades and challenge them’
 
Quite frankly as an inspecting officer I’m embarrassed by this whole thread. I would also suggest that you challenge the brigade concerned.  I have no problems personally with being challenged. However, I would assume that this notice was sent with the knowledge of this individual’s line manager. Is this institutional incompetence?

My advice to anyone who receives a Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies or an Enforcement Notice is to ask the officer why the work is needed, and is there an alternative solution? I would also point out that any deficiencies in the fire safety arrangements within your premises should have been discussed with you prior to the officer leaving.    
 
Also, it is not always the case that inspecting officers are fully competent. I’ve lost count of the times that on inter brigade courses that the answer to any problem is ’Put in an L1 fire warning system’
Title: Important news
Post by: firelawmac on July 31, 2007, 01:48:50 PM
song and dance about nothing!!!!

FRAs cant tell you what to do in your home!

Home safety checks are a means to an end, i.e. to increase the number of dwellings with a working smoke alarm.!!!
Title: Important news
Post by: Dinnertime Dave on July 31, 2007, 02:00:54 PM
FRAs cant tell you what to do in your home!

Agreed. However, a Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies can tell the responsible person what to do in the communual areas of sheltered housing schemes
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on July 31, 2007, 02:48:04 PM
Absolutely Dinnertime Dave

I don't mind having the brigade tell me whats what in the communal areas, as long as what we are being told is gen. As you can see from this thread, its not always good or relevant advice. I deal with lots of brigades and the difference in competance is vast.

What would be peoples opinion of being told that All cables run at high level in the common areas must be secured at a maximum of one meter centres with metalic fastening?
Title: Important news
Post by: firelawmac on July 31, 2007, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: Dinnertime Dave
FRAs cant tell you what to do in your home!

Agreed. However, a Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies can tell the responsible person what to do in the communual areas of sheltered housing schemes
Also agreed however only a Warranted employee of a FRA can enforce the requirements of the RRFSO, as far as i am aware ops crews that carry out Home safety visits are not given the Article 27 Powers of Inspectors.
Title: Important news
Post by: Ken Taylor on July 31, 2007, 08:59:52 PM
I would be more impressed, Big T, if they commented that the electrical installation should be in accordance with the IEE/BS standard - and went on to say how the existing cables presented a significant risk.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big A on August 01, 2007, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: firelawmac
Quote from: Dinnertime Dave
FRAs cant tell you what to do in your home!

Agreed. However, a Notice of Fire Safety Deficiencies can tell the responsible person what to do in the communual areas of sheltered housing schemes
Also agreed however only a Warranted employee of a FRA can enforce the requirements of the RRFSO, as far as i am aware ops crews that carry out Home safety visits are not given the Article 27 Powers of Inspectors.
I would have thought that that depends on whether or not they have been appointed as inspectors. We've decided not to do that and that they already have the powers of entry under section 45 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on August 01, 2007, 11:11:48 AM
Quote from: Ken Taylor
I would be more impressed, Big T, if they commented that the electrical installation should be in accordance with the IEE/BS standard - and went on to say how the existing cables presented a significant risk.
Agreed. Especially when the cables in question are telephone cables. I'd to see them convince us that are hazardous!
Title: Important news
Post by: Graeme on August 01, 2007, 12:33:07 PM
they might be looking at it from a entering Fire Fighters view and having the cables staying put on the wall if there was a fire,thus not creating an obstacle of dangling cables.. just a guess
Title: Important news
Post by: The Lawman on August 01, 2007, 12:40:44 PM
Did one of the lads who died in the high rise fire down south not become entrapped in a mass of melted electrical cables?

Obviously we don't know why this has been mentioned in the report but unprotected cables could, in some circumstances, cause problems.
Title: Important news
Post by: Dinnertime Dave on August 01, 2007, 01:11:37 PM
Yes Lawman your right, further details are contained in 'Investigation into the deaths' below.  

www.hertsdirect.org/yrccouncil/hcc/fire/reports/harrow
Title: Important news
Post by: wee brian on August 02, 2007, 08:55:52 AM
Stuff falling down is a normal fire-fighting hazard.  False ceilings etc etc.
Title: Important news
Post by: messy on August 02, 2007, 05:33:43 PM
Why so much hostility over these Home FRAs???

Yes some undertrained personnel are being used to complete them and no doubt some 'advice' - however best intended- will be way over the top.

But the vast majority of HRFAs are being carried out well and many of the more vulnerable in our community have, and will continue, to benefit from them.

Perhaps fire service managers should carry out random follow up quality control audits to ensure the best possible advice is being given, and above all, those vulnerable punters aren't being scared to death by claims made by some of the crews.

The bigger picture is more of a worry. Virtually all UKFRS have set targets of how many HFRAs are to be completed in a given period. At the moment  it is top priority and other safety related work such as 7(2)ds, hydrants (and worryingly) training is taking a back seat in the chase to achieve HFRA targets.

So whilst the public may feel safer in their homes following their HFRA, I wonder if the average Firefighter - denied of routine training- can be as confident of their safety??
Title: Important news
Post by: nearlythere on August 03, 2007, 02:05:21 PM
The matter of the safety lighting in the domestic environment is not uncommon. I had a call from an occupier who had concerns about her family getting out of the house in the event of a fire. Quite common are these calls.  The usual advise was given eg smoke detector, close doors at night, night time routine etc etc. She then asked for advice of what she could do if the fire at night involved the electrics and there was a power failure.  Bearing in mind that there are more aesthetic  emergency lighting units on the market now a days what good advice could be offered?
Title: Important news
Post by: jokar on August 03, 2007, 06:08:09 PM
Once upon a time you could buy domestic smoke alarms with a light in the centre.  They obviously met a standard but which one who knows.  But this system provides adequate light.
Title: Important news
Post by: Ken Taylor on August 04, 2007, 12:32:24 AM
Any thoughts on those plug-in lamps that can be kept in socket outlets and the bulb lights when the the power fails (or is switched off to test)?
Title: Important news
Post by: Graeme on August 04, 2007, 07:52:36 AM
keep a torch under the bed
Title: Important news
Post by: Gel on August 05, 2007, 09:55:52 PM
Alarms with escape lights still exist such as Kidde 918 model.
They have 2 batteries; one for alarm, one for escape light.

There are also rechargeable domestic torches that flash when there's
a mains failure too, which can happen in fire.
Title: Important news
Post by: Big T on August 06, 2007, 09:32:27 AM
I agree that some people may feel like they need escape lighting in an emergency at night but realistically this type of lighting isn't a major safety issue in the home, otherwise one would imagine it would have been stipulated in the new ADB part 1, and its not.

Emergency lighting is a nice to have addition for homeowners who demand a higher level of safety. Lets be honest, theres still a lot of people who refuse to have a smoke detector in their home. I don't have emergency lighting in my house. A torch suffices!
Title: Important news
Post by: Mr. P on August 06, 2007, 10:23:35 AM
Perhaps Simon Cowell & co could run a tv series in this vent.
Title: Important news
Post by: BB on August 16, 2007, 09:26:29 PM
those combined detectors and lights are as much use an ashtray on a motorbike (the light i mean)