FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Pip on September 19, 2007, 04:31:59 PM
-
If you don't know about it(and want to) go here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7002596.stm
-
Was there a risk assessment carried out and the significant findings ignored?
-
I believe alot of CO OP stores also own and rent out attached residential properties, specifically in rural areas!, anyone else come across this sort of thing?
-
The Co op in Southwold - suffolk has recently been served an enforcement notice!
-
Notable that it took a 'member of the public' to report the failures in order to uncover the extent of the breaches of legislation in 38 stores in the County. This must emphasise the need for regular inspection by the FRS for this type of premises. I wonder whether they have now verified the Co-op's claim to have now put things right.
-
See also:
http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/live/stories/story.php?story_id=2629
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/detail.asp?id=222
http://www.cieh.org/ehn/legal/2006/september/articles/co-op_fined_after_employee_suffers_injuries.htm
-
This must emphasise the need for regular inspection by the FRS for this type of premises.
So do I carry out these regular inspections before I visit hotels, residential care premises, sheltered housing schemes, HMO`s or boarding schools? All of which in my opinion present a potentially greater risk.
I accept in this case the company appears to have shown a total lack of responsibility to its customers and staff and deserved all that it has got. But would your suggestion be the best use of resources. Unfortunately inspecting officers do rely on the public to make complaints and when they do we react.
-
All FRS have a Risk Based Inspection Process based on IRMP Guidance Note 4 and the National Framework Document thats sits alongside the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004. As much as we would all like premises to be subject to inspection that is not the Enforcement Role under the legislation. The Police do not inspect every vehicle and those in charge must take responsibility and accountability for there actions or lack of action. The HSE operate on the same basis and still incidents occur. Blame should not be given to FRS for the modernisation of legislation and the Fire Service.
The surprising thing is that even the Consultant on the Inside Out BBC SW programme got it wrong.
-
I'm not seeking to blame the under-resourced FRS and do appreciate the need for prioritisation. Doesn't this sort of situation indicate a need for more staff, more pro-active involvement and the need for emphasis upon workplaces and public premises where large numbers of persons resort? Management accountability through risk assessment is fine but without the likelihood of visits and checks by the FRS can lead to inactivity or continuing ignorance. Having to wait for a complaint or a fire cannot be good.
-
The Police do not inspect every vehicle
I think your comments are all factually correct, but the above is not comparing apples with apples. If there were vehicles on the road that could have a 1,000 passengers (I say this because this is how many customers a large supermarket could have at 1 time), I'm pretty sure they would get a regular safety check.
I think most people who visit workplaces on a regular basis were asked, the majority would agree that places like supermarkets, schools, carehomes, hotels are worthy of fire service inspections.
-
In that case the Government need to fund more Inspectors for all the enforcing authorities. The sheer number of premises that would require a visit on a daily basis would make this an impossibility. Do not forget that the RR(FS)O is about premises, this is not a builidng, it could be 30 premises within one premises. With on average an inspection and the resultant paperwork taking the best part of a day for each premises, this one premises could take 1 FSO 6 weeks to complete. The CFOA Audit form is 13 pages long and has to be completed on each and every occasion. Thankfully I do not have to do it but know many others that do and it is a complicated process.
-
You've lost me a bit there. Why would a supermarket take 6 weeks and not a day?
-
I was not writing about the Co op, just comments on one premises with 30 premises in it. I was trying to give an indication of how difficult it is out there for enforcers. A number of FRS and other enforcers have a limited amount of FSO's who do a number of roles from enforcing the RR(FS)O to undertaking Consulations with Local Authorities for Building Regulations. With limited numbers of personnel they can only do so much.
-
If only our government put as much resource into this as they do to catch those who speed or park illegally..........
-
Insufficient provision and increased bureaucracy seem to have become the trends with Government policy - not just with the FRS but, police, education, health, local government, legal system, prison service, etc - but are things getting better?. The voices of those suffering the consequences need to be heard.
-
Most FRS are following CFOA guidance, IRMP Guidance Note 4 and the National Framework document and they talk about fire safety audits not fire safety inspections.
Those of you carrying out the audits will hopefully recognise that there is a big difference between an audit and an inspection.
What many FRS are failing to do, in my opinion, is to effectively inspect premises from time to time.
If the Order is going to maintain and improve on existing fire safety standards once in a while the enforcers should forget audits and just go out in their patches and inspect.
Don't give weeks of notice because if you do you will never see premises as they really operate.
FRS only have one duty imposed under the Order, and that is to enforce the Order...if they do not inspect premises they are failing in that duty.
Yes I know CFOA and most senior fire safety officers will not agree with me...but unless FRS fulfill their statutory duty to enforce the Order, further lives will be lost and enforcement will be transferred to other agencies.
-
I agree entirely, look what happened when the BBC went out and inspected Hotels in the West Country without warning. I am lead to believe from one Hotel owner that as a result of the television program and the recent events in Newquay that the two Authorities are now following your very advice as far as Hotels are concerned.
-
Doesn't this sort of situation indicate a need for more staff, more pro-active involvement and the need for emphasis upon workplaces and public premises where large numbers of persons resort?
I agree that FRA should be proactive and I certainly place an emphasis on premises where large numbers of people resort. However, most brigades and mine particularly place a greater emphasis on fire safety in the home.
4 years ago my brigade had in the region of 25 inspecting officers now we probably have about 12 officers who specialise in technical fire safety the others are testing electric blankets, carrying out home fire risk visits, giving out deep fat fryers etc etc. Rightly or wrongly this is the modern fire service.
Why are we doing this? Because the Government has set targets of reducing accidental fire deaths in domestic premises. The pool of resources is only so big.
-
I'm a home safety enthusiast too, Dave. It's the size of your 'pool' that seems to be the problem.
There aren't enough HSE inspectors these days either - but plenty of Government targets and forms to complete.
Giving out deep fat fryers sounds interesting - can you ellaborate on this? I wonder how this sits with the Government's targets on obesity?
-
In that case the Government need to fund more Inspectors for all the enforcing authorities. The sheer number of premises that would require a visit on a daily basis would make this an impossibility. Do not forget that the RR(FS)O is about premises, this is not a builidng, it could be 30 premises within one premises. With on average an inspection and the resultant paperwork taking the best part of a day for each premises, this one premises could take 1 FSO 6 weeks to complete. The CFOA Audit form is 13 pages long and has to be completed on each and every occasion. Thankfully I do not have to do it but know many others that do and it is a complicated process.
Could it be something like the MOT system? A new car will get to the stage were bits wear and is not maintained by the owner to ensure it is safe to take on the road. A RA is to ensure that a premises is safe to let people in to.
The annual MOT system is self financing. Could you do the same to businesses?
I suppose the MOT is like a RA really except it is a lot more obvious to the enforcement authorities when the former is not done.
-
Nice idea. Why not only charge the ones who fail. Then no one can complain.
-
Giving out deep fat fryers sounds interesting - can you ellaborate on this? I wonder how this sits with the Government's targets on obesity?
Locally we had particular problem with fire starting in kitchens, it was further identified that the most severe of these involved ‘traditional’ chip pans. They were also occuring in properties occupied by vulnerable groups and particularly by elderly persons.
We were able to raise sufficient funds through local partnerships to replace chip pans with deep fat fryers in premises that are identified as being at risk.
How many of these appliances have ended up on eBay or the local car boot is anyone’s guess.
As for the obesity targets, eating chips is a lifestyle choice (thats what they tell me anyway)
-
Thanks, Dave. Things have obviously moved on since I was buying smoke alarms wholesale and passing them on to the public.
Glad to know that we are still allowed choices. (Must admit to having chips out with lunch today - and hoping for same with fish tomorrow - but only use 'oven chips' when at home).
-
Giving out deep fat fryers sounds interesting - can you ellaborate on this? I wonder how this sits with the Government's targets on obesity?
Locally we had particular problem with fire starting in kitchens, it was further identified that the most severe of these involved ‘traditional’ chip pans. They were also occuring in properties occupied by vulnerable groups and particularly by elderly persons.
We were able to raise sufficient funds through local partnerships to replace chip pans with deep fat fryers in premises that are identified as being at risk.
How many of these appliances have ended up on eBay or the local car boot is anyone’s guess.
As for the obesity targets, eating chips is a lifestyle choice (thats what they tell me anyway)
Are traditional chip pans a lifestyle choice also?
Are we to eventually nanny some people to the extent that we end up going in to their homes and cooking for them?
As for Fire Safety in the Home, there are none so deaf as those who won't listen.
-
Are traditional chip pans a lifestyle choice also?
Are we to eventually nanny some people to the extent that we end up going in to their homes and cooking for them?
As for Fire Safety in the Home, there are none so deaf as those who won't listen.
Presumably yes chip pans are a lifestyle choice.
One example of this initiative working is an old man in a local sheltered housing scheme. He had set the alarms off in the scheme 4 times in a month, thus 4 calls to the fire service disruption to residents, impact on fire cover etc etc. Now 35 pounds on a deep fat fryer has reduced the risk to him and the impact on the other residents and the calls to the fire service.