FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tadees on November 09, 2007, 08:45:03 PM
-
Is there such a distinction under the fire safety order? What if a wedged fire door does not place relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury? Is this merely a breach?
-
Article 5 states the Duties under the Order - i.e Responsible Person must comply with duties imposed by Articles 8 - 22 etc.
If they are not complying with any of these duties then it is 'non-compliance' with the Order (or a breach of the Order - a term also used by Prof Rosemary Everton - top expert in these matters & a lovely Lady).
It only becomes an offence if it complies with the criteria laid out in Article 32.
So in your example of the fire door, if it is not an offence it is still non-compliance (a breach of the Order) and the Responsible Person still has to address it. If they don't or won't then the Inspecting Officer could ultimately serve an Enforcement Notice (Article 30) to require it. If they didn't comply with that Enforcement Notice then they would be committing an offence under Article 32(1)(d).
However the fire door being propped open could ultimately be an offence under Article 32(1)(a) if it was putting one or more Relevant Persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer (and I hope it's right, I'll soon find out if it's not I'm sure)
In my opinion only as always.
-
Article 5 states the Duties under the Order - i.e Responsible Person must comply with duties imposed by Articles 8 - 22 etc.
If they are not complying with any of these duties then it is 'non-compliance' with the Order (or a breach of the Order - a term also used by Prof Rosemary Everton - top expert in these matters & a lovely Lady).
It only becomes an offence if it complies with the criteria laid out in Article 32.
So in your example of the fire door, if it is not an offence it is still non-compliance (a breach of the Order) and the Responsible Person still has to address it. If they don't or won't then the Inspecting Officer could ultimately serve an Enforcement Notice (Article 30) to require it. If they didn't comply with that Enforcement Notice then they would be committing an offence under Article 32(1)(d).
However the fire door being propped open could ultimately be an offence under Article 32(1)(a) if it was putting one or more Relevant Persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire.
Hope that makes it a bit clearer (and I hope it's right, I'll soon find out if it's not I'm sure)
In my opinion only as always.
Spot on John...Good Egg!!
-
So in your example of the fire door, if it is not an offence it is still non-compliance (a breach of the Order) and the Responsible Person still has to address it. If they don't or won't then the Inspecting Officer could ultimately serve an Enforcement Notice (Article 30) to require it. If they didn't comply with that Enforcement Notice then they would be committing an offence under Article 32(1)(d).
Well answered Neil, although this is technically correct (and being in a pedantic mood at this time of night) when you consider that an enforcement notice must be a minimum of 28 days it begs the question why would you give someone 28 days to shut a fire door!
If you also consider that most fire doors protect escape routes then a wedged open fire door may NOT be protecting that escape route; therefore, would smoke from a fire (which kills most people) put relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire? If so then it would still be an offence, but now and not in 4 weeks time?
-
A fair point Neil, well made (even after a few beers (or red wine is it?)
I think that the enforcement notice would only be likely to be served as a result of continuous none compliance. Although I couldn't envisage it getting to that stage, if you follow enforcement through the logical process you would end up at an Enforcement Notice by default.
Two different scenarios:
1. Two fire doors leading from a room onto seperate escape routes in a normal/low risk building. If this room is mirrored on each floor, then by wedging a fire door open onto one of the escape routes only, would people be put at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire? I'd say probably not, as a fire is unlikely to start in the first place and if it does then they have an alternative escape route that they can use.
2. A single fire door protecting a single wooden staircase at ground floor level in an anorak factory, where they are using open flame heaters on the ground floor to keep the place warm in the winter i.e. high risk. If this door was wedged open, then in the event of a fire (which is much more likely due to the conditions) would it place relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury from fire? Absolutely!
1 - non compliance (a breach), 2 - non compliance (a breach) and also an offence. As always in my opinion.
A question for you in return. If you were to enforce this particular example i.e. the fire door being wedged open, which Article of the FSO would use?
(A 10 year old Macallan single malt in my case)
-
Good points Neil and John.
I do think this is an area that many do not fully understand.
Under the 71 Act if you found a locked fire exit or a wedged open fire door the owner/occ was guilty of an offence, as simple as that. Provided of course that the door was a requirement of the certificate and the building was being used for the purpose that it was certifcated for.
Now if an inspector finds such a contravention he would need to be satisfied that the wedged/locked door had placed persons at risk of death or serious injury....and that is not often going to be very easy to do.
You may not give someone 28 days to shut a fire door Neil but you may give them 28 days to improve their management systems.
Which article is being contravened if a fire door is wedged open???
In my opinion article 8.1 because the responsible person has failed to take general fire precations by his failure to comply with article 14 1(b) because in the event of danger i.e. a fire in the room, it may not be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible if smoke and heat from the room is affecting the escape route.
-
Can I take it back to the first fire door bit. It may be non compliance it may not. It depends on the FRA and the outcomes of that document. A risk anaylsis is exactly that. A hazard may be present that presents a risk but the RP may be prepared to live with it, do not forget Alarp and that the Onus is on the RP not an enforcer. As regards offences it is far easier to discharge the enforcement function afet an incident because of the reactive nature of the legislation than to do it before. Proving that an area of non complaince places a person at risk of death or serious injury is not easy before a event has taken place but much easiervafter. hence the differnec in fines and costs.
-
Sounds like a good time to mention Article 23 General Duties of Employees at work ......
23.—( 1) Every employee must, while at work—
(a) take reasonable care for the safety of himself and of other relevant persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;
(b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer by or under any provision of this Order, co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with; and
(c) inform his employer or any other employee with specific responsibility for the safety of his fellow employees—
(i) of any work situation which a person with the first-mentioned employee's training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a serious and immediate danger to safety; and
(ii) of any matter which a person with the first-mentioned employee's training and instruction would reasonably consider represented a shortcoming in the employer's protection arrangements for safety, in so far as that situation or matter either affects the safety of that first-mentioned employee or arises out of or in connection with his own activities at work, and has not previously been reported to his employer or to any other employee of that employer in accordance with this sub-paragraph.
Surely if the responsible person makes the employees aware, through evidenced regular training, the employee commits the breach and subsequent offence?
-
Surely if the responsible person makes the employees aware, through evidenced regular training, the employee commits the breach and subsequent offence?
Yes I agree, even to the point that action could be taken against an employee who fails to comply with the safety instruction of their employer; e.g. ignored a 'Fire Door Keep Shut' sign (but seriously would we? a good telling off maybe, but getting the evidence?)
The main question is "where is the management?" Wedged open fire doors do not just occur immediately before either a fire or an inspection (audit); they are ongoing problems because a fire door with self closer causes someone a problem. Therefore wedged open fire doors should be addressed by the FRA, article 11 and general day to day management.
I suggest that a wedged open fire door is indicative of poor management and many breaches of the FSO could be easily identified. An offence under article 32 (1) a...or just an indication that greater scrutiny is required? I'm sure that fire IOs are just like other law enforcers - a cursory glance around and if an obvious breach stands out start digging...
(Johno - at this time of night a 12 y.o. doublewood Balvenie)
-
Gents
We are missing the point here.
Its a fire door.
Either the certificate said so or the Risk Assessor said so.
Ergo propping it open is placing persons at risk
Voila!
-
No Davo I have to disagree.
Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last.
There may be no persons in the building or in that particular area at that particular time when the door is wedged, how would you prove to a Court that persons were placed at risk of death or serious injury???
-
No Davo I have to disagree.
Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last.
There may be no persons in the building or in that particular area at that particular time when the door is wedged, how would you prove to a Court that persons were placed at risk of death or serious injury???
Absolutely right Phil
Someone asked "why give someone 28 days to comply by way of an enforcement notice".
An inspecting officer / fire officer has to be 110% sure that lives are being or will iminently be put at risk of serious injury or death or the prohibition notice or prosecution will be easily challenged with sometimes heavy financial implications for the fire authority concerned.
An enforcement notice is a shot across the bow in a sense - failure to comply is an offence - simple as that.
I nearly prohibited the use of a restaurant the other day as the travel distance from the basement seating area was excessive and the fire exit was locked.
But because no one was eating down there at the time a clever barrister would argue no one was being put at risk at the time of my visit.
Its a very tricky issue.
-
Midland Retty
I can see the point, the way round it for the owner would be that he has carried out his risk assessment and the hazard of keeping the door unlocked (security etc.) is greater when the a basement is unoccupied than the hazard to people trying to escape from a fire. What is needed is a record of this in the Risk Assessment and an operating instruction to the staff that the door must be unlocked before people are allowed to eat down there.
If these are available then the owner has addressed his responsibities, if not then you could argue that his FRA is inadequate and proceed from there.
At the end of the day rightly or wrongly the emphasis has been passed onto the responsible person and however frustrating it may be we have to accept this.
The unfortunate aspect is that should a fire break out and people are affected that is when law descends like a tonne of the proverbial, which is of little consolation to the victims until they go to litigation.
-
The issue of a dangerous condition warranting prohibition or closure would be very difficult to show. An excessive travel distance is not dangerous. A locked fire exit, unless it is the only way out, is not dangerous. And if it is the only way out how did people get in?
From my experience a dangerous condition exists when the risk to a person or persons is significant and likely to happen.
Even if people are in a building or part of a building served by a staircase which had a protecting fire door wedged open it would be difficult to show that a dangerous condition exists.
There are many cases where F&R Services have issued notices where excessive travel distances exist or where protecting FR doors are missing a self closer for example and are given months to comply. In the interim the premises can still operate.
-
Surely if the responsible person makes the employees aware, through evidenced regular training, the employee commits the breach and subsequent offence?
Yes I agree, even to the point that action could be taken against an employee who fails to comply with the safety instruction of their employer; e.g. ignored a 'Fire Door Keep Shut' sign (but seriously would we? a good telling off maybe, but getting the evidence?)
The main question is "where is the management?" Wedged open fire doors do not just occur immediately before either a fire or an inspection (audit); they are ongoing problems because a fire door with self closer causes someone a problem. Therefore wedged open fire doors should be addressed by the FRA, article 11 and general day to day management.
We would not really serve an enforcement notice on the employee (although theoretically we could), if there was an issue with employees we should serve the notice to the RP, and the management should then deal with the employee through their own discipline procedures. On the other hand, if this was reactive (e.g. after a fire) then we could prosecute the employee under article 23 if his actions directly resulted in placing relevant persons at risk
-
No Davo I have to disagree.
Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last.
There may be no persons in the building or in that particular area at that particular time when the door is wedged, how would you prove to a Court that persons were placed at risk of death or serious injury???
Absolutely right Phil
Someone asked "why give someone 28 days to comply by way of an enforcement notice".
An inspecting officer / fire officer has to be 110% sure that lives are being or will iminently be put at risk of serious injury or death or the prohibition notice or prosecution will be easily challenged with sometimes heavy financial implications for the fire authority concerned.
An enforcement notice is a shot across the bow in a sense - failure to comply is an offence - simple as that.
I nearly prohibited the use of a restaurant the other day as the travel distance from the basement seating area was excessive and the fire exit was locked.
But because no one was eating down there at the time a clever barrister would argue no one was being put at risk at the time of my visit.
Its a very tricky issue.
I'm really not sure that it would work like that; Davo is closer to being correct, I should think. By providing a piece of safety kit, according to HSE guidance you are taken to have concluded that the kit is necessary in order to reduce risks as low as reasonably practicable. It is unacceptable to use risk assessment to remove that kit or render it inoperable (this is known as "reverse ALARP" and is strictly frowned upon - see HSE research report RR151, available from their website). Therefore, if you do so you must be placing persons at unacceptable risk. My understanding is that the only acceptable justification for removal is if it has no safety benefit at all (e.g. removing sprinklers from a store room where the use is changed to make it completely empty and sterile).
In the case of “the building was empty, so no-one was at risk” – the building wasn’t empty when the propped-open fire door was found, was it? Unless there is a convincing case that the management made sure all the doors were closed as soon as the building became occupied, it really doesn't hold water. If it were prosecution time, I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that.
The fire doors that don’t need to be issue is a real one, but then they shouldn’t have the ‘Fire door keep shut’ signs on them, so if they are maintained properly it really shouldn’t be an issue.
-
See where you are coming from fishy and common sense would dictate you are right.
Unfortunately though it does depend on several factors.
Take my scenario of the restaurant.
If the building was occupied and the failing constiuted a risk then great - should be no real problem pursuing enforcement / serious case prosecution.
if not however you will struggle (in most cases but not all) to take any major level of enforcement other than perhaps an enforcement notice.
You'd be amazed at what defence barristers can come up with, and they really do come up with some pearlers!
You have to prove people were put at risk based on what you have seen when trying to prosecute for serious case offences.
I couldn't make presumptions in court (I could offer a proffesional opinion as to what might have happened i.e:-
"Your honour I am of the opinion that if people were down in the basement at the time the fire exit was locked then they would have been put at risk because of x, y and z"
but you still need to be very careful what you say, as the defence may be able to noble you such as:-
"My client claims she only locks the fire exit when the basement isn't in use, at the time of your visit mr fire officer of course the exit was locked ; there was no one in the basement"
My findings have to be based on what I witness at the time, not hear say, or generalised "what ifs" or "maybes" etc.
So its a very hard game at times.
-
I'm really not sure that it would work like that; Davo is closer to being correct, I should think. By providing a piece of safety kit, according to HSE guidance you are taken to have concluded that the kit is necessary in order to reduce risks as low as reasonably practicable. It is unacceptable to use risk assessment to remove that kit or render it inoperable (this is known as "reverse ALARP" and is strictly frowned upon - see HSE research report RR151, available from their website). Therefore, if you do so you must be placing persons at unacceptable risk. My understanding is that the only acceptable justification for removal is if it has no safety benefit at all (e.g. removing sprinklers from a store room where the use is changed to make it completely empty and sterile).
In the case of “the building was empty, so no-one was at risk” – the building wasn’t empty when the propped-open fire door was found, was it? Unless there is a convincing case that the management made sure all the doors were closed as soon as the building became occupied, it really doesn't hold water. If it were prosecution time, I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that.
The fire doors that don’t need to be issue is a real one, but then they shouldn’t have the ‘Fire door keep shut’ signs on them, so if they are maintained properly it really shouldn’t be an issue.
Sorry Fishy that is exactly how it would work. For an offence to be committed there must be a failure to comply with articles 8-23 and that failure must place relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury.
If for example I remove an extinguisher (that would fit with your example of removing a piece of safety kit) I am not commiting an offence unless persons are placed at serious risk by its removal.
In the case of the empty building , no it wasn't empty when the door was found wedged open but a wedged open fire door will not always place persons at risk.........e.g. a fire door to an empty store.
"I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that."...Fishy the Courts, can only operate using the Statute that has been written...it may not feel right or convince you but the offence provision is quite clear.....relevant persons must be placed at risk of death or serious injury or there is no offence.
-
Its not about the door - its about the management of doors in that workplace. Are they actively trying to get employees to close fire doors. Are they fitting hold open devices or improving the ventilation????
-
Going back to the fire door bit. I work in a building where the landlord has placed "fire door keep shut" signs on all the doors. Quite clearly the majority of the doors, in the office environment are not fire doors and there is no requirement for them to be so. An inexperienced enforcer may take the view that as the door has a sign it must be so, very dangerous ground indeed. Yes I have reported it and yes, my opinion is worthless.
-
Not dangerous though - is it.
-
Phil B wrote
'Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last. '
I agree many architects put fire rated doors in for such a purpose, but does that make them fire doors per se?
Do you then compartment every wall in the place, cos without that the fire rating is meaningless. I would not put a fire door keep closed on such a door, what about ventilation to the rooms? Do you then put fire rated grilles in the doors?
Staff will (mostly) close doors they can see has a purpose, how do you explain an office door with maybe a computer or two?
-
I agree many architects put fire rated doors in for such a purpose, but does that make them fire doors per se?
Do you then compartment every wall in the place, cos without that the fire rating is meaningless. I would not put a fire door keep closed on such a door, what about ventilation to the rooms? Do you then put fire rated grilles in the doors?
Staff will (mostly) close doors they can see has a purpose, how do you explain an office door with maybe a computer or two?
Yes they are fire doors but they are not required for the safety of relevant persons. They may help for property peotection, mission continuity etc. but if they are wedged open persons are not placed at serious risk so there is no offence.
No I wouldn't put a fire door keep shut sign on either but that was my point....often they are marked as such........so the fact that a fire door is wedged open does not necessarily mean an offence or contravention has occured.
-
Say you take your car for an MOT and it fails. As the MOT process is there for safety reasons, is the car therefore dangerous? Defective brakes may be a big safety issue but being caught with them will not result in prosecution for dangerous driving.
Philb mentioned the removal of FFE. Firefighting equipment is not put in place to enhance the MOE. It is there for firefighting reasons. The MOE must not be dependant on the use of extinguishers and therefore not having FFE does not mean the MOE has been compromised.
I think many people over react a little to fire doors being wedged open or without self closers. If this created a dangerous condition then every time someone applies for a fire certicate they may as well lock the door for a while because applications normally result in a notice of requirements. And if a notice is issued it means that the existing MOE is inadequate.
A dangerous condition means that a serious risk to life and limb is present and very likely to happen. A welder working within a single stairway situation whilst standing in a bucket of petrol and smoking is a dangerous situation. A door without a SC is not.
-
Phil B
Glad we agree re the signs. In my area its usually lack of or removed FDKS that is the problem, not the overegging!.
Its a lack of understanding if the RP sees a manufacturers sticker and decides he has to put two blue FDKS on as well. As professional assessors would you advise removal of the FDKS?
More important to me is the lack of manufacturer's sticker to identify if its a fire door. Why don't they all follow BS8214 with the coded plug?
-
FDKS signs should only be displayed on doors that perform an important fire protection role- be it life safety, property protection or to protect business continuity.
The sign should identify to all building users that this is an important door and the sign needs to be complied with. Managers fire wardens and supervisors need to take action when they see doors wedged- either to find out why it was wedged and recommend a proper hold back device or give someone a rolliking. Thats why they should have an enhanced level of training- to understand the fire strategy so they are armed to inform and educate others.
If you put signs on all doors irrespective of whether or not they really need to be fire doors then you undermine all this because wedges will become common place. Keep it to the minimum.
Finally if the door is not provided for life safety then no offence is committed. Its not an offence to endanger business continuity, property or the environment- eg a server room in an open plan office with good means of escape may well have a fire door to protect the IT from the effects of a fire in a waste paper bin. The only thing at risk is business continuity.
-
Kurnal - surely FDKS signs should be displayed on doors that only perform an important life safety fire protection role?
The FDKS sign is a mandatory safety sign and should not be ambiguous. We all agree that fire doors provided only for property protection or to protect business continuity are safe to be left open so why stick a FDKS sign on it?
-
I see where you are coming from Neil but to be exactly technically correct I could argue that blue signs should also be used on doors that need to be shut for environmental protection because protection of the environment is one of the four foundation objectives of the Health and Safety at work (etc) Act 1974.
I also think that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment should also identify basic fire precauutions relating to key risks to business continuity in order to mitigate the effects of fire. If we dont people may lose their jobs and suffer stress as a result. Emotional wellbeing and mental health caused by workplace issues are also covered by the HASAWA .
In any case the employer will want to protect his business by identifying the door to the server room as a key fire door needing to be kept shut. To do this it would be folly not to use the standard safety colours and signage that represents best practise. Bit like providing double the extinguishers that you need and painting the extra ones in the colours of the rainbow.
Feelin argumentative tonite- does it show?
-
Kurnal
Section 2d of the HSW Act talks about maintaining the working environment, that still goes.
Section five referred to preventing noxious substances being emitted into the environment, this was repealed and put under the EP Act.
In relation to business continuity, we have our business continuity people and I'm told its nothing to do with me by my (H & S) boss.
Thats one of the reasons I'm not keen on the H & S links that now seem to keep cropping up.
(By the way, I do include it, it would be remiss of me not to do so)
-
Kurnal,
I fully accept the point about business continuity and I have come across the situation several times where fire doors have been installed throughout the building for business continuity.
There is no risk to staff for these fire doors to be left open when the offices are occupied, but they need to be shut when the office is closed for the night or when each worker leaves the office. This limits fire spread in the event of a fire to the room of origin, thereby protecting the rest of the building; business continuity. By not having FDKS signs on the doors means they are not contravening safety instructions by leaving them open; these doors are not for protecting people from fire.
Those fire doors which do have to be shut for safety reasons have the FDKS sign and everybody understands that these doors must be kept shut - no ambiguity ("which fire doors can I wedge open?")
If you start putting FDKS signs on all fire resisting doors you start causing unnecessary problems, or cause people to break safety rules.
However only today I saw a sign during a safety visit that I hadn't noticed before: a blue circular mandatory sign with "Keep shut when not in use" - would this solve our problem if more widely used?