FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Donna on May 03, 2008, 11:12:32 AM
-
After a member of the public made a complaint (amongst other things) to both the HSE and the local Fire Service about Poor lighting in a well used Public Building, Fire escape signs, etc etc
After the Complaint, measures were taken and the lighting was significantly improved by the Council, and various information signs were erected in the appropriate places including the one Rear Fire escape (the front of the building is always open and has approx 6 internal carpeted steps, and 4 or so masonary steps outside to pavement level)
The thing is, the rear Fire Escape (which is also the main IN/OUT Disabled access, plus internal route to the Disabled Toilet via Stannah Stairlift and Rear door) now sports a "Fire Escape" sign....but it is locked by key (and so are another two doors in between this door and the external door)!
Is this Illegal?
-
Is this Illegal?
From what you describe it doesn't sound particularly very good, but whether it is illegal depends on a few factors.
Initially I would say yes it is illegal, however they may have in their procedures a mechanism whereby a member of staff goes straight to that door in the event of a fire alarm to unlock the door (all members of staff carry the key and theres enough staff on to cover people away on sick leave or holidays etc)
But even then it would be pushing it, and it would have to be a rigid policy.In the days of risk assessment etc thats an option they may wish to use but they'd need to prove it was fool proof and would always work
Speak to the local fire officer again and see what she or he said , might be theyve accepted it or that there is another factor you are unaware of that comes into play.
-
Well after them Reporting this to the Local Fire Officer in the July, as well as the fact that this Main disabled entrance and Exit was partially blocked with tables and chairs, which was also mentioned in their complaint, the "said" Fire officer did not contact the Owner and Occupier of the building until after the two weeks following a letter to the complainant dated 11th October, who then said in the letter,
"as a result of your complaint, I have programmed an audit on the premises that will be carried out by one of my inspectors"......"however you need to be aware that we give occupiers of premises a couple of weeks notice of our intention to audit to give them the opportunity to collate the records etc that we need to see. There will therefore be a slight delay in this audit taking place.
They then had another letter on the 7th November which confirmed the audit had now taken place.........all this time passed from the July to the November, when the Fire Authority had been told of the "blocked (Fire exit/disabled entrance) Corridor" and in fact one has to go through "2 locked doors" to get to the outside, which are relocked behind the person before the door in front of them is unlocked,
There are only 2 members of staff on site at public times, and despite new signage, lighting etc etc The Fire Authority still hasnt stopped them for locking the door!
I just cant believe it!
-
Can a complaint be made about the above?
This building is used for Craft Fairs and Weddings and this fire escape is permenantly locked by key, and there are another 2 doors to be unlocked before one can get to the outside!
-
Donna
This sounds on the face of it way out of line. If its marked as a fire exit then it should be available for use at all times, sometimes there may need to be special arrangements made involving security devices but it is never acceptable for a building occupied by members of the public to require the use of a key to open an exit door.
I suggest you find the name of the Chief Fire officer and the Chair of the Fire Authority and make your complaint directly to them in person- ask for a meeting.
And if you dont get a good answer from them then think about using the Press. TV recently did an exposee of west country hotels- they may be interested in this.
-
Well after them Reporting this to the Local Fire Officer in the July, as well as the fact that this Main disabled entrance and Exit was partially blocked with tables and chairs, which was also mentioned in their complaint, the "said" Fire officer did not contact the Owner and Occupier of the building until after the two weeks following a letter to the complainant dated 11th October, who then said in the letter,
"as a result of your complaint, I have programmed an audit on the premises that will be carried out by one of my inspectors"......"however you need to be aware that we give occupiers of premises a couple of weeks notice of our intention to audit to give them the opportunity to collate the records etc that we need to see. There will therefore be a slight delay in this audit taking place.
They then had another letter on the 7th November which confirmed the audit had now taken place.........all this time passed from the July to the November, when the Fire Authority had been told of the "blocked (Fire exit/disabled entrance) Corridor" and in fact one has to go through "2 locked doors" to get to the outside, which are relocked behind the person before the door in front of them is unlocked,
There are only 2 members of staff on site at public times, and despite new signage, lighting etc etc The Fire Authority still hasnt stopped them for locking the door!
I just cant believe it!
Donna
There may be reasons for this. I get alot of members of the public contact me concerned about what they deem to be terrible fire precautions and practices. They are unaware of what goes on behind the scenes however and the exact rule of law and sometimes things arent what they appear to be on face value.
I totally agree that from what you describe the situation sounds dicey.
I am absolutely confident however that no fire inspector would allow a unsafe practice to continue once he or she is aware of it but naturally you are entitled to approach the officer concerned to discuss this further.
IF and only if you dont get a satisfactory response then write to the Cheif Fire Officer but not before otherwise your concerns wont be acted on.
-
Ok, Thankyou, contact will be made with them again in the first instance,
There is definalely something not correct, The first Fire Officer who was dealing (with this member of the public's observation of poor Health and Safety/) Fire Safety issues, told the member of the public that they would arrange a visit the building almost "immediately", and were very concerned, then they were uncontactable and The member of the public could not get hold of them for a while, and then eventually was told that the first Fire officer had been promoted and been not involved with the case. anymore..Then and only then did they receive the first written letter (detailed in above posts).
The HSE made some enquiries, and the Council were then told to upgrade the lighting to meet requirements (and this was a significant change) as the corridors housed a Stannah Stairlift and doubled as the fire escape (but at the time of the member of the publics' observations, NO fire escape sign was visable) and the very same corridor was contained chairs and folding tables awaiting collection from a wedding furniture hire firm after a wedding, this person has since got hold of information that this happens as often as weddings take place and other craft fairs etc etc, so it is an ongoing matter!
All the above information was given to the First investigating officer, in the July, (most weddings take place in the summer) but the place was visited in the November as previously described!
The member of the public, was not happy with how slow things were happening between the July and the November, and re contacted HSE and asked for all correspondence between the HSE and the Fire service under the freedom of information act, it arrived, and the member of the public was furnished with the emails between the HSE and Fire Service....The HSE wrote on several occaisions the reiterations of the complainant, and it was only noticable given the timing of the HSE it was for this reson only that the Fire Officer actually replied to the complainant by letter...and then they did not do anything!
The member of the public phoned the said Officer, and in the conversation, the fire officer told the person that the council staff have NOW been told to have a nominated Responsible person, and from the date in November, thay shall make regular hazard inspection reports (which they were not doing up to the time of the Fire Officers visit, they were told)
Now 2 years on, the original reason the member of the public entered the building (I will not elaborate due to legal reasons) has not yet been resolved, and is a seperate case, but in the meantime, they have uncovered a can of worms when they have now received the bundle of papers, again from the freedom of information act from the Fire Service, They had asked for the Hazzard inspection reports, of the said building, simply as they knew there would NOT be any...as the Staff of the Council owned building were only told to START keeping them in the NOVEMBER! the F.I.A. has now has produced lots of Hazard inspection reports of the building, dating up to 3 years BEFORE the time that the fire Officer told them that they should START to do them! Strange ....very Strange... as these are now produced like a rabbit out of a hat, all wrote out the same, the same ticked boxes, Not one entry has been entered as to the regular delivery of Wedding venue chairs and tables, that happens weekly, and they HAVE to be removed from the main rooms as these are used for another reason from a Monday to Friday!
The only thing that has changed between the time of the Fire Officer telling the Member of the public, that the staff had NOT previously kept Hazard reports and them NOW being produced in duplicate...is since the conversations between the fire service and the member of the public, There are legal proceedings between them and a trird party.
The member of the public does not want to make a complaint to the fire service, Not really, (As on the whole they are fantastic,) I suppose they would just want someone to think "Hang on a minute, I shouldnt let this go on...Ok the people who occupy 70% of the building, are a really big and powerful organisation, and it them who want the doors locked, But I have a responsibility to the members of the public, and I should gently advise that they stop locking the fire exit, no matter how intimidating they are"
Does that seem a fair request?
If the door is locked for security purposes...then they should have a human guard or something at the door....but DONT lock it!
And when this Fire escape is being used as the wheelchair access/exit, I dont think it is safe practice for them to be ushered into the corridor, have the door locked behind them, then the member of staff have to push tightly past them (as the corridor was partially blocked with chairs and tables and there is no wheelchair turning space if an alarm then started to ring!) to then unlock the door in front of them, and then repeat the proceedure in the Second corridor, at this time a person is locked in between two locked doors in front and behind, (Twice in two separate corridors) and was unable to turn around because of the blocked corridor,
-
Contact the Brigade HQ, register your complaint, tell your story demand a reply within three working days
-
Hi Donna
Telling us that it slightly puts a different slant on things .
As black arts said start rattling the cages at Brigade HQ
I think i might be able to guess whats going on here...
Firstly i didnt realise this was a council building (apologies if you already elluded to that fact I miss things at my age)
Im not going to say anymopre on that subject but lets just say the fact it is a COUNCIL (note the big letters) building does explain a few things.(Im sure you perhaps get my meaning if not private message me and Ill explain)
The other thing here is that yes a fire offficer shouldnt allow un safe practices to continue once he or she is aware of them - but if the council have been told not to lock doors by a fire officer but then continue to do so then it isnt the fire officers fault. Some fire brigades dont have the resources to go and check on continued compliance in this way. If something happens in the meantime its the councils fault for ignoring the fire service. I know thats not the way it should work, but there you have it.
Well here is yet another case of something Im hearing alot about.
The government want a level playing field and yet when it comes to enforcing on certain organisations the intervention of cheif execs who all play at the same golf club / visit the same masons lodge all seem to be pally with one another somehow always plays a part... hmm how strange!
-
Dear Jim,
I have tried to send you a Private Message, but the email address shown does not seem to work, and it has returned the message unsent to me, maybe if you Private Message me with a link, I can tell you more details,
-
No problem will PM you Donna!
-
Nothing come through to my email inbox yet, Jim?
-
Blimey give me chance Donna
I was out with the family having a well deserved Bank Holiday evening meal down at the pub
Il PM you tomorrow for its rather late now and I need my beauty sleep
-
Oops! Sorry, I forgot it was Bank Holiday :)
-
Thankyou Kurnal for the legislation info that I needed for Yesterday :-)
The local Fire Safety Officer was telephoned Yesterday, but no-one was available to speak to, the concerns with the locked Fire Exit were discussed with the person who answered the phone, and they said that someone would be in contact....an email was received later from "The Fire Safety Officer" (but no name was supplied) that asked for someone from a legal team to contact their Data Protection Officer! (I already know that the data protection Officer does not have the area of expertise to deal with Fire Safety Questions)
A polite email was returned re-iterating the issue, and it explained that the member of the public only want the simple question asked which was,
"After a Fire Safety Officer audit of the ****************in November 2006, It is known that the Signed Fire Exit is STILL being locked, this exit route contains 2 seperate locked doors, This building holds Craft Fairs and Weddings at the weekends which hundreds of people frequent, and the One Fire Exit remains locked!, As a member of the public I am entitled to ask this question, as simple conversation and communication may well resolve the issue, I do not think it is neccesary for a member of a legal team to be invited to contact your Data Protection Officer, who has already explained that she has no knowledge of actual Fire Safety Issues, It may well be the case that you are unaware that the Fire Exit is being Locked, I look forward to speaking with you soon"
Does that seem a fair email? I thought so,
Another Email has been received, which says, (A standard letter I think)
"Thankyou for your email, Your enquiry will be logged as non-urgent and passed to the relevant Fire Safety Officer for appropriate action"
As a member of the public, I am concerned of this, and its not surprizing that people can lose faith in The Safety Services,
I just wondered what you think?
-
Although it is well not publicised there should be a committee in the FRA which looks at complaints about the FRS. This is used to monitor the FRS but it will also deal with complaints and disciplinary matters.
About two years ago I saw an advert in the local rag asking for applications for members of this committee. You may have to dig abit to find it you could try Citizen's Advice.
-
The thing is Mike,
I value our fire service, I dont really want to make myself unpopular and make a formal complaint...So at the moment I wouldnt want to approach the FRA, (even though I will "dig them out" for future reference)... .but the Fire Safety Officer isn't helping himself, I think I put forward some valid points, as straight foward and as politely as I can in an email!...Is all I want is decent communication from him, and then I get sent a pre printed response, and that was 3 days ago!
The building is in public use today, and I know the fire exit is still unneccesarily locked. (as I know some other ways around it) I just want the chance to be listened to.
-
Not wishing to sound like the devils advocate, but have you seen a copy of the fire risk assessment donna? How do you know that the control measures relating to this door are not 100% robust and that the management pracitises and the assessment of risk carried out on the premises is not suitable?
Under the order It is the responsible persons duty to ensure a suitable assessment has been carried out by the competant person. If the company wants to live with that quantity of residual risk, that is up to them. Safe to say they would be prosecuted if there were any deaths or near misses and would receive a improvement, enforcement or prohibition notice by the brigade if they deam the mitigation of the risk to be unsuitable.
Why don't you ring them? And ask why he doesn't feel an improvement notice or letter of deficiencies is necessary. From my experience the fire brigades will send out deficiency notices like they are going out of fashion, so if this is an issue one would undoubtedly be issued.
Also, how do you know one hasn't been issued?
-
The response by the FRA seems strange.
If a complaint comes into the office we have to turn it around within 24 hours and if the complaint comes through brigade control (ie 999) an FSO will will be mobilised immediately.
Different working practices I suppose......strange
Jay
-
Not wishing to sound like the devils advocate, but have you seen a copy of the fire risk assessment donna? How do you know that the control measures relating to this door are not 100% robust and that the management pracitises and the assessment of risk carried out on the premises is not suitable?
Under the order It is the responsible persons duty to ensure a suitable assessment has been carried out by the competant person. If the company wants to live with that quantity of residual risk, that is up to them. Safe to say they would be prosecuted if there were any deaths or near misses and would receive a improvement, enforcement or prohibition notice by the brigade if they deam the mitigation of the risk to be unsuitable.
Why don't you ring them? And ask why he doesn't feel an improvement notice or letter of deficiencies is necessary. From my experience the fire brigades will send out deficiency notices like they are going out of fashion, so if this is an issue one would undoubtedly be issued.
Also, how do you know one hasn't been issued?
I think DOnna has tried that and isnt getting a response
-
Donna,
An interesting topic - to say the least!
FRA's will differ in practice (usually because of different staffing levels etc) but should not "ignore" reports of blocked/locked exits.
I would think that there are two easy solutions to this particular problem:
1. Visit the premises, attempt to open the fire exit (as somebody stated earlier, it should be available at all material times - hence our dislike of keylocks!). When (if) you cannot use the exit - ask (demand) to speak to the "duty manager" (the "responsible person") - and find out why you cannot use it. It you cannot speak to the DM, or their answer doesn't satisfy you......move onto option 2
2. EITHER Phone your local fire service headquarters and make a complaint, not to the fire safety office, but to the most senior person you can be put through to!
OR If, hand on heart now!, you seriously consider (please bear in mind that I do not the size, layout etc of this building) that peoples lives are being put at risk due to this locked door......... DIAL 999, ASK FOR THE FIRE SERVICE, REPORT IT! ALL 999 calls are recorded and logged with "incident" numbers - this WILL acheive some action!
Good luck!!
-
Dial 999? Nice one.
"Hello operator"
"Hi can I have an emergency response to a locked fire door please, the crew commander needs a chat with the DM at some shoddy dump of a community building"?"
"No"
"Ok, Bye"
Marvellous
-
No - Big T, that is not what I was implying.
By reporting it to the Control Room they will log the call and pass it on to either a Supervisory / Flexi-duty Officer with suitable skills/ knowledge (fire safety!) to attend OR they will contact the local Fire Safety Department for it to be acted upon.
The big difference to Donna contacting the fire safety department and Control contacting them is the fact that the call has been logged and recorded.
Should nothing happen after this, Donna's complaint / cause for concern will have an auditable trail and people will be accountable for their actions / lack of actions.
Fire Authorities hate having complaints made about them! Action will be taken using this method.
I believe that Donna has already exhausted the "nice routes" for raising her concerns and is entitled, as a member of public, to receiving a proper, professional, response to her concerns.
Also, if there are lives at risk - Crew Commanders should be suitably competent / confident in responding to causes for concerns and discussing the concern with the Duty Manager and taking any appropriate action (which could include, but not limited to, summoning the duty Fire Service Group Manager who would be empowered to serve an Article 31 Prohibition / Restriction Notice on the premises AND to consider the commencement of legal proceedings against the Duty Manager).
I hope this premises is not in the area that I live and serve in!
I would hate to think that the Authority I work for would "ignore" any report of a blocked exit!
-
To be fair though it isn't a blocked exit, its a locked exit, locked inside with a key. Would it be unreasonable to have a key to unlock it? depends on the buildings use and occupancy. Is there a spare key in a break glass box adjacent? Are there a suitable number of staff onsite who immediately unlock the exit on activation of the alarm?
What is the expected outcome? A push bar exit to be installed? a thumb turn lock to be installed?
I'm still not convinced by the 999 option though.
-
To be fair though it isn't a blocked exit, its a locked exit, locked inside with a key. Would it be unreasonable to have a key to unlock it? depends on the buildings use and occupancy. Is there a spare key in a break glass box adjacent? Are there a suitable number of staff onsite who immediately unlock the exit on activation of the alarm?
What is the expected outcome? A push bar exit to be installed? a thumb turn lock to be installed?
I'm still not convinced by the 999 option though.
Oh dear!
An exit that is locked, and cannot be used, is the same as a blocked exit (the hole in the wall being blocked by the door that cannot be opened).
Keys? Public Buildings? Break glass key boxes?? How quaint!
A simple quote from the document "Fire Risk Safety Risk Assessment - Large Places of Assembly" (published by the Secretary of State in support of the RR(FS)Order (Article 50))
"Doors used for means of escape should be kept unlocked at all times when people are in the premises and in no case should a door be fastened so that it cannot easily and immediately be opened for the inside without the use of a key. If the door is to be kept fastened while persons are in the building, the fastening should be by means of a panic latch or panic bar (or similar) so that the door can be readily opened by pressure applied by persons within."
There is obviously (for those who have read the documents) an awful lot more information on escape routes in the guides, I don't intend labouring the point.
Interestingly though, having had a quick scan of the other RA Guides I have not been able to find any acceptable situation for keys in glass boxes - can anybody point to one?
But, lets get back to Donna's problem - the fire service does not, from information posted, appear to have checked an allegation of a locked/blocked exit in a public building.
THAT, if true, is what is not acceptable.
-
Yes Donna I value the Fire Service as well especially as I was in it! However if I want the Fire Service to be the best there is I must let it know when it has not met my expectations (and also when it has). If you went into a restaurant and the food was badly cooked you would compalin wouldn't you?
It sounds to me as if there is a valid complaint about what has happened. There should be a valid explanation and the person who is worried about it should be reassured that everything is OK or that action will be taken.
Remember that no one believed that a nice GP would harm his patients even if he was called Harold Shipman.
-
Please remember I am merely playing devils advocate
Irrelevant of what the guides say (and I have read them) Whilst it may say "no keys", the majority of buildings in the uk wern't built in the last 2 years so I rekon the current number of exits with a red break glass key cabinet to open an alternative exit would be high. They have been ok for the last 40 years and i know for a fact that not every premise has even had an assessment, let alone a fire brigade visit and this property has had both. As always, it's up to the risk assessor to decide what is suitable (irrespective of the guidance document) or the fire brigade to enforce what they believe is suitable if the responsible person is in their opnion wrong. And in this case the brigade don't appear to care one little bit. Must be really dangerous if the IO thinks its ok as does the risk assessor and the council!
I wouldn't recommend using 999 as a complaints registration number, if you do, you face a fine of up to £5000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months.
Write to the CFO and if he ignores you and does nothing, question answered
-
thanks for all of the above comments,
I will try an phone tomorrow morning, I will politely ask for the highest person I can talk to,
I made the original complaint when I entered the building for one of its many uses Approx 2 years ago, and as I was once a member of an old workplace heath and safety team, I knew the minute I had entered the building that there were SO many things wrong, some came under HSE and some were Fire issues,
Without saying too much (as I am currently in litigation about this same building but for a different matter) I know the entrance that I "had" to use
shouldn't have had tables and chairs stacked in it! and I knew, that it was wrong for them to lock me into a corridor that had a locked external door (the first door I went in) then the Council employed staff member, overtook me to unlock the second door, (so at this time, I had a locked door behind me and a locked door in front of me, with stacked tables and chairs to my left...(my husband took note of them, but I could not hardly see anything as the lighting was too dim) this was again repeated until I got to the waiting room, and the door from the waiting room to the "said" entrance/exit was then re-locked by a key!
I then realised after getting my bearings that this was the only other exit apart from the front door (which has several carpeted internal steps, and then outside the building to get level with the pavement, has several more masonary steps.
The door which I will refer to WAS the fire exit....but it didn't have a green Fire exit Sign...until I had made the complaint and signage and lighting was brought up to legislation.....This had been going on for years and years.....How come it took a meer menber of the public to get this done! how come it had not been previously picked up on previous fire checks! Why...(you will have to come to your own conclusion on that one)
After the Fire service visited this premises in the NOVEMBER when the complaint had been made in the JULY, the various bits and bobs were done....its only when I re-visited the building to meet my Solicitor to measure somethings (again for a unrelated issue) did I realise that the newly signed Fire Exit...(thanks to my observation in the first Place) was still locked....and Now I cant get the fire service to even reply to me.
-
If, hand on heart now!, you seriously consider (please bear in mind that I do not the size, layout etc of this building) that peoples lives are being put at risk due to this locked door......... DIAL 999, ASK FOR THE FIRE SERVICE, REPORT IT! ALL 999 calls are recorded and logged with "incident" numbers - this WILL acheive some action!
No no no no no absolutely NO
DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT use 999 to advise the service of a problem like this
Donna instead id advise you to find out the normal landline contact number for fire control (you will find this on the fire service's website or sometimes thompson local / yellow pages. Or phone local fire station and as k them to give it to you if you are having trouble finding it).
MONKEYBOY I am absolutely disgusted and frankly shocked you advocate the use of 999 system in this manner - it is to be used for imminent emergencies only and not only that you may not get immediately in touch with the relevent control centre for the brigade you want to deal with. Its an absolute no no and you should know better.
By talking to control by the method I describe you guarantee you will be speaking to the right fire control centre and they will still log the call but menas the 999 lines are kept open.
-
I wouldnt, and didn't even consider it...panic not!
Nope I will keep, phoning and emailing...it will be quite interesting to see how far Ive got to go to get a fair question answered!
I would never do a 999 (unless for a real emergency)
-
I wouldnt, and didn't even consider it...panic not!
Nope I will keep, phoning and emailing...it will be quite interesting to see how far Ive got to go to get a fair question answered!
I would never do a 999 (unless for a real emergency)
Hiya Donna
This is a really intresting story and im dissapointed the Fire AUthority hasn't been more helpful to you.
I cant really add anymore to the advice others have given you, but definately do contact fire control and request a duty fire safety officer to attend the premises. (As Clevelandfire points out this is best done using the standard contact number for the brigade concerned rather than the 999 system)
ALso write to the Cheif Fire Officer and Chair of the Fire Authority
-
Donna. Do I read from your posts that despite the fact that there are locked fire escapes and you knew about them you still entered or remained in the premises?
Is it not the case that if you did not enter the building because you know that the means of escape is not adequate your right to free access and egress has been removed?
If you did enter the building and you thought that the arrangements for your safety where being compromised should you not have left immediately?
Is there not a DDA issue here?
-
Nearlythere,
The DDA issue only covers the "lack of service" that could be provided to the Disabled person, and does not cover the Fire Exit, (My DDA barrister has told me this)
To answer your first question,
In hindsight I did not know that THIS entrance was the Fire Escape, until I had actually got right inside, and realised, after I had adjusted to the sudden light change, and getting my bearings....and then simply because I was in the building, circumstances were changed at an alarming rate, that then caused, (the reason I was there in the first place) me to have this "appointment" be brought forward and technically Queue jump...which then resulted in a disasterous result! (disaster for the person I was supporting...not a "Disaster")
Yes, If I was able to leave immediately I would have, I HAD to stay, as someone was relying on my help and support, and I had a duty to try and assist them,
Secondly, When I next entered the building with my solicitor, the Staff knew beforehand that I was going to be visiting...and because of the complaint they received from my first visit a year earlier...they were at the entrance and all doors were pre opened and were left open....no locks...so I assumed that this was NOW how they were running things, thanks to my bringing the issue's to attention!
I now (recently) find out that they were conducting a PR stunt, as the building was closed to the public at that particular time, simply because I had my Solicitor with me! So on face, it "appeared" that they were doing things by the book!
I hope the above makes sense?
-
Donna - this building is sounding less and less like a typical, publically accessible building.
If you have to be escorted through several doors, each being unlocked/locked by a member of staff en-route then may I have a guess at this being some form of Court / Judicial building (part of which may be open to the general public - i.e. front entrance hall) etc.
This might explain why the doors are locked (it stops the "accused" from running away).
More information on the building = more specific advice.
Re:999 calls - ONLY to be made when there is an immenent potential for loss of life due to the locked exit and ONLY when all other avenues have been exhausted (or are unavailable).
The Fire Service, in general, will not prosecute somebody who is trying to prevent a loss of life due to fire.
-
Donna - this building is sounding less and less like a typical, publically accessible building.
If you have to be escorted through several doors, each being unlocked/locked by a member of staff en-route then may I have a guess at this being some form of Court / Judicial building (part of which may be open to the general public - i.e. front entrance hall) etc.
This might explain why the doors are locked (it stops the "accused" from running away).
More information on the building = more specific advice.
Re:999 calls - ONLY to be made when there is an immenent potential for loss of life due to the locked exit and ONLY when all other avenues have been exhausted (or are unavailable).
The Fire Service, in general, will not prosecute somebody who is trying to prevent a loss of life due to fire.
I have to agree with MonkeyBoy on this one. Seems an awfully long running matter and I would certainly think that your Fire & Rescue Service would be doing a lot more , if they were able to. I can't see any F&R Service dragging their heels on a complaint of blocked means of escape. It would help if you cut out the all the secrecy and lay your cards on the table for all to see.
There is a lot of withheld information here that needs to come out before a proper assessment can be made of the situation. Can you advise as to the precise nature and use of the building please and why you use it? Or is that a client confidentiality issue?
-
The info is all on this forum, I was open about the whole lot about 18months ago....its just that as another matter about this building, is actually at court stage, my barrister has advised me to NOW not say anything, at the Moment untill the matter has been resolved,
Yes the Building is used as a Non custodial Magistrates court 5 days of the week, but as I have stated, it is used as a wedding venue, and a craft fair venue at the weekends, and the fire escape is locked at these times! when in my opinion it is absolutely not neccessary! you would STILL have to go through locked doors with the said Council member of staff, if you were a guest at a wedding!
Thats what I am mainly concerned with!
Down this Fire Exit corridor is the Barristers gowning room! I cant see why that ONE sole private room, cannot have one of those push button combination lock gismo's that you see on doors to medicine cupboards in hospitals and use in banks! so any members of the public would be denied access, especially as the room doesnt have another door!
Why lock 3 doors to a fire exit, when my idea above (about a combination code lock) is a cheap and safer option?
I think there were many red faces when the first complaints were issued, because after all the years they,
1, Were operating in a corridor that was far to dim to see properly
and
2, A simple member of the public had to tell them about putting fire escape signs up!
None of this Was picked up before...but nevertheless, They should still remain proffessional, now that it has been bought to their attention (albeit by the same person) that they should look at why it is neccessary to lock this exit, when it is being used at its busyist times..The weekend!
-
The info is all on this forum, I was open about the whole lot about 18months ago....its just that as another matter about this building, is actually at court stage, my barrister has advised me to NOW not say anything, at the Moment untill the matter has been resolved,
Yes the Building is used as a Non custodial Magistrates court 5 days of the week, but as I have stated, it is used as a wedding venue, and a craft fair venue at the weekends, and the fire escape is locked at these times! when in my opinion it is absolutely not neccessary! you would STILL have to go through locked doors with the said Council member of staff, if you were a guest at a wedding!
Thats what I am mainly concerned with!
Down this Fire Exit corridor is the Barristers gowning room! I cant see why that ONE sole private room, cannot have one of those push button combination lock gismo's that you see on doors to medicine cupboards in hospitals and use in banks! so any members of the public would be denied access, especially as the room doesnt have another door!
Why lock 3 doors to a fire exit, when my idea above (about a combination code lock) is a cheap and safer option?
I think there were many red faces when the first complaints were issued, because after all the years they,
1, Were operating in a corridor that was far to dim to see properly
and
2, A simple member of the public had to tell them about putting fire escape signs up!
None of this Was picked up before...but nevertheless, They should still remain proffessional, now that it has been bought to their attention (albeit by the same person) that they should look at why it is neccessary to lock this exit, when it is being used at its busyist times..The weekend!
Is the building owned by the Crown?
-
No,
But I am not going to wait a week or so, until the Legal side of it has been resolved, and then I will be able to tell everyone ALL the details, as I fully understand that I cant expect anyone to help me with only knowing half the details...
But thanks to everyone anyway.
-
For those who think keys in boxes are OK just because we have always had them, remember in both the Woolworths & Summerland disasters these were in use and ended up with several bodies in front of them & these mechanisms were implicated as contributing to their deaths.
30 years is long enough to afford to upgrade to one of the dozens of different mechanisms available instead & when pricing up remedial found you could convert a key lock to an escape mortice deadlock for only £50
-
For those who think keys in boxes are OK just because we have always had them, remember in both the Woolworths & Summerland disasters these were in use and ended up with several bodies in front of them & these mechanisms were implicated as contributing to their deaths.
30 years is long enough to afford to upgrade to one of the dozens of different mechanisms available instead & when pricing up remedial found you could convert a key lock to an escape mortice deadlock for only £50
are you sure about the Woolworths fire?, I know that they were in use at the Rose & Crown Saffron Walden and a victim was found next to it. We really shouldn't be accepting them now if the public are expected to use the exits.
But from Donnas posts I cant be sure whether or not this door is actually required for the public for means of escape, as we know the fact that it has an exit sign on it does not mean that the building requires it for means of escape.
-
Good Point Phil,
I know the first time I entered the building there was NO sign, and then on my second visit (a year later) there WAS, so I am assuming that they were told to put one there, simply as apart from the front entrance this is the only other way out, It is used as a public entrance and exit as it invites ones to a ring bell at the back door for entry, it also has one of the buildings public toilet down this locked corridor for use of people in the building,
Other members of the public can use this toilet from outside the building...(if they are not actually in the building) if they have a radar key!
I am reading peoples comments on "Keys in glass boxes" and sorry if I have misled anyone...the keys to these doors are in a keyring on someones belt, which is all well and good, if the said person hasn't gone down the corridor locking the doors behind them as they go, as they go to let someone in, who has rung the bell from the outside of building!
-
Good Point Phil,
I know the first time I entered the building there was NO sign, and then on my second visit (a year later) there WAS, so I am assuming that they were told to put one there, simply as apart from the front entrance this is the only other way out, It is used as a public entrance and exit as it invites ones to a ring bell at the back door for entry, it also has one of the buildings public toilet down this locked corridor for use of people in the building,
Other members of the public can use this toilet from outside the building...(if they are not actually in the building) if they have a radar key!
Donna
the fact that someone has placed an exit sign on a door does not mean that it was required, it would depend on the competence of the person who recommended the sign.
If the corridor is locked then surely public can't use the toilet so there is no problem. How big is the building? Is the rear exit required or could everyone reach the front door within a reasonable distance?
-
Nearlythere,
The DDA issue only covers the "lack of service" that could be provided to the Disabled person, and does not cover the Fire Exit, (My DDA barrister has told me this)
I'm sure your barrister is a very clever person but disabled persons are quite entitled to an adequate means of escape from any part of the premises they have access to just as any able bodied person is.
I would research this issue further.
-
nearlythere,
I am actually pulling my hair out from the roots, arguing this with her, but she's on my side but NOT listening to me either. She said Ive got to take this up with the fire safety officer seperately, So thats what ive done! and he/she (whoever) wont respond either!
and PhilB
The reply I had from the original complaint (received November 06) From "THE" Fire Safety Officer, mentioned in the letter that THEY had implemented all the adequate signage, and this concluded their investigation. This was the result of their Audit carried out early Nov 06.
You Questioned the competence of the person who reccomended the sign? I do too!
-
But Donna, how big is the building? does it need an alternative escape route?
-
Donna, a question posed by Nearlythere was whether this building was owned by the Crown. Whilst not owned by the Crown, it is occupied by the Crown when the non-custodial court sits, and therefore the question is valid. However, the exemption from the requirement to have exit doors unlocked only applies to places of lawful detention, when they are used as places of lawful detention. So, from your descriptions previously given, there appears to every reason for the doors to be unlocked, and available at all times, even when the Court is sitting because it is not used for lawful detention.
-
Thankyou afterburner, you have got my point entirely :-)
At the weekends, when the building opens its doors to hundreds of members of the public, for Weddings and Craft Fairs....The Doors are STILL locked then.
What valid reason on earth!
By the way I emailed the Fire Safety Officer on the 8th May, politely asking the question about this exit, and I havent had a reply as of yet!
I had an automated reply that my email had been logged as non urgent and passed to the relevant dept, blah blah blah, (exact words in a previous post)
-
Thankyou afterburner, you have got my point entirely :-)
At the weekends, when the building opens its doors to hundreds of members of the public, for Weddings and Craft Fairs....The Doors are STILL locked then.
What valid reason on earth!
By the way I emailed the Fire Safety Officer on the 8th May, politely asking the question about this exit, and I havent had a reply as of yet!
I had an automated reply that my email had been logged as non urgent and passed to the relevant dept, blah blah blah, (exact words in a previous post)
Who does the building belong to?
-
The District Council!
-
Bingo!
A very nice member of the Fire Safety Team has made contact with me this morning, and a meeting has been arranged to have a friendly discussion to hopefully resolve some issues,
So until this meeting has taken place I would like to close this topic for now, In fairness to the gentleman who has made contact with me.
So thankyou for everyone who has contributed.
-
Donna -- hope your meeting with the Fire Safety Officer went Ok last month.
Any "news" for us on how things are going??
-
Sorry MonkeyBoy, I haven't been on here for a while, so not seen your message,
I posted a bit about it on the topic "A Positive Outcome" and its way down the list on the "Fire Safety" forum, (last post 6th June) it thats of any help, and the topic is now closed.