FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: davidandrewsuk on May 19, 2008, 02:41:47 PM
-
http://www.means-of-escape.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29
Any of your guys heard about this one?
Its a bit mad dont you think ?
If someone tried to take fire extinguishers out of my flats i'd tell em where to go!!!!
P.S Theres a pole on the MOE site, can something similar be started here ? Would be interesting to see what the majority feel on this one.
If not register there and cast your vote.
-
It's only mad from the perspective that residents are getting the hump about having extinguisher removed. There is no requirement for extinguishers in the communal areas of a block of flats, just as there is no requirement for a communal fire alarm system or (in some circumstances) communal emergency lighting.
Why provide them to cover someone elses (residents) risk. Communal areas must have a tolerable risk without the requirement for extinguishers which are an expensive, easily stolen or vandaliseable piece of fire equipment.
The recomendation would have come from the result of a fire risk assessment and the assessor believed there is no requirement for extinguishers. Of the many blocks I manage, none (apart from sheltered and supported schemes) require extinguishers.
I agree it was foolhardy to remove these without suitable consultation with the residents but the removal of the extinguishers has not jeopardised anybodys well being whatsoever.
-
I cant see the point in getting excited about this issue, the argument may have been relevant to this individual case and hyping up to hysterical proportions in this way does not help anyone. For example why quote BS5588 part 12 in the article and yet not mention the most relevant guidance document ie BS5588 part 1 section 7 ?
-
Nope I don't think Its mad at all frankly.
Residents should not tackle fire. Get out Stay Out Get the Fire Brigade Out.
Blocks of flats are built with adequate compartmentalisation so that if a fire does occur it should be contained to the affected flat, giving chance for the fire service to be called, arrive and begin dealing with it.
Having read the article in question it implies that most buildings wouldnt not be habitable or structurally safe after a fire (which isnt necessarily the case. An element of redecoration maybe required but rarely are structural components badly damaged in purpose built flats - In the case of HMO's this maybe slightly different)
The article suggests that the building could be totally destroyed by fire (ive never known a block of flats be totally gutted following a fire, and if this were to happen I'd have to question the level of fire resistance prevailing at the time of construction etc)
It also implies that a resident aged 103 should use a fire extinguisher. Dont be silly!
Im afraid this seems like yet another bit of propaganda originating from a certain sector of the fire safety industry.
There is a lot of deliberate misinformation put out into the public domain designed to cause hysteria like this. As Kurnal says it doesn't help (accept for lining the pockets of certain suppliers).
-
The residents who have got their knickers in a twist over this issue will just have to rely on the extinguishers they have supplied in their own flats won't they??!! -
-
Indeed they will yes
-
Still craziness imo.
There is a requirement for extinguishers in communal areas. They are supposed to be located on escape routes such as stairwells etc so should there be a fire on the route, due to a resident having stored boxes or arson or something, there is means to tackle it and escape safely.
I think its simple.
If all the fantastic safety measures that people have harped on about as being sufficient enough to warrant the removal of the extinguishers should fail or not in fact be sufficient what do you have left? Nothing if you have no extinguisher.
Insurance companies will pay £5000 to maintain them for petes sake. Why not have them ?
-
Still craziness imo.
There is a requirement for extinguishers in communal areas. They are supposed to be located on escape routes such as stairwells etc so should there be a fire on the route, due to a resident having stored boxes or arson or something, there is means to tackle it and escape safely.
I think its simple.
If all the fantastic safety measures that people have harped on about as being sufficient enough to warrant the removal of the extinguishers should fail or not in fact be sufficient what do you have left? Nothing if you have no extinguisher.
Insurance companies will pay £5000 to maintain them for petes sake. Why not have them ?
David
This is an old chestnut about why extinguishers are provided. If, as you suggest, they are provided to tackle a fire on the escape route and allow persons to escape safely, why are they not located at the start of escape routes?
-
If all the fantastic safety measures that people have harped on about as being sufficient enough to warrant the removal of the extinguishers should fail or not in fact be sufficient what do you have left? Nothing if you have no extinguisher.
For years now fire extinguishers have been ommitted from the common areas of blocks of Flats
To appreciate why you firstly need to understand the in way blocks of flats are constructed and the passive fire safety built into them.
Can you give me one instance where a block of flats have been totally gutted to the point where it has been rendered permenantly unhabitable?
I think you are liking this to say an office block which doesn't have the same ammount of compartmentation as a block of flats.
At the end of the day extinguishers should only be operated by persons properly trained on how to use them. Its not just about selecting the right extinguisher either.
You have to condition people to be able to realise when a fire is becoming too big for them to handle, to ensure they always maintain an escape route between them and the fire etc.
Small bin fires are a classic scenario I often hear banded about - "people should be allowed to put out something the size of a bin fire"...........Well whats in the bin? an empty aerosol cannister? what is the bin made out of? plastics which give off nasty fumes and smoke?
You can replace property, you can't replace humans. Yes by all means be proactive in terms of life and property protection but lets not get hysterical about this. Fire extinguishers may prevent a small fire turning into a big one, but in real life it isn't always as simple as that and priority is to get out!
-
Since when have extinguishers been used to protect ecsape routes? It is a misnoma put about by extinguisher sellers. ADB makes it quite clear that the functional requirement is for detection and warning and means of escape, nowhere does extinguishers get a mention. Means of escape are sterile areas and as such should not have any combustible in them. Most extinguishers are located in tenanted areas for trained staff to use when required and if possible to use. They are not a tool for anyone to use.
-
Since when have extinguishers been used to protect ecsape routes? It is a misnoma put about by extinguisher sellers. ADB makes it quite clear that the functional requirement is for detection and warning and means of escape, nowhere does extinguishers get a mention. Means of escape are sterile areas and as such should not have any combustible in them. Most extinguishers are located in tenanted areas for trained staff to use when required and if possible to use. They are not a tool for anyone to use.
Spot on Jokar
-
We very are turning into a nation of H & S obsessed wimps. Why shouldn't fit and able people, (or those with disabilities who may benefit from them even more), have the opportunity to put out the small bin fire?
This mantra of training, training, training is like some Orwellian nightmare. Many people have and will continue to deal with small fires without formal, accredited, expensive training just like people cross the road and a host of other slightly risky things.
-
We very are turning into a nation of H & S obsessed wimps. Why shouldn't fit and able people, (or those with disabilities who may benefit from them even more), have the opportunity to put out the small bin fire?
This mantra of training, training, training is like some Orwellian nightmare. Many people have and will continue to deal with small fires without formal, accredited, expensive training just like people cross the road and a host of other slightly risky things.
A voice of common sense - good man!
-
Eric did not write stuff that gives you nightmares, it was sensible mainly political literature. Speaking of which, I believe it is the Government who have the insistence of training and development of education for us all. Let anyone deal with whatever but don't allow the cost of that to be borne by others. If you want to protect yourself in your domestic delling and purchase an extinguisher so be it, but do not ask others to do that for you and then when it is not available as the thing has been emptied or has been sold off or you get injured\as you do not know what you are doing blame the purchaser.
-
Eric did not write stuff that gives you nightmares, it was sensible mainly political literature. Speaking of which, I believe it is the Government who have the insistence of training and development of education for us all. Let anyone deal with whatever but don't allow the cost of that to be borne by others. If you want to protect yourself in your domestic delling and purchase an extinguisher so be it, but do not ask others to do that for you and then when it is not available as the thing has been emptied or has been sold off or you get injured\as you do not know what you are doing blame the purchaser.
Why stop at extinguishers?
Why should a landlord have to fork out for fire alarms but not extinguishers?
If extinguishers are not necessary in flats, why are they necessary in hotels? factories?
Who the hell is Eric?
-
Why stop at extinguishers?
Why should a landlord have to fork out for fire alarms but not extinguishers?
If extinguishers are not necessary in flats, why are they necessary in hotels? factories?
Who the hell is Eric?
Eric may have penned the words but George was the name on the cover. I bet our mate pseudonym can explain that one.
We can either follow national recognised guidance on this or go our own way. Thats the beauty of risk assessment. BS5588 part 1 is the design document for blocks of flats. This document states that if the design follows the guidance fire extinguishers in common areas are generally not necessary for all the reasons outlined inprevious posts.
First aid fire fighting equipment is required in hotels and workplaces because they are workplaces and subject to different arrticles of the order. Common areas of flats are not generally workplaces for most of the time. And thats where the risk assessment comes in again.
-
Fire Alarms are not necessary in the Common parts of residential Flats either. That is all dictated by Government legislation and government produced guidance. As stated above BS 5588 part 1 is a design guide that is followed and reiterates all that has been said before.
Interesting point, many people did not want guidance to be produced to go with the RR(FS)O they thought that to risk assess off of nationallly recognised benchmark standards would be more suitable and more efficient, The difficulty with the CLG guides is that they are incorrect in some places and in other do not cover enoughabout means of escape whereas if you risk assess from natioanl standards it should all be covered.
-
Yup, Eric Arthur Blair AKA George Orwell. Most famed for the classic 1984. Written in 1948 and was published in 1949 he had struggled to find a title so simply reversed the date 48-84.
It was written as a piece of observational fiction and quite relevant today although it was not, as some would have you believe, a predictive novel for the end of the world in 1984 - that was a popular press piece of bs to bolster the film release.
Newspeak, Doublethink, Big Brother, the Thought Police, Ministry of Truth, the language of 1984 has passed into English language as symbols of the horrors of totalitarianism. Sorry, too much time on the road today, the mind just takes off on its own little tangents.............. .. .
My copy cost 85p and is dropping to bits. Bit like me really...
Back to the original thread: Any sign of Kidde just popping around to save the day? Oh no, not another marketing gem surley. How cynical. :lol:
-
Once again people who dont know anything about fire or fire safety are crying blue murder about the fact that common areas dont have fire extinguishers
Well oh my god stop the press, major problem, lets bring down the government!
Can I suggest those people read the whole thread again
PhillB Jokar and Midland Retty already told you why offices and hotels have extinguishers
Bit strange this has just come to light now isnt it - probably the people protesting are all related to the extinguisher industry. If you are that worried buy an extinguisher for your own flat, but dont try and tell me its the Nanny states fault that there aarent any fire extinguishers in your flats
Why not let people have a go at putting out fire ? Well what a totally stupid argument - tell you what lets let everyone who doesnt have HGV licenses drive trucks. Better still lets let people who have never flown a plane become a pilot.
The fire service says the best thing is to get out and stay out - you live longer that way
But fine if you want to stop behind to tackle it without the proper training then fine go ahead, I tell you what why not man your local fire station too seeing as you know so much! What a totally silly response. I am absolutely disgusted. Do you know something it would really be good for you to go and be a firefighter and see what can go wrong. People can die or be seriously injured do you not understand that or do you think thats acceptable? Cos you havent got a clue.
Shall I tell you what happens to fire extinguishers in common areas? They are used to prop open fire doors which poises more risk or they get vandalised or knicked. But no you go ahead an pout them in and get charged for replacements or repairs its fine. I really dont care
-
Far be it from me to agree with Clevelandfire - but hear hear, well said old chap.
-
I think comparing using a fire extinguisher to flying a plane is a bit childish.
Agreed if the RA deems extinguishers not to be required due to building design, thats fine.
But lets not get carried away, we have dozens of clients over the years who have saved their homes/businesses by extinguishing fires using their own equipment WITHOUT ANY FORMAL TRAINING, it's not rocket science, to insult these people by using the phrase "stupid argument" or "silly idea" is ignorant and reminiscent of the worst type of "old school" fire officer.
The point is, every situation is different, thats why the RA is required.
You can not ban people from thinking for themselves, quick thinking action can have it's consequences, but has also been the saviour of countless lives.
-
I think one of the points being made is that if you place extinguishers in the common areas of blocks of flats you would have to replace them every day. If you have a policy of providing extinguishers for fire fighting they have to be there. If you don't, they don't.
The issue about training is one where I believe some people would advocate that, unless properly trained, you shouldn't use a spoon to stir your tea in case you injure yourself.
Flats are full of equipment which is more complicated than a point and press cylinder of water and no training seems to be required.
My theory is that flats have no need for extinguishers in common areas because there are usually no ignition or fuel sources contained therein. If occupants think otherwise then they can provide their own.
-
I would take this whole thing simply to be.
1.Insurance requires provision of extinguishers
2.Untrained residents using said extinguishers is dangerous (regardless of in private or communal areas)
3.Legislation requires residence to be trained if extinguishers provided (according to article applies to both employess and residents of HMO'S)
4.Thus, training is both logical and lawfully required.
Training should also be ensured to be comprehensive to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that sufficient training was given in the event of court proceedings.
Many of the arguements put forward by people that seem to ignore these core concerns are done so in an attempt to cloud these points out of contempt for H&S or RA's in general.
Its a fun game to see what outlandish yet reasonable reason you can come up with next to make mockery of the topic.
With the state of the country and us fast having become no different than America in our blame & claim culture you can see why people have become so cynical.
I think it's simple however. Look for your axioms, see the solution.
P.S Theres a pole on the MOE site, can something similar be started here ? Would be interesting to see what the majority feel on this one.
If not register there and cast your vote.
-
Buy your own sodding extinguisher bin your chip pan, stop smoking in bed, turn off your electrical items at night and have a home fire safety visit would you? That would go some way to mitigate YOUR risk in YOUR demise, why does a landlord have to provide an extinguisher in THEIR corirdor with a tolerable risk to cover YOUR Flat?
I think I'll ring my local council and the highways agency to ask them to install fire extinguishers on the lampost at the end of my driveway to ensure that if there is a fire in my house I can run out and grab a fire extinguisher to run back in to put the fire out. I doubt they would very accomodating somehow. Probably because they are likely to get nicked or vandalised. Oh and also the small fact there is no requirement to provide them there
-
I would take this whole thing simply to be.
1.Insurance requires provision of extinguishers
2.Untrained residents using said extinguishers is dangerous (regardless of in private or communal areas)
3.Legislation requires residence to be trained if extinguishers provided (according to article applies to both employess and residents of HMO'S)
4.Thus, training is both logical and lawfully required.
David
Can you point me in the direction of the legislation which requires residents to be trained to use extinguishers please?
-
You will find it on Page 3 section 2 of the puffin "my first book of fire safety"
If only trained people should use them why do they have instructions on them? To remind the trainer during the test I would imagine
-
You will find it on Page 3 section 2 of the puffin "my first book of fire safety"
If only trained people should use them why do they have instructions on them? To remind the trainer during the test I would imagine
Eh?
Is that the legislation?
-
No that is a fictional childrens book I just invented.
-
No that is a fictional childrens book I just invented.
*laughs out loud*
What the residents need to understand is that there is no legal requirement to provide fire extinguishers in private individual flats.
So if they want to protect their own flat they should purchase a fire extinguisher just like I would for my semi detatched house for instance.
Flats are constructed so that if a fire occurs in one flat it shouldn't spread to any other flats for 60 minutes. As I said before this is plenty of time to allow for the fire service to be called, arrive and deal with the incident.
Furthermore the common areas should be sterile and you shouldnt (in theory ) have a fire in them.
If people do wish to fight fire then fine, but it would be intresting to find out if the insurance companies would be pay out because of death or injury caused by someone attempting to fight fire with an extinguisher provided in the common areas who hadn't received any training.
So yes if you want to buy a fire extinguisher at you own risk for youre own flat then do so, but extinguishers in common areas serve absolutely no purpose. You should not have a fire in the common areas and there is nio requirement for a landlord to provide them for individual flats.
-
I would take this whole thing simply to be.
1.Insurance requires provision of extinguishers
2.Untrained residents using said extinguishers is dangerous (regardless of in private or communal areas)
3.Legislation requires residence to be trained if extinguishers provided (according to article applies to both employess and residents of HMO'S)
4.Thus, training is both logical and lawfully required.
David
Can you point me in the direction of the legislation which requires residents to be trained to use extinguishers please?
Quotes it in the article.
-
I would take this whole thing simply to be.
1.Insurance requires provision of extinguishers
2.Untrained residents using said extinguishers is dangerous (regardless of in private or communal areas)
3.Legislation requires residence to be trained if extinguishers provided (according to article applies to both employess and residents of HMO'S)
4.Thus, training is both logical and lawfully required.
David
Can you point me in the direction of the legislation which requires residents to be trained to use extinguishers please?
Quotes it in the article.
Where please?
-
Nah - that's baloney
-
*Big T throws himself out of a window*
There is absolutely, categorically, no legislative requirement to provide extinguisher training whatsoever for resisdents of flats or the occupants of a HMO.
You only need to provide extinguisher training for staff where appropriate.
-
Baloney indeed
residents are not employees in this instance.
As you can see, their amount of topics and recent postings is not the best.
Keep the FNF faith
davo
-
*Big T throws himself out of a window*
There is absolutely, categorically, no legislative requirement to provide extinguisher training whatsoever for resisdents of flats or the occupants of a HMO.
You only need to provide extinguisher training for staff where appropriate.
I would also suggest that there is absolutely, catagorically, no legislative requirement to provide extinguishers either.
-
Unless told to do so by a body /person authority to issue such requests. Then as a service provider one would do as one is requested to allow one's table to have food placed upon it. Following an authorised Risk Assessment to ensure the table had the capabilities, size, strength and was indeed deemed fit for purpose. By one.
Now then, tea or coffee? :)
p.s. kidde are on their way anyway so all these arguments and points of view, interesting though they may be, are a waste of time. :)
-
This is hard work isnt it! The practicalities of providing fire extinguishers in common areas of residential flats just dont bear thinking about. I agree using an extinguisher is not rocket science but on the other hand I've seen a set of pics from a school fire somewhere up north where they bent the handle of the extinguisher trying to use it without pulling the pin. Also what extinguishers should be supplied?
Somewhere along ther line here dear old common sense has gone on annual leave.
-
Lads can I just say a big thanks for making sure common sense prevails... this thread has been started by people with hidden agendas, or either that as Midland Retty says people who dont have a clue about fire safety o rthe affects of fire.
Wee Brian you are totally right - this is Baloney!
-
I would take this whole thing simply to be.
1.Insurance requires provision of extinguishers
2.Untrained residents using said extinguishers is dangerous (regardless of in private or communal areas)
3.Legislation requires residence to be trained if extinguishers provided (according to article applies to both employess and residents of HMO'S)
4.Thus, training is both logical and lawfully required.
David
Can you point me in the direction of the legislation which requires residents to be trained to use extinguishers please?
Quotes it in the article.
Have you read the Fire safety order? If so, what is your understanding af Article 7(3) " Articles 19 and 21 impose duties only on responsible persons who are employers"
As for the poll on another website I cant see what this will prove. You could similarly ask a question such as "Do you think it scandalous that landlords of blocks of flats are not required to install smoke detection and fire alarms in the corridors and staircases" or " Do you think that fire doors in corridors and staircases are an unacceptable impediment to free movement and should all be removed".
As someone once said- "eat ****- ten thousand billion flies cant be wrong"
-
As someone once said- "eat ****- ten thousand billion flies cant be wrong"
Oh my god you just hit a home run - you are Manchester United - That is priceless! I just love that!
It speaks volumes to me that the guy who strated this thread and who was asked to provide evidence of which article he refers to hasn't commented back
What a load of rubbish
-
The articles there read it you got eyes aint ya ?
Although in fairness it seems that the writer has misinterpreted that part of the legislation but the equation holds true.
Insurance requirement to have them = Risk as they must be present = People require training.
Cant argue with that part imo.
Kurnal Wrote
" Do you think that fire doors in corridors and staircases are an unacceptable impediment to free movement and should all be removed".
..... depends .... is it locked ? lol :)
-
... this thread has been started by people with hidden agendas ...
Lol just call me Mr X
I work for the extinguishlings of planet tyco.
They are in the midst of a battle with the firetons from system 02X.
The pair of them are waging a secret war here on earth and the stationing ground of Communal Areas is imperative to our war efforts.
-
The articles there read it you got eyes aint ya ?
All I am asking David is for you to point me to the specific Article which requires residents to be trained in the use of extinguishers please? Thats all. We want to ensure that we give the proper advice to our clients so they can comply with the law and we need your help to do this.
You can understand that if I advise a client that there is a legal requirement for residents of flats to be trained to use extinguishers he could challenge me. It would be great if I could show him the specific legislation regarding this.
Maybe my eyes are not as good as they used to be but surely such a simple request, especially as you have 20/20 vision, can easily be accommodated.
All you need to do is quote the legislation and where within I can find it. The use of a few letters and numbers will be sufficient.
Waiting.
-
"Duties under this order
(2) Where the premises are not a workplace, the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control"
"Training
21. -(1) The responsible person must ensure that his employees are provided with adequate safety training
(a) at the time when they are first employed......"
Regulatory Reform Order 2005(6)
My apologies nearly there that wasn't so much aimed at yourself it was a reasonable request it was more for the flippant Clevelandfire.
We can all be flippant, takes but a second.
As i went on to mention i think the writer has mis interpreted this section of the article however and i think it is safe to disregard it.
The insruance arguement, however, in my opinion would still seem to hold and does present an interesting conflict between insurers and risk assessors.
-
Just out of interest, which insurance company is 'requiring' extinguishers in the common areas of blocks of flats? I can't speak for the insurance industry as a whole, far from it, but mine (one of the largest in the UK) does not make any such requirement, for reasons that have been fully explored above!
-
nearly there
Trying to interpret this
a) 5(2) duties under this order
where the premises are not a workplace, the RP must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regs made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements rlate to matters within his control
b) RP 3(b)
the owner or person in control of the premises in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking -is being a landlord an 'undertaking'?
c) relevant persons -any person lawfully on the premises
d) Application 6 (2) includes domestic premises other than a single private dwelling
Discus
Davo
As the prof says, training is not a requirement.
-
"Duties under this order
(2) Where the premises are not a workplace, the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control"
"Training
21. -(1) The responsible person must ensure that his employees are provided with adequate safety training
(a) at the time when they are first employed......"
Regulatory Reform Order 2005(6)
My apologies nearly there that wasn't so much aimed at yourself it was a reasonable request it was more for the flippant Clevelandfire.
We can all be flippant, takes but a second.
As i went on to mention i think the writer has mis interpreted this section of the article however and i think it is safe to disregard it.
The insruance arguement, however, in my opinion would still seem to hold and does present an interesting conflict between insurers and risk assessors.
Article 21 Training refers to employees and not residents.
Article 13 - Fire-fighting and fire detection uses phrases like "where neccessary" and "to the extent that it is appropriate". This does not mean a requirement. It even allows for the disregarding of fire-fighting completely where it is not neccessary.
It could even be argued that the measures for firefighting in paragraph 3 is a telephone and suitable instructions or procedure for calling the Fire & Rescue Service. Again this is "where neccessary".
Might I suggest that if the legislation required fire-fighting to be provided they would specifically say so like "The premises shall be equipped with Fire-fighting equipment appropriate for the risk."
The insurance aspect, according to your opinion, suggests that the insurance companies may find it more economical to compensate a widow or widower than replace a building.
-
Article 21 Training refers to employees and not residents.
The insurance aspect, according to your opinion, suggests that the insurance companies may find it more economical to compensate a widow or widower than replace a building.
I assume you mean that it may cost less to pay off a widow(er) than pay off the cost of the building. Maybe? I wouldn't know. And knowing insurance companies I wouldn't put it past them if that was the case and they thought they could get away with it. However I dont suggest that and believe that to be a cynical line of reasoning my quandry deals mainly with the below.
This is how I see it.
An insurance company, quite rightly, has a vested interest in the building remaining standing and is lawfully aloud to make provisions in
there contract with the insuree that they take "reasonable" precautions to prevent this.
We are putting forward that should the tinyiest fire of ANY kind start, leave it, sound the alarm, get out.
That fire will cause damage. That is a fact.
Now i would ask that with the statistic that 4 in 5 fires are put out in the first instance by a fire extinguisher is it reasonable for the Insurance
Company to require their presecence should anyone WANT to attempt extinguishing the flame.
By insisting on there provision would that perhap make them liable?
I think i'll leave you with this thought, I think this is an interesting topic to continue but not for me anymore im moving on!
Thank you for all your comments I did find them very interesting and certainly illuminated more about the topic.
Until the next one ;)
-
Aw cmon David this was just starting to get interesting.
You need more staying power than this old chap!
I think that the insurance company is probably wrong in this case and should justify the logic.
Yes all fires start small and 80% of small fires are dealt with using extinguishers without calling the brigade.
But fires grow rapidly and can soon grow beyond the capability of first aid fire fighting equipment.
You have to catch them in their earliest stages to tackle them safely.
But in most blocks of flats the common areas do not have smoke detectors or fire alarms. So in this case if a fire occurred in the common areas it is unlikely to be discovered in its early stages.
The Insurance companies best intersts- and those of the residents- would be best met by focussing their efforts on keeping the common areas sterile and free of fire risk. Prevention is much better than cure.
-
Surley if the correct kit - i.e. fit for purpose, is installed within the flats, then assuming most fires are within the kitchen, the resident would be present within the flat and able (if they feel confident enough) to tackle it or too exit and raise the alarm. That being said, how many OAPs know how to use an MCP?
(They could use the fire extinguisher to break the glass - not being aware of non glass MCPs!!)
Then would they go back in there flat to collect Tiddles and the Pension Book or not go back to their flat and evacuate as is the best practice nor panic other residents with the alarm screaming?
We go off on tangents with these posts yet ignore the basics at times.
-
Flats and maisonettes are statistically less likely to catch fire than any other type of dwelling, fact, so why is everybody so worried about the extinguishers? No-one has them in their house (apart from a sensible few). And houses are more likely to catch fire
If the building you are descibing Psuedonym is sheltered, then there is a requirement to have AFD and extinguishers, but the post is about Flats where there is no requirement.
-
Surley if the correct kit - i.e. fit for purpose, is installed within the flats, then assuming most fires are within the kitchen, the resident would be present within the flat and able (if they feel confident enough) to tackle it or too exit and raise the alarm. That being said, how many OAPs know how to use an MCP?
(They could use the fire extinguisher to break the glass - not being aware of non glass MCPs!!)
Then would they go back in there flat to collect Tiddles and the Pension Book or not go back to their flat and evacuate as is the best practice nor panic other residents with the alarm screaming?
We go off on tangents with these posts yet ignore the basics at times.
Ahhh yes but we are talking about extinguishers in common areas not actually in individual flats themselves.
As I said in an earlier post on this thread a resident is perfectly within their rights to buy a fire extinguisher for their won flat if they so wish, rather like if I went and bought one for my own home.
But if the landlord provided them in the common areas and a resident were to use one and was injured or worse who would be blamed? The landlord.
Alot can happen from the time it takes for a resident to realise their kitchen is on fire, leaving their flat to search for an extinguisher and then returning to the flat to tackle the fire.
Anyone recall the infamous "flashover video" where it took just two and half minutes from the fire starting for flashover to occur.
You can say what you like, you can argue that buildings should be saved wherever possible, but for my money buildings can be replaced, human beings can not.
-
I almost hesitate to bump this up but I couldnt see that any new info had been posted on it.
I thought people would be interested to see the outcome?
http://www.means-of-escape.com/press-releases/press59.aspx
If the links not allowed (not sure?) then basically they repealed the decision and Kidde so nicely im sure gave extinguishers to all the private apartments.
Dunno about training though !!!
-
All this issue was recently talked about here,
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=3205
you may find the comments useful
-
Kidde may have done a PR stunt by giving the residents freebies, but from the photo it looks like UK Fire supplied the ones for the common areas from their economy range by Eversafe of Malaysia
-
I still think this was a huge climb down from the CFOA to almost force a repeal of the requirements of a FRA, especially a FRA that had full support from the Local fire and rescue authority. Just a load of political hoopla if you ask me. BS5588 pt 1 fully supports the decision to remove the extinguishers.
I think it is a shame that the assessor based the removal of the extinguishers by citing a H and S requirement to have the residents trained.
The real reason they should have been removed is that the communal areas are sterile with no risk (aside from imported arson risk) and that BS5588pt 1 states that they are not required where vandalism is likely. In my opinion it would be reasoble to remove them for this reason after 1 insident of malicious missuse of any extinguisher in the block. In addition to this (statistically, not through prejudism) blocks with any form of social element are more likely to have vandalism than a normal usage.