FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on August 01, 2008, 04:48:27 PM
-
The B&B association campaign in respect of what they see as heavy handed application of the fire safety order is publicised today.
http://www.bandbassociation.org/fire.html
They have written to the Secretary of State- a further link on the sits leads to the text of this.
-
The B&B association campaign in respect of what they see as heavy handed application of the fire safety order is publicised today.
http://www.bandbassociation.org/fire.html
They have written to the Secretary of State- a further link on the sits leads to the text of this.
"It is expressly not intended to place onerous new burdens on businesses or render whole categories of small businesses economically unviable."
The Government's view is that it doesn't place any new burdens on any business because since the H&S at Work legislation was introduced Risk Assessments should have been carried out, to include the risk from fire, and control measures put in place. In theory there should be nothing to do other than carry out a Fire Risk Assessment.
Because small businesses , including B&Bs, did not bother to abide by the legislation at the time they now have to play catch up.
However, I sympathise with small B&Bs where they are required to install BS5839 systems. If self contained is good enough for a family residence surely it is good enough for a small B&B.
-
The Government's view is that it doesn't place any new burdens on any business because since the H&S at Work legislation was introduced Risk Assessments should have been carried out, to include the risk from fire, and control measures put in place. In theory there should be nothing to do other than carry out a Fire Risk Assessment.
Because small businesses , including B&Bs, did not bother to abide by the legislation at the time they now have to play catch up.
However, I sympathise with small B&Bs where they are required to install BS5839 systems. If self contained is good enough for a family residence surely it is good enough for a small B&B.
But nearlythere most of these small B&Bs are outside the scope of the workplace H&S legislation as most of them dont employ anybody, they offer a room or two in thir own private homes. So there has never been any legal requirement to carry out risk assessments prior to 1 Oct 2006
-
Kurnal,
This is old hat from the B & B Association who are running the campaign to bolster their commercial profile. The relevant ministers have already met and the industry's concerns are being addressed. Wait until the autumn when 'nearlythere' (is that a reference to pension or grey matter), can have a go at another pragmatic attempt to help small businesses.
-
Val
I have worked for many of the small B&Bs and their concerns are very real over the interpretation of the guidance and the imposition of prescriptive standards in many cases, which can be viewed as disproportionate. I agree with them that there is a real probblem and hope the new guidance - I think this may be what you infer - is very clear on the need for proportionate risk control measures- the original draft Scots sleeping guide expressed this so well in respect of fire doors in small premises- and that is the tone that is needed.
-
The Government's view is that it doesn't place any new burdens on any business because since the H&S at Work legislation was introduced Risk Assessments should have been carried out, to include the risk from fire, and control measures put in place. In theory there should be nothing to do other than carry out a Fire Risk Assessment.
Because small businesses , including B&Bs, did not bother to abide by the legislation at the time they now have to play catch up.
However, I sympathise with small B&Bs where they are required to install BS5839 systems. If self contained is good enough for a family residence surely it is good enough for a small B&B.
But nearlythere most of these small B&Bs are outside the scope of the workplace H&S legislation as most of them dont employ anybody, they offer a room or two in thir own private homes. So there has never been any legal requirement to carry out risk assessments prior to 1 Oct 2006
Yes, you are quite right. I was thinking about small businesses in general, which could include B&Bs, with small numbers of employees who still did not bother with the legislation.
Is there not a requirement to carry out a Risk Assessment under the H&S at Work 1974 legislation?
-
I'm happy to admit that I am not familiar with the unique issues that B&Bs' face. So I'm keen to learn. I'd disagree that just because one accepts a level of risk in ones own home that the same level of risk should be acceptable to a paying customer, so I put it to the B&B owners - what is it about the (surely flexible and desirable) aspects of the UK legislation that you don't like?
-
I stayed in a B&B last night. A 3 storey building run by Mr & Mrs Proprieter (very nice couple) with a single staircase, heat detectors in the rooms, smokes in the means of escape, emergency lighting etc. On the back of the bedroom door was the fire action notice with the proud statement 'Fire Certificated'. On returning from a nice Indian meal and a beer (as you do) I noticed that the fire doors to the lounge and the dining room on the ground floor (leading onto the single escape route) and every fire door on the staircase, plus the fire door leading to every unoccupied bedroom was wedged open. So after a mamoth session of removing wedges and closing said fire doors, I spent a fairly restless night tossing and turning in my overheated 2nd floor room. On checking out the following morning I pointed out my concerns to Mr & Mrs Proprieter who really didn't have a clue about the potential disaster they could have been responsible for and were pretty shocked. I should imagine there are many many B&B's and Guest Houses in the same situation. And those are the ones who were used to the Fire Service inspecting.
-
We maintain equipment in hundreds of B & B's and small hotels, and have also done dozens of upgrades to B&B fire systems and I can confirm that on the hole most of the small B&B owners have not got a clue about fire safety.
And nearly all say "we have had a fire certificate for years" or "the fire service never pointed this out before" etc etc.
One very poor example was a three storey building with 8 bedrooms, they had just had an audit from the Fire & Rescue Services and had been told that they had to get their fire alarm and emergency lights serviced to the relivant british standards.
We were called in to do the work.
On the ground floor there was one breakglass point (no sounders or detectors) on the first floor they had one of the very old Gent units, a big box breakglass on the front of the box and a built in bell. Nothing on the top floor.
When we told them they needed a total upgrade they went mad. "we have done a fire risk assessment and the fire service have passed it and i just need to get it maintained".
When I calmed them down I asked to see their fire risk assessmen, it was a printed sheet with tick boxes downloaded from the internet. I asked how did the fire office assess the risk assessment. he said " he sat in the kitchen and looked through the assessment and typed the details into his laptop, with out looking round. "so he took your risk assessment on face value and used your answers i said"
When I pointed out that on the risk assessment he had ticked a yes box that said does your building have a full automatic system that complys with BS5839-1, and that he had not got any detectors anywhere and that he had lied on a legal document where if someone was to die from a fire he could be charged with manslaughter, he suddenly went very white and more interested in what he should have in his building.
My experence is that a lot of these places have been getting away without even the basics of fire safety in their sites.
I always think to myself when visiting these buildings is this. "If my children were to stay in this building on the very top floor or remote room and a fire started, would they be able to escape safely".
We are the professional in fire safety, we are the voice that can speak for the people who may die in that building if we do not speak up and do a proper job, and we all need to be aware if we do a poor job, we also could be stood in court should someone die in the fire.
-
My argument is not to defend shocking standards that exist in many B&Bs and hotels up and down the land. I agree there are many such places and they need to be brought into line before someone gets hurt.
And too many people are carrying out their own risk assessments based on tick box checklists downloaded from the web or using the audit forms from the guide as a risk assessment and if in doubt ticking what they think to be the answer that gives them the least hassle.
Theres so much ignorance and complacency out there.
My only difficulty has been with the lack of proportionality out there and the inflexibility that is often applied when an audit does take place. That the same standards that would have been imposed in certificated premises in the past is now being imposed in a 2 story chocolate box cottage or working farmhouse without regard to character and nature of the building.
For example places that carefully vet every guest before inviting them to share their home, that the owner supervises what goes on to preserve their home and its possessions, the owner makes it their place to be last to retire, the owner sleeps in the room next door to the guests and can be guaranteed to get people moving quickly in the event of an alarm sounding, saving valuable time. You dont even get that in the Hilton.
-
I am David Weston, Chairman of the Bed & Breakfast Associaton. This is my first post here. I am saddened (but not surprised) by the patchy level of understanding shown (though "Kurnal" is well-informed) - and by "Val's" comment that our campaign is only about raising our "commercial profile". We are a trade association and are campaigning on this because our members tell us that this is the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment. A number of small businesses have closed down already and their local areas are of course then affected by the resultant fall in tourism.
We B&B owners are of course 100% in favour of appropriate fire safety - our families live in our properties too, apart from anything else.
The B&B Association (BBA) is NOT against the RRFSO as it is written and was intended - it is explicitly a deregulatory measure and non-prescriptive. It is risk-based. (It also expressly does not apply to "domestic premises").
What we have seen is highly inconsistent, and often disproportionate, ENFORCEMENT of the RRFSO by local fire & rescue services. Very small B&Bs which are family homes letting one, two or three of their bedrooms to paying guests rather than family members are often being "told" by their fire & rescue service that they must instal fire doors, comprehensive integrated alarm systems, and even emergency lighting systems. Hundreds of B&Bs are closing or contemplating closure.
Our concerns, far from being motivated by raising our "commercial profile" (whatever that means), are shared by VisitBritain, all the UK regional tourist boards we have spoken to, and by the trade associations representing the self-catering, farmstay and pub accommodation providers. The Minister of Tourism was concerned enough to raise this with the Fire Safety Minister recently. Officials at DCLG itself have told us "we certainly don't underestimate the concerns around business viability and motivation following the introduction of the Order, and the adverse impact that the approach being taken by some fire safety officers is having on the [tourism] industry". Not only this, but very senior officials from CFOA have admitted that there is "a problem".
We have now (1 Aug) been told by DCLG that the Fire Minister will be "encouraging a more pragmatic and common-sense approach". This will involve "establishing benchmark measures for smaller premises".
We hope all this will eventually achieve what Government intended when the RRFSO was written: a proportionate, sensible risk-based fire safety regime.
-
Hello David,
This is not just happening to small businesses its happening to large and small, the fire service do not seem to have any comon ground that their officers use.
Unfortunately they are the law and it sometimes can be a nightmare to get them to see sence, how ever and this is from bitter experence sometimes you need to make a formal complaint and then they seem to listen a bit more, sometime they don't and then you have to take your complaint a little higher.
We had a complaint go as high as the old Dep Priministers Office a few years back over what fire officers were telling a group of 100 accomadation owners in our area about fire alarm systems, So there are channels to complain to but in the first instance try to speak to the officer direct and if you feel he is being unreasonable go to his boss and then to the chief fire officer of your county. They are not God they make mistakes like the rest of us and as long as you research the issue they will sometimes back down.
Unfortunately some small guest houses (and definately not all) because they are a house with a few rooms being used for paying customers, do not rate fire safety as a important issue. And these odd few premises can give the small operators a bad name, and maybe thats why the fire officers are being tough!.
My only thoughts are for the safety of people and I feel one death is one to many, unfortunately what ever industry you are in now we all have hoops to jump through, I have my hoops which involve spending thousands of pounds a year on certification, training and acreditation just to prove we are competent to carry out our jobs we have been doing for the last 20 years.
It will I feel take a few years for the fire services to get on top of this.
Now just to play devils advocate for a minute
It is strongly reccomended that in a private home we all fit smoke detectors and in new builds its usually included as part of the building regs, so why should a B&B not install some fire precautions, are the people staying in their premise not worth saving because they are only paying £25 a night rather than £120 an night in a Hotel somewhere!
-
I am saddened (but not surprised) by the patchy level of understanding shown (though "Kurnal" is well-informed) - and by "Val's" comment that our campaign is only about raising our "commercial profile".
David,
Thanks for joining the site, but I can't understand why you are sad by the level of understanding that FireNet users have of B&B issues. This site can be used by anyone; users tend to be fire fighters, fire safety officers, consultants, insurance people, students, people who want to work for the fire service etc, but can be used by anyone and everyone and you can't expect all these people to know about the problems faced by B&B operators. To take my example, I doubt most people know about the problems faced by the insurance industry (which I work in), but I don't get upset about this, I just see it as an opportunity to share some knowledge.
Regards,
Chris.
-
Hello Thomas and David.
I think the main cause for concern is, as Thomas acknowledges, that many small B&Bs have no fire safety measures at all. I agree that in the case of small B&Bs there is a case of over provision resulting in disproportionate expense and, in the case of detection, an interlinked domestic battery/mains system should be considered adequate.
After all they are have proved their worth in the type of sleeping risk where people are more likely to die from an outbreak of fire. Their own homes.
I can assure you that many, many businesses, be they sleeping risks or otherwise, would not provide any fire safety measures at all if they thought could get away with it, and many do.
-
Hello David,
A few months ago I contacted the local B&B association in Norfolk offering my services for an up and coming meeting. I was happy to do a presentation and give advice free. Guess what, I did not even get a response. If, as I am sure it is, such a crucial and important subject for them, why did they not take me up on my offer? I know you can't talk for this group, but if I was offered the chance to talk with an experienced fire adviser free of charge I would have jumped at it.
-
Chris Houston said "I can't understand why you are sad by the level of understanding that FireNet users have of B&B issues": I do not expect those in the fire safety community to know about B&B issues, but the knowledge of the impact of the RRFSO and what the RRFSO intends is patchy - that was the point I was making. For instance, erroneous comments like that saying that B&Bs should have done fire risk assessments for years, when this was a new requirement under the RRFSO for businesses without employees (which almost all B&Bs are).
I am also saddened by the continuing comments that B&Bs simply want to avoid ANY fire precautions. This is not true - we simply want the risk-based, proportionate regime intended by the RRFSO.
For instance: in the very smallest accommodation (no more than two storeys) which only has two or three guest bedrooms and short travel distances to a place of safety outside, a system of interconnected detectors with a ten year battery life or radio interlinked detectors (a Grade F LD2 fire alarm system) should be appropriate, as should hand torches for emergency lighting. Currently, many fire officers are 'requiring' substantially higher grades of equipment in such small domestic-type premises. This is the kind of instance we would describe as incorrect and disproportionate enforcement.
-
The problem that you have got to do with is you charge a fee , then you are exposed to the ambulance chasers , who spend many thousands on lush adverts to educate people away from common sense.
You need to draw a sensible line , in the sand , lets be totally honest you will get find 1k in Barnet for the wrong rubbish in your bin.
When you guys in your trade get rattled , which is going to be sooner or later , a lot of the stuff the boys have said might be viewed differently.
The analogy was the polytechnic , which now is a uni ,
-
David,
You raise some good points, I guess we are used to dealing with companies who have employees. But B&Bs have still always owed a duty of care to their customers at common law.
That said, even without their own employees would a typical B&B not have employees of others working on the premises (electricians, gardeners, cleaners, plumbers, carpenters etc) who's health and safety has been protected by legislation for some time?
-
(It also expressly does not apply to "domestic premises").
David, yes thats correct, but surely you agree that B & B businesses are not domestic premises? as per the RRFSO definition for a domestic premises:-
domestic premises” means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden,
yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common
by the occupants of more than one such dwelling); also
(a Grade F LD2 fire alarm system) should be appropriate,
Not having the sleeping accommodation guide to hand, I do believe it recommends for such small premises a Grade D LD2 system, surely that wouldnt be an excessive expense.
A Grade F system according to the BS is the least reliable and simplest form of detection, battery only, although the code does recommend they are interconnected,( you can see the sense in that) it is also doubtful whether most householders do actually test their smoke alarms every week as the code recommends, which is another worry.
your comments re "highly inconsistent, and often disproportionate, enforcement" have been subject to discussion on this forum on other occasions.
-
David, yes thats correct, but surely you agree that B & B businesses are not domestic premises?
........................................
Not having the sleeping accommodation guide to hand, I do believe it recommends for such small premises a Grade D LD2 system, surely that wouldnt be an excessive expense.
It would be interesting to know of any case law that gave an interpretation of whether letting a bedroom in your own home on a casual basis takes your home outside the definition of domestic premises occupied by persons forming a single household.
I think that it does- but that is only based on my recollection of an opinion expressed by Dr Rosemary Everton.
The sleeping guide for small premises does actually recommend LD3 but then qualifies this in a footnote by saying LD3 with additional detectors in all rooms leading onto escape routes. Why they didn't save us all his hassle and go for LD2 I will never know.
Now if the manufacturers of smoke alarms were to include a primary and a backup battery in their radio linked alarms then this would solve the problem for many B&B operators. Of course this is standard practice in detectors for Part 1 radio linked alarm systems so it should be perfectly feasible.
-
It would be interesting to know of any case law that gave an interpretation of whether letting a bedroom in your own home on a casual basis takes your home outside the definition of domestic premises occupied by persons forming a single household.
I think that it does- but that is only based on my recollection of an opinion expressed by Dr Rosemary Everton.
Hi Kurnal
I recall reading an article by Professor Everton entitled:-
Rosemarie Everton ponders the legal issues involved in the hiring of holiday cottages and the impact of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, is it this you refer to or another article? as it would be most interesting to read her opinion on this if it is from some other article.
-
I have seen some part 6 grade C alarm interconnected systems available for about £200. They are pretty much an interconnected grade D with call points, detectors/sounders, with control equipment on one of the call points. (Test/reset/silence) With FP cabling and a similar maintenance regime to part 1, I see no reason why something like this would not be suitable in a small B&B. FWIW, the grade F lacks the backup battery to comply with signs and signals.
People should also have the courage of their convictions, and if we ask for something considered onerous then challenge us.
-
Well said Civvyfso. Courage of our convictions. And I have to say my friend a retired fireman by the way opened a B&B in Devon and earns good money. So ok you have to be in the right place to earn the cash at this game, but fire precautions don't need to break the bank. People dont expect to go on holiday and be put in danger and B&B is a business, so there is a duty of care, no argument. So David of the B&B association give me some examples where fire officers have been over prescriptive to your members please.
-
IWe have now (1 Aug) been told by DCLG that the Fire Minister will be "encouraging a more pragmatic and common-sense approach". This will involve "establishing benchmark measures for smaller premises".
Im sorry David but i think it is unreasonable to expect a set of benchmarks for smaller properties as each one is different and that is why the General Fire Precautions for each B&B may be different its not that we as inspecting officers are being "inconsistant" (as we are often accused) its just that we have to look at the size and layout of the premises and assess the suitablity of the fire precauitions put in place (or proposed to be put in place) by the responsible person. Also i have say that the majority of B&B owners i have met with thier opening gambit is "this is a residential property and i dont think the RRO should be applyed to me. But i am sorry they are a business a commercial undertaking and the RRO does apply. the unfortunate thing is they have been ther for many yaers and built up a good trade and now they have to put some of that money back into the safety of their loyal customers they dont like it and they shoot the messenger........thats me. the numbers of letters of complaints from B&B owners and MPs!!!! is getting buigger by the day.
-
the numbers of letters of complaints from B&B owners and MPs!!!! is getting buigger by the day.
Doesnt that tell you something? Like maybe they have a point?
You are right they are not a purely single private dwelling house- but most of us live in single private dwelling houses and are happy with the level of risk. Now if I choose to go and stay in someone elses dwelling whose to say that suddenly I should expect much greater safeguards equivalent to a large hotel?
If I want to stay in a farmhouse on a sheep farm in the lakes I expect an authentic farmhouse experience - not signs everywhere telling me "Caution this towel rail may be hot" an all night bar and room service with a dry croissant for breakfast. No I want a collie in the kitchen next to the aga and home cured bacon with free range eggs fresh from the yard for breakfast cooked by the farmers wife. A goblin teasmaid would be nice though.
-
the numbers of letters of complaints from B&B owners and MPs!!!! is getting buigger by the day.
Doesnt that tell you something? Like maybe they have a point?
You are right they are not a purely single private dwelling house- but most of us live in single private dwelling houses and are happy with the level of risk. Now if I choose to go and stay in someone elses dwelling whose to say that suddenly I should expect much greater safeguards equivalent to a large hotel?
If I want to stay in a farmhouse on a sheep farm in the lakes I expect an authentic farmhouse experience - not signs everywhere telling me "Caution this towel rail may be hot" an all night bar and room service with a dry croissant for breakfast. No I want a collie in the kitchen next to the aga and home cured bacon with free range eggs fresh from the yard for breakfast cooked by the farmers wife. A goblin teasmaid would be nice though.
Nobodys saying you should have anything OTT. But as one B&B owner put to me in the event of fire we should opt for window escape .Oh great idea - thats not going to be of great use to my 75 year old mother in law who would probably break her plevis if asked to drop from a window. She also wants to see a colie by the aga she also wants to be safe when on holiday.
A minimum standard of fire precautions isn't too much to ask Kurnal
-
Now if I choose to go and stay in someone elses dwelling whose to say that suddenly I should expect much greater safeguards equivalent to a large hotel?
The difference in the scenario is that while you are in your own house you will look after yourself and your loved ones. In the event of fire you would instinctively ensure that your entire family was out of the building. When you occupy a house inhabited by a few different family groups, those other groups have no instinctive drive to let you or your loved ones know about a problem, they will be too busy looking after their own to even think about giving you enough warning to escape.
I also doubt that the typical farmhouse B&B is what is being talked about here, but it is certainly a good example of how different B&B's can be. On the other end of the scale are the ones that probably used to lie about the number of floors that people were sleeping on to avoid having to have a fire certificate.
-
We aren't talking about monumental upgrades here are we?
A basic alarm system is expected in sleeping accomodation. even in newly built domestic premises.
Of course there are significant whingers but owners of small business utilising offices have to provide basic fire safety requirements in their offices. To put it into perspective the people in the B and B are ASLEEP. If they aren't protected sufficiently, they will die.
Granted we accept the risk in our own homes but with all due respect thats where the vast majority of people die in fires! The government would love to be able to retrospectively force every homeowner in the land to upgrade their fire safety provision in their home, but they can't!
Die in your own home, tough luck. Shouldn't have been cooking chips when you were drunk. Die in a B and B because the owner didn't want to fork out a couple of hundred quid on an alarm seems a bit off to me!
-
Might it be useful to consider a few important points to focus on the reality we are faced with?
1. The fire safety order is less than 2 years old, and yes, big surprise, it's taking a while for everyone to get a handle on how to deal with it. Enforcing the order is a nightmare, just as complying with it can be.
2. Fire safety inspectors are human beings and as yet I've not come across a brain implant to make them all perfect inspectors who apply one common standard. (If you know of one I would pay good money for it...)
3. B&B's are commercial enterprises but they are a key part of this country's economy. Without businesses we fire inspectors and consultants wouldn't have a job.
So, the debate on this web site is fantastic, healthy and educational. Importantly it is open to all. I have a friend who drip feeds me with info from a B&B web forum where B&B owners vent their feelings in private. You have to own a B&B to join. Mmmm...
I think where I'm heading here is that the various groups need to have constructive dialogue. This is constructive dialogue to enable the whole situation to develop positively, but I am aware of several B&B owners who have agreed to do what the fire inspector has asked for seemingly happily with no formal enforcement required only to go off and vent massive anger on the web forum. Maybe not so constructive...
I, like other subscribers, have offered my time to talk to anyone about fire safety and the way we enforce. My B&B owning friend organised an evening and 8 owners turned up. Since then - nothing. The offer's still there.
I would urge a little patience and understanding on all sides. Yes, fire inspectors should base their audit round the findings of the risk assessment. No, it's not right for fire authorities to demand unreasonable fire precautions. Yes, case law shows that when you provide a service to the public you take on a responsibility of care. But remember that every B&B is unique, will present different hazards and require different control measures. There is no single standard to be applied, OK you can follow the guide if you want an easy time but importantly you don't have to.
Finally, if you're not happy with the way a fire safety inspector deals with you, talk to them and explain your concerns. If they still seem unreasonable, write to their boss and ask for an explanation. If you really feel aggrieved, write to the Chief Fire Officer. I can only speak for my own experience but why on earth is the fire minister involved in all this when the people I've personally dealt with haven't raised their concerns with the fire brigade first? Before every audit the fire service sends a long letter which explains what to expect and what to do if you're not happy. That's what it's there for.
-
Might it be useful to consider a few important points to focus on the reality we are faced with?
1. The fire safety order is less than 2 years old, and yes, big surprise, it's taking a while for everyone to get a handle on how to deal with it. Enforcing the order is a nightmare, just as complying with it can be.
2. Fire safety inspectors are human beings and as yet I've not come across a brain implant to make them all perfect inspectors who apply one common standard. (If you know of one I would pay good money for it...)
3. B&B's are commercial enterprises but they are a key part of this country's economy. Without businesses we fire inspectors and consultants wouldn't have a job.
So, the debate on this web site is fantastic, healthy and educational. Importantly it is open to all. I have a friend who drip feeds me with info from a B&B web forum where B&B owners vent their feelings in private. You have to own a B&B to join. Mmmm...
I think where I'm heading here is that the various groups need to have constructive dialogue. This is constructive dialogue to enable the whole situation to develop positively, but I am aware of several B&B owners who have agreed to do what the fire inspector has asked for seemingly happily with no formal enforcement required only to go off and vent massive anger on the web forum. Maybe not so constructive...
I, like other subscribers, have offered my time to talk to anyone about fire safety and the way we enforce. My B&B owning friend organised an evening and 8 owners turned up. Since then - nothing. The offer's still there.
I would urge a little patience and understanding on all sides. Yes, fire inspectors should base their audit round the findings of the risk assessment. No, it's not right for fire authorities to demand unreasonable fire precautions. Yes, case law shows that when you provide a service to the public you take on a responsibility of care. But remember that every B&B is unique, will present different hazards and require different control measures. There is no single standard to be applied, OK you can follow the guide if you want an easy time but importantly you don't have to.
Finally, if you're not happy with the way a fire safety inspector deals with you, talk to them and explain your concerns. If they still seem unreasonable, write to their boss and ask for an explanation. If you really feel aggrieved, write to the Chief Fire Officer. I can only speak for my own experience but why on earth is the fire minister involved in all this when the people I've personally dealt with haven't raised their concerns with the fire brigade first? Before every audit the fire service sends a long letter which explains what to expect and what to do if you're not happy. That's what it's there for.
Whole heartidly agree. We often get punters (not just landlords of B&Bs) who will seemingly accept the requirements we put forward during an inspection - they nod , smile, listen attentively, say they havent any issues when asked if they find our requirements onerous, only to moan behind our backs about "jack booted fire inspectors".
Communicate with your fire officer - if youre not happy say so, talk to their boss if theyre being unreasonable
How can we address any concerns if no one talks to us?
-
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
-
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
Stevo, the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business. Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all. They simply state what the owner "must" do. The owners HAVE complied with the RRFSO but the fire officers are giving them prescriptive instructions.
I see the various comments here that owners should "have the courage of their convictions" and "challenge" fire officers - that fire officers are human beings and often wrong etc. - but this is highly unrealistic and unfair on the property owners, who know that the fire officers have onerous powers, can close them down instantly, and as far as the public is concerned what a fire officer tells them is the law. It is rather like expecting the public to challenge and disagree with/defy a police officer who gives them an instruction.
This situation is unsustainable and unsatisfactory.
-
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
Stevo, the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business. Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all. They simply state what the owner "must" do. The owners HAVE complied with the RRFSO but the fire officers are giving them prescriptive instructions.
I see the various comments here that owners should "have the courage of their convictions" and "challenge" fire officers - that fire officers are human beings and often wrong etc. - but this is highly unrealistic and unfair on the property owners, who know that the fire officers have onerous powers, can close them down instantly, and as far as the public is concerned what a fire officer tells them is the law. It is rather like expecting the public to challenge and disagree with/defy a police officer who gives them an instruction.
This situation is unsustainable and unsatisfactory.
whoa whoa whoa
Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.
-
Stevo, the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business. Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.
To be fair, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order requires much more than just to assess the risk.
For example, section 13 requires suitable fire extinguishers and alarm systems, section 14 requires escape routes to be suitable etc etc. So you might comply with section 9 to do a risk assessment, but still fail in the other duties even if the risk assessment considers them to be acceptable.
-
I feel a bit of a piggy in the middle. I know that most fire officers are super people who have devoted their career to helping people out, carry their powers and responsibilities easily on their shoulders and are usually open to discussion. At the same time they have strong convictions and powerful arguments and very often are convinced that their way is the right and best way. Often it is - but often it doesnt take things like business viability into account. When you dont have to win a sale to earn your crust and pander to so many similar departments and authorities each of whom seems to think their agenda is the most important thing in the world it does put a different light on it.
Then from the small business point of view, people who really do have to focus on selling their product else there isnt any business or premises to argue about, simply dont have time to be as clued up as they would like on every aspect, they are under extreme pressure from the tax man, customs and excise, tourist board, environmental health , trading standards, have to worry about risk assessments access statements and the like.
Not being as clued up as they would like to be puts them on the back foot- makes them feel defensive and scared of the final nail that the fire officer may put in their business coffin. You will say thats their problem - and it is- they chose their career- but it makes them feel too insecure to argue and even less to appeal. B&B summarises it so well when he points out that you dont argue with the policeman who has just pulled you up to criticise your driving do you.
And as for the letters associated with the RRO they are a total nightmare and impossible to decipher. How they passed the plain english test I will never know. Even I with over 30 years experience in the service find it hard to decide whether its a letter of goodwill advice or an enforcement notice- both talk about prosecution, both have umpteen pages and legal "explanation" - honest its worst than the taxman.
-
A fair and balanced argument Kurnal, but should a B&B's ability to afford something be a factor? Should a rich B&B owner have a higher level of safety than one owned by a poor person?
-
Stevo, the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business. Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.
To be fair, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order requires much more than just to assess the risk.
For example, section 13 requires suitable fire extinguishers and alarm systems, section 14 requires escape routes to be suitable etc etc. So you might comply with section 9 to do a risk assessment, but still fail in the other duties even if the risk assessment considers them to be acceptable.
Chris didnt explain myself fully there, but i find normally if a premises carries out a suitable & sufficient R/A then that flags up the other issues & they deal with them.
-
Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.
Cleveland Fire, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood my point. I never said that ANY fire oficers behave in an intimidatory and onerous way - let alone accusing "every" officer of this as you say I am. My point is that property owners KNOW that fire officers have onerous powers - like VAT officers, tax inspectors or police officers. That is simply a fact.
I am sure that the vast majority of fire officers would be open to reasoned discussion - but my point is that their official position and their powers mean that it is unrealistic to expect a member of the public to "challenge" a fire officer about fire precautions and argue against what the fire officer says. A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I have spent much of the last three years talking to B&B owners, fire officers, and DCLG officials about this and have always approached it on a fair and reasonable basis. I am NOT saying that all B&B owners are right and fire officers wrong - of course not. Some B&B owners have not taken appropriate fire precautions and it is absolutely right that fire officers put such instances right to protect us all. What we at the B&B Association are simply trying to do is to achieve a fair, reasonable and proportionate system - as the RRFSO intended.
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO. That is very clearly not the case. Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected? Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
-
Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.
Cleveland Fire, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood my point. I never said that ANY fire oficers behave in an intimidatory and onerous way - let alone accusing "every" officer of this as you say I am. My point is that property owners KNOW that fire officers have onerous powers - like VAT officers, tax inspectors or police officers. That is simply a fact.
I am sure that the vast majority of fire officers would be open to reasoned discussion - but my point is that their official position and their powers mean that it is unrealistic to expect a member of the public to "challenge" a fire officer about fire precautions and argue against what the fire officer says. A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I have spent much of the last three years talking to B&B owners, fire officers, and DCLG officials about this and have always approached it on a fair and reasonable basis. I am NOT saying that all B&B owners are right and fire officers wrong - of course not. Some B&B owners have not taken appropriate fire precautions and it is absolutely right that fire officers put such instances right to protect us all. What we at the B&B Association are simply trying to do is to achieve a fair, reasonable and proportionate system - as the RRFSO intended.
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO. That is very clearly not the case. Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected? Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
What you have B&Bassociation is two opposing forces. On one hand you have an Inspecting Officer who has no personal interest in the premises other than he/she wants to ensure that they have their ass covered should something go wrong and then the owner who is running a business and wants to ensure that money spent provides a return.
Fortunately and unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, people are generally not dying in fires in B&Bs and owners cannot see what the whole fuss about fire safety is about. However from the F&R Services point of view because people are not dying in B&Bs does not mean that safety standards should be relaxed until such time that a sufficient number of tragedies occur when fire standards would start to be robustly enforced.
When it comes to sleeping risks I have a quite prescriptive approach for Fire Risk Assessments. Unfortunately, I would be of no use to many owners in that respect but that is something I am more than comfortable with.
I think that in order to ensure fairness for owners and enforcers realistic and rational prescriptive national guidelines would be very beneficial so that B&Bs in some F&R Service areas are not overburdened with expensive measures, which result in higher tarrifs when others can get away with a much lesser standard enabling tarrifs to be kept lower.
-
Just a few points:
1. I think B&B makes a very persuasive point when he says that many B&B owners don't feel able to challenge fire officers. My experience is that many also do feel able and do so quite forcefully. It takes all sorts. What fire officers should learn from this is that we need to be proportionate and follow the ethos of the concordat. We can't expect people to talk to us if we project ourselves as being unapproachable. Whilst I'm certain that many inspectors are approachable, I reckon a few who maybe don't have the confidence to enter into a reasoned debate with a risk assessor or RP may possibly hide behind the guides using them as a smoke screen. That's a problem for FRA's in terms of training, support, management and the like. Don't forget, the RRFSO has been as much of a culture change for FRA's as it has been for everyone else.
2. Inspectors are employed and authorised by FRA's to enforce the requirements of the RRFSO, no more no less. They should be making sure the RP is taking reasonable steps to protect occupants from harm by fire. Sure, we can make recommendations to improve safety further but any who are 'covering their backs' or working to personal agendas are frankly operating outside the requirements of the law and should be challenged. You don't need to appeal or complain to do this, you can ring the FRA concerned and ask to talk to the inspector's boss or another senior officer. Fire officers are at the end of the day public servants and complaints are taken extremely seriously, my FRA goes to great lengths to publish complaints procedures widely.
3. And yes, I agree that the letters are long and wordy. I know it doesn't help the lay person but unfortunately that's the nature of the beast. When FRA's do have to take the ultimate sanction and take on a prosecution, the court needs to see that the RP has been kept fully informed of the requirements and their rights throughout the whole process. I suppose it's a bit like the small print at the bottom of contracts and the like, tricky to read, unpopular, but sadly necessary. They could be clearer mind you.
4. FRA's are enforcing the law based on guidance from the CLG. That's what they have to go on. Re-reading my previous post I would like to withdraw the comment about 'why are ministers involved'. It's becoming obvious that this situation has to some extent been left to sort itself out - find its own level as it were. Ministers should be aware of both the difficulties being experienced by B&B owners and also (importantly) the problems being experienced by FRA's in enforcing the legislation. As I said before, perhaps we need to raise the profile of fire safety enforcement issues. Having said that, maybe the reason the profile isn't so high is the relatively low number of fire deaths in B&B's as compared with, say, certain demographic groups of the housing sector. Like I said earlier, it makes sense to put in most effort where it will have best effect.
5. I think one important point hasn't been raised yet - why are FRA's seemingly targetting B&B's? I can only speak from personal experience and say that we are finding problems. FRA's are following the recommendations of the Hampton report and the Better Regulation Office and targetting their activities. They look at premises which have a higher than average potential risk (as identified by the CLG, such as sleeping accomodation) then sample some premises. What we have found is a significant number of problems.
Food for thought?
-
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO. That is very clearly not the case. Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected? Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
That is because the govt. assumed wrongly that the majority of B&B owners had carried out suitable and sufficient health and safety risk assessments and fire risk assessments under previous legislation that had been in place since 1992.
Therefore, according to them, all that should have been needed was a slight tweak of the existing fire risk assessment and the fire safety provisions that were already in place.
The reality is however that some, indeed it appears many had done nothing. Little surprise therefore that now, when they are looked at for the first time they are found to be wanting.
-
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO. That is very clearly not the case. Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected? Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
That is because the govt. assumed wrongly that the majority of B&B owners had carried out suitable and sufficient health and safety risk assessments and fire risk assessments under previous legislation that had been in place since 1992.
Therefore, according to them, all that should have been needed was a slight tweak of the existing fire risk assessment and the fire safety provisions that were already in place.
The reality is however that some, indeed it appears many had done nothing. Little surprise therefore that now, when they are looked at for the first time they are found to be wanting.
If the Government made that assumption - which I agree it seems to have done - they completely misunderstood the sector and did no adequate research. The existing legislation related to WORKPLACES and to businesses with EMPLOYEES. The small B&Bs we are discussing here are family homes, with no employees. (Most are not businesses for planning, local taxation or inland revenue purposes, but are sole traders working from what is primarly their private dwelling; most of the smallest B&Bs are not businesses either in the sense of providing a sole income to a household - they are second incomes subsidised by other jobs, farms etc.).
So it is quite wrong to generalise that B&Bs should have been doing fire risk assessments since 1992. This requirement came in in October 2006.
Incidentally I think the Government placed far too high a burden on fire & rescue authorities - when we asked ODPM in 2005 who would inform B&Bs and visit them, we were told that fire & rescue authorities would be given this responsibility, including of compiling a new database of all B&Bs. Have they been given enough manpower and budget to do this? (I doubt it.)
But it is worse even than that - the DCLG position (in holding that the "domestic premises exclusion" in the RRFSO does not actually mean what it says) is that the RRFSO applies to ANY case where anyone is staying on a paying basis in premises not their own home, even for one night. This covers many hundreds of thousands of premises, and will of course be absolutely impossible to enforce in practice.
-
If the Government made that assumption - which I agree it seems to have done - they completely misunderstood the sector and did no adequate research. The existing legislation related to WORKPLACES and to businesses with EMPLOYEES. The small B&Bs we are discussing here are family homes, with no employees. (Most are not businesses for planning, local taxation or inland revenue purposes, but are sole traders working from what is primarly their private dwelling; most of the smallest B&Bs are not businesses either in the sense of providing a sole income to a household - they are second incomes subsidised by other jobs, farms etc.).
So it is quite wrong to generalise that B&Bs should have been doing fire risk assessments since 1992. This requirement came in in October 2006.
The management regulations did apply to B&Bs because it placed duties on self-employed persons as well as employers.
“ (2) Every self-employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—
(a) the risks to his own health and safety to which he is exposed whilst he is at work; and
(b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,
for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.”
So they should have been doing risk assessments since 1992 . Although there was no explicit requirement for fire safety to be assessed any suitable and sufficient risk assessment should have identified glaring omissions like no fire alarm etc.
-
A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I accept what you are saying and I can see how alot of people feel unable to challenge us.
However most fire officers I know go to great lengths (and rightly so) to explain to punters their rights and perogatives to challenge the requirements we make. And there are several good reason for this - due process has to be demonstrated if anything goes to court for one, proportionality is another.
I try to go one step further than that, I try to speak to the person in language they understand, I try to tell them that I am a flexible person, who is willing to listen to their point of view and that if they feel my requirements are unworkeable then to tell me so that another agreed course of action can take place and things can be kept on a friendly level.
When they nod and say "no everything is fine" then run away and gossip about you and thats where I get annoyed after explaining all that.
You are presenting your point of view which I accept and can sympathise with, what Im trying to say to you in return is that communication is the key here.
If your members feel an officer has been onerous or unprofessional they can apprioach the officer senior officer or in worst cases the Cheif Fire Officer.
As the chairman of the B&B association it would be good if you could spread the word about this, perhaps at your next national conference fire service personnel could be invited as guest speakers to come along to try and dispell some of the myths, break down a few barriers with regards to fire safety legislation and how it is enforced etc.
I agree with Kurnal the RRO letters are ridiculously bad. Most fire officers on the ground don't like them, and neither do the punters.
Good opportunity exists for your members to write and voice concerns if they feel the letters are poorly written and push for more clairty, infact I'll start a new thread on that.
-
Not so long back every B and B association website widely advertised the "6 bed rule" as a way of avoiding compliance with the Fire Precautions Act. Whilst inspecting section 5a exempted premises, you would commonly discover more than 6 beds. Unfortunately for them, legislation has caught up and they don't like it. Compliance can be achieved quite reasonably if they cough up and employ a good fire risk assessor (which are thin on the ground unfortunately). Again though, they try to do it themselves, on the cheap, and find that when the Fire Officer visits, their risk assessments are not suitable and sufficient. As Corporal Jones would say, they don't like it up 'em...:lol:
-
5. I think one important point hasn't been raised yet - why are FRA's seemingly targetting B&B's?
We are not! as a small shire brigade we have 18000+ non-domestic premises which must be given a risk rating. of those, 5-6000 have been inspected annually or three yearly for the past 30 years (FP Act) the file history is enormous and a risk rating can be placed on those easily.
however the rest have not seen a fire officer for decades and somtimes never (ie small B&Bs small shops on the high street) so with a limited amount of resources what woud you do? keep going back to the same premises year after year? or try to gather information on the risks in the other ones?
-
It would be interesting to know of any case law that gave an interpretation of whether letting a bedroom in your own home on a casual basis takes your home outside the definition of domestic premises occupied by persons forming a single household.
I think that it does- but that is only based on my recollection of an opinion expressed by Dr Rosemary Everton.
Hi Kurnal
I recall reading an article by Professor Everton entitled:-
Rosemarie Everton ponders the legal issues involved in the hiring of holiday cottages and the impact of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, is it this you refer to or another article? as it would be most interesting to read her opinion on this if it is from some other article.
Thiis was from her presentation delivered to the local IFE branch entitled "Shifting Sands" she gave out some lecture notes at the time, I will have to dig them out - but I expect it was a summary of the article you mention.
-
You will find that Mid and West Wales just succesfully defended an appeal against an enforcement notice issued in respect of a large house being let out to parties. The appellant will probably appeal to crown court and hopefully the first precedent will be set regarding what constitutes a private dwelling.
-
Thanks Eggcustard- If you hear any more please let us know.
-
Here is the text from the FINDS message.
MID AND WEST WALES FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE SERVED UNDER
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 (“The Order”)
Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Authority have been successful in an appeal that was lodged against an Enforcement Notice served on a property that operated as self-catering holiday accommodation.
The premises in question is a large detached house, operating for part of the year (up to a maximum period of 20 weeks) as self-catering holiday accommodation and accommodating up to 14 people. For the remainder of the year it is occupied by the owners as their private residence.
An Enforcement Notice (EN) was served on the premises following an audit under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and subsequent extensive exchange of correspondence between The Authority and the owners. The owners however adopted the stance that their premises did not fall under the requirements of The Order as they contended it was their “private dwelling” for the majority of the year and an appeal was subsequently lodged against the EN.
The central legal issue raised was that The Order did not apply to the premises as it was “a private dwelling “.
The District Judge presiding over the case heard arguments from Counsel for the appellant and from David Stotesbury, Counsel for the Fire and Rescue Service, following which he ruled that the premises in question did fall within the requirements of the Order.
This ruling is regarded as a landmark legal judgement. However, it should not be regarded as laying down a rule that all holiday lets will necessarily fall within the Order as proportionality will be the key to determining whether the circumstances surrounding individual holiday lets result in their coming with the scope of the Order. Although the case does not lay down a binding precedent, it can be considered by other similar Courts when dealing with comparable matters.
The appeal also contested that the requirements of the EN were disproportionate and that insufficient time had been allowed for their completion. The District Judge adjourned the hearing of these technical fire safety matters until there is a joint inspection of the premises, after which the matter will return to the court ; or, if the parties so wish it, and the judge agrees, the technical issues could be referred to the Welsh Assembly for a determination under Article 36 of the Order.
-
The central legal issue raised was that The Order did not apply to the premises as it was “a private dwelling “. ........................................
This ruling is regarded as a landmark legal judgement. However, it should not be regarded as laying down a rule that all holiday lets will necessarily fall within the Order as proportionality will be the key to determining whether the circumstances surrounding individual holiday lets result in their coming with the scope of the Order. Although the case does not lay down a binding precedent, it can be considered by other similar Courts when dealing with comparable matters.
Very interesting indeed.
Presumably some poetic licence has been applied in the report - as of course the question should have been whether they are "Domestic Premises" in terms of the Order
I wonder if the fact that "Proportionality is the key" may also apply to the small B&B that are mainly domestic premises occupied as a private dwliing offering a room or two to guests? I wonder if B&B Association would consider taking a test case on a similar basis?
I wonder how the proportionality test would be applied in practice- what about time shares, house sitting etc???
-
With Domestic Premises specifically excluded from the Order, this Judgement brings into question the validity of the legislation. With large numbers of holiday lets out there, this judgement could bring the industry to its knees. Many people holiday in large groups holiday together and whilst from an earlier post I have assumed that this was party time, many families are extended and take holidays together and therefore meet the definition of the Order.
This now brings into question foreign students living in peoples homes that are not part of the family.
-
It is now apparent that this new fire law is actually eroding the rights and freedoms of the ordinary person. What was previously judged to be "Incidental commercial use" within a person's home, such a running a small B&B, taking in a temporary lodger, having some friends to stay and receiving some money from them to defray expenses, or even perhaps employing a baby-sitter, is now to be classed as commercial use, with all the attendant "elf-n-safety" & workplace bureaucracy. Does anyone know whose idea this was, or is it just part of the tide of worthless legislation emanating from Brussels?
-
The central legal issue raised was that The Order did not apply to the premises as it was “a private dwelling “.
The District Judge presiding over the case heard arguments from Counsel for the appellant and from David Stotesbury, Counsel for the Fire and Rescue Service, following which he ruled that the premises in question did fall within the requirements of the Order.
I wonder if Mr Stotesbury has now reviewed his opinion that the Order did not apply to premises being used for childminding (a commercial process)?
-
The central legal issue raised was that The Order did not apply to the premises as it was “a private dwelling “.
The District Judge presiding over the case heard arguments from Counsel for the appellant and from David Stotesbury, Counsel for the Fire and Rescue Service, following which he ruled that the premises in question did fall within the requirements of the Order.
I wonder if Mr Stotesbury has now reviewed his opinion that the Order did not apply to premises being used for childminding (a commercial process)?
I,m sure the issue is that the premises, at times, are not used as a private dwelling and that it is during these time, when because it is used for commercial purposes, the RRO applies. The arrangement applied to university halls of residence when, during the summer months, by letting the rooms out to visiting groups they effectively became a hotel and were certifiable during these periods.
The matter of the visiting student which Jokar has mentioned does not change that fact that the student has come to live with the family in a residential domestic environment. The home does not operate as a B&B for the purposes of letting the student stay there. To say otherwise would mean that when you take your children to visit granny her house becomes a place of public assembly.
-
The matter of the visiting student which Jokar has mentioned does not change that fact that the student has come to live with the family in a residential domestic environment. The home does not operate as a B&B for the purposes of letting the student stay there. To say otherwise would mean that when you take your children to visit granny her house becomes a place of public assembly.
No, from all I have read and from the comments, discussions and Government legal opinion given to the B&B Association over the last few months, I am sure Jokar is right: the Government's (DCLG's) view - reinforced now by the appeal case in Wales - is that the RRFSO applies to ALL cases when people stay in premises for a consideration (payment or exchange), for even one night, unless those premises are their permanent private dwelling.
The Government's insistence that domestic premises are NOT excluded from the RRFSO (despite the fact that the RRFSO says domestic premises are excluded) has led them inevitably to this position.
So ALL house swaps, accommodation of foreign students, "homestay" accommodation of people visiting a local sporting event or festival, etc etc etc, is covered by the RRFSO and the property owner must do a fire risk assessment and put in place appropriate fire precautions. DCLG have explicitly stated this to us, and indeed have asked for suggestions as to how they can contact such "opportunistic" (their word) accommodation providers.
When the general public become aware of the full implications of this there will indeed be "uproar" - on a much bigger scale than from B&Bs, who are responsible and who are happy to put in place appropriate and proportional fire precautions.
-
It is now apparent that this new fire law is actually eroding the rights and freedoms of the ordinary person. What was previously judged to be "Incidental commercial use" within a person's home, such a running a small B&B, taking in a temporary lodger, having some friends to stay and receiving some money from them to defray expenses, or even perhaps employing a baby-sitter, is now to be classed as commercial use, with all the attendant "elf-n-safety" & workplace bureaucracy. Does anyone know whose idea this was, or is it just part of the tide of worthless legislation emanating from Brussels?
If H&S applies due to somewhere being a workplace then it applied before the RRO came out. The only example you gave above that would constitute the RRO applying is the B&B.
-
It is now apparent that this new fire law is actually eroding the rights and freedoms of the ordinary person. What was previously judged to be "Incidental commercial use" within a person's home, such a running a small B&B, taking in a temporary lodger, having some friends to stay and receiving some money from them to defray expenses, or even perhaps employing a baby-sitter, is now to be classed as commercial use, with all the attendant "elf-n-safety" & workplace bureaucracy. Does anyone know whose idea this was, or is it just part of the tide of worthless legislation emanating from Brussels?
What is it about the law (which is British, not EU) that you don't like? Does your B&B comply with it? Do you think it shouldn't have to?
-
The matter of the visiting student which Jokar has mentioned does not change that fact that the student has come to live with the family in a residential domestic environment. The home does not operate as a B&B for the purposes of letting the student stay there. To say otherwise would mean that when you take your children to visit granny her house becomes a place of public assembly.
No, from all I have read and from the comments, discussions and Government legal opinion given to the B&B Association over the last few months, I am sure Jokar is right: the Government's (DCLG's) view - reinforced now by the appeal case in Wales - is that the RRFSO applies to ALL cases when people stay in premises for a consideration (payment or exchange), for even one night, unless those premises are their permanent private dwelling.
The Government's insistence that domestic premises are NOT excluded from the RRFSO (despite the fact that the RRFSO says domestic premises are excluded) has led them inevitably to this position.
So ALL house swaps, accommodation of foreign students, "homestay" accommodation of people visiting a local sporting event or festival, etc etc etc, is covered by the RRFSO and the property owner must do a fire risk assessment and put in place appropriate fire precautions. DCLG have explicitly stated this to us, and indeed have asked for suggestions as to how they can contact such "opportunistic" (their word) accommodation providers.
When the general public become aware of the full implications of this there will indeed be "uproar" - on a much bigger scale than from B&Bs, who are responsible and who are happy to put in place appropriate and proportional fire precautions.
What you are implying then is when your children have a sleep over you must carry out a FRA.
Don't think so somehow. I can draw a distinction between when residential premises are being used as a home and for something other than a place where a single household lives. I can also draw a distinct between a residence being used as a business opportunity and being used for living purposes including inviting persons to stay as part of the family for a time.
If a postman deliver a letter to your home does it become his workplace for that few seconds and require a FRA? No, it is still a family home.
-
What you are implying then is when your children have a sleep over you must carry out a FRA.
Don't think so somehow. I can draw a distinction between when residential premises are being used as a home and for something other than a place where a single household lives. I can also draw a distinct between a residence being used as a business opportunity and being used for living purposes including inviting persons to stay as part of the family for a time.
If a postman deliver a letter to your home does it become his workplace for that few seconds and require a FRA? No, it is still a family home.
Nearlythere, senior officials at DCLG have clearly stated to us that the RRFSO applies in ALL cases where somebody PAYS to stay in premises not their own home - even for one night. That is their very clear position. The Department have even asked for help on "any routes which we should explore to ensure that the final booklet [for accommodation providers, explaining the RRFSO] is accessible to any 'opportunist' providers of accommodation who operate on a very infrequent basis".
That is the Government's position. No, your children's sleepovers are not covered (unless they pay!), and no of course your doorstep does not become a postman's workplace.
Payment is not mentioned, let alone defined, in the RRFSO so common law applies - and 'payment' of course includes any 'consideration', so house swaps, providing accommodation for a nanny or carer in return for their work, etc, would all count as payment as far as the law is concerned.
-
The bottom line is, that the law has been written and where applicable must be obeyed. Maybe some people dont agree with it, but tough.
Just because you dont agree with a 30mph speed limit and in your opinion in unwarranted, do you go saying through at 40- 50mph and moan when you get a ticket???? No you accept the risk that you will get caught for disobeying criminal law. If you do, you are pretty silly.
There is no difference.
I get fed up with people moaning to me about the legislation and about how "wrong" it is. Well actually its not wrong at all. It is another piece of legilsation put in place to SAVE LIVES and also there to protect the responsible person if they pay due diligence and comply where nessecary.
I accept that there are some old guide huggers of inspectors out there who have difficulty coming to terms with risk calculations. But some of us are pretty good at making judgements based on risks.
Please accept that most IOs have been to these fires and have experience of how fire develops so their opinion is likely to be better placed than an average B&B landlord.
If you dont agree with what we say, talk to us, ask us why and challange the rationale there and then. Hopefully you will understand the reasoning at the time. If after this you still do not agree, take your 'expert' opinion to the courts and let them decide.
All I will say is please dont tar all IOs with the same brush. Ultimately we are there to make professional opinions based on our experience and the risk posed by your premises. Some just need a little tweaking, so bite the bullet pay a proffesional (and recommended) fire consultant to come and do a proper fire risk assessment.
You could save a fortune in the long run!
-
I accept that there are some old guide huggers of inspectors out there who have difficulty coming to terms with risk calculations.
FSO, you have made our point very concisely, albeit in stronger terms than we would have used.
As I have said in my earlier posts, the B&B Association does NOT think the RRFSO as written, and as intended, is "wrong". It is very sensible. It is the inconsistency and (often) lack of proportionality in the enforcement which is wrong. Added to that, the lack of any "de minimus" element (if domestic premises are not excluded) also creates a needless burden on fire inspectors, FRAs and householders that is not justified by the risks and was not (we believe) intended by Parliament.
-
Indeed, there will always be slight inconsistency due to the fact that one person cannot inspect all the B&Bs. Obviously taking in account the risk of the building, it will be the opionion of the IO to if the measures in place are suitable and sufficent. My opinion of a low risk may be slightly different to my collegues. However it should not hugely differ.
I do ocassionally pick up jobs to follow up where I feel there has been some over provision asked for and it does annoy me. It then puts the IO in a difficult position sometimes.
As I said before and im sure many people will agree, providing there is a good risk assessment in place to justify whatever provisions you wish to make and these in my opinion are realistic, you should not be seeing me for a while.
I would recommend to all B&B owners to jump on board an employ somebody who knows what they are doing to perform a FRA asap.
Remember....more often than not, you get what you pay for!!
-
So is it lack of consistency or lack of proportionality you have a problem with?
We can clear up a lack of consitency by hugging our guides. One size fits all. Consistency at its best.
We can work on proportionality by throwing the guides away, but then we are working to people's opinion of risks involved. That being the case I may have a completely different viewpoint to the old station officer next to me who has seen many times the upshot of what happens when it all goes wrong. I might be thinking about risk proportionate in a perfect world and accepting 'good management' as a feature, where he might be trying to make sure that what he has seen cannot happen again regardless of any management.
Failing that we could stand back, let you sort out your own fire safety, and prosecute you to the full extent we can if you get it wrong and someone gets hurt.
-
I do not think good management is an overriding issue to lack of other provisions, but it is certinally contributary.
I do feel, the guides are sometimes un realistic. ADB in similar is only a guide with recommendations. Providing the fundemental requirement is met...job done.
Hence why we have CFD, engineered solutions and overall experienced well trained enforcing officers who can make a suitable decision based on the risk that the premises poses to the relevent persons.
Why should enforcement of the RRO be any different?
I presume you would ask for all the passive requirements as it shows in the picture for an ice cube factory???
I agree that for most sleeping accomodation, the benchmark should and will be the RRO guide and the LACORS document. If you actually read in full these documents the chances are that what the premises has in place is perfectly sufficient.
Some areas of the guidence I will not budge on, but some I will if I can be shown realistic and suitable control measures.
Take a read of DD9999, its the future...lol
-
CivvyFSO,
Consistency: of course there will never be perfect consistency, but is is the substantial inconsistency between areas in the treatment of similar properties that we are trying to help the fire safety community reduce.
Proportionality: the RRFSO is very clear - fire precautions should be proportionate to the size of the undertaking and to the risk.
You are right, but your notional "old station officer" would be totally wrong in enforcing the guide or in imposing prescriptive standards regardless of the actual risk. This does matter, because very small businesses are closing because of such actions (I have just spoken to a B&B owner this morning who is closing his award-winning B&B).
-
CivvyFSO,
This does matter, because very small businesses are closing because of such actions (I have just spoken to a B&B owner this morning who is closing his award-winning B&B).
What award did he win? What was he asked to do? Was it unreasonable? Why did he not want to do it?
-
Did any of those awards make the premises safe to sleep in?
It's a bit flippant I know, but if there was a death in a B&B would it be any consolation knowing that they will have had a nice last meal and died in a clean room?
Should we accept "It will cost too much to make this building safe" as a reason for allowing unsafe standards?
-
Absolutely not, but lets look at things from an individual approach.
I must admit though, i am struggling to see what costs so much to bring a B&B up to spec. The standards can generally be met fairly simply by a bit of tweaking or re shuffling.
-
I did post earlier on in the thread with the suggestion that the B&B association looks at providing workshops / inviting guest speakers from the fire service to one of its conferences.
It would help set up dialogue, communication , dispell myths, a chance to voice different sides of the story etc.
-
I did post earlier on in the thread with the suggestion that the B&B association looks at providing workshops / inviting guest speakers from the fire service to one of its conferences.
It would help set up dialogue, communication , dispell myths, a chance to voice different sides of the story etc.
Midland Retty, I think this is a very good suggestion. We have always been keen to engage with the fire safety community and be as constructive as possible, and it makes sense to plan an event where the issues can be considered in detail and in the round. We are considering the logistics now and will seek the fullest and most senior participation by the fire & rescue services, the Department (DCLG) and those whose homes and businesses are affected. Watch this space!
-
B&B
Dont just get senior fire officers as they may only see the strategic view, see if you can get some of those from the sharp end such as Midland, Civvyfso etc as they are the ones who see the establishments each day. It could also be benificial to have some independent fire risk assessors so that they can contribute as well.
Senior people in the fire service and DCLG do not always see the real side of things from thier ivory towers!!!
-
B&B
Dont just get senior fire officers as they may only see the strategic view, see if you can get some of those from the sharp end such as Midland, Civvyfso etc as they are the ones who see the establishments each day. It could also be benificial to have some independent fire risk assessors so that they can contribute as well.
Senior people in the fire service and DCLG do not always see the real side of things from thier ivory towers!!!
Quite agree Colonel
(Although that is not to say I'm volunteering my services you understand !!!)
By all means invite senior brigade officials, but with the greatest of respect to them they do not deal with these issues on a day to day basis, so best to include front line fire safety officers too.
As Colonel suggests getting everyone within the industry involved from assessors to inspectors, installers to suppliers will be of huge benefit to your landlords. It will give them ideas on costs, products, enforcement, expectations, ways of achieving compliance etc.
-
B&B
Dont just get senior fire officers as they may only see the strategic view, see if you can get some of those from the sharp end such as Midland, Civvyfso etc as they are the ones who see the establishments each day. It could also be benificial to have some independent fire risk assessors so that they can contribute as well.
Senior people in the fire service and DCLG do not always see the real side of things from thier ivory towers!!!
Quite agree Colonel
(Although that is not to say I'm volunteering my services you understand !!!)
By all means invite senior brigade officials, but with the greatest of respect to them they do not deal with these issues on a day to day basis, so best to include front line fire safety officers too.
As Colonel suggests getting everyone within the industry involved from assessors to inspectors, installers to suppliers will be of huge benefit to your landlords. It will give them ideas on costs, products, enforcement, expectations, ways of achieving compliance etc.
You have to include senior officers as they are the policy makers.
-
Hi,
Thought I would join this forum to bring a different perspective to the debate.
We currently run a small B&B (two luxury rooms in our farm house) in Derbyshire.
We will be closing in two months time due to the new fire regulations. Why?
1) The cost of the work required by the fire service can not be justified from the income we derive from the business.
2) The amount of work involved would be highly disruptive to OUR HOME and to our guests.
3) The long term impact on our HOME.
Point 1 & 2 can relatively easily be overcome. Point 3 is the real reason we are closing. We are NOT going to install fire doors here there and everywhere, we are NOT going to have unsightly emergency lighting and unsightly fire alarms everywhere. It is our home. Strangely all our guests seem to agree. They don’t want all this paraphernalia around them. They come here because it is homely. If they want a hotel they go to a hotel.
As two or three of our guests have stated – they don’t expect any higher level of safety in a small B&B than they have at home.
What a lot of us B&B owners don’t understand is why do we have to do all this (other than that is what the law says)? By all accounts there has never been a fire in a small B&B (at least over the last 20 years).
We all want to save lives. But surely we should start with the big killers rather than witling away at the edges as we seem to be doing with most of the recent legislation. I wonder how many people have died on the way, by car, to B&B’s over the last 20 years. Yet we don’t ban cars. I am certain that any guest visiting us is far more likely to be killed or injured on the road getting to us than during their stay.
The small B&B is part of our culture, its something we are quite good at. If we carry on down this path (not just the Fire regulations but other equally intrusive Health and Safety initiatives) I personally think that small B&B’s, as we know them, will disappear within the next 5-10 years. Why are there NO small B&Bs in Switzerland yet 000's in Austria?
Our fire inspection although cordial and amicable was intimidating. Two uniformed officials on your door step can not be anything else. There was no sense of proportionality. They could have been assessing a 10 story Hotel. The same rules seemed to apply. Yes I smiled and agree with them. Why?
The same fire service had threatened to close down one of our neighbours B&B rooms on the day of their visit (with people in). The only reason they didn’t was that they couldn’t get the paper work raised in time and the farmer and his son built a fire escape (from scaffolding) that night. The neighbour has been doing B&B for 21 years yet all of a sudden her guests are in mortal danger? A fire escape for a 3 room two storey (ground floor and 1st floor) B&B with 1 room upstairs – hardly proportional!
We couldn’t risk this scenario so we smiled and agreed to carry out all the work (it bought us time).
Has anyone any idea what is the probability of a fire in a B&B? If they do - how does that compare with been struck by lightening?
Let’s have some level of proportionality. Yes our home (for our own safety) may need a few things improving but not all the way up to Hotel standards. The people making the laws and the people implementing them should note that they are supposed to be doing so for the people that pay them (the general public). Do the public (or at least the B&B using public) want this level of interference in something they have enjoyed for years with little or no risk? I for one as a B&B user (as well as a B&B owner) don’t.
-
CivvyFSO,
Consistency: of course there will never be perfect consistency, but is is the substantial inconsistency between areas in the treatment of similar properties that we are trying to help the fire safety community reduce.
Proportionality: the RRFSO is very clear - fire precautions should be proportionate to the size of the undertaking and to the risk.
You are right, but your notional "old station officer" would be totally wrong in enforcing the guide or in imposing prescriptive standards regardless of the actual risk. This does matter, because very small businesses are closing because of such actions (I have just spoken to a B&B owner this morning who is closing his award-winning B&B).
B&B
in my experiance the B&B owners are closing because they dont want to pay out for the minimum standards of fire precautions that we are suggesting and we belive are prportinate to the size of their undertaking.
It would be intersting to know how much it was going to cost your award winning B&B to upgrade the fire precautions.
One 4 bedroomed farmhouse B&B i inspected put in a wirless L2 fire alrm system (£2700) 2 SafeT lights (£20 each) and fitted self closing devices to the existing doors (7 of them at about £12 each) full compliance for under 3K. plus she can now use the 4th room which she could not do before because she would have required a fire certificate and therfeore full AFD EM lights and new fire doors.
would you say this was over onerous or proportinate to the size and risk in the premises.
-
Izan,
I am sure some B&Bs are closing because “they don’t want to pay out for the minimum standards of fire precautions that we are suggesting”. That is very true but I would guess more are closing because of the hassle of implementing the changes to their home. The cost is one thing, the disturbance to your home and the hassle with contractors etc is another. Why should an old lady with a couple of rooms making a bit of pin money and having a bit of company have the hassle of getting quotes, managing a contractor to get the work done, getting her house invaded for a few hours during installation, clean up the mess they have left and then be expected to fill in a fire safety log etc for then rest of her days. The answer is she isn’t. She will close and we (the general public) loose another quaint little B&B.
We are not closing our B&B because of the money. I am sure I could spin a grant from somewhere and although the cost is out of all proportion to the gain it isn’t a show stopper. The implementation and the future impact on our HOME is the main reason.
£12 for self closing doors sounds fine except we don’t want self closing doors (we would have fitted them if we did). And let’s be realistic all that is going to happen is that they will be propped open until the next fire inspection.
Sorry that I sound very resentful of the fire services and the general health and safety stupidity we are currently living under but we are about to loose nearly 20% of our income and about to disappoint all our regular guests. It doesn’t put you in a very good frame of mind.
-
IZAN FSO, interesting that you use the terms we suggest. The RR(FS)O is about what the RP requires under ALARP through their own FRA. The problem is that a number of FRS do not like risk assessment and are using their enforcement regime to be prescriptive on owners regrdless of what an FRA states. In a lot of cases they blatantly ignore the FRA and put people under pressure because they are an FRS.
-
Thats a sweeping statement of mass proportion Jokar. OK I can accept the ladlord doesnt want self closing doors. I can just about accept that the old lady Swaapc talked about may not want the hassle for what essentially is small works that may last a week or so. I had to put up with contractors in my house for two weeks while my new windows were installed big deal. But to suggest ALL FRS in the UK dont like RA and are ignoring it I think is a bitter statement, and just plain misinformed. Sorry you have been given reasons how we can be challenged you have been given reasons why we cant and wont intimidate people but you dont want to listen. Thats fine.
Based on the attitudes of people like you I will be voting for prescription when the CFOA decides to get feedback on hopw the RRO has bedded in. Legislation comes along that people don't like. Well Im sorry tough. 3K is fine but they dont want the hassle? then theyre obviously not really that commited to the business are they? So dont blame people like me and Izanfso for half ar*sed attempts. Tell me Jokar what you want in a B&B - wjhats standards do you propose? Cos i bet theyre no different from what I'd ask for. But do put your money where your mouth is and tell us. Do lets see how you intend to demonstrate how the Nazi jack booted inspectors amongst us are going OTT forcing poor little B&Bs out of business. Give me all the examples you know about. As our friend Swaapc admits is because they just dont want the hassle, yet they want your money and people stopping in their B&Bs.Talk about losing the argument its just been summed up here! Finally admission about what this is really all about. Boo Hoo
-
Our fire inspection although cordial and amicable was intimidating. Two uniformed officials on your door step can not be anything else. There was no sense of proportionality. They could have been assessing a 10 story Hotel. The same rules seemed to apply. Yes I smiled and agree with them. Why?
The same fire service had threatened to close down one of our neighbours B&B rooms on the day of their visit (with people in). The only reason they didn’t was that they couldn’t get the paper work raised in time and the farmer and his son built a fire escape (from scaffolding) that night. The neighbour has been doing B&B for 21 years yet all of a sudden her guests are in mortal danger? A fire escape for a 3 room two storey (ground floor and 1st floor) B&B with 1 room upstairs – hardly proportional!
I see .
Ok thats fine. We wont have a police force then. We wont have the health and safety incase people say its intimidating. Yet in the same breath you admit it was cordial and amicable. Strange. So would you have prefered a fire officer reading the riot act in your face?. The fact two officers visit is actually there for your protection and ours.You dont understand fire safety and therefore can not understand why the fire officer may have decided to prohibit that building. You are letting your personal judgement and prejudice decide for you because thats the easy option. And thats what makes me angry. You are crying out for a level playing field and yet seem to not listen to eitherside of the story and this is what niggles me. You are essentially a domestic premise. Most people die in domestic premises in this country. So you get guests into your premises. Theyre smokers go out get drunk and fall asleep with a ciggie in their hands and set their room on fire. You cant control that. How could you unless you decided to enter their room every five minutes Dont give me the how many times has a fire occured in a B&B argument . Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong. The likelyhood may be low but if something goes wrong the consequences will be severe. Tell you what dont install any fire precautioins but do me a deal instead you be the one that thells a family theyve loast a friend or member of the family in a firein your B&B you tell them, then you will understand our concerns.
-
I can honestly say some of the worst installed and maintained fire alarm systems i see are in B+B's. They are never tested and the owners don't think it's worth having a contract because their pal down the road thinks it's a waste of money beacuse they have never had one.
Then you go and do a test because they think it's been a few years since the last one.
One site i found 4 detectors in bedrooms not working and yet they still hummed over wether to replace them.
They had a battery back up that would not light an led but still grumble over having to replace them.
I was at one today who now feels that the responsibilty is more on him so he is going to upgrade his fire alarm that was installed (badly) by his mate on the cheap for a few pints. Wow.
B+B's i have looked at over the years are riding their luck ,penny pinching with sub standard alarm systems that even when all the failings are explained to them are still reluctant to do anything,even small bits at a time.
I don't like paying to get my gas boiler serviced but i do for the safety of my family in the house and if i was told a part needed replaced or the boiler was old and becoming unreliable i would not tell the engineer to leave it as "it still works at the moment".....
-
"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005. Why don't we ban cars? There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.
I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying. I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch. We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.
Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them. Are they willing to pay for it? I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in. I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.
"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes). We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.
-
Ah the wonder of statistics. More people die on the roads true - which is why over the years the laws are being increasingly tightened - seat belts, drinking limits, speed bumps, speed cameras, mobile phone restrictions and higher maximum possible penalties.
If you look just at fire then of all types of premises it's domestic ones where people die, due to minimal legislation. Workplaces, once equally hazardous, are now not so because of legislation.
Remember the fire service strike - some elements of the press suggested people should stay at home, but if heeded more would die.If the fire brigade were on strike I'd put a bed in my employers offices as it has better fire precautions than in the typical home.
People are blase about fire until it hits them personally or seen it. The fortunate majority (not the right phrase I know) who die do so quickly from smoke and gases, an unfortunate few die over the next month from burns related complications & having seen this personally will never take the subject trivially.
OK, let's exempt small premises because that's what the public wants - until the first deaths (a matter of time) which will result in a tabloid led crusade demanding punitive legislation.
I'm all for proportionate precautions and not over the top prescription (unless the RP wants the extra protection) but not for no precautions at all or laughingly inadequate ones.
Not about the money - pull the other one - in which case don't charge at all! As for inconvenience to your home, that's your choice - keep it as your home and restrict the risk to yourselves, but the moment you introduce (by choice) commerce, its not your home any more and you should provide the appropriate precautions.
Unsightly emergency lighting- that's a con, the days of the only EL being 8W bricklites is long gone, there are dozens of aesthetic normal light fittings that can have conversion packs fitted to cover a dual role (which makes my life difficult doing an FRA in a building without a schedule of EL as it hurts my neck and eyes trying to spot if they are fitted)
-
"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005. Why don't we ban cars? There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.
I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying. I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch. We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.
Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them. Are they willing to pay for it? I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in. I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.
"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes). We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.
Thank you for that. For me you have summed up and exposed the holes in your argument. Its your home as you keep saying.I totally appreciate that and thankfully that is the one thing has really exposed the problem with your argument. Do you not want your family to be safe? do you not have smoke detection? No? Then you are very silly. If the answer is yes you do have smoke detection then why? Because you want to be warned of a fire occuring., A Single domestioc premise is totally different to a business such as a B&B. WHy? SImple you as a family unit know what each other are doing. As a family yuou control what goes on ther. Introduce guests and you loose some of that control. You want people to accept a risk if they stay at your B&B. You are running a business and whats more you can install fire precautions which are discrete which wouldnt be detectable to joe public. You ask your customers if they know the diference between a fire door and a standard door. Your own conventional lighting can be converted to emergency lighting and no one would ever know the difference. So a fire occurs would you not want it to be contained? would you not want YOUR FAMILY AND GUESTS to warned of it and escape. would you NOT want the fire to be conatined so that it doesnt damage the rest of your HOME?
Your argument holds no water Im afraid. You run a business. Live with it. And if you cant afford it then Im sorry. I love B&Bs I genuinely do, but when I take my family on holiday I expect cleanliness, a comfortable nice environment and a good english breakfast which Im sure you provide to the highest standards.But above all I expect safety and dont you try and tell me any other family would be different. If you dont understand that then you shouldnt be in the trade. I will ask again do you expect my 80 year old mother in law to stop at your B&B and escape through a window if there was a fire possibly breaking her plevis from the fall? Or would you expect that she should be able to evacuate unharmed via a conventional route out of the building to spend another holiday in a good english B&B the year after. End of argument. End of argument full stop. Get with it the fire precutions we expect arent to hotel standards at all. Even the government guidance doesnt ask for that. Be honest and stop playing games instead of coming up with silly arguments. Like it or like it not this government expects businesses (which is exactly what you are and dont deny it ) to ensure the safety of people who use them. You just admitted you dont want a level playing field - you said you dont even want to be on it... so you want eemptions or for it not apply just because you are a B&B? Ok great argument that. Sorry you dont do yourself any favours you have to meet us half way, You clearly arent doing so and only paint a sad picture for your fellow colleagues who run B&Bs and I notice you did not mention anything about taking me up on my offer to tell the family or friends of a person who dies in your B&B. Game set match. What a shame this has been made into a point scoring excercise. I wouldnt tell you how to run a B&B dont tell me how to be a fire safety officer.
-
Welcome to the forum swaapc. Thankfully not all new members have such a baptism of fire.
It seems to me that the use of statistics onthe number of deaths in house fires is not helpful without further analysis. As Cleveland and Anthony say, the huge majority of fire deaths are in domestic premises. But ithats not surprising because its where everybody spends most of their time and where most most people sleep. If we all took up Anthony's suggestion of sleeping at work ( I know Davo has tried that already) we would see multiple fire deaths soar. You have to be careful with statistics.
Look at the statistics for fire deaths in domestic premises. Look at the socio economic and age groups into which victims of fire fall, and look at the housing standards in which the fires occur. It isnt chocolate box cottages in rural villages or detached houses in the suburbs- the sort of domestic premises that might have a chance of being attractive enough to attract B&B guests.
The crux of the issue is this. There are two elements to fire safety- prevention of fire and precautions in the event of fire.
The majority of B&Bs are very nice well run attractive places (they have to be) where the owner through care and attention to detail has effectively reduced the risk of fire occurring to the minimum. And very successfully.
What most B&B owners I meet have not done effectively is to consider whether, if a fire does occur, people will be alerted in sufficient time to make their safe escape and questioning whether the available escape routes would remain tenable for long enough to allow safe escape.
Most owners are finding this second step a bit of a culture shock and are unfamiliar with the benchmark standards against which to compare their property such as the Building Regulations safety standards for dwellings- set out in Approved document B. If a B&B would not conform even to accepted safe design for a dwelling house then we have a problem and there are a number of very nice places that fall into this category- open plan staircases being fairly common.
Naturally explaining this sort of problem to the owner who has been trading for years is very dififcult. For two officers to attend (Cant see how that can be for the clients protection to be outnumbered 2 to 1 Cleveland- even more likely to intimidate) to deliver bad news can be seen as over bearing.
Having identified the problem we have to suggest solutions. The sleeping accommodation guidance is supposed to be the benchmark standard that we should aim for- taking into account the need for proportionality and risk. However the benchmark guidance is flawed- especially for example its unique and incorrect definition of BS5839 part 6- LD3 in the tables.
If the diagrams in the sleeping accommodation guide are then enforced as the minimum solution without regard to other measures and management and proportionality thats when the problems arise with enforcement officers.
But many owners also have a difficulty in recognising the two aspects of fire prevention and fire precautions, and think that because they have taken steps to reduce the chance of a fire starting they need do no more.
On the other hand some enforcers may be failing to take account of the management, fire prevention measures and proportionality in determining the level of fire precautions needed.
-
"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005. Why don't we ban cars? There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.
I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying. I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch. We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.
Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them. Are they willing to pay for it? I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in. I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.
"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes). We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.
Swaapc. When people contact you to book in do you read them a list of the fire safety measures which are not provided and advise them that by staying in the premises they are exposed to a higher risk for fire than if they stayed in a B&B with all the neccessary fire safety measures provided.
I would give you some support if this was the case but I have a feeling you would be out of business very shortly.
I have to however support the B&B industry by saying that a lesser standard of detection than found in hotels would be appropriate in many cases and even egg box doors have a degree of fire resistance. It raises the old chestnut about 2.5 minute evacuation times and 1/2 fr doors.
-
I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005. Why don't we ban cars? There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.
Welcome to the forum swaapc
It is nice to have another opinion on the matter from the actual opposite end of the problem from myself and the other FSO's here.
You made a comment about not wanting self closers on your doors. So, if a guest has a fire in their room, they gather up their belongings and run out of the room, the door doesn't close behind them and then smoke/fire follows them out... What about the people in the other rooms who haven't had such a rude awakening, and are wondering if the alarm going off (If there is an alarm) is the burglar alarm or the fire alarm, and whether it will turn off if they wait another minute? For something that is relatively cheap, and also relatively unobtrusive considering that most people will want their room door closed anyway, you have just potentially put everyones life at risk in your premises by omitting a very small part of fire safety. (And not because you couldn't afford it, because you "don't want it")
Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005"
That is 376 people with families they have left behind. I would place a safe bet that good fire safety (Good warning and a good means of escape) could have prevented a majority of those deaths.
There were plenty more comments I could rant on about but I think other people have covered them.
-
I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005. Why don't we ban cars? There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.
Welcome to the forum swaapc
It is nice to have another opinion on the matter from the actual opposite end of the problem from myself and the other FSO's here.
You made a comment about not wanting self closers on your doors. So, if a guest has a fire in their room, they gather up their belongings and run out of the room, the door doesn't close behind them and then smoke/fire follows them out... What about the people in the other rooms who haven't had such a rude awakening, and are wondering if the alarm going off (If there is an alarm) is the burglar alarm or the fire alarm, and whether it will turn off if they wait another minute? For something that is relatively cheap, and also relatively unobtrusive considering that most people will want their room door closed anyway, you have just potentially put everyones life at risk in your premises by omitting a very small part of fire safety. (And not because you couldn't afford it, because you "don't want it")
Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005"
That is 376 people with families they have left behind. I would place a safe bet that good fire safety (Good warning and a good means of escape) could have prevented a majority of those deaths.
There were plenty more comments I could rant on about but I think other people have covered them.
Totally agree with that CivvyFSO.
One thing that emerges from this thread is that Landlords, I think, have been poorly informed on how to comply with the RRO, what products and methods are out there to aid compliance and why certain bench marks and standards are required.
Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed to move this forward for the benefit of everyone involved.
-
Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them. Are they willing to pay for it?
Sorry but I couldn't resist this one.
Punter: "Can I have a room please?"
Swaapc: "Certainly sir. I just need to inform you that we do not believe in making the premises safe in the event of a fire. In the event of a fire in our lounge, the antique sofa will go like the clappers, trapping you in your room behind a door that is unlikely to survive more than 5 minutes of fire. But no matter because the smoke will have killed you by then, and you won't even be stressed about it because we have no smoke alarms to wake you from your slumber.... That will be £50 per person with breakfast included. We also do not bother with much in the way of food hygiene, as you were more likely do die in the car on the way here than die of botulism."
-
haha
so true!
-
Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them. Are they willing to pay for it?
Sorry but I couldn't resist this one.
Punter: "Can I have a room please?"
Swaapc: "Certainly sir. I just need to inform you that we do not believe in making the premises safe in the event of a fire. In the event of a fire in our lounge, the antique sofa will go like the clappers, trapping you in your room behind a door that is unlikely to survive more than 5 minutes of fire. But no matter because the smoke will have killed you by then, and you won't even be stressed about it because we have no smoke alarms to wake you from your slumber.... That will be £50 per person with breakfast included.
"However, for an extra £10 - £15 pppn, I know a B&B operator who has upgraded his premises in line with current fire safety standards to help ensure patrons have a safe and enjoyable overnight stay. We use it all the time."
-
swaapc
I have no connection with FRS, so can I ask have you ever seen a fire at first hand?
My neighbour (under the weather shall we say) caused a gas cooker blast due to his fag.
I heard the blast and ran out instantly (Nosey)
He staggered out, I looked in and saw flames reaching up the wall say about two feet.
My obvious concern was with him and getting Mrs Davo to dial 999.
The kitchen was gutted in under two minutes, the whole house apart from the roof in under nine and it cost the insurer £120K and six months to put right. (Five years ago)
He was only in the house ten seconds but spent two weeks in hospital with smoke inhalation and burns to hands and face
The brigade came in 9.5 mins (5 miles) broke in big time and put the fire out in a couple of minutes.
Come to some agreement. Yes they shouldn't have come mob handed but they have been told to crack down on sleeping accomodation, I know because our hostel has had two visits this month and thats what they told me.
davo
ps Prof, what do you mean tried to fall asleep, constantly banging my head against brick walls keeps me well awake!
-
Swaapc. When people contact you to book in do you read them a list of the fire safety measures which are not provided and advise them that by staying in the premises they are exposed to a higher risk for fire than if they stayed in a B&B with all the neccessary fire safety measures provided.
I would give you some support if this was the case but I have a feeling you would be out of business very shortly.
I would welcome this approach with open arms - In fact I asked the Fire officer if it was an approach I could use. If the fire service or other expert were to provide me with an agreed risk assessment (with the probability of a fire in our establishment) outlining the fire risks to our customers then I would gladly ask every customer to sign that they accepted the risk before arriving. Guess what - I have a feeling every guest we have would sign it. You forget that people can make their own judgments. They don’t need a nanny state to help them cross a road.
Regarding the gentleman who would like me “to tell the family or friends of a person who dies in your B&B” – That is just pure alarmism and not a worthy comment from someone in your profession. Of course I wouldn’t but let’s look at the odds of me having to do so. As stated before I am far more likely to have to do so after I have had a road accident.
“I wouldnt tell you how to run a B&B dont tell me how to be a fire safety officer.” – That’s the point you are telling me how to run my B&B. We have always had a ‘duty of care’ to our customers and we are very proud of the level of care and safety we provide. And our customers respond by coming back time and time again. Are you telling them that they can’t decide their own safety. That is very arrogant.
-
If the fire service or other expert were to provide me with an agreed risk assessment (with the probability of a fire in our establishment) outlining the fire risks to our customers then I would gladly ask every customer to sign that they accepted the risk before arriving. Guess what - I have a feeling every guest we have would sign it.
Risk is a combination of probability and severity. The probability may be low, but the consequences can be high. To understand the risk, you must balance both factors.
-
Swaapc. When people contact you to book in do you read them a list of the fire safety measures which are not provided and advise them that by staying in the premises they are exposed to a higher risk for fire than if they stayed in a B&B with all the neccessary fire safety measures provided.
I would give you some support if this was the case but I have a feeling you would be out of business very shortly.
I would welcome this approach with open arms - In fact I asked the Fire officer if it was an approach I could use. If the fire service or other expert were to provide me with an agreed risk assessment (with the probability of a fire in our establishment) outlining the fire risks to our customers then I would gladly ask every customer to sign that they accepted the risk before arriving. Guess what - I have a feeling every guest we have would sign it. You forget that people can make their own judgments. They don’t need a nanny state to help them cross a road.
Regarding the gentleman who would like me “to tell the family or friends of a person who dies in your B&B” – That is just pure alarmism and not a worthy comment from someone in your profession. Of course I wouldn’t but let’s look at the odds of me having to do so. As stated before I am far more likely to have to do so after I have had a road accident.
“I wouldnt tell you how to run a B&B dont tell me how to be a fire safety officer.” – That’s the point you are telling me how to run my B&B. We have always had a ‘duty of care’ to our customers and we are very proud of the level of care and safety we provide. And our customers respond by coming back time and time again. Are you telling them that they can’t decide their own safety. That is very arrogant.
They can only decide their own safety if they are aware of the risk. People normally expect to be in an environment safe from the risk of fire when they stay in a hotel or B&B or go into a shop, cinema or pub etc. It is a normal and reasonable expectation.
Do people actually ask you Swaapc what the risk to their person is in relation to the fire precautions you have or have not provided?
No one is telling you how to run a B&B. We are just trying to ensure that when people stay in B&Bs they can do so safely. We want to make sure they can go back to you next year.
-
Are you telling them that they can’t decide their own safety. That is very arrogant.
Hi Swaapc
By your logic we shouldn't have seatbelts in cars, we shouldn't have speed limits or any other measure in existence designed to keep us from harm.
Infact your logic says that I could go to an amusement park and be told something as absurd as:
"Welcome to the Hairy Scary roller coaster ride Sir.... Its up to you if you want the safety bar down to stop you from falling out....However we do not want to come across as arrogant or onerous so its up to you if you want to be secured in properly..... by the way we haven't maintained this ride for 4 years and its very rusty with a few bolts missing.... but should be ok. Just sign this disclaimer to say Ive told you this is a death trap if you would."
As Chris said you fail to grasp the point that whilst the likelyhood of you having a fire in your B&B is low the consequences if it did occur could be most severe. (i.e. fatalities)
It is not arrogance or the workings of a perceived nanny state to expect people to be kept safe from fire.
To challenge your argument further, your customers may agree to take a risk yet they cant decide on their own safety because they arent qualified to assess the risk. Plus those guest cant take control of what goes on in your B&B.
Therefore they are defacto put at more risk by the actions of others, or they may put others at risk.
You make money from running a B&B. You do it for reward so there is a duty of care issue here. I seriously doubt your guests knowing the full facts and not just the half truth version would be comfortable in stopping in a B&B with substandard fire precautions when there is one down the road which is fully compliant.
There is no getting away from the fact you must comply with the RRO. I agree Fire Safety Inspectors must approach each property with a balanced and proportionate view but a "my guests sign a disclaimer so i dont have to comply" regime isn't an option.
-
If the fire service or other expert were to provide me with an agreed risk assessment (with the probability of a fire in our establishment) outlining the fire risks to our customers then I would gladly ask every customer to sign that they accepted the risk before arriving. Guess what - I have a feeling every guest we have would sign it.
Risk is a combination of probability and severity. The probability may be low, but the consequences can be high. To understand the risk, you must balance both factors.
And actually know what you are talking about!
How could you expect somebody to make a judgement on the fire safety with little or no knowledge.
I find it quite insulting that my years of training and experience are being brought into question of validity.
Accept that running a business has consequences.
Im sure the taxman will be just as leaniant with his approach when your taxcode changes just because you dont like like it and it costs you a bit more money.
-
Regarding the gentleman who would like me “to tell the family or friends of a person who dies in your B&B” – That is just pure alarmism and not a worthy comment from someone in your profession.
You may find that a number of people here have, as part of their profession, had to stand in a box in a coroners court with the friends and family of the deceased looking at them expecting a good reason why they have lost a loved one. If the premises has poor standards someone like myself may be there to point out what the standards should have been and the actual standards that were found in situ, it would be then up to the owner to explain (With the family still looking on) why their premises didn't meet the requirements. This is not alarmist, this is what happens.
Regardless of the odds, unless you can say that having a fire is impossible then it will happen somewhere, it is only a matter of time. Lets just hope it doesn't happen in one like yours.
One good thing will come out of this, at least the B&B trade is looking at fire safety, as it clearly seems to have been something that has been overlooked, hence the 'uproar'.
-
Having read all this thread , and its been a good one , I am sure a lot of B&B's will eventually implode upon itself.
With comments coming in from outside the fire trade , as I have viewed will only steer people away to major chains . Their industry knew changes were coming , and this has affected the whole of the country, as we know.
-
When I did the business case for this business 5 years ago the biggest risk I identified was government intervention. Guess what I was absolutely correct. I hadn’t identified what would happen but it was clear 5 years ago with the way things were heading with the nanny state that they would hit us some how.
Just bear in mind that at the moment in this area (and possibly others) the Health and Safety departments (including fire service enforcement) are almost held in ridicule (which is wrong as the fire service does a magnificent job and society is in their debt). For instance when guests visit our neighbours B&B and see the fire escape (‘for their safety’) and are told why it is there they are initially incredulous and then bemused – Why?. Ah but you say – they won’t be laughing when they want to use it when there is a fire. Absolutely correct. The problem is that the probability of a fire there is so low it is superfluous and over the top. This is just one example of the madness of our current health and safety philosophy that brings the whole serious business into disrepute.
I would like to point out that most of us B&B owners are not money grabbing mercenaries as some of you have suggested. For instance we rented our rooms out to enable us to afford to live in a beautiful part of the country. Along with our other business we work 7 days a week 364 days a year (we have Xmas day off) and usually work 12-14 hours a day. Our income last year put us on about £5 per hour (less than we pay our cleaners). We don’t get a state pension, we don’t get sick leave, we don’t get maternity leave, we don’t get 3,4,5 weeks paid holiday a year, in fact the last time I had more than a day off (Xmas day) was 6 years ago. We are not asking for sympathy, it is our choice. I am just stating facts. We use to enjoy running our B&B even if the profits were small. In return people use to love coming here.
Who will volunteer to take e-mails from all the guests we are now turning away. I am sure most of them would be quite glad to give you their thoughts on the matter. At the moment I am giving them the e-mail addresses of the Fire Safety Minister and the DCLG Fire Safety Policy Team and suggesting they pass on the same comments as they are giving me.
If you believe that people will pay an extra £10 a night for a small B&B that has all the required fire precautions against one that doesn’t, you don’t understand the British public.
As I am obviously getting no further with this one-sided argument and the Law is the Law and we will be following it (by closing), this will be my last post. I think it is just such a shame that a part of our society will be lost over the next few years due to over zealous rules and regulations (not just fire). It’s a sad indictment of society in general and the path we seem to have trod over the last few years.
I am grateful to all of you for an insight into your world (its not a world I wish to live in but that, at the moment, is my choice). I hope I have given you a small understanding of my world. My feeling is that the level of health and safety in ‘this country’ has now gone too far (for society at the moment) and there is likely to be a significance backlash in the coming years. I may be wrong. I just hope for my sanity, others in small businesses and the next generation’s sanity that I am not. People in the Health and Safety Industry seem to have forgotten that we humans have been managing Risk at an individual level for 0000’s of years. We may need help here and there, and there are things that have been introduced over the years that have saved a lot of our lives (seat belts in cars, better fire retardant furniture etc). Tinkering at the edges as we seem to be doing at the moment is just damaging our society not saving any major number of lives. What are the big killers? Let’s address them better. The problem is, do we have the political will to do so? Tinkering at the edges has little or no political fall-out but makes governments look as though they are doing something. Resolving the big issues comes with big political headaches and is therefore put to one side.
Please note that all my comments have been about small B&B’s. That is homes that have less than three letting rooms (which were exempt under the old rules).
My final heart felt plea is - Please let us run our own lives but be there when we need you (a contradiction which I am sure you will all ridicule).
Bye and thank you again for this insight.
-
It's great to see people from industry join the site and state their case in a logical and straight forward manner.
I work for an insurance broker and am therefore neither in industry not in the fire service camp. I think I can say from a neutral point of view in this debate that the fire service do actaully seem to understand the problems that small business face, but I don't see the industry demonstrating the same level of understanding of the fire services objectives.
All this "it is low risk", "it is a superfolous risk" is what most non experts think until they have experienced fires. Fires in domestic scenarios (which B&Bs claim to be) are the biggest fire risk in the UK. I'm not sure what industry wants (except to be exempt from fire safety rules) but I can't help but thing a risk based approach is exactly what they would be crying out for, had it not been the case.
-
I just cannot believe that anyone would believe that the risks within their own homes are so low that it would obviate the need for some form of fire detection to be provided, the installation of a Grade D detection system in the home/b&b, would surely not be any more in terms of upheaval, labour and cost than the installation of some extra lights and sockets.
As a parent would you not be reluctant or concerned about your children staying overnight at a friends house, where you knew there was smokers in the house, and no smoke alarm installed, I would.
-
"
I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in. I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.
".
Want a job??
That's amazing as i have worked on fire systems since i left School but i cannot yet tell if a smoke detector works by looking at it.
I was at a B&B on Tuesday and to me it looked like a normal good well managed system until i looked at the panel. It was silenced but not reset as a detector kept going into alarm.
As you have quite sound knowledge on fire systems ,you will know that a non addressable fire panel with an activated zone-silenced but not reset cannot trigger into alarm again until it has been reset,rendering the rest of that zone useless.
This happened THREE monts ago and he had guests staying everynight without fire cover for that period....
To the unaware they would see the smoke detector in their room and feel safe....
SWAAPC- if you could see what i see i would bet my wages you would retract your bold statement.. I would be happy staying in B+B's on the ground floor with a room with it's own exit door.
-
For instance when guests visit our neighbours B&B and see the fire escape (‘for their safety’) and are told why it is there they are initially incredulous and then bemused – Why?. Ah but you say – they won’t be laughing when they want to use it when there is a fire. Absolutely correct. The problem is that the probability of a fire there is so low it is superfluous and over the top. This is just one example of the madness of our current health and safety philosophy that brings the whole serious business into disrepute.
swaapc
Im sorry you say that you have placed your last post because i think it is great to have a debate with someone from the industry to see where they are coming from but i hope you continue to read the posts.
I dont know the property that has put the external escape up but i bet as an inspecting officer i can hazard a guess why. does this farmhouse B&B have a single staircase that terminates in the middle of the house? probably the big cottage kitchen with a wood burning stove in the corner? if it does, then that is why an alternative is needed for the small numbers of people upstairs so they can get out of the premises and not have to pass through the room that is on fire.
Also in reply to a couple of other posts about why two inspecting officers turn up at small B&Bs...its not to intimidate its for the protection of our staff. on a number of occasions we have had to send another officer because of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour of the quaint B&B owners who dont like the fact that we are there to carry out our job.....Talk about shoot the messenger. All FRS have a duty of care to their staff look on brigades web sites for their poicies on abusive calls and behaviour, that may give indications about the numbers of people attending premises. i would think all FRS that carry out Home Fire Safety Risk Assessments send in crews of two for that reason being threatened in the home is not unusual.
-
I presume that if us boys were posting on the main B & B forum site , that we would also receive the same level of decorum that these members have afforded.
-
When I did the business case for this business 5 years ago the biggest risk I identified was government intervention. Guess what I was absolutely correct. I hadn’t identified what would happen but it was clear 5 years ago with the way things were heading with the nanny state that they would hit us some how.
Just bear in mind that at the moment in this area (and possibly others) the Health and Safety departments (including fire service enforcement) are almost held in ridicule (which is wrong as the fire service does a magnificent job and society is in their debt). For instance when guests visit our neighbours B&B and see the fire escape (‘for their safety’) and are told why it is there they are initially incredulous and then bemused – Why?. Ah but you say – they won’t be laughing when they want to use it when there is a fire. Absolutely correct. The problem is that the probability of a fire there is so low it is superfluous and over the top. This is just one example of the madness of our current health and safety philosophy that brings the whole serious business into disrepute.
I would like to point out that most of us B&B owners are not money grabbing mercenaries as some of you have suggested. For instance we rented our rooms out to enable us to afford to live in a beautiful part of the country. Along with our other business we work 7 days a week 364 days a year (we have Xmas day off) and usually work 12-14 hours a day. Our income last year put us on about £5 per hour (less than we pay our cleaners). We don’t get a state pension, we don’t get sick leave, we don’t get maternity leave, we don’t get 3,4,5 weeks paid holiday a year, in fact the last time I had more than a day off (Xmas day) was 6 years ago. We are not asking for sympathy, it is our choice. I am just stating facts. We use to enjoy running our B&B even if the profits were small. In return people use to love coming here.
Who will volunteer to take e-mails from all the guests we are now turning away. I am sure most of them would be quite glad to give you their thoughts on the matter. At the moment I am giving them the e-mail addresses of the Fire Safety Minister and the DCLG Fire Safety Policy Team and suggesting they pass on the same comments as they are giving me.
If you believe that people will pay an extra £10 a night for a small B&B that has all the required fire precautions against one that doesn’t, you don’t understand the British public.
As I am obviously getting no further with this one-sided argument and the Law is the Law and we will be following it (by closing), this will be my last post. I think it is just such a shame that a part of our society will be lost over the next few years due to over zealous rules and regulations (not just fire). It’s a sad indictment of society in general and the path we seem to have trod over the last few years.
I am grateful to all of you for an insight into your world (its not a world I wish to live in but that, at the moment, is my choice). I hope I have given you a small understanding of my world. My feeling is that the level of health and safety in ‘this country’ has now gone too far (for society at the moment) and there is likely to be a significance backlash in the coming years. I may be wrong. I just hope for my sanity, others in small businesses and the next generation’s sanity that I am not. People in the Health and Safety Industry seem to have forgotten that we humans have been managing Risk at an individual level for 0000’s of years. We may need help here and there, and there are things that have been introduced over the years that have saved a lot of our lives (seat belts in cars, better fire retardant furniture etc). Tinkering at the edges as we seem to be doing at the moment is just damaging our society not saving any major number of lives. What are the big killers? Let’s address them better. The problem is, do we have the political will to do so? Tinkering at the edges has little or no political fall-out but makes governments look as though they are doing something. Resolving the big issues comes with big political headaches and is therefore put to one side.
Please note that all my comments have been about small B&B’s. That is homes that have less than three letting rooms (which were exempt under the old rules).
My final heart felt plea is - Please let us run our own lives but be there when we need you (a contradiction which I am sure you will all ridicule).
Bye and thank you again for this insight.
Oscar winning performance well done. Boo hoo
You won't accept a perfectly sensible argument. Instead you have over dramatised the whole thing. Work 365 days a year do you? if its that bad why not do something else? As you say you do it because it allows you to live in the part of the world you want to live - so why not protect something you cherish so much?
We have told you time and timew again fire precautions wont break the bank in the way you suggest
You wont have to raise prices to cover the cost of these precautions as you suggest
Im afraid there is no talking to people like you. Ive never ever said that every last B&B landlord is mercernary. Take your ball home then if you don't want to respond to sensible debate. It's no loss I'd rather talk to a landlord who has genuine concerns rather than made up guests alledgedly thinking fire precautions are over the top. Hiden agenda time again. Would you give us your address to confirm you area genuine B&B owner because im having my doubts from some of the things you have said.
-
Well said Clevelandfire. I could not have put it better myself.
-
Hi Swaapc
Its a shame you will no longer be contributing to the thread, hopefully you will still keep an eye on the latest posts on the subject.
The precautions required to help you comply with the RRO should not cost the earth and I can't see why you would have to put up your prices to your customers / guests.
Based on the sensible comments made to you here on this thread would you not feel confident enough to revisit the issue with the local fire officer concerned and if required challenege that officer if you felt his or her requirements were overburdensome?
Furthermore it pays to shop around to find best prices on the products or services you will need to aid you to comply. You even said you might be able to get funding for it in an earlier post.
Your insurance company may offer reductions on your premium if you have more safety precautions installed. Not only they give protection in terms of life safety but also building protection too.
Its obvious you have lost heart with this debate. I don't know what it is like to run a B&B but I do hope the advice given here will make it easier for you to comply without the need to close your business.
-
I have also never heard of 'paperwork' not being raised in time. It takes about an hour to serve a prohibition correctly.
-
Ladies and Gents,
I would like to request site users to please consdier the choice of words and language they use before posting. Disagreement and debate is fine, but please try and keep it polite.
Chris
Forum Admin.
-
Nearlythere and others: with respect, I don't think it is very constructive to be abusive to Swaapc. You clearly disagree with him, but he is naturally passionate about his business and very upset to have got to the stage of closing it down.
I hope we can keep the debate on an informative and constructive basis: as B&B owners, we should all remember that fire officers have seen horrendous results from fires and are very naturally affected by those; likewise, fire officers and consultants should acknowledge that those whose homes are also their small B&B businesses are naturally very passionate - occasionally emotional - about anything thet see as unfair, over the top or even a threat.
Let's try to focus on the practicalities and how we can together achieve what I think we all want, and what the RRFSO intended: a proportionate, risk-based fire safety regime where the very smallest "domestic premises" businesses instal domestic-type fire precautions to ensure appropriate levels of fire safety for their guests, without needing to substantially compromise the "family home" nature of the premises, which after all is what attracts guests to family B&Bs.
Post edited by Forum Admin to remove quotation of unacceptable language that has also been removed. [/i]
-
I wonder how many of the same guests would still be so supportive if whilst at the B&B there was a fire and their partner or child burned to death because there was not a fire alarm or smoke detector in the building.
As for small B&B never have fires I could take you to at least three in my area that I know of that have had small fires, I can take you to a site that was totally gutted by fire (they only had 2 letting rooms).
I can apriciate that we see two different sides of the fence, you see from your side where you have never had a fire & unfortunately we see it from the other side where most of us have been involved in one way or another with fires where in the worse cases people have died. And whilst I can see your side that we run a great B&B and have never had a fire and you do not intend to have one. How ever there are more fires involving private home than commercial premises, Why is that?.
Possibly because commercial premises have to comply with fire regulations etc and domestic homes do not.
Heres a quick one how many of the country cottage B&B's have their electrics checked every 4-5 years or portable appliances checked, not many I would imagine. Electrics are one of the biggest fire starters in this country.
I wonder how many phone calls a guest house would get if they advertised the fact that they do not comply with any fire safety regulations because they are sure they will not have a fire. I wish I had those powers of knowing where fire will or wont start I could make a fortune, perhaps if all buildings rented out two rooms it would give them the magical powers of not having a fire. Some one should have told the Queen to rent out a couple of rooms as a B&B it would have saved Windsor Castle having a fire.
-
Nearlythere and others: with respect, I don't think it is very constructive to be abusive to Swaapc. You clearly disagree with him, but he is naturally passionate about his business and very upset to have got to the stage of closing it down.
I hope we can keep the debate on an informative and constructive basis: as B&B owners, we should all remember that fire officers have seen horrendous results from fires and are very naturally affected by those; likewise, fire officers and consultants should acknowledge that those whose homes are also their small B&B businesses are naturally very passionate - occasionally emotional - about anything thet see as unfair, over the top or even a threat.
Let's try to focus on the practicalities and how we can together achieve what I think we all want, and what the RRFSO intended: a proportionate, risk-based fire safety regime where the very smallest "domestic premises" businesses instal domestic-type fire precautions to ensure appropriate levels of fire safety for their guests, without needing to substantially compromise the "family home" nature of the premises, which after all is what attracts guests to family B&Bs.
Post edited by Forum Admin to remove quotation of unacceptable language that has also been removed. [/i]
Agreed but I think it would strengthen the case for B&B owners if some would approach the matter with a view to compling with legislation and at the same time lobbying for a degree of reasonability in the application of standards rather than taking the view that no standards at all are neccessary.
I have suggested that interlinked domestic detection and SC domestic doors could be considered reasonable where accommodation is limited, say up to 3 bedrooms, and travel distances, like with small shops and offices, are short.
There is also little point in blaming Inspecting Officers and Consultants. They do not write guidance or the law.
Some would suggest that Risk Assessors should use their professional judgement and recommend the installation of these less than normal standards and they can do that. But it would a disservice to all and sundry to do so knowing fine well that the first time an IO carries out an audit he/she will not accept what he/she finds.
It is a national issue which needs a national resolution.
-
Electrics are one of the biggest fire starters in this country.
Maybe so, but can anyone advise what types of fault and/or appliance is the cause of most fires and is it known whether specific kinds of appliance have caused a fire. Likewise, is it not the case that certain types of equipment have never caused a fire?
As an ex-engineer I have some technical knowledge but do not have the benefit of the fire service's experience. What I do believe to be true is that certain types of equipment are much more likely to go upthan others. One is immersion heater wiring which has a continuous high load causing, over time, degradation of connections and insulation. If inflammable material is nearby a fire can be caused. At the other end, a bedside light is unlikely to develop an electrical fault that could cause a fire. A kettle might overheat if switched on without water, but has a safety device that breaks the circuit. It is unlikely to be switched on while the room user is asleep. Constructive comment on these causes of fire would be useful as if only inherently safe equipment is in use there is virtually no likelyhood of a fire being caused.
It should also be pointed out that guidelines for use of electrical equipment in hotels issued by HSE say that in almost all cases (dependant on the type of appliance) a visual check by a competent person (not necessarily an electrician) is sufficient to meet the law.
-
Electrics are one of the biggest fire starters in this country.
Maybe so, but can anyone advise what types of fault and/or appliance is the cause of most fires and is it known whether specific kinds of appliance have caused a fire. Likewise, is it not the case that certain types of equipment have never caused a fire?
As an ex-engineer I have some technical knowledge but do not have the benefit of the fire service's experience. What I do believe to be true is that certain types of equipment are much more likely to go upthan others. One is immersion heater wiring which has a continuous high load causing, over time, degradation of connections and insulation. If inflammable material is nearby a fire can be caused. At the other end, a bedside light is unlikely to develop an electrical fault that could cause a fire. A kettle might overheat if switched on without water, but has a safety device that breaks the circuit. It is unlikely to be switched on while the room user is asleep. Constructive comment on these causes of fire would be useful as if only inherently safe equipment is in use there is virtually no likelyhood of a fire being caused.
It should also be pointed out that guidelines for use of electrical equipment in hotels issued by HSE say that in almost all cases (dependant on the type of appliance) a visual check by a competent person (not necessarily an electrician) is sufficient to meet the law.
Electrics is the 4th biggest fire starter in this country.
The first three, and not necessarily in any particular order, is men, women and children.
It is what the first three do to relatively harmless electrical equipment that causes the problem. A bedside light is quite harmless until you drape some fabric over it, use a high wattage bulb, overrated fuse, damaged flex, flex running under carpets, overloaded adaptors, etc, etc.
-
A bedside light is quite harmless until you drape some fabric over it, use a high wattage bulb, overrated fuse, damaged flex, flex running under carpets, overloaded adaptors, etc, etc.
So is it not fair to say that the bedside light in my B&B, not draped in fabric, correctly fused with undamaged flex not running under a carpet or using an overloaded adaptor will not cause a fire in a million years?
In terms of FRA is this not an insignificantly small risk, and can the same evaluation not be applied to other equipment (if appropriate of course)?
-
Step 1 of the FRA guidance is to evaluate the hazards. This is ignition sources, oxygen supplies and fuel loading, on the outcomes of this will be based the persons at risk and the control measures required to faciltate your life safety and that of those that resort to your premises.
-
If you have sufficient control over the situations I describe then yes you can determine that a bedside lamp is low risk. That is what assessing a risk is about. Lamps which can be knocked over easily are a greater risk than lamps which can not. Bedside lamps in childrens rooms are a greater risk than in adults bedrooms because you have little control over what children can do with them when they go to bed.
I'm sure you as an ex engineer will acknowledge that electrical equipment which produces heat e.g. irons, electric blankets, kettles, light bulbs etc is more likely to cause a fire than non heat producing ones. But I stress the words "more likely" because you cannot say that a bedside lamp properly used, or not missused, will not cause a fire in a million years. A properly used and maintained lamp is less likely to cause a fire than one which is not.
Are you going to tell me that you are being required to remove bedside lamps from bedrooms airds?
-
I feel sorry for the direction that this discussion has followed and I feel we have missed an opportunity to explore, investigate and inform a new member who clearly misunderstands the basics of fire safety principles, legislation and enforcement and where we are all coming from. And to try and identify the threshold above which the burden of compliance for one individual stakeholder became untenable. Lets not lose sight of the fact that many of these small enterprises are paying our wages- and they deserve the opportunity to join a forum such as this as a sounding board without being insulted or belittled.
I also regret that swaapc has thrown a firecracker into the ring and run away- thus reinforcing the views of those amongst us who have a very robust and forthright style of argument.
Swaapc I hope you can be persuaded to come back and explore these issues further.
In the mean time just to summarise what I think are some key points that keep getting overlooked.
1- There are far more dwellings in the UK than any other class of building that appear in fire statistics. So if you look at simply the number of fires and the number of fire deaths, domestic property is bound to figure at the top of the statistics. We have to be much more selective if quoting such statistics- especially with regard to socio economic groups and classification of property.
2- there are some superb and some dire standards in B&B establishments so we cannot generalise. I was recently in a seaside town where there was block after block of scruffy B&Bs that I would not let my dog sleep in - (but at the top of the street there was also a six storey hotel with a full height fire escape that was so rotten you could see through the treads and strings.) On the other hand I am based in the Peak and there are some lovely cottages so clean you could eat your dinner off the floor. We can only have one set of guidance so it has to cover the spectrum. But that doesnt mean you have to make them all the same and all fit the pictures in the guides. There must be room for professional judgement otherwise we need to forget PAS79 etc and all switch to fire engineering and probalistic risk analysis.
3- Most B&B operators that I speak to seem to have grasped the concept of fire prevention. But we know that is not enough. You must still ensure that if a fire does occur then people are alerted and can escape safely before their lives are put at risk. Theres no way round that.
4- Size, layout, management and supervision can all offset to an extent the physical fire precautions we install to ensure that people can escape safely. But they can never replace them entirely.
-
Airds- typical hazards related to electrical electrical appliances take a look at:
Ghetto blasters and the like with those plug in figure 8 mains leads- the internal psu i salways working unless its switcehd off at the plug- just like your tv on standby
impovised repairs using tape
hoovers with the cable regularly damaged by wrapping ropund the roller
Anything left switched on using ecnomy 7- except storage heaters
TVs left on standby
Bathroom fans blocked up with fluff
lamps that can be knocked over onto soft furnishings
Plug in air fresheners (allegedly- little proof I think)
overloads using unfused adaptors
Dirty or loose pins on plugs that cause arcing and overheating- eventually this will deteriorate as the contacts in the socket overheat and lose their temper and then their grip. One dodgy plug can wreck every socket in a building
wrong fuses in plugs or consumer units
Fridge motors (compressor type) or heaters (evaporation type) malfunctioning
Unserviced electric blankets
-
Goodness me Kurnal, you've gone into more detail than the Governments own set of fire related stats.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/firestats2006.pdf
Of course is it not true that fire stats can only be as accurate as the opinion of the OIC at each fire, although some fires will be subject to investigation by more specialist fire officers, and stats give no insight into fires where the F&RS are not summoned to.
-
Let's try to focus on the practicalities and how we can together achieve what I think we all want, and what the RRFSO intended: a proportionate, risk-based fire safety regime where the very smallest "domestic premises" businesses instal domestic-type fire precautions to ensure appropriate levels of fire safety for their guests,
In other words B&B you dont want to put anything else in because you think you have enough....as a lot of posts have said you dont want to pay for any additional precautions.
As my previous post has suggested full complinace for 3K (i Belive) is not a reason to close down. I'll wager its about the same price as putting in ensuite accommodation to get that extra star from the tourism inspector.
Maybe groups like Visit Britain or the like could start to give stars for fire precautions instead of how many types of shampoo and co ordinated towels there are?
-
This discussion is becoming more worthwhile. (To "nearlythere" No, I wasn't implying that I'd been asked to remove bedside lamps.) Many of the references to fire causes relate to defective, misused or worn out equipment. None of these would be applicable to a well-run B&B. A few other items are mentioned. TVs on stand-by. Can anyone advise how frequently this is a cause of fire in actual statistics? i.e. Number of fires caused a year? Plug-ins are mentioned. This is one where a viral email campaign suggested them as a cause. It was apparent that this originated in the US. It is said that there is "little proof". Is there any statistical evidence or is it simply conjecture that these could be a cause. (I wouldn't have these in my B&B anyway.)
What I'm seeking here is a basis on which to be able to assess premises as very low risk for a start. Much of the previous discussion implied that B&Bs were guilty of using badly maintained equipment etc. and having no smoke alarms at all etc. Yes, some may be like that , but no professional operator would condone such practice, so we're totally with you on that score.
More detail on actual cases of fire involving electrical equipment would be of interest.
-
Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.
We did a county wide survey of fires caused by bathroom fans a few years ago and in one mixed urban/rural county they were found to cause over 30 fires in a year.
There have been some studies by makes of TV and fires - but again some years ago.
If you take reasonable steps to avoid the hazards I outlined above then you will greatly reduce the risk of electrical fires. Ban smoking and candles , dont use economy 7, get rid of portable heaters and open fires, ban the chip pan, keep immersion heaters clear of clutter and well maintained, use a 30milliamp RCD and have both wiring checks and PAT tests done - that just about deals with most of it. Cooking and human error are the hardest combination to crack.
But even when you have done al this you will still need a safe escape route and alarms just in case.
-
I feel sorry for the direction that this discussion has followed and I feel we have missed an opportunity to explore, investigate and inform a new member who clearly misunderstands the basics of fire safety principles, legislation and enforcement and where we are all coming from. And to try and identify the threshold above which the burden of compliance for one individual stakeholder became untenable. Lets not lose sight of the fact that many of these small enterprises are paying our wages- and they deserve the opportunity to join a forum such as this as a sounding board without being insulted or belittled.
I also regret that swaapc has thrown a firecracker into the ring and run away- thus reinforcing the views of those amongst us who have a very robust and forthright style of argument.
Swaapc I hope you can be persuaded to come back and explore these issues further.
.
Don't think anyone has been rude, just simply treating people with the contempt they deserve when several people tried to be reasonable and explain why certain requirements are made and then one particular person over dramatising the whole thing when they don't like what they hear.
Im afraid Swaapc lost alot of people on this forum which is quite evident with a nonsenical argument. There is simply no point in talking to people who aren't willing to listen to the different sides of the argument Kurnal and all of us will go round in circles until sensible discussion ensues. Im not going to sit here and suffer fools who ask for advice then come up with a thousand and one arguments despite everyone telling him the same thing nicely over and over again. What is the point. By all means lets have dialogue but lets make sure its sensible and balanced. Most people here tried to offer kind and sensible advice but doom and gloom ensued, the woe is me furrowed brow response came out.
-
Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.
Kurnal, your posts have always been courteous and measured and I would not wish to offend in return, but most of the examples you give relate to, shall we say, the less careful sectors of the public. B&B operators in general have a better standard of housekeeping and equipment maintenance these days, non-smoking is virtually universal and owners usually vigilant on this. Unsavoury guests will not be accommodated. Candles etc. would not be allowed and incompetent cooking incidents are extremely unlikely. Maintenance standards are high. So the risk of a fire starting in such premises is extremely slight, probably much lower than either the average dwelling or a larger hotel etc. Now I accept that, however small, some risk of a fire starting may exist, so we come to the means of warning and escape. Even a battery operated smoke detector in a hallway will give an early warning of the onset of a fire (as I know from personal experience - I had a house fire caused by a faulty freezer). In the typical small B&B escape distances are short, so the chances of anyone being trapped are also very low. The combination of a very low risk of fire coupled with even basic smoke detection and short escape distances can be assessed by a duty-holder as adequate under empirical FRA guidelines. So why is the demand for smoke detection and half-hour fire doors to all rooms leading on to an escape route being made in so many such cases, as I am given to understand?
Further to this, would it not have been good practice for the fire service to analyse their reporting of causes etc. of fire so as to identify as far as possible the actual causes in more detail, so that issues like whether plug-ins are a risk could be determined? Or whether modern TVs actually do spontaneously combust occasionally while on stand-by, or whether this refers to older models? If this had been done and the information made available, then people could avoid the risks. The service is quick to criticise, but has not, with respect, put its own house in order in all areas.
I am looking through the statistics that Ricardo has provided, however, to see what picture they give and may venture a comment on that later.
-
Airds, I agree with you that small B&Bs usually have very small travel distances to exit, how ever if no one is woken up because there is not any smoke detectors, it does not matter how short the distance.
As for the electrical fires the last two fires some of our clients have informed us of started in tumble dryers, all three were quickly detected by the fire alarm system and then extinguished by isolating the power source and then using a fire extinguisher. Had these places not had smoke detection and fire extinguishers it may have been a totally different story. ( and before anyone jumps in, these are not massive commercial buildings) both were homes for young adults with physical and mental problems and they only have five clients in each building and two staff at any time.
Neither of these two buildings have ever had a fire before (both open for 10yrs plus), both buildings are converted houses and both were classed as low risk buildings. Anyone spot the simular circumstances.
I personally can not see why any B&B would resist installing a few mains smoke detectors (all new houses have to install them now as part of building control). These do not cost fortunes and most sparkys will be able to install them.
-
My personal view is that the best run B&Bs are very low risk and that the physical fire precautions- smoke alarms and means of escape - may reflect this. As you say travel distances, height, management, supervision, a responsible owner on site to make sure that guests obey the rules and respond immediately in a fire alarm, all guests personally vetted before being offered accommodation, the owner last to go to bed and following a shut down routine including closing doors, , no access by guests to cooking equipment - all these factors make domestic standards appropriate in the circumstances.
But what domestic standards? I suggest that if all the safeguards above are satisfied, the approved document B benchmark of an enclosed stairway and mains powered detectors and domestic style doors that are a good fit in their frames are ok. I usually go over this minimum and recommend detection in all rooms leading onto the escape route.
But many of my fire service colleagues disagree that this is suitable and sufficient and are asking for self closing doors- in many cases fire doors as the minimum for all premises.
-
Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.
Kurnal, your posts have always been courteous and measured and I would not wish to offend in return, but most of the examples you give relate to, shall we say, the less careful sectors of the public. B&B operators in general have a better standard of housekeeping and equipment maintenance these days, non-smoking is virtually universal and owners usually vigilant on this. Unsavoury guests will not be accommodated. Candles etc. would not be allowed and incompetent cooking incidents are extremely unlikely. Maintenance standards are high. So the risk of a fire starting in such premises is extremely slight, probably much lower than either the average dwelling or a larger hotel etc. Now I accept that, however small, some risk of a fire starting may exist, so we come to the means of warning and escape. Even a battery operated smoke detector in a hallway will give an early warning of the onset of a fire (as I know from personal experience - I had a house fire caused by a faulty freezer). In the typical small B&B escape distances are short, so the chances of anyone being trapped are also very low. The combination of a very low risk of fire coupled with even basic smoke detection and short escape distances can be assessed by a duty-holder as adequate under empirical FRA guidelines. So why is the demand for smoke detection and half-hour fire doors to all rooms leading on to an escape route being made in so many such cases, as I am given to understand?
Further to this, would it not have been good practice for the fire service to analyse their reporting of causes etc. of fire so as to identify as far as possible the actual causes in more detail, so that issues like whether plug-ins are a risk could be determined? Or whether modern TVs actually do spontaneously combust occasionally while on stand-by, or whether this refers to older models? If this had been done and the information made available, then people could avoid the risks. The service is quick to criticise, but has not, with respect, put its own house in order in all areas.
I am looking through the statistics that Ricardo has provided, however, to see what picture they give and may venture a comment on that later.
Very difficult to give proper statistics really as usually how the electrical equipment is used that causes the problems.
However, from my experience and recollection electrical fires which are caused by the equipment itself are, and close to the order of greatest hazard, as follows:-
Main electrical intake and associated components and wiring,
General house wiring including multiple adapters and ex leads,
TVs,
Dishwashers (I recall a colleague telling me he had 3 in a month),
Washing machines,
Tumble dryers.
-
As a fire alarm engineer I see many B&Bs where the biggest problem is the dislike of the owner on spending money on anything safety related.
e.g. a very nice B&B where the owner himself had installed his own fire alarm, he had made a very good job in all honesty, but when I asked him why he had used unreliable cheap equipment, he replied "it was the cheapest I could find on the internet". The alarm kit cost him about £700.00 and when he said this he was standing next to a TV that he proudly said cost £4500.00.
Priorities wrong somewhere?
Most small B&Bs in which we install alarms and emergency lighting pay about £1800.00 to install both, using high quality equipment.
Cleveland, if you treat forum members with "the contempt they deserve" they will leave and we will have missed an opportunity to educate them. Also it reinforces their argument that the fire service is bullying them.
-
Ladies and Gents
Getting away from detection, lets look at fire doors.
I have a problem when people say "half hour fire door". Look at the tests involved. The doors never see flame, its all heat. A fire officer once told me in reality half hour means about 11 minutes in a real fire.
Does this mean a cheap door is only a few minutes, if so one can see the I/Os point?
Add the time getting orientated, getting dressed, gathering your wallet and your missus etc.........
Fit recessed/low profile SDs
davo
-
The BS476 test is actually quite a rigorous test involving a furnace.
However, as you say, it is possible for a 30 minute door to fail in 10-15 minutes, but the conditions may need to be a well ventilated fire that has flashed over rapidly and has plenty of fuel to maintain the temperature. People do wrongly assume that a 30 minute door acheives 30 minutes of protection in situ, the 30 minutes is reference to how long it survives the test, not how long it will survive once fitted in place. It may even survive longer, in a small hotel room/apartment it may last until the fire has burnt out.
-
Gents, here is a good benchmark for suitable syntax on FireNet:
Before you post something, ask yourself if you would write the same words in a letter that had your company/employers name and address on the letter head. I would suggest that a couple of posts have been just on the wrong side of polite.
-
......
I also regret that swaapc has thrown a firecracker into the ring and run away- thus reinforcing the views of those amongst us who have a very robust and forthright style of argument.
Swaapc I hope you can be persuaded to come back and explore these issues further.
I missed all the 'fun' yesterday because I was out on-site. But once again we have someone who is not impressed with the phrases used by a 'Senior Member' of this forum in an 'argument'
Well I for one can understand why swaapc is not impressed.
Do you think the following sort of sarcastic/irritating comments made by a 'Senior Member' of this forum are acceptable:
Don't think anyone has been rude, just simply treating people with the contempt they deserve..
... Work 365 days a year do you? if its that bad why not do something else?...
..Im afraid there is no talking to people like you...
....Im not going to sit here and suffer fools...
....Would you give us your address to confirm you area genuine B&B owner because im having my doubts from some of the things you have said....
I notice that swaapc has had his reply to the above removed. How unfair.
I no longer bother replying directly to the member I am talking about, because if I do, my own replies to his comments are deleted by admin. So I'm also not even given the opportunity to 'look after myself' by being able to respond in kind.
I don't know how he gets away with it or why no other long term members have anything to say about it.
I am only left to wonder if this is this a forum for everybody or is it really only for those employed by or previously employed by the fire service? Are the rest of us only allowed on to the forum to be used as targets of sarcasm and rudeness by the member in question if we don't agree with him?
-
Wiz,
I the only thing that has been removed is the unacceptable post and a quotation of it.
I'm the only moderator and have never worked for the fire service. I would suggest that most of my personal opinions in debates tend to result in me arguing against the fire service way of doing things. My background is in fire alarm system design and sales and now risk management consultancy.
This forum is for everybody and it so happens that 2 of the B&B camp above have received emails from me thanking them for joining the site.
The most difficult moderation decisions are the ones where I have to balance "freedom of speach" against moderating language. If in doubt I tend to avoid taking any action, it is my belief that this is what forum users would prefer. When a post is removed after someone has replied to it, the whole thread can look confusing. If I removed all bad mannered posts then people would feel freer to post what they wanted without having to live with the shame of us reading their rude posts. People should take personal responsibility for their words.
Please note that I am giving serious thought to simply closing this thread, so I would encourage anyone else to get back to the topic, to maintain the moral high ground and stay polite.
Many thanks,
Chris.
-
... If I removed all bad mannered posts then people would feel freer to post what they wanted without having to live with the shame of us reading their rude posts. People should take personal responsibility for their words.......
.
Chris, I understand your position and agree with you entirely. However, if someone makes rude, sarcastic or irritating comments about someone in their posts, they have to expect to receive the same back in response.
I don't know what can be done about it except to implore everyone to have a more open understanding of other persons viewpoints and to absolutely avoid making any 'rude, sarcastic or comments that are designed to irritate'.
One of the problems is that it can be very hard to detect the underlying feeling in comments made in writing as opposed to when they are made face to face in real life.
I believe the IT term for the way ill-considered comments can erupt into full scalle abuse is 'flaming'
I hope we can 'flaming' well get rid of it on Firenet :)
-
Agreed. Now let's get back to talking about fire safety, please. None of us like flames on FireNet :)
-
I believe the IT term for the way ill-considered comments can erupt into full scalle abuse is 'flaming'
Extinguishers at the ready.
-
Do we need them ?
-
13 (1) Where necessary, due to the flaming in the forum:
-
Ladies and Gents,
I think this topic has been covered. I propose to "lock" the thread.
This is a worthy debate, I'm quite happy for anyone needing advice to start another topic. If someone has something serious they want added to this debate, drop me a note.