FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Ricardo on August 18, 2008, 09:40:47 PM
-
Just spotted this interesting article, which I thought may be of interest.
http://www.safety-managementuk.com/rro_court_hearings.php
-
Thanks Ricardo that is very interesting indeed. And a little worrying - I enclose an extract relating to the stauts of the guidance document:
"My first real experience of the Order related to an appeal against a fire service enforcement notice by the owner of a hotel. The appeal was brought on the basis that the cost of the works provided for within the enforcement notice was disproportionate to the income of the landlord/hotel owner, and that the recommendations contained within the notice were not necessary.
The appeal was heard before a District Judge, and the relevant guidance document was challenged by the defendant as being ‘merely guidance’ and therefore not legally binding. The Judge had little regard for the appellant’s arguments, and decided that, while regard should be had to the means of landlords when timescales are laid down for works to be carried out, the safety of the public was paramount.
The Judge gave weight to the guidance document and stated that, if the responsible person could not comply with the requirements contained therein, he would be in breach of the Order. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of £2,600."
We must remember that this is the report of counsel for the Fire Service and so may (I hope) be partisan. The judgement gives succour to the codehuggers who will gleefully point to the judgement and the pictures of the vision panels in the first floor inner byre of the cow shed and enforce the pictures in the book with vigour.
It means no such thing of course- you cannot take a judgement of that nature and draw such conclusions as the article would have the reader believe. The judgement of course depends on the quality and presentation of the apellants case- a poor presentation is probably what was being judged and the outcome was only relevant to the case in point- and certainly does not (or should not) create a legal precedent or new legal interpretation of the status of the guidance document.
-
I wonder how much he gets paid to how small busineses! I note that large organisations are not taken to task in that fine FRS. We all want no loss of life in fire, we all want all busineses to be safe from fire for those who resort there whether employees or members of the public. What we do not want or need is a maverick like the person who describes himself. I just wonder what happened to proportionality and hazard and risk. None of that in the codehuggers guidance docs, just good old prescription which does not make anyone safe because if it did we would still have FPA!!!
How very sad.
-
hey retty,
You think he was at the same seminar as us?
-
That opinion (seemingly shared by the District judge) of the guide being almost 'prescriptive' is very worrying indeed.
Without knowing any other details of the case, it's difficult to determine whether this judgement influenced the findings of the appeal. There's little doubt that it will influence further appeal hearings and perhaps contravention hearings, esp by Lancs!
Am I right that it is not a legal precident unless a decision is made in a Crown Court? (or is it the High Court?)
-
"My first real experience of the Order related to an appeal against a fire service enforcement notice by the owner of a hotel.
This sounds very much like the Sparrow Hawk Hotel case to me, as the District Judge referred to the Sleeping Accommodation Guidelines, which were presented as providing guidance to the RRO 2005. He held that if compliance with the guidelines could not be proven, then alternative measures of equal standard must be proven.
The District Judge referred to Page 55 of the guidelines, and accepted that the premises in question, namely a large hotel with over thirty five guest rooms, should comply with the Standard L2 as prescribed by the Guidelines. The District Judge also referred to Page 123 of the Guidance in relation to the specifications of fire doors for the purposes of the Act.
The Appeal was based upon the following grounds:-
That the person served with the Enforcement Notices was not the “responsible person” and that the “responsible person” should have been the Sparrow Hawk Hotel Limited.
That the provision of fire detection in bedrooms and the requirement to provide appropriate fire doors of L2 specification in ‘risk rooms’, was neither necessary nor appropriate in the circumstances.
The Appellant also relied upon the fact that no enforcement action had been taken under the Fire Precautions (Work Place) Regulations 1997 prior to the RRO 2005.
The Appellants asked, in the alternative, for further time in which to complete the necessary remedial work.
Thats a strange one, fire doors to L2 spec in risk rooms ( new one on me) or is it a mistake in the appeal?
I just wonder what happened to proportionality and hazard and risk. None of that in the codehuggers guidance docs, just good old prescription which does not make anyone safe because if it did we would still have FPA
And as you say Kurnal re the guidance documents, I certainly hope they do not set "legal precedent or new legal interpretation of the status of the guidance document"
And Jokar "good old prescription which does not make anyone safe" (couldnt agree with you more)
-
hey retty,
You think he was at the same seminar as us?
Indeed he was Chris!
The "two Warrens" as I recall - Warren Spencer the Barrister who wrote the article, and Warren Hessey the Divisional Officer / Head of Fire Safety - Lancs Fire and Rescue
I agree that we can not go back to prescription and as Kurnal points out the article is somewhat misleading or atleast could be misinterpreted and doesn't present the full facts.
District Judges are powerful people, but they can not make case law. Thus the judgement given on the Sparrowhawk Hotel as Ricardo points out was probably based on numerous things with the judge saying "this sleeping guide is a benchmark prove you provided something of equal standard"
So no I dont think we are rolling back into prescription. As ever misreporting and lack of the true facts lead us to make assumptions.
Like Jokar tells us if the FPA / Prescription worked it would still be here. Or would it?... or was it actually more to do with the UK falling into line with Europe I wonder?
There are certain trends Im seeing which I won't go into here but it does make me wonder how long self compliance may be with us for. It certainly won't dissapear overnight that for sure, but I can see changes being made in the not too distant future.
-
Like Jokar tells us if the FPA / Prescription worked it would still be here. Or would it?... or was it actually more to do with the UK falling into line with Europe I wonder?
Absolutely MR It had nothing to do with how effective the FPA or prescriptive measures was; it was the European directive that required us to use a risk assessment approach. After a couple of goes the Workplace Regs was supposed to be the solution and proved to be a joke. The final solution was a new act which for convenience became the RR(FS)O.
-
Not quite, the prlude tpo the RR(FS)O was the FBU Fire safety Bill which was due to go to Parliamnet in 1997. However, the Labour win put the kybosh on that and then we had to wait out the Governement and their new quick stance for legislation, namely the Regulatory Reform Act which was designed to speed up legislation through Parliament. Worked well didn't it!
-
Quite correct jokar my last sentence should have been explained in more detail. The new act I mentioned was the Fire Safety Bill and the convenience bit was the use of the Regulatory Reform Act. Whether it has worked or not ask this forum in twenty years time there maybe some whipper snappers still about. It took a few years before the FPA started work check out the fire stats.