FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: davidandrewsuk on September 25, 2008, 08:54:59 AM
-
Found this on the Means-of-Escape.com forum.
http://www.means-of-escape.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=55
I thought it highlighted pretty well how business's may be feeling right now.
What do you guys think?
"A thought occured to me that I wanted to share with you all and open it up to a little discussion. Remember, its just food for thought.
Let us say we have small and struggling company A.
A small number of staff in a small premises, a typical office environment. Premises no larger than two storeys.
With the advent of the RRO they have conducted their risk assessment and ascertained a need for an exspensive fire safety arrangement change that is disproportionate to how effective it will be in terms of life safety, but a requirement none the less.
This could be a piece of equipment or an alteration that needs to be made to the property.
Now at present struggling company A does not have the capital to finance the changes.
We are going now to assume that a Fire did occur at the property.
With this in mind I have listed below three possible actions the company could have took with the consequences when the Fire occured and consequences for the business overall of both the decision and the fire.
1. Company takes out a loan to pay for the alterations. When the fire occurs no body is harmed and all are fine. Unfortunately, although insured, the loan meant that in re-starting the business the business just did not have enough fluidity to get back on its feat and the company closes.
2. Company decides to set a time scale for implementation and begins to save for the alterations, in the mean time all are told to be extra viiglant for fire as they are liable in the interim. The fire occurs, one member of staff is injured due to smoke inhalation as a result of a lack of the particular alteration. The company manages to re-start and continues for some time but ultimately fails. Some people are able to get jobs elsewhere others are not so lucky. The reason for closure was the money saved for the alteration was not put invested in the company causing a small downturn in profits which ultimately left them short of just enough capital to function well after the fire.
3. Company decides not to invest in the alteration as at this time its just not justifiable in relation to the size of the company It will be dealt with when the company can handle such things. A fire occurs. 3 Members of staff are treated for smoke inhalation, 1 more passed out upon reaching a safe distance. The company manages to re-start and comes back with a vengeance, the staff all aware of how close they came to loosing their financial security. The company goes on to do well and the safety arrangement is paid for as well as additional ones.
I've tried to keep these fair I think all have there merits but it depends on the persons point of view and priorities who reads them on as to what they think is the best scenario."
-
Cant see the point. This paragraph says it all:
"With the advent of the RRO they have conducted their risk assessment and ascertained a need for an exspensive fire safety arrangement change that is disproportionate to how effective it will be in terms of life safety, but a requirement none the less.
This could be a piece of equipment or an alteration that needs to be made to the property."
This is totally contradictory. You set the parameters as the building being small office building of two storeys, then go on to use words like disproportionate, non cost effective and requirement.
If those terms are being used then it was not a suitable risk control measure in the first place.
A competent risk assessment would take all these factors into account and only recommend measures that were cost effective and proportionate.
You should sack your risk assessor for failing to provide a realistic measured report or for failing to consult the directors in order to explain the implications of the findings and bring them on board.
It is essential that the Responsible Persons understand and take ownership of the findings of the risk assessment otherwise it is a wasted exercise. This is clearly not the case here, they are alienated and aggrieved. The assessor has failed as a competent advisor.
I think this is probably one of those fake postings trying to whip up hysterical ill feeling towards the RRO and the fire industry. I never look at that forum any more because many of the answers to queries appear to be from jobsworths who dont have a good understanding of the underlying principles of fire safety.
Remember the golden rule. If it isn't common sense then it isnt Health and safety (or fire safety)
-
Spot on Prof
What piece of equipment in a small office would need shed loads of readies spent to make it safe?
Photocopier? Laminator? The dreaded toaster?
Small staff, surely part detection would be the first stage, not that expensive in the scenario painted
Couple of fire doors maybe
Get a grip!
davo
-
Can not be a true scenario, the two things contradict each other, small office and a disproportionate fire safety measure. Any assessor could follow ADB and not get to this and the guidance docs are simpler to understand.
-
I think these initial replies work well to demonstrate the point of the question in that different people will intrepet this in different ways.
Business's certainly do regard the majority of expenditure as being disproportionate to the benefits gained from it (regardless if this can reasoned as being the case or not).
We've had now the risk assessors view, that fire safety is the name of the game all the way with an answer of A i'm sure from both of you.
Where now is the B&B owner who may feel C to be the best option from his perspective?
P.S I dont think this is a real case. This is just a knocked up forum post to try I'm sure.
-
We've had now the risk assessors view, that fire safety is the name of the game all the way with an answer of A i'm sure from both of you.
Where now is the B&B owner who may feel C to be the best option from his perspective?
P.S I dont think this is a real case. This is just a knocked up forum post to try I'm sure.
Hi David
No you have not read or understood my posting. Please do not put me down as an A. I thought I was clear that the hypothetical situation quoted is inappropriate.
I think there is a hidden agenda at work here and I think it inappropriate to comment further in this thread, which is a shame as a great deal of mutual understanding and education could result from a more carefully structured situation.
Best regards
Alan
-
We've had now the risk assessors view, that fire safety is the name of the game all the way with an answer of A i'm sure from both of you.
Where now is the B&B owner who may feel C to be the best option from his perspective?
P.S I dont think this is a real case. This is just a knocked up forum post to try I'm sure.
Hi David
No you have not read or understood my posting. Please do not put me down as an A. I thought I was clear that the hypothetical situation quoted is inappropriate.
I think there is a hidden agenda at work here and I think it inappropriate to comment further in this thread, which is a shame as a great deal of mutual understanding and education could result from a more carefully structured situation.
Best regards
Alan
Thats fair enough. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I understand you dont feel it a fair test and certainly your right, whether one can be constructed however to demonstrate the points that I think are trying to be outlined in the above, that of reasonability in times of economic recession, I do wonder.....
Still I think it an interesting brain game but I can't say I like any of A,B or C. At a pinch I'd go for C.
-
David, in example C what if the members of staff instead of being affected by smoke had died would you at a pinch I'd go for C then?
If you could guarantee that people would only be injured and not pay the ultimate price then I am sure things would be a lot easier.
-
We've had now the risk assessors view, that fire safety is the name of the game all the way with an answer of A i'm sure from both of you.
Where now is the B&B owner who may feel C to be the best option from his perspective?
P.S I dont think this is a real case. This is just a knocked up forum post to try I'm sure.
Hi David
No you have not read or understood my posting. Please do not put me down as an A. I thought I was clear that the hypothetical situation quoted is inappropriate.
I think there is a hidden agenda at work here and I think it inappropriate to comment further in this thread, which is a shame as a great deal of mutual understanding and education could result from a more carefully structured situation.
Best regards
Alan
Thats fair enough. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I understand you dont feel it a fair test and certainly your right, whether one can be constructed however to demonstrate the points that I think are trying to be outlined in the above, that of reasonability in times of economic recession, I do wonder.....
Still I think it an interesting brain game but I can't say I like any of A,B or C. At a pinch I'd go for C.
I think B is a more realistic option given the circumstances. It shows that a risk has been identified and a schedule of works drawn up to deal with these. As an interim measure staff have been advised to be vigilant, but information and education could also be the long term control measure.
Nobody can expect any business, unless involved in dangerous processes, to fold because it can't afford to impliment some measures in the short term. The FRA process is not there to create an environment free from risk. It is there to reduce any risk to a tolerable level. Tolerable meaning it may happen but the chance of it happening is much reduced from what it was.
-
David, in example C what if the members of staff instead of being affected by smoke had died would you at a pinch I'd go for C then?
If you could guarantee that people would only be injured and not pay the ultimate price then I am sure things would be a lot easier.
Ah but that is not what happened ;)
The problem with this scenario is that we have to state an outcome and in doing so it gives us hindsight. I would say however that the outcomes described are possible outcomes with repsect to the small risk that such a premises would pose. Death would be a highly unlikely one, I would assume, and not too much is gained in citing it as a reason for the experiment as being invalid.
I very much like Nearlytheres response, very well put and well answered.
Certainly getting into the spirit of it.
I think its fair to say that the question is kind of poised to gain these answers from these people.
A= Fire Safety Proffesionals
B= Reasonable (Unbiased?) persons maybe (You could be A or C and still answer B)
C= Business Owners
I quite liked it to see the points that different people might bring up and how it explores different subtleties of perspective from similar background persons.
Tis only a though game though!!!
Would I have said C if the person died ...... Hmm how ruthless a business person do I want to be!!! I think I know a few who'd still say C!
-
Funny how they have left out scenario 4, Company has a fire as in 3. Company investigated by Fire Authority and HSE, Company taken to court heavily fined for offenses under the RRO and Directors spend a term as guests of HM.
In the mean time firm follows the 75% of all SMEs who have a major fire and closes.
-
Funny how they have left out scenario 4, Company has a fire as in 3. Company investigated by Fire Authority and HSE, Company taken to court heavily fined for offenses under the RRO and Directors spend a term as guests of HM.
In the mean time firm follows the 75% of all SMEs who have a major fire and closes.
(seperate question and not a retort) Has anyone gone to prison yet as a result of the RRO?
Good point there about the fine. We can assume the cost of the fine is similar if not outweighing the initial fire precaution we mention as required.
However if the RA has been conducted etc and the one "overly" expensive measure has not been considered due to financial reasons will it fall under negligence? If due dilligence has been observed and all that was Reasonably in their power to do so (which it could be argued that the expenditure is not.. perhaps? Maybe? Not sure..) Perhaps there would be no fine?
Regardless its certainly heavy weighting against C....
-
I haven't heard of anyone doing porridge under the RRO, yet! Bearing in mind the RRO itself is still fairly young and it will probably take some time to get a case like this through.
The HSE is having some success putting directors behind bars though and it may well only be a matter of time. Also there is the legislation re Corporate Manslughter which is also relatively new.
It would be interesting to see the arguement about the measure not being considered due to financial reasons. If there are financial reasons for not doing it, it has been considered. Besides which I would never bar anything for any reason, the whole drive of risk assessment is to decide what is reasonably practicable and with infinite resources and cash you can do anything. The arguement will always be we have considered these measures and, balancing the risk of the event happening and the possibility and severity of a fire against the practical and financial implications of the measures, we have decided that..........
As I always say I can make a business completely safe and ensure it will never have a fire. I shut it and demolish the building.
-
Where now is the B&B owner who may feel C to be the best option from his perspective?
I think a very important point here David is that the majority of owners, left to their own devices, would do nothing. Their idea of a fire risk is a heck of a lot less than say mine. By and large owners would have no idea how to go about a risk assessment and that is why they get the likes of me to do it for them. If it was that easy there would be none of us.
I have seen RAs by owners and at times one can find more useful information on a beer mat. I was an IO at one time and am now a RAer. I find them both the same animal to a degree. The only thing which seperates them is that what seperates two RArs or two IOs - common sense.
I have found that owners will usually always want to go for the cheapest option and not the best solution although they can be inextricably linked. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a cheap solution and thats the way it should be, but sometimes, to owners, this means doing nothing at all.
-
I really can't be bothered giving the post from moe.com the time of day.
I think it evident from everyone's response that a hidden agenda is at work here, designed to whip up hysteria.
-
I really can't be bothered giving the post from moe.com the time of day.
I think it evident from everyone's response that a hidden agenda is at work here, designed to whip up hysteria.
Chill Winstan ^^
-
The problem with this scenario is that we have to state an outcome and in doing so it gives us hindsight. I would say however that the outcomes described are possible outcomes with respect to the small risk that such a premises would pose. Death would be a highly unlikely one, I would assume, and not too much is gained in citing it as a reason for the experiment as being invalid.
David you can reduce the risk to alarp but if a fire does starts then you are in the lap of the gods. Never would I ever assume death would be highly unlikely situation and I would always consider the worse case scenario.
Who before the event would have considered Bradford a such a high fire risk.
-
Or Summerland, Stardust, Station House, Woolworths, etc.
It seems to me there is a communication problem. A lot of business people look at it from a simple cause and effect basis. If a guard is left off a machine and there is an accident, it is a single event and it does not tend to snowball. We in the fire buisiness know this does not happen with fire. The whole thing gains a momentum of its own and the domino effect comes into play. One of the best explainations I have seen of this was a BBC program on Disasters that went through Piper Alpha and showed how one minor error, a missed Permit to Work led via various other matters to the loss of the platform.
-
The problem with this scenario is that we have to state an outcome and in doing so it gives us hindsight. I would say however that the outcomes described are possible outcomes with repsect to the small risk that such a premises would pose. Death would be a highly unlikely one, I would assume, and not too much is gained in citing it as a reason for the experiment as being invalid.
I quite liked it to see the points that different people might bring up and how it explores different subtleties of perspective from similar background persons.
you use words as 'this experiment' and 'similar backgrounds' in my opinion there is an agenda here that we don't know about.
with regards to 'similar backrounds' i hope i have not read you correctly in that you are making the assumption that all of us using this forum have similar backgrounds.
we have a diverse membership here and we will always give impartial advice, and sometimes we may even disagree. but i think we all agree (sorry to speak for everyone) this is a leading post designed to confirm your already formed opinion.
however, i hope i am wrong and have miss read your post, if so i appologise
-
I dont understand this talk of Agendas??? You think what exactly?
I've stalked the boards getting to know who all your real life personas are and have posed a hypothetical question to invite you to post under your pseudonym in the hope that you will set yourself up to headlines of "Risk assesor X quotes on forum board "Save the money and let it burn"! ..... this is all I can imagine you mean.
I can honestly say I posted it to see what people might say and arguements and counter-arguements etc. Twas meant only as "fun" lol.
By similar I only meant fire safety related generally. Im not supposing everyone here is but everyone is here for that reason.
I think we can close this one now.
Twill be the last post from me.
Thanks for all the responses. Was interesting.
-
david
There are people out there who want to knock the RRO and those who support it. Fact.
If you are not one of those please understand if our collective antennae were raised.
We all want people to be safe. Its not enough to offer a, b or c, there are choices in between.
davo
-
I've stalked the boards getting to know who all your real life personas are and have posed a hypothetical question
Says it all really , Lads
-
The original post on some other website has had two replies. What do you expect with only 78 members and 164 posts for the whole forum?
Kinda tells you what the professionals out there think of the site!
Give it a miss David
davo