FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: SidM on September 25, 2008, 02:40:54 PM
-
Could somebody please confirm that in the subject scenario
(a) The owner of the shop is a relevant person at night
(b) He cannot escape through the shop &
(c) if he does not have an hour's separation he needs a part 6 system installed?
-
Could somebody please confirm that in the subject scenario
(a) The owner of the shop is a relevant person at night
(b) He cannot escape through the shop &
(c) if he does not have an hour's separation he needs a part 6 system installed?
I take it the owner is in a flat above the shop.
a, Is the owner the occupier of the shop?
b, Is the shop his only MOE?
c, Are you suggesting that if he had 1 hr seperation he could stay put?
-
The owner is the occupier of the shop and the single flat above. I'm syuggesting that if he has 1hr separation, he does not have to have AFD.
-
I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO
-
The risk assessment should give advice in respect of the protection of relevant persons and should point out all risks and appropriate control measures.
However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.
Now if the building has been converted in the last 12 months or has been subject to a change of use that would be different.
-
However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.
I see no reason why enforcement measures wouldn't stick.
To answer SidM:
The owner is indeed a relevant person at night if he can be affected by a fire in the shop.
If it were being built now then escape through the shop would not be allowed by Building Control.
If it were being built now then 60 mins separation would be required at the building stage. No linked alarm would be required if this were the case.
Since it is built and up and running, as Kurnal points out, the risk assessment should determine what is necessary. But taking an enforcers viewpoint, I would certainly not be happy with escape through the shop, and in lieu of 60 mins compartmentation linked part6 smoke alarms are usually accepted as a reasonable solution.
-
I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO
I disagree Paul, Civvy has correctly summed it up in my opinion.
Private dwelling is not relevant, whether he owns rents or is employed is not relevant. If he is at risk from a fire in the shop he is a relevant person and the risk assessment should consider him.
-
Yes I agree. Having read things again I disagree with myself. Well, its been a long week
-
However as he is both the Responsible Person and the only Relevant Person then he is the master of his own destiny and I dont think any enforcement measures could be made to stick under the RRO.
I see no reason why enforcement measures wouldn't stick.
Yes civvy go ahead and serve your enforcement notice. Then when he fails to carry out the necessary steps what then?
Court? Fine? Imprisonment?
If I follow your logic does that mean people who self harm should be prosecuted for assault? People who take drugs should be prosecuted for supplying to themselves?
-
I would suggest you can only advise regarding his well being as it a private dwelling above the shop. The shop, well that's a different thing of course regarding the RRO
I disagree Paul, Civvy has correctly summed it up in my opinion.
Private dwelling is not relevant, whether he owns rents or is employed is not relevant. If he is at risk from a fire in the shop he is a relevant person and the risk assessment should consider him.
Even if he is not a relevant person are members of his family who may live with him in the flat?
-
He is a relevant person and so is anyone else who is lawfully in any premises in the vicinity.
Kurnal it would be easy to enforce if necessary. The enforcing authority could also prohibit the use of the flat if the risk was, in their opinion, so serious.
-
He is a relevant person and so is anyone else who is lawfully in any premises in the vicinity.
Kurnal it would be easy to enforce if necessary. The enforcing authority could also prohibit the use of the flat if the risk was, in their opinion, so serious.
Does that therefore mean that all of the occupants of a block of flats with shops on the ground floor, a common type of building, are relevent persons? And if so does that mean that all of the building is subject to a FRA? Or does it just mean that consideration should be given to the risk to the residential occupant when risk assessing the shops?
-
Does that therefore mean that all of the occupants of a block of flats with shops on the ground floor, a common type of building, are relevent persons? And if so does that mean that all of the building is subject to a FRA? Or does it just mean that consideration should be given to the risk to the residential occupant when risk assessing the shops?
They are relevant persons if they could be affected by a fire on the premises. In the example you give they are unlikely to be relevant persons.
If there is suitable means of escape and adequate fire separation they are unlikely to be affexted by a fire in the shops. But yes the Order does apply to the common parts.
-
If it is only the owner sleeping above, how about escape through a window?
It is allowed in dwelllings up to 4.5 metres, so whats the difference?
I agree with the principle of putting a part 6 system in though. Cost v proportionality? I think its justified.
Enforceable as well, but im sure it would not need to come to that.
-
Yes civvy go ahead and serve your enforcement notice. Then when he fails to carry out the necessary steps what then?
Court? Fine? Imprisonment?
If I follow your logic does that mean people who self harm should be prosecuted for assault? People who take drugs should be prosecuted for supplying to themselves?
Then he could be prosecuted for not complying with the enforcement notice. The contents of the notice and who it is there to protect has very little to do with the offence in this case. If he appealed the notice then it may be a different story.
Look at it from a slightly different viewpoint. If he died in the place and it could be attributed to the FRS not enforcing the order, would my excuse of "Well, I considered that he could do what he wanted to himself" go down well in front of the Coroner? I would be there as someone who knew the standards in the premises were dangerous and failed to act. He IS a relevant person, and the RRO is there to ensure he is protected appropriately.
I do concede that it could be taken out of my hands during an enforcement or prosecution, and it may not get that far or he may win an appeal. But if that happens at least I have done as much as possible within my level of responsibility.
-
Irrelevant of what could be done legally, for all intensive purposes the guy may have no clue he is in any danger.
-
Standing up in a Coroner's Court, how does the fire officer answer the question "Was there anything else you could have done to ensure the safety of this person?" Surely if the answer is "Yes", then you've got to do it?
-
Irrelevant of what could be done legally, for all intensive purposes the guy may have no clue he is in any danger.
are all these intensive purposes similar to to all intents and purposes???
-
The owner is the occupier of the shop and the single flat above. I'm syuggesting that if he has 1hr separation, he does not have to have AFD.
I didn't manage to read all replies, but a friend of mine who has a cafe shop, and above it two floors, he's been told one day that, a word of mouth would be enough to escape from fire if it happens in the shop...etc
I guess, the flat above goes under BS5839 part 6 systems, since it's solely for him self... etc
-
So a question for your friend Benz- Who would do the shouting if a fire broke out in his cafe shop at 3am?
-
I had an interesting discussion with a pub landlord the other day who has exactly this scenario. His only egress from his flat coming through the bar, 30 min seperation etc.
I am asking for a part 6 system within the bar for his protection (escape is possible via first floor windows). He his of the opinion that we can not ask for this as we cannot enforce within his dwelling. He was of course advised by his solicitor about this matter.
A quick little discussion with his solicitor and me made him think that perhaps he needs to change his legal advice.
This is proberly the same solicitor who phoned me and asked for a copy of the fire certificate for a block of offices the other week!
Nice to see our legal professionals keep up with the law.
-
So a question for your friend Benz- Who would do the shouting if a fire broke out in his cafe shop at 3am?
He would loose every thing including himself :D
-
It's a good reason why dwellings and private properties, have to be considered as BMO (Buildings of Multiple Occupancies)!
Since, it's human safety that matter first :)