FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nim on November 22, 2008, 12:08:33 AM
-
Is it a legal requirement for an employer/self employed to have fire extinguishers?
If yes where does it say it?
-
Just read Section 13 of the RR(FS)O.
-
If you look in the guide books on the RRO and it goes deeper into whats required.
-
In your own risk assessment.
-
It is a legal requirement only "where necessary". If is is "necessary" then you must have something.
Nearly all the guidance is now being lined up to say, effectively, that it will nearly always "be necessary"
Thank god we got rid of prescription. :)
-
Any risk assessor would be a brave person to say no fire fighting equipment is needed at all
-
Just follow BS 5588 part 1 for extinguishers in common areas of flats. The answer to the question posed is no, they are not a legal requirement, the law states where necessary and the guidance is just that. Insurance Companies will ask for them for property protection which is subtly different to a life safety risk assessment under the RR(FS)O. It all depends on the outcome of the FRA. There is also no need to buy from a Company and have a maintenance contract. You can buy from a shop or over the internet.
-
Problem is that via the internet there is no initial service, you don't know the initial weight for correct servicing, you can't calculate when the first basic service is due or the date of the extended service. Worst of all a lot of the time they come unassembled (especially CO2) and are incorrectly assembled by the user (who is not a competent person) resulting in a safety hazard.
Unless it is a disposable a non initial service labelled extinguisher get flagged as a contravention & I'm going have to start carrying the washers, spanners and allen keys to assemble CO2s properly as standard at the rate I find poorly assembled ones (There's a lot of pressure in there!)
Internet sales in themselves are not a problem, but it should be mandatory to have them initial serviced prior to dispatch & be sent fully assembled.
It's brave but not impossible to assess out extinguishers & not just in flats - even I've done it despite being a walking 'extinguishers through the ages' library! ;D
-
There is also no need to buy from a Company and have a maintenance contract. You can buy from a shop or over the internet.
Are you saying that you should never have extinguishers maintained or are you saying just have them serviced when you feel like it?
Agree with Anthony B with regard to Internet sales. Apart from the obvious non competent person attempting to assemble any type of fire extinguisher. If the cheap (low price) extinguisher you bought on the internet was faulty (because most internet companies don't examine the extinguishers prior to despatch, they just shift boxes) when would you find out that it wasn't going to work?
The user could either try it out after the assembly or wait for a fire and then try it out.
What about extinguishers damaged in transit? When will the user find out it's not going to work?
Do you give this advice free or do you charge for it or have you just had a really bad experience with an extinguisher maintenance company?
Also although I agree the guidance is just that, guidance, I would suggest that to deliberately ignore, contradict or say that items within the guidance aren't necessary because of your own personal experience may possibly be more hassle than it's worth.
Why would you tell anyone not to maintain fire extinguishers? What is the advantage for the user and you?
-
No Initial Service, No maintneance!!!.
As all British Standards are recommendations or best practice the RR(FS)O is Law.
RR(FS)O states.
Maintenance
17. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
Also I have yet to find a commercial fire extinguisher manufacture that state their equipment does not require initial service or on going maintenance. In a court of Law manufactures requirements is a very strong bit of evidence .
I think its a even more brave person who states no maintenance of what is a pressurised vessel (fire extinguisher). I have heard in the new BS5306 standard they are looking at bringing in initial service as part of the standard.
Have a look at the story below, I know its in the USA but its the only one I could find quickly.
Apartment fire: Improper inspection of fire extinguishers: Fire code violations: Wrongful deaths: Burns: Settlement.
Edwards v. Dalcor Management, Ala., Mobile County Cir. Ct., No. 98-001595, Dec. 1, 1999. Edwards, 30, lived with her son, 6, and daughter, 4, in an apartment complex. Early one morning, Edwards's son set fire to a couch while his mother and sister were still asleep upstairs. He alerted Edwards, who tried unsuccessfully to extinguish the fire with water. She then brought a fire extinguisher into the apartment but was unable to remove the pin. The fire spread quickly, and Edwards was unable to rescue her children, who died in the fire. They are survived by their mother. Edwards suffered minor bums. Her medical expenses were about $8,000.
Edwards, individually and as mother of the children, sued the complex's management company, alleging state and federal fire code violations. Plaintiffs claimed that Edwards's inability to remove the pin from the fire extinguisher was due to lack of proper inspection and maintenance. Plaintiffs also claimed that the fire extinguishers in the building (1) were located at a greater distance from the apartment than required by the fire code and (2) were mounted higher than the fire code required. Plaintiffs claimed these factors increased the amount of time it took for Edwards to retrieve the fire extinguisher.
Defendant admitted to some fire code violations, but argued that Edwards's failure to remove the pin was due to her inexperience and panicked state.
The parties settled for about $2.13 million.
-
Noted Thomas, but this was a civil claim. Most arguments so far have been around the Fire Safety Order- and the duty to provide general fire precautions, failure to do so being an offence under Criminal Law.
You can never predict what may happen when civil claims are made, the insurance companies decide which claims will be taken on and which may be defended, the plaintiff and defendent themselves have little or no say in the matter. Usually large organisations are easy meat because so often they cannot show that they have proper procedures and recording systems in place, or their employees are too idle to record them or follow instructions.
-
I will agree that bad practice (& there's a lot of it) by fire protection companies can be off-putting, but that is the companies fault and does not mean that the need for competent installation & maintenance is wrong.
I sympathise with those stung like the small shop that paid £69 + VAT to have a water extinguisher refilled (guess who by!) & despair at the corners cut by some (was inspecting a tenant when their extinguisher man was there & watched him with a cartridge water - he unscrewed the head, lifted it up 5", put it back & started screwing it back on. I waited until he'd spent ages carefully tightening the head before saying - "Aren't you going to weigh the cartridge?" - to which he looked round like a rabbit caught in headlights, made a poor esxcuse about checking the threads and grudgingly started again & did a proper basic service)
-
Just for Kurnal, Ive removed the bottom part, the rest is totally to do with the RR(FS)O.
As all British Standards are recommendations or best practice the RR(FS)O is Law.
RR(FS)O states.
Maintenance
17. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
Also I have yet to find a commercial fire extinguisher manufacture that state their equipment does not require initial service or on going maintenance. In a court of Law manufactures requirements is a very strong bit of evidence .
I think its a even more brave person who states no maintenance of what is a pressurised vessel (fire extinguisher). I have heard in the new BS5306 standard they are looking at bringing in initial service as part of the standard.
-
Cheers Thomas I cant knock that! ;)
Are there any statistics of accidents caused by extinguishers through improper maintenance or installation that would justify a review of the BS or is it the industry exerting its influence through the back door to make life more difficult for the "rogue" suppliers? ( I dont sell, supply or maintain by the way.) But whilst some accredited comanies are charging £140 for a 2Kg CO2 plus £5 for the bracket (that comes in the box free) and £4.75 for the usage sign (as I found in the South of England last week) then there needs to be a bit of balance in the market.
-
I think a big problem with most of the British Standards, is that the big manufactures seem to have to much power.
Often through pressure from these manufactures standards seem to get changed.
In the days when EN3 came in It was strongly hinted, in fact bragged by the higher management of a company I used to work for that they were a major force in getting EN3 into the UK because they new it would be a massive marketing opertunity. The company began with a C.
-
I know of three cases in the last 10 years due to poor maintenance - one serious injury & two fatal.
- Cartridge ANSUL powder Extinguisher with rusty base, but in date exploded & shot up with fatal head injuries
- CO2 being serviced with no horn or pin, fell off, landed on the valve, turned into a rocket went through a roof and caused fatal head injuries
- Cartridge water 'serviced' and not long after used on a hot works fire, bottom blew out, resulting in fractured wrist and dislocated shoulder. The engineer has serviced a couple of hundred of extinguishers at 4 different customer sites in one day
Classics illustrated on the cover of the old 90's BAFE brochure;
- Nu-swift BC powder model 1604 (the old inverse hourglass shaped strike knob one), serviced by poorly equipped engineer - he had the sealing plugs, but not the equipment to go with it so he drilled and soldered a Schroeder valve in the side
- Three riveted total discharge 2 gallon waters 'serviced' by in house maintenance team, beautifully rusted through the prolin & zinc linings and then recharged with 150g CO2 cartridges from 20lb powder extinguishers (which have the same size body). When used on a fire, one split, the other two holed and all fired rivets all over the place like bullets
- The last photo doesn't count as it was condemned, but the customer insisted on keeping it & the bottom blew out when used
Plus several 'failure to operates' that fortunately didn't lead to injury.
-
Thomas, Article 17 starts with those mercurial words, Where Necessary. Therefore, if you purchase extinguishers elsewhere then they are to be maintained where necessary.
-
I disagree, once you have extinguishers in a commercial premise with staff they have to be maintained to the manufactures guidance aswell as RR(FS)O and the The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 section 5 (maintenance of the workplace) and in this one it does not state where necessary it says "shall be maintained". It will also somewhere under pressurised vessels say something as well, but I carn't be that bothered to go that deeply.
Back to what I said earlier, "Its a brave person, who when doing a fire risk assessment says there is no need for any firefighting equipment at all".
Yes there possibly are times but I can not think of many where no fire equipment or detection would be needed at all, and to make a sweeping statement on a forum read by many hundreds of people without the knowledge of FRA system is dangerous to say the least.
So on record jokar are you saying " No one needs fire extinguishers and no one should have them maintained if they have some"
-
The FRA will take into account the hazrads and risks in the premises and come up the the outcome based solutions in an appropriate action plan. If one of the outcomes for a life safety FRA is no extinguishers then so be it. There may well be FFE in place that is not and can not be used by staff or residents in which case do not have them.
As regards the maintenance issue, you have choices, do not have extinguishers, have them by purchasing them yourself and disposing of them within their specified time frame and buying more or have a maintenance contract with a provider.
My question will be what do you want the extinguishers for and who will use them.
-
Those who are of the opinion that fire extinguishers absolutely must be provided in premises, regardless of the circumstances, must also be of the opinion that heat and smoke detection is also provided, regardless of the circumstances.
Art 13 - (1) (a) .... appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; .......
-
All im am not saying every place has to have loads of extinguishers or detectors, that is down to a FRA.
The point im trying to get over is that no one can make a statement of extinguishers are not a legal requirement & there is no Law to say they have to be maintained.
Because some places it would be law to have such equipment and some it wont, also if you have got them and employees it is LAW to have them maintained, and this is where a lot of the people trained only in Fire Risk Assessments fall down, It may say in the RR(FS)O maintenance where necessary but in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 it states equipment must be maintained. So you may be advising people under The RRFSO you only need maintain where necessary how ever under other health and safety laws it states if youve got the equipment it must be maintained. So yes your client may not get prosicuted under the RRO but may be under the workplace regs or some other regs.
All im saying is every case is different and no one can say every case does or does not have to have extinguishers.
-
All im am not saying every place has to have loads of extinguishers or detectors, that is down to a FRA.
The point im trying to get over is that no one can make a statement of extinguishers are not a legal requirement & there is no Law to say they have to be maintained.
For residential buildings, BS 5588-1 says that extinguishers are not a legal requirement but desirable.
It does state however that they should be installed and maintained to BS 5306-3.
So yes, someone can state that they are not legally required if talking about residential buildings. As for saying don't maintain them...i haven't seen any documentation saying dont so i'd agree with what you are saying.
-
All im am not saying every place has to have loads of extinguishers or detectors, that is down to a FRA.
The point im trying to get over is that no one can make a statement of extinguishers are not a legal requirement & there is no Law to say they have to be maintained.
Because some places it would be law to have such equipment and some it wont, also if you have got them and employees it is LAW to have them maintained, and this is where a lot of the people trained only in Fire Risk Assessments fall down, It may say in the RR(FS)O maintenance where necessary but in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 it states equipment must be maintained. So you may be advising people under The RRFSO you only need maintain where necessary how ever under other health and safety laws it states if youve got the equipment it must be maintained. So yes your client may not get prosicuted under the RRO but may be under the workplace regs or some other regs.
All im saying is every case is different and no one can say every case does or does not have to have extinguishers.
What about Article 17 - Maintenance. Where equipment, facilities and devices are provided they must be suitably maintained. Does that not cover it?
-
There is also no need to buy from a Company and have a maintenance contract. You can buy from a shop or over the internet.
You either have had a really bad experience with an extinguisher maintenance/supply company or you genuinely think that nothing can go wrong with a fire extinguisher.
have them by purchasing them yourself and disposing of them within their specified time frame and buying more
What is the specified time frame for a fire extinguisher? Assuming that the majority/all users of fire extinguishers are not competent when will they know when the extinguisher has reached the end of it’s “specified timeframe”.
Is it when it fails to work? Too late if they have a fire and then cheap fire extinguisher they bought from the internet or decided not to maintain because they were told they didn’t need to have it maintained then becomes an expensive doorstop.
My question will be what do you want the extinguishers for and who will use them.
Agreed everyone on discovering a fire should raise the alarm, evacuate the building and call the fire brigade. That shouldn’t stop anyone having fire extinguishers and having them maintained.
But if a FRA says extinguishers are required why would you want to advise anyone to not use a company who will commission, install and maintain extinguishers to BS5306 Part 3? Are you just trying to gain brownie points by giving them what you consider is inside information that they could save some money by using an internet supply company or not have them maintained?
-
Nim, neither, the discussion is about the legal requirement for extinguishers. I do not believe such a requirement exists. The outcomes of an FRA will decide on the control measures that are a solution to the hazards and risks in any premises. The RP has the choice to either buy and maintain, to buy and not maintain or to lease from a compnay on a maintenance contract. The RP choice and not mine and their choice is in part down to costs.
-
The Government guide books state you should install fire extinguishers where required in accordance of BS5306.
The whole point of FRA is to get away from prescription.
I have pasted a report below Case 1 from a company fined £35k for not maintaining their fire equipment properly, part of it was for lack of maintennace of fire extinguishers, may be you can get them a refund as extinguishers arnt needed.
And Case 2 at the bottom he would love to here from you because he was fined over £10k including for not providing fire fighting equipment and seeing you say he does not need any may be you can get him a refund as well.
CASE 1
total of more than £35,000 after serious breaches of security were discovered following a fire.
Mill House Inns Trading admitted breaking fire safety regulations at the White Swan Hotel in Arundel in Sussex, during a hearing before Worthing Magistrates.
The court heard that fire broke out at the hotel in March 2007 and 10 guests trapped in their bedrooms had to be rescued by fire fighters. No serious injuries were reported.
A subsequent investigation by fire officers revealed a series of lapses of fire safety security.
According to evidence given before the court the fire alarm panel had been switched to silent, fire doors had been wedged open, staff had not received adequate fire safety training, fire alarms had not been tested correctly, and there was no overall emergency plan.
The company was fined £25,000 with £11,000 costs.
After the case director of community protection Trevor Pilcher said: "This hotel had the right physical precautions in place like smoke detectors, self-closing fire doors, emergency lighting and fire extinguishers but all that becomes ineffective if the management of the fire precautions isn't good enough.”
CASE 2
10 January 2008
The owner and landlord of a HIMO (house in multiple occupation) was fined more than £10,000, including costs of over £1,900, after pleading guilty yesterday to six charges relating to inadequate fire safety standards.
Proceedings were brought against Aftab Hussain after he failed to comply with an enforcement notice issued by Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service in December 2006 under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.
The notice was issued because fire safety inspectors identified a number of fire safety shortfalls at the property in Conegra Road, High Wycombe, including:
Failure to provide adequate fire detection and emergency lighting
Failure to adequately protect the means of escape
Failure to provide adequate fire fighting equipment
He was prosecuted because he failed to put them right within the timescales set.
Mr Hussain pleaded guilty to all counts at High Wycombe Magistrates Court and was fined a total of £10,377.68, including more than £1,900 costs.
The Magistrate commented on the serious nature of the offences and praised the quality of the evidence presented by Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Fire Authority.
Station Manager Graham Field, Fire Safety Team Leader for Wycombe and South Bucks, said afterwards: “This case clearly demonstrates how our safety officers are inspecting relevant buildings and applying the law to help ensure the safety of our community.
“Prosecution is only considered in the most serious cases or otherwise as a last resort, but will be persued with the utmost vigour when necessary”.
The law under which he was prosecuted applies to nearly all premises, with the exception of single private dwellings. In HIMOs, it applies to common areas of the building, where a “responsible person” must ensure adequate fire safety standards through a process of fire risk assessment.
Chris Bailey, Group Manager Prevention, said: “Although this happened in High Wycombe, we would like it to act as a timely reminder to people throughout Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes that these regulations are there to make people safer.
“We will help people in any way we can to comply with them, but sometimes we need to take legal action.”
Chief Fire Officer Damian Smith said: “This case highlights the dedication and professionalism of our fire safety team, who are committed to making sure that buildings of this type are safe and fit for purpose.
“I would like to congratulate the team for the tremendous work it has done to bring about this prosecution.”
Since the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO) came into force in 2006, Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service has issued around 100 notices restricting the use of part or all of a building or requiring fire safety improvements.
-
I guess Thomas we will always differ on our views on this and debate is a good thing.
The cases you have posted are clear enough. But looking at the spectrum of the offences- there is a significant range of issues. Would the case have been brought over the extinguishers in isolation? Almost certainly not. Would the case have been brought over the means of escape issues in isolation- Absolutely.
When the policeman pulls you over for drunk driving he will check your car and if you are also driving with bald tyres and your number plate lamp not working he will chuck the book at you. All offences will be brought to the attention of the court and fines will be issued for all if found guilty. But had your tyres been good and had you been sober you may not even have been pulled up for the defective light.
-
If someone asks whether they need fire extinguishers I will always tell them to have a FRA carried out. If I were to see a FRA which specified that extinguishers were not required or that maintenance of extinguishers were not required on premises which I thought required extinguishers or maintenance then I would always raise my concerns.
Nim, neither, the discussion is about the legal requirement for extinguishers.
It was you who mentioned that "There is also no need to ................have a maintenance contract." and also "disposing of them within their specified time frame and buying more".
I understand your reference to "Where neccessary". It just seems as though your advice seems to be that if a FRA recommends fire extinguishers then to employ someone competent to commission, install and maintain extinguishers is either a waste of time or money or something else. You are obviously not prepared to divulge
With regard to prosecutions. The first imprisonment.
http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3251.msg37583#msg37583
-
I work for an insurance broker / risk management consultancy.
When I used to work for an insurer and clients asked me if they needed extingiushers I told them yes and it was a requirement of insurance.
Now when clients ask me, I tell them it will be a requirement of thier insurer and they should do it for property protection, health and safety and to avoid litigation.
In my several years in the insurance industry, I have yet to hear of an injury claim associated with a fire extinguisher.
I have also been to numerous sites where fires have been put out safely in their early stages by extingiushers.
I also volunteer for the British Red Cross and every few months end up at a domestic fire where people tend to be found standing outside a burnt out house. I'd say about 90% of the time they have tried and failed to put out fires with pots of water and garden hoses. People will try. I'd suggest giving them the tools and training to know how to do it properly and when not to even try.
-
All the extinguisher fatals and serious injuries I referred to have lead to legal cases & the injury one cost FPS a lot of money in compensation on top of their penalties.
There are 'maintenance free' extinguishers around with a shelf life, traditionally these have been aerosol BCF & Powder extinguishers with no gauge (e..g Firemaster & Fireblitz) that a service engineer can only do the visual user check and thus nothing worthy of a service fee or label. If risk appropriate and within expiry dates I will accept these without a service label.
However, the disposable industry is getting to advanced for it's own good. The addition of gauges (that need verification) such as in most current Firemaster, Vanguard/guardian & 'pound shop' type equipment and the ability to refill means that essential components that are beyond user checks exist (gauge verification) and some apparently service free extinguishers could be argued to require maintenance.
Where risk appropriate & when cost is a realistic factor in compliance I have no problem in suggesting 5 year life disposable powders and make the user fully aware of the pro's & con's (price often wins over the minimal likelihood of ever being used and causing secondary damage though)