FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nearlythere on November 27, 2008, 04:04:11 PM
-
Date : 20/10/08 Wood Green Crown Court
Fire Service : London
Penalty : 4 months imprisonment (Mr Parlak) and £21,000 fine (company)+ £8,800 costs.
Defendant : Parlak and Watchacre Properties
Summons 6 – Article 14 (2)(a) – Failure to ensure that persons were able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible, in that the escape route was not properly protected (because the intermescent strip and cold smoke seal were missing from the top edge of the second floor habitable room and there were combustible materials stored in the exit route including a washing machine, television, clothing and furniture).
Where does this fit in with a FRAer accepting a fire door without the intumescent strips and smoke seals fitted.
-
It probably means that the 'FRAer' will be OK as long as (in this case) someone doesn't die in a fire within that building which brings out the local FS team with their legal notebooks and magnifying glasses to go over the FRA and building in the finest detail.
-
A BS 476 part 8 door does not require S&S but a new door to BS 476 part 22 does, let us not confuse the two things. As I have said before I am not fully convinced that retrofitting a part 8 door with S&S is legal as far as the test certificate is concerned.
-
We do not know the full details of the doorset in question to make a judgement.
I would hazard it was a doorset where a strip & brush is an integral part of it achieving FD30S and it was either never there, or was removed/damaged as oppose to a perfectly serviceable old style door with a rebate that only had had some extra seals put on it.
A door with a tight fit in a 25mm rebate wasn't designed to have a strip & bush retrofitted, it was designed to work as it is - if you need the protection of a seal & brush then the doorset as a whole should go rather than mess around altering an existing functional door and depending on who did it, make it worse.
If it's a functional rebated door in good order. tight fitting & effective then I only put it down for replacement at refurb unless the area is high risk (e.g. sleeping) - it's not viable to spend tens of thousands in one go for the sake of it, we need to be proportionate to the risks present.
-
Where does this fit in with a FRAer accepting a fire door without the intumescent strips and smoke seals fitted.
But did they? Did the fire risk assessment conclude that a lack of intumescent strips was OK?
-
I suspect that this prosecution was more about the combustible storage and obstructions in the escape route rather than the door seals.
if the combustible items had not been present there would not have been a fire.
I think we need a little more info Chris. Was the door modified was it new, had it been certified,
Sounds typical LFB to me but then I do not have the facts.
-
The point I want to make is that the provision of intumescent strips and smoke seals does not necessarily make a door better at withstanding heat and smoke.
Surely one property of a door is that it can withstand the passage of heat and smoke not that it is fitted with the above.
If I had a fire door with a half inch gap all around it would not provide the necessary protection and fitting intumescant strips and smoke seals will not help.
It's a little like saying that a car must be fitted with a steering wheel whereas what the car must be is steerable. Of course this is usually done by fitting a steering wheel but a steering wheel is of no use unless it is linked to the front wheels. Fitting a steering wheel does not necessarily make the car steerable.
It is obvious that the interpretation of what are effective fire safety in the courtroom is in its infancy and any good barrister would have blown this charge out of the water had they experience in or an understanding of these matters. It also illustrates the inexperience of magistrates who determine what the standards should be based purely on the opinions of the F&R Services as it is assumed they are the ultimate experts.
I have just had a look at Art 14(2)(a) and it has nothing to do with protection of escape routes. In fact the more I look at it the more defects I see.
Summons 3 – Article 13 (1)(1) – Failure to provide appropriate fire fighting equipment.
1, There is no Article 13 (1) (1).
2, There is also no requirement to provide appropriate fire fighting equipment.
There is a requirement to provided, to the extent that it is appropriate, appropriate fire fighting equipment.
Either the clients barrister was really a plumber or the client rolled over and begged for mercy or there has been a missprint somewhere along the line.
-
Looks like he pleaded guilty!
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/NewsReleases2008_210ct08.asp
-
When a large met fire and rescue service in one of the worlds capital cities used to have senior officers who could spell fire safety, an ACO who I very much liked and respected got his fire safety team leaders together and asked them to give him one example of a fatal fire in which the fact that the door was a BS 459-3 door had any bearing on the outcome of a fire. Apparently, they all shufffled their feet and averted their gaze. He told them until they could give him an example, their minions were not to go around like atomatons demanding upgrading of BS 459-3 doors. As it happened, we had shortly before appealed a section 5(4) notice for a sleeping risk that required upgrading of the doors, which auntie lin had said were equivalent in fire resistance to a BS 459-3 door. Well of course, auntie lin cut no ice with the macho ADO of the F&RS in question. Who is she, quoth the ADO and how would she know. See, auntie lin is only a woman, bless her, she doesnt chew gum and she can barely reach the pedals of a red HGV, never mind double de-clutch it, and well, the ADO had been practising fire safely (badly, and practising being the operative word) for three whole years!! Well, we pointed out that the F&RS had a guidance note that said if a door met the test standard at the time it was constructed it was to be accepted, and auntie lin was sure it would meet 30 mins to BS 459-1. The ADO said there was another guidance document that said fire doors had to meet BS 476-22 for 30 minutes. Well what with auntie lin just being a woman, etc, clearly this was all no good to macho man, so at great cost to the client, we had a sample tested to BS 459-1 (being perverse enough as I am to getting a copy of the old standard and furhishing it to the test lab). Guess what, the door did 30 minutes. (Obviously a lucky guess on the part of auntie lin, cos remember she cant send a stop message.) Anyhow, a week before the magistrates court hearing, we received a letter from the F&RS basically saying they didnt like auntie lins doors but that they had decided not to come to Court to tell the lady with the flowery hat and local butcher why. (They, like me, would have loved auntie lin to bits-though not in the Biblical sense- and I expect the lady with the flowery hat and she could have discussed knitting and recipes after the case.) Alas, there is never any continuity of learning in that F&RS, so we all go round the circle time and time again. And Messey wonders why I get frustrated.
-
I suspect that this prosecution was more about the combustible storage and obstructions in the escape route rather than the door seals.
if the combustible items had not been present there would not have been a fire.
I think we need a little more info Chris. Was the door modified was it new, had it been certified,
Sounds typical LFB to me but then I do not have the facts.
Hi Brian - I agree with you.
It wouldn't have been the issue of strips and seals alone that saw the defendant found guilty.
-
If you read through the summonses as reported (rather than trying to pck holes ina pres notice) then there seems to be a pretty clear cumulative effect. The courts don't send people down for a missing IS.
-
When a large met fire and rescue service in one of the worlds capital cities used to have senior officers who could spell fire safety, an ACO who I very much liked and respected got his fire safety team leaders together and asked them to give him one example of a fatal fire in which the fact that the door was a BS 459-3 door had any bearing on the outcome of a fire. Apparently, they all shufffled their feet and averted their gaze. He told them until they could give him an example, their minions were not to go around like atomatons demanding upgrading of BS 459-3 doors. As it happened, we had shortly before appealed a section 5(4) notice for a sleeping risk that required upgrading of the doors, which auntie lin had said were equivalent in fire resistance to a BS 459-3 door. Well of course, auntie lin cut no ice with the macho ADO of the F&RS in question. Who is she, quoth the ADO and how would she know. See, auntie lin is only a woman, bless her, she doesnt chew gum and she can barely reach the pedals of a red HGV, never mind double de-clutch it, and well, the ADO had been practising fire safely (badly, and practising being the operative word) for three whole years!! Well, we pointed out that the F&RS had a guidance note that said if a door met the test standard at the time it was constructed it was to be accepted, and auntie lin was sure it would meet 30 mins to BS 459-1. The ADO said there was another guidance document that said fire doors had to meet BS 476-22 for 30 minutes. Well what with auntie lin just being a woman, etc, clearly this was all no good to macho man, so at great cost to the client, we had a sample tested to BS 459-1 (being perverse enough as I am to getting a copy of the old standard and furhishing it to the test lab). Guess what, the door did 30 minutes. (Obviously a lucky guess on the part of auntie lin, cos remember she cant send a stop message.) Anyhow, a week before the magistrates court hearing, we received a letter from the F&RS basically saying they didnt like auntie lins doors but that they had decided not to come to Court to tell the lady with the flowery hat and local butcher why. (They, like me, would have loved auntie lin to bits-though not in the Biblical sense- and I expect the lady with the flowery hat and she could have discussed knitting and recipes after the case.) Alas, there is never any continuity of learning in that F&RS, so we all go round the circle time and time again. And Messey wonders why I get frustrated.
paragraph
noun
1. one of several distinct subdivisions of a text intended to separate ideas; the beginning is usually marked by a new indented line
verb
1. divide into paragraphs, as of text; "This story is well paragraphed"
-
If you read through the summonses as reported (rather than trying to pck holes ina pres notice) then there seems to be a pretty clear cumulative effect. The courts don't send people down for a missing IS.
The holes I was picking SD where in the report in LF&RS web site.
-
A fair point NT, it isn't the best press notice I've ever read but I think it still shows the cumalative effect.
-
Hi chaps - I've been off line for a while so have only just picked up on this thread and like every bosy woman before me, feel the need to throw in my three-penn'orth.
Jokar - sorry, chum, you're wrong. Pt 8 doors did (and still do) need fire seals to enable them to pass the test. Pt 8 was the standard which required a positive furnace pressure and showed up the need for something to bung up the gaps around the door edges. And - why are you still talking about Pt 8? Didn't that float off with Noah???
Nearlythere - you're right that seals don't make a door withstand fire and smoke in one sense, but they do make an awful lot of sense if you're trying to protect an adjacent area from the spread of fire. Smoke seals stop the spread of cold and medium temperature smoke which can be important as smoke spreads through a building (are you all still with me? Do you want me to give the full or potted Auntie Lin's lecture on fire doorsets?). Fire seals fill the gap around the periphery of the door and stop the spread of fire that way. To my knowledge there was at least one authority which thought that its building bye-laws could be complied with by a four-panelled door where the panels had burned away completely by about 15 minutes BUT THE STILES, RAILS AND MUNTINS WERE STILL THERE!!! They therefore deemed the door not to have fallen from its frame, so it had stability! Sorry folks but the politest thing I can say about this is that they come in pairs, and they bounce!
Any door will give a measure of protection against the spread of fully developed fire - it may be 3 minutes or 30. What probably will make the difference to whether you protect life and property is whether you can stop the fire getting through.
Toddy - just read your post, and I'm SHOCKED that there's a man in the fire service who doesn't know me as I'm 5'7", 38GG blonde bombshell with an IQ of 120! (in my dreams!) I read what you said about me, and it just goes to show how selfish you boys are with your toys. Of course the boys in the pretty yellow coalscuttles are not going to let me play Firewoman Samantha - they might find out I'd give 'em a run for their money.
- get your numbering right. I said BS459: Part 3. Part 1 is only fit for garden sheds.
- I wouldn't waste my time teaching magistrates to knit or cook - I've got my work cut out passing on all my best recipes to you!
-
Hi Aunty
No doubt seals are a good idea- but I think the crux of the argument is whether retro fitting seals to an old doorset (which remains in good condition with 25mm rebates and a a good fit) can be realistically enforced?
Some brigades are seeking to enforce this - on the grounds of adapting to technical progress- whilst others will continue to accept old doorsets without seals so long as they remain in good condition.
Do you have an opinion on this?
-
Linnypops, I know you are a blonde bombshell, but you fool people with the white rinse you use. The 459 was a slip of the pen-I didnt mean part 3 either I meant 476-1. I will knock some nosh up for you on Sunday. Hope you like it. And BE ON TIME THIS TIME!!!!!
-
Auntie Lin,
I haven't been called chum since school days, but perhaps you missed a p.
Can you please with your acknowledged wisdom and expertise answer some questions for us learners.
1. Are existing doors that offer close fitting plus all the other proper bits with 25 mm rebates glued and screwed acceptable for existing buidlings? By that I mean the doors are the originals.
2. If they are not, are we to ask, suggest, recommend that the door set is to be replaced by a new set to the latets test standard?. ( I do not want to be called chum again by quoting something you know is incorrect)
3. Are enforcers RAers and others correct then, to suggest the retrofitting of S&S to existing doors by pinning them on or routing out the door or frame? (Surely this would be against the original test certification)
I and perhaps many others awit your answers with anticipation as it is now a fundamental question raised.
-
Jokar,
But, with all due respect to my auntie lin, that is a question for you to answer, as its your risk assessment. Auntie Lin can tell you how the door will perform, but someone needs to use judgement and not just rely on a rule they got from someone down the pub.
There is a video on the web with an old chum , alan cox, for whom I have a lot of respect, and a blonde bit of stuff showing how awful it is that doors arent always fitted with intumescent strips. Alan and the bit of stuff stand there with this bleeding great 476 furnace in front of them, with roaring flames, and then they act liked raped virgins when the door with no strips first fails at 15 minutes. And then they tell people how awful that early failure is cos fire doors MUST do 30 minutes. And I am thinking, they are right-you dont want people making a video right next to a room with a post flashover fire for 15 minutes. There ought to be a law against it. So, if, Jokar, you happen across premises, where AFTER FLASHOVER an ex fire officer and a blonde bit of stuff are likely to stand right next to a door for a quarter of an hour after a fire beyond the door has developed to flashover, be afraid; be very afraid.
-
Hi Kurnal - my view on this is that "good condition" and "good fit" vary widely from one area to another. For some brigades it will mean a door and frame that is undamaged with a full complement of hardware with gaps not exceeding 6mm. For others, the door and/or frame can have some damage and as long as the leaf doesn't actually swing through the frame it's deemed to be a good fit (and that's why I don't believe in 25mm deep doorstops!). When I'm out looking at doors I will often suggest that combined seals will keep people and property safest. When they start whingeing about costs I remind them that a smoke seal is a pretty good draught seal - so they can look at not wasting so much heat - and while you're fitting a draught seal, just use one that's got intumescent with it.
Toddy - I've rearranged the whole of my weekend just so I can enjoy the pleasure of your company!
Jokar - if you're happy to accept doors without seals and prepared to put your name on the paper, then that's fine. I'm not - I'm a belt and braces woman. Whether the doors are acceptable or not will depend on how they've been built. It's really all down to condition and fit. You need to look at what potentially has been done to the door since it was fitted. Lots of people change locks and latches, put letterplates in, cut glass apertures etc. all without benefit of advice or approval. Hardware often is totally inadequate - as you will know you really need 3 hinges for a fire door.
If you want a checklist of things that perhaps you should think about when checking doors for a FRA, send me your address and I'll send you a simple guide (simple so that you can pass it on to customers - no implications that it's for a simple soul (and I promise not to call you chum again!)) which ASDMA produced to try and help people.
For retro-fitting there are a number of options available. Yes, you can ask for them to be routed in, but it's a pain and I've just been to check on a job where the router was blunt and I think I could have made a better job with Colin's false teeth. There are also ranges of fire seals which are self-adhesive - but as a belt ad braces woman I'd still want these pinned on!
-
Auntie LIn
Is the checklist on the ASDMA website or is it only a hard copy you have?
-
But I am a simple soul, I am just collecting information and as you and Colin know, knowledge is power. Thank you for answering my questions.
-
Tw
Lots of free stuff on these websites
ASDMA
DHF door and hardware federation
BWF british woodworking federation
IFSA intumescent fire seals association
or e mail me
davo
-
Davo I have raided them all but I have never come across a checklist or guidance which would help when checking doors for a FRA most guidance stays clear of this subject.
-
Lin. Belt and braces? BELT AND BRACES??????????????????????? I always thought you were wearing stockings and suspenders. I promised the boys at Gullane that you were doing so. Now you tell me that it was belt and braces. What sort of erotic pleasure is anyone meant to get from belt and braces for goodness sake. Please ensure you wear better attire on Sunday, or I will not talk to you. I might as well talk to Dave instead, as I know he wears a belt and braces already.
-
Hello men (seeing as I'm not allowed to call you chums!)
At risk of being flooded with e-mails - ASDMA has produced a small leaflet RR(FS)O 2005 ASDMA Guidance Notes for Responsible Persons - which will probably be too simple for you, but could be useful for you to hand on to the people you're doing FRAs for. Unfortunately it's currently only available in hard copy, but it is free, and if you send me an address and whether you just want one copy or multiple I'll deal with them when I've recovered from my post Christmas/New Year hangover!
-
Oh, and a PS to Colin - if I'd known you'd told Gullane I was a stockings and suspenders woman I would most certainly have worn them. And don't tell me that you don't know that the belt I referred to was a suspender belt??? The braces were to cover bits usually covered by a bra - now doesn't that frighten the horses?????