FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Phoenix on August 14, 2009, 02:47:43 PM
-
FYI, the following link will take you to a very recent determination (yesterday) on the type of detection required in a hotel bedroom.
In brief, it has turned down the enforcing fire authority's application that, to fully protect every relevant person in a hotel (as required by the RR(FS)O), smoke detection must be fitted in the bedrooms.
Of course, it does not set a precedent, but it must set a trend through what has been a sticky area in recent times.
If you read it, you will appreciate that the fire authority did not put a scientifically rigorous and thorough case forward but relied on policies, hearsay and weak statistical evidence. This leaves the door open for further approaches but anyone trying to enforce smoke detection over heat will have to have substantial technical evidence that a real advantage will be gained by this costly improvement.
I believe common sense has prevailed here, as is often the case in the world of fire safety.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/hotelfiredetection (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/hotelfiredetection)
Stu
-
Commonsense indeed Stu
However, both sides appear not to have offered much in the way of evidence for their side of things
Para 22 proves very interesting.........
davo
-
Thats a very interesting & significant determination Stu, i'm sure its implications will be discussed at great length, perhaps even by us!!!
-
I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.
-
I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.
I do too, Civvy, but I know of two FRSs that have pushed this a long way. There's always someone trying to make a name for themselves.
Stu
-
I tried to tell 'em Civvy, but they wouldnt listen, but chose instead to make a contribution to the maintenance of the former Mrs Todd. Anyhow, good result, common sense decision, crap typing, grammer and punctuation. Does no one at CLG check these things for Sir K before they go public? The Civil Service is just not what it yoost to was.
-
Very interesting. I note that the hotel doesn't want to change heat to smoke because of false alarm issues. To me the biggest false alarm problems they may get are people smoking in hotel bedrooms or dust, or possibly steam from en suite bathrooms if the detectors havent been cited properly.
I rather fancy that surripticious smoking would be the biggest cause of false alarms, and thus if a smoker is stupid enough to smoke in a non smoking room theyre putting themselves at risk, so long as everyone else is protected against such irresponsible behavior then job done. Heat detection will do that so case closed as far as im concerned - fire autority wrong in this case - but just goes to show that deteminations are there to provide fair hearing between parties in disagreement and despite the spelling and grammar mistakes I applaud Sir Ken for a balanced and well judged findings.
Yes common sense has prevailed (or is that prevailled?.)
-
Are there stats on deaths of residents in rooms due to fire in said same room versus actual genuine fire activations throughout rest of the building?
If the risk of false alarm greatly outweighs the actual need for smoke detection within the room (as so to stop complacency due to "ahh sure,it's only a false alarm" syndrome) then heat it is in my opinion.
We really have become a country/nation of risk asessing and worrying about the unlikely,haven't we?
-
Yes, Buzzy there are stats. We gave them to the good Sir K as part of the client's submission. They have been reproduced in these bulletin boards in the past, though some enforcers did not seem to agree with the interpretation . Luckily they were not the ones advising Sir K, so I am inclined to forgive them for the odd split infinitive in the submission to the Minister, who probably would not know the difference anyway.
-
cited
surripticious
autority
deteminations
and despite the spelling and grammar mistakes I applaud Sir Ken for a balanced and well judged findings.
Cleveland, I do believe that you have the qualities to get a job writing reports for Sir Kinight. ;)
-
cited
surripticious
autority
deteminations
and despite the spelling and grammar mistakes I applaud Sir Ken for a balanced and well judged findings.
Cleveland, I do believe that you have the qualities to get a job writing reports for Sir Kinight. ;)
CivvyFSo
What I like about what youve done here is that you've taken the time to pick out all the spelling mistakes in Clevelandfire's earlier post, you have neatly arranged them for all to see and then added a nice little quip at the end for good measure.
This coupled with you creating some treble and quadrouple quoting box antics on another thread really has really attracted the attention of we mortals at the rest home for the bewildered.
Why have we not seen you down at the banter bar lately young man!
Now get back to work!
-
Perhaps it's a Northern thing!! Mind you, I would like to know who Civvy things Sir Kinight is?
-
It is an interesting determination - and we could use more to clear up some of the mirky areas.
As a point of interest though, Colin's British Standard, published in 2002, allows for the demise of the occupant in the room of origin to allow for the greater good of protecting the means of escape for the remainder of the population. And the FSO seeks to protect all relevant persons, including the room's fateful sleeper.
However as we don't have fatalities piling up to support a full scale change in the standard it would seem that the expense of switching from HD to SD across the nation might not be appropriate. Where are those piles of cadavars when you need them?
Paul
-
What murky areas???? ;)
Even though BS5839 allows the demise of the occupant and the FSO seeks to protect that same person, the guidance issued by the CLG to assist in complying with the FSO states that a BS5839 system is appropriate.
It will only take one incident that creates a newsworthy story, then the fire safety 'experts' will come crawling out explaining that the fire alarms standard 'allows' you to die in the room of origin in hotels. The media and the public won't give a damn about statistics, unwanted fire alarms, Mr Todds credentials or his expert opinion. Nor will the politicians, as Mr Todd is only 1 vote and won't make very interesting reading because nobody understands his humour as it is far too clever. Although, 10 years after the switch if more people are dying due to a switch over to smoke, then Mr Todds opinion will be most important, and his credentials will also be important to the point of "Why didn't the law/guidance makers listen to this man at the time???". (Providing the dementia hasn't taken full hold by then of course.)
All that being said, taking the lack of any other info into account, the determination seems fair.
-
Aren't people missing the magic words "as far as is reasonably practicable". Yes the FSO looks to protect people, but the measures must be practical. Yes smoke detectors will give a more rapid response but this has to be balanced against the issues of unwanted signals due to steam from showers etc.
I agree with others the determination seems fair.
-
I think though that if a detector is specified in a new build then a smoke should be installed (technology now facilitates this) but it shouldn't be retrospective and force existing premises to do likewise.
-
Should or must? how do you deal with the unwanted alarms issue.
I think if you've got the space and can afford higher spec detectors then smokes are a good idea. But if we make it a blanket requirement we may cause more problems than we solve.
-
Hmmm,as part of the design remit only detectors suitable for the enviroment should be permitted to eliminate false alarms.
There is a choice of manufacturers equipment out there (closed or open protocol) that could achieve this,with standard detectors and configuration for the rest.
This is of course only an idea and I still appreciate that the determination is due to case study of actual incidents.
-
I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.
Isn't it the apporopriate process when both parties cannot reach an agreement?
-
The underlying message is that FRSs shouldn't use the Order to rewrite recognised standards, theres a proper process for doing this that ensures all the stuff we are talking about now is properly thought through (well mostly err issh).
There will be times when there's something about a premises that means that the normal standards aren't apprpriate but we don't want people just making stuff up.
I can see the argument for puting smokes in but if the only way you can do it is by using more expensive detectors then I don't think the extra cost is justified.
-
I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.
Isn't it the apporopriate process when both parties cannot reach an agreement?
Yes. My point being that I cannot believe that any FRS is willing to challenge a system that seems to be compliant with both BS5839 and the CLG guidance.
-
Why not, does not mean it is right.
Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.
-
Yeah but why pick on some unsuspecting business?
-
Quite right, test it out the many fire brigade premises that fall under the radar and enforce against yourselves.
-
Why not, does not mean it is right.
Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.
Simply because it is akin to a Building Control Officer going for a determination on something that conforms to ADB.
-
Yeah but why pick on some unsuspecting business?
Who is being picked on? Fire Officers dont sit around a coffee table takng it turns to stick a pin in the yellow pages at random to decide who they inspect next.
This issue probably came about from a routine inspection.
Dont get me wrong, I dont think the fire authority were correct in their requiring the heat detection to be changed to smoke detection, but don't shun the determination / court process or make on people have been picked on.
These mechanisms exist to benefit and protect the corporate sector as well as the fire authority, as has been proven by this case. The Fire Authority were found to be overburdensome fairly and squarely.
There are several people on this forum (tends to be the same people) who moan about jack booted fire safety inspectors, and overbearing fire authorities.
In this case we have a ruling in favour of the Hotel - surely thats a good thing. It shows that fire authorities can and do get things wrong and that their enforcement policies and audit activities can be successfully challenged. Don't know about anyone else , but I'm all for it.
-
I have found the various replies to this post very interesting.
The questions I would now like to ask of those who know about these things is;
"who pays for the costs in bringing/defending this sort of action and of reaching the determination?"
-
Determination costs nothing.
Court costs are paid by the whomever lost the case.
-
Why not, does not mean it is right.
Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.
Simply because it is akin to a Building Control Officer going for a determination on something that conforms to ADB.
I disagree Civvy, it is quite clear that in this case 5839 part 1 does not take into account all relevant persons as it was written before the FSO came into force.
Im not saying that it is wrong as I totally see why it was written how it was. I think this is a perfect example for a challenge personally.
Personally, I think there are parts of ADB that should be revised also having seen abnormal fire spread in brand new buildings that are fully compliant but there were just some areas that were not fully considered.
If the building regs were to change next week that required further considerations but no alterations to ADB, would you not challenge it?
Even the experts need a challenge time to time and on this occasion the current standard is deemed to be acceptable.
At least the fire authority can sleep safe knowing it did all in its powers to raise its concerns.
-
OK then FSO, consider the following..........
From the RRFSO:
Guidance
50. —(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that such guidance, as he considers appropriate, is available to assist responsible persons in the discharge of the duties imposed by articles 8 to 22 and by regulations made under article 24.
So the CLG guides were born...
The CLG guidance for hotels states that BS5839 Part 1 is a suitable standard...
BS5839 part 1 states that heat detection is OK. Which means quite simply that the secretary of state has said it is ok
Back to the RRFSO...
Enforcement of Order
26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.
(2) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it.
So basically some FRS has said "Oi, Secretary of State, get that Sir 'kinight bloke to see if smoke detection is required in hotel bedrooms" to which the Secretary of State should have simply replied "R.T.F.M!" ("Read The F******* Manual!" for you non-acronym-understanding types. ;)) But they did it the long drawn out way, considering both sides, but still ending in a resounding NO.
We enforce the articles of RRFSO that apply to any duty holders. We are appointed as inspectors under the RRFSO, and beyond the articles we enforce are the provisions that apply to us. We should adhere to them just as duty holders should adhere to the articles that apply to them.
-
OK then FSO, consider the following..........
From the RRFSO:
Guidance
50. —(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that such guidance, as he considers appropriate, is available to assist responsible persons in the discharge of the duties imposed by articles 8 to 22 and by regulations made under article 24.
So the CLG guides were born...
The CLG guidance for hotels states that BS5839 Part 1 is a suitable standard...
BS5839 part 1 states that heat detection is OK. Which means quite simply that the secretary of state has said it is ok
Back to the RRFSO...
Enforcement of Order
26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.
(2) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it.
So basically some FRS has said "Oi, Secretary of State, get that Sir 'kinight bloke to see if smoke detection is required in hotel bedrooms" to which the Secretary of State should have simply replied "R.T.F.M!" ("Read The F******* Manual!" for you non-acronym-understanding types. ;)) But they did it the long drawn out way, considering both sides, but still ending in a resounding NO.
We enforce the articles of RRFSO that apply to any duty holders. We are appointed as inspectors under the RRFSO, and beyond the articles we enforce are the provisions that apply to us. We should adhere to them just as duty holders should adhere to the articles that apply to them.
I don't entirely agree. Where would we be now if people didn't stand up and challenge past standards? The environment we are in is fluid and constantly improving, standards are continually rewritten to take into account technical progress.
I think we all agree the correct determination was made. But I don't think the process should be dismissed because 'that’s what the guide says'.
Regardless what the guide says, the FRS has the right to dispute it, as should that right remain for the recipient of any enforcement notice.
What lacked here was an absence of technical data. In its absence the right decision was to revert back to the current standards.
but lets say in a hypothetical situation the FRS produced clear technical and statistical data to support their case, citing that current technical progress made it reasonable for the other party to have adopted there recommendations?
They could argue that they have not complied with
8. —(1) The responsible person must—
(a) take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of any of his employees; and
(b) in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the premises are safe.
Sir Ken may have made a determination in this case that irrespective of the current standard the FRS where right to seek a determination and support their view. And, you never know, the FRS's data could possibly contribute toward the revision of that standard in the future.
Whether or not you argue it was a frivolous determination. I would say it is a fair process, and can only reinforce, or, improve our guides and our knowledge.
-
Determination costs nothing.
Court costs are paid by the whomever lost the case.
So the Fire Service would use public money to fight their case and, if they lose just use public money to pay the costs.
I presume that the other party (the hotel owner?) would have to fund his own costs in fighting the case and so run the risk of paying the Fire Service costs, if he lost.
It seems a bit one-sided to me because it seems to give the Fire Service an unfair opportunity to fight any cause, no matter how useless, with no financial risk to themselves. Or am I missing something?
-
If you're looking at it from a financial point of view, the FRS have nothing to gain from taking an action, whether it be through the courts or any other route. They don't get the fine. The best they can hope for is to recover their costs if they take the court route. And they only have a certain budget, they do not have access to unlimited public funds. If they lose it can hit them heavily in their budget.
The gain the FRS gets is a safer environment. At an individual level, members of an FRS may be driven by a desire for personal kudos (Brownie points).
On the other hand, the responsible person they are at odds with, virtually always stands to gain financially if they win the case.
So it is usually a conflict of morals against money.
Stu
-
Hi Wiz
As Stu said the Brigade will normally have a budget set aside for prosecutions. Losing a case can prove to be very expensive, and the pot of money allocated for prosecutions may not be large enough to cover it - thus funds would have to be sought from other areas of the brigade if it came to it.
Consequently Brigades do (normally) think very carefully before bringing forward prosecutions
in the knowledge that any cases lost could affect financial resources in other areas of the service.
In the case of the RP yes unfortunately they do have to fork out for intial costs. It is worth bearing in mind that they may qualify for legal aid in some circumstances.
Like it or lump that is the legal system and is no different from you taking me to court for instance Wiz. I'd have to fork out costs to defend any action you took against me whether I liked it or not - or whether i had the funds to do so or not. You may be way richer than I and be able to afford a much better lawyer / barrister than I could. Thats life I guess!
-
Hi Wiz
As Stu said the Brigade will normally have a budget set aside for prosecutions. Losing a case can prove to be very expensive, and the pot of money allocated for prosecutions may not be large enough to cover it - thus funds would have to be sought from other areas of the brigade if it came to it.
Consequently Brigades do (normally) think very carefully before bringing forward prosecutions
in the knowledge that any cases lost could affect financial resources in other areas of the service.
In the case of the RP yes unfortunately they do have to fork out for intial costs. It is worth bearing in mind that they may qualify for legal aid in some circumstances.
Like it or lump that is the legal system and is no different from you taking me to court for instance Wiz. I'd have to fork out costs to defend any action you took against me whether I liked it or not - or whether i had the funds to do so or not. You may be way richer than I and be able to afford a much better lawyer / barrister than I could. Thats life I guess!
Hi MR - are there stats on FRS prosecutions and the ones that have not been successful.
I have always been of the opinion that if a prosecution is raised by the FRS then it's a matter of how hard the accused are "hit",as opposed to the action being unsuccessful (for the very reasons of public funding that you have given)
-
Hi Buzz
Not sure if there are any details of unsuccesful prosecutions widely available - however Im sure a fellow firenetter may know where such info can be found.
-
Hi Buzz
Not sure if there are any details of unsuccesful prosecutions widely available - however Im sure a fellow firenetter may know where such info can be found.
On this forum, successful prosecutions are posted. I've always thought that it would be equally useful to have a thread devoted to unsuccessful prosecution attempts. Does anyone else agree that there's mileage in this?
Or are they already posted alongside the successful prosecutions - just more difficult to find?
Stu
-
Bear in mind we are talkng about two different processes here! The original post as about a determination made by the Secretary of State not about a prosecution in the courts. In the former arguements are put forward by both sides as to the interpretation of guides, legal prosecution does not come into the matter. The only costs in the determination are those involved with the experts. There is no need to get the courts involved.
If however the SoS had determined that smokes were needed and the RP refused to comply, then the FRS could take the RP to court and the costs would mount.
Incidentally all the determinations made by the SoS are available on the CLG website.
Incidentally when it comes to court prosecutions one of the overriding considerations is are we going to win this one? The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and most of the time it is up to the prosecutor first to prove that an offense has occured and then that the accused was the person who committed the offense and all the correct steps have been taken. Just look at the number of cases that have been thrown out of court not because the accused was proved innocent but because of a technicallity. Does the name Rosepark raise any memories?
-
Wiz, On the matter of costs, both parties in such a dispute each meet their own costs. So ratepayers and client pay to have somethng resolved that Civvy (God bless him) did not think needed resolved, based on his very clear analysis of the matter.
On the separate matter of prosecutions, what the successful prosecutions NEVER show is the charges that were dropped or that a not guilty plea was accepted. In my experience there are usually far more of these than the successful charges, largely because F&RS in E&W do not follow the code of practice for prosecutors.
Dare one mention that in Scotland, things are very different because the F&RS does not bring the prosecution but a very sensible and wise man called the PF does it. And he would have no hesitation in using the language civvy suggested if crap were laid as a complaint before him.
-
I can understand the arguments of those who say that if the authorative guidance has been followed then the the F&RS should accept this.
I also understand those who say that the authorative guidance needs to be challenged sometimes to possibly improve matters.
I understand how an unsuspecting RP can be dragged into a situation, but feel it is unfair that they are. If they have done everything to 'the book' it is unfair that they have to pay (in terms of time and stress, at the very least) to be used as a 'test case'
Surely, we could have a more sensible system. Surely, respected organisations such as F&RS can negotiate with those who produce authorative guidance documents to propose amendments or argue serious deficiencies etc?
Why drag innocent parties into it?
And if, as I understand Mr C.T. is suggesting , there are many 'not guilty' pleas accepted or case dropped in prosecutions brought by the F&RS then it is verging on the scandalous. I want the F&RS to use my taxpayers money more wisely.
-
I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.
Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.
On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more
And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.
-
I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.
Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.
On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more
And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.
My understanding is that this was a determination following a dispute and not a prosecution through the courts.
-
You are correct Mr A. But why let the facts get in the way of people having a good rant. It relieves their stress and so saves Wiz the taxpayer paying the NHS to sort out heart attacks. Personally, I find Talisker more effective, but each to their own remedy.
Clevey old chap, you will find that CFOA are not represented on technical matters by those who are not involved in the subject matter (usually).
Wizzy, it grieves me to inform you that this is precisely how your money is being spent, though Buzzydosh is kept safe in his coffers ready to buy me a drink in Belfast, cos the NI F&RS do not waste their time in frivolous prosecutions, because they are more interested in serving the good people of the Province than acting like the Sweeney (you're nicked son). And it is worse that you suspect, because if it turns out the F&RS charges are a crock of yon stuff, the defendant (regardless of means) can claim all their costs back from the public purse, namely the corporation tax of Wizzyco.
-
I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.
Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.
On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more
And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.
My understanding is that this was a determination following a dispute and not a prosecution through the courts.
Whatever it was Mr Angry, it still meant the poor old 'responsible person' was forced to pay in time and/or stress and/or money just for following the authorative guidance but which the F&RS decided to inexplicably disagree with, and worse still they used my hard-earned tax money to do so! Shame on them!
-
You are correct Mr A. But why let the facts get in the way of people having a good rant. It relieves their stress and so saves Wiz the taxpayer paying the NHS to sort out heart attacks. Personally, I find Talisker more effective, but each to their own remedy.
Clevey old chap, you will find that CFOA are not represented on technical matters by those who are not involved in the subject matter (usually).
Wizzy, it grieves me to inform you that this is precisely how your money is being spent, though Buzzydosh is kept safe in his coffers ready to buy me a drink in Belfast, cos the NI F&RS do not waste their time in frivolous prosecutions, because they are more interested in serving the good people of the Province than acting like the Sweeney (you're nicked son). And it is worse that you suspect, because if it turns out the F&RS charges are a crock of yon stuff, the defendant (regardless of means) can claim all their costs back from the public purse, namely the corporation tax of Wizzyco.
Colin, Some may see it as a rant, others may hope that if enough people make their feelings known about this sort of waste of taxpayers money, then things might change.
I know. Pigs might also fly! Pass the Talisker!
Wizzyco has now decided not to pay any further Council Tax.
-
Wizzy, The Rp did spend a lot of time, but had the balls to stand up for what they believed in. They did spend money also, but it went to a good cause, namely port and cigars for the lawyers and maintenance for the former Mrs Todd (God bless her). With regard to their stress levels, they were alleviated by the enjoyment of my sparkling wit and repartee, of which you denied Wizzyco the benefit when you declined my offer of tuition in BS 7273-4.
Ps If God reads this, please rescind the above request.
-
Difficult one this. I see your argument Wiz, the stress for RP, and the financial outlay etc, but atleast there is the mechanism whereby the RP can challenge the enforcing authority, and that is, like it or lump it a good thing in the long run.
-
Wizzy, The Rp did spend a lot of time, but had the balls to stand up for what they believed in. They did spend money also, but it went to a good cause, namely port and cigars for the lawyers and maintenance for the former Mrs Todd (God bless her). With regard to their stress levels, they were alleviated by the enjoyment of my sparkling wit and repartee, of which you denied Wizzyco the benefit when you declined my offer of tuition in BS 7273-4.
Ps If God reads this, please rescind the above request.
So now it seems I'm paying for the maintenance of the former Mrs Todd! How did that come about? I've never even met her!
Never mind, I will now guess the amount that the F&RS wasted on their pointless efforts, add 10% to this figure, for luck, and then overcharge them by this amount on their next purchase from me (I also do this to the Rozzers in respect of speeding fines and to the local Council for parking tickets). I know it wasn't me that suffered the problem, but hey, someone has got to punish them for it!
In fact, this is how the world goes around; I pay my taxes for worthless services but charge my customers to cover those charges (plus profit). So, I'm alright Jack.
It seems the only ones losing out are the people who have no-one to pass the burden on to!
And it is their own fault for letting it happen to them. So there!
-
And I don't see it as the FRS thinking that they will try it on and go for a determination 'just to see'. The chances are that they will have enforced SD in hotel rooms (Thinking they are doing the right thing, might I add) a number of times with no appeal being brought forward. It is the RP challenging the FRS that caused the whole case.
Whether they were right or wrong to do this people need to remember that the FRS gain nothing through prosecutions, and we gain nothing through enforcing stuff. We are not like the extinguisher saleman selling stuff that is not needed in order to line his own pockets. We are generally working on the side of caution, and the end purpose is to make places safer. At times misguided, yes. But if you explain to Joe Public that BS5839-1 pretty much says he is expendable when in a hotel I am sure that he would be on that FRS' side when it comes to SD regardless of what statistics you can show him.
-
Difficult one this. I see your argument Wiz, the stress for RP, and the financial outlay etc, but atleast there is the mechanism whereby the RP can challenge the enforcing authority, and that is, like it or lump it a good thing in the long run.
M.R., in my opinion if the F&RS thought the authorative guidance was wrong, then there should be a way where they could challenge it without involving a RP (who is only doing what everybody else says is correct). In this case maybe the F&RS should have taken on the BSI directly in some way.
-
And I don't see it as the FRS thinking that they will try it on and go for a determination 'just to see'. The chances are that they will have enforced SD in hotel rooms (Thinking they are doing the right thing, might I add) a number of times with no appeal being brought forward. It is the RP challenging the FRS that caused the whole case.
Whether they were right or wrong to do this people need to remember that the FRS gain nothing through prosecutions, and we gain nothing through enforcing stuff. We are not like the extinguisher saleman selling stuff that is not needed in order to line his own pockets. We are generally working on the side of caution, and the end purpose is to make places safer. At times misguided, yes. But if you explain to Joe Public that BS5839-1 pretty much says he is expendable when in a hotel I am sure that he would be on that FRS' side when it comes to SD regardless of what statistics you can show him.
CivvyFSO, I have no doubt that the F&RS had what they thought were the best intentions. In fact, they can use the 'public safety' argument to anything they may come up with. It is hard to argue against such an argument when put as a 'bare' statement. But should they be doing what they did in this case?
Surely, they should be enforcing failures to comply with existing recognised published 'authorative guidance' and not making up their own guidance, just because they think they know better? Or is this actually one of their many roles, and I have just misunderstood things?
There has always been too many people putting their oar in and stating 'how things should be done'. Is it right that the GLC, the ACFO, the WI, the YMCA, Fireman Sam and the teletubbies can all put forward their own ideas in contradiction to existing 'authortive guidance' and suggest that it should have equal validity? Such a plethora of contradictions make the whole issue confusing to those trying to comply.
We should all be working together to form one set of recommendations that are easy for everyone to understand and to comply with.
Also, I thought the smoke detectors in hotel bedrooms requirement was a pretty straight forward argument. I'm sure the F&RS service would be the first to complain about a high level of unwanted alarms caused by guests smoking and steam from bathrooms etc. Also if smoke detection in bedrooms is so critical, why does the F&RS not lobby for them to be fitted in domestic situations as well?
Personally, I feel the best compromise would be that all hotels would be required to have addressable fire alarm systems with smoke detectors and sounders in bedrooms, but the system would be configured so that the bedroom smoke detector only operated that bedroom sounder and also, of course, warned the hotel management to investigate. This would provide smoke detection coverage for the bedroom occupants but without unwanted alarms causing the whole hotel to be eveacuated. Simples!
-
I think I agree with all you are saying Wiz.
The working together thing is difficult while we have ever-so-slightly different agendas.
a) FRS: Ultimate safety regardless of cost. (We want sprinklers everywhere)
b) Consultant: Reasonable safety, taking cost into account. (Saving just enough to warrant the RP paying you for your services)
c) RP: No cost whatsoever please.
d) Fire Engineer: Sub-standard level of safety, proved to be completely acceptable in terms of Q,M,Z,V & T. (Same cost to RP as "a" or "b" but money ends up in engineers pocket)
-
I also agree with you Wiz and can't really argue with anything you have said.
I would love to see clearly defined boundaries when it comes to the legislatuion, the guidance and standards out there, and instead of different guides and indeed legislation which contradict each other why not have as set of guides which make fire safety clearer particularly for RPs, and which is line with guidance / legislation used by other authorities (such as Building Control etc )
This buisness of the Fire Authority challenging standards directly with the policy makers themselves rather than the RP is legimtimate argument too. Infact I'm not sure why this does not take place. Perhaps it does, but I've never heard of it. There are reasons why I suspect this doesn't happen to be honest.
As an aside the Fire Authorities in the UK have lobbied for smoke detection in domestic dwellings for many years. Because it hasn't any powers of enforcement in single domestic dwellings the UK Fire & Rescue service introduced Home Fire Safety Checks / Free fitting of smoke alarms. And don't forget all new dwellings now have to have mains powered smoke detection under building regs. So some policy changes do get made....eventually.
-
I think I agree with all you are saying Wiz.
The working together thing is difficult while we have ever-so-slightly different agendas.
a) FRS: Ultimate safety regardless of cost. (We want sprinklers everywhere)
b) Consultant: Reasonable safety, taking cost into account. (Saving just enough to warrant the RP paying you for your services)
c) RP: No cost whatsoever please.
d) Fire Engineer: Sub-standard level of safety, proved to be completely acceptable in terms of Q,M,Z,V & T. (Same cost to RP as "a" or "b" but money ends up in engineers pocket)
Civvy, I don't know whether you are serious with all of the above!
If you are, may I offer my own perspective on their agendas:
a) FRS: Unlikely to consider cost to benefit. Prefers 'safest' option no matter the cost. Earns same wages anyway.
b) Consultant: Prefers high cost because fees are based on a percentage of project cost. Expects F.E. to do most of the work.
c) RP: Doesn't want to 'waste' money. Wonders why Consultant doesn't know what FRS wants.
d) Fire Engineer: Consultant/RP can have whatever they want but expects to be blamed if what they want is not compliant. Hopes to get paid for the job, one day!
-
I also agree with you Wiz and can't really argue with anything you have said.
I would love to see clearly defined boundaries when it comes to the legislatuion, the guidance and standards out there, and instead of different guides and indeed legislation which contradict each other why not have as set of guides which make fire safety clearer particularly for RPs, and which is line with guidance / legislation used by other authorities (such as Building Control etc )
This buisness of the Fire Authority challenging standards directly with the policy makers themselves rather than the RP is legimtimate argument too. Infact I'm not sure why this does not take place. Perhaps it does, but I've never heard of it. There are reasons why I suspect this doesn't happen to be honest.
As an aside the Fire Authorities in the UK have lobbied for smoke detection in domestic dwellings for many years. Because it hasn't any powers of enforcement in single domestic dwellings the UK Fire & Rescue service introduced Home Fire Safety Checks / Free fitting of smoke alarms. And don't forget all new dwellings now have to have mains powered smoke detection under building regs. So some policy changes do get made....eventually.
Mr MR, I agree with and undersatnd the points you make in the first two paragraphs of your post.
But despite all the good work the Fire Authorities have done improving the use of smoke detection in domestic dwellings, I have never seen anything regarding the 'paramount importance' of smoke detection in domestic bedrooms. If it is more important to have any smoke detection in circulation areas in domestic dwellings rather than bedrooms, why isn't it the same in hotels?
-
I'd like to point out that I actually have no problem with the F&RS trying to make our lives safer. I know that 99% of people involved in such, are doing so with the best intentions.
However, I would like to see the F&RS work to make changes to the recognised 'authorative guidance' where they consider there is a problem, rather than by taking action against a RP who has complied with the authorative Guidance
-
I'd like to point out that I actually have no problem with the F&RS trying to make our lives safer. I know that 99% of people involved in such, are doing so with the best intentions.
However, I would like to see the F&RS work to make changes to the recognised 'authorative guidance' where they consider there is a problem, rather than by taking action against a RP who has complied with the authorative Guidance
The preparation of this British Standard (BS5839 Pt 1 2002) was entrusted by Technical
Committee, FSH/12, Fire detection and alarm systems, to Subcommittee
FSH/12/1, Installation and servicing, upon which the following bodies were
represented:
Association of British Fire Trades
BRE Building Research Establishment
BRE/LPC Laboratories
British Cables Association
British Fire Consortium
British Fire Protection Systems Association
British Nuclear Fuels plc
BT plc
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Department of Health NHS Estates
Electrical Contractors Association
Energy Industries Council
Engineering Industries Association
Health and Safety Executive
Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate
Institution of Fire Prevention Officers
Institution of Fire Safety
Institute of Petroleum
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Line of Fire
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MOD — UK Defence Standardization
National Association of Fire Officers
National Caravan Council Limited
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting
Nuclear Industry Fire Safety
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — Building Regulations Division
Professional Lighting and Sound Association
Royal Society of Health
Trades Union Congress
-
I'd like to point out that I actually have no problem with the F&RS trying to make our lives safer. I know that 99% of people involved in such, are doing so with the best intentions.
However, I would like to see the F&RS work to make changes to the recognised 'authorative guidance' where they consider there is a problem, rather than by taking action against a RP who has complied with the authorative Guidance
The preparation of this British Standard (BS5839 Pt 1 2002) was entrusted by Technical
Committee, FSH/12, Fire detection and alarm systems, to Subcommittee
FSH/12/1, Installation and servicing, upon which the following bodies were
represented:
Association of British Fire Trades
BRE Building Research Establishment
BRE/LPC Laboratories
British Cables Association
British Fire Consortium
British Fire Protection Systems Association
British Nuclear Fuels plc
BT plc
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Department of Health NHS Estates
Electrical Contractors Association
Energy Industries Council
Engineering Industries Association
Health and Safety Executive
Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate
Institution of Fire Prevention Officers
Institution of Fire Safety
Institute of Petroleum
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Line of Fire
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MOD — UK Defence Standardization
National Association of Fire Officers
National Caravan Council Limited
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting
Nuclear Industry Fire Safety
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — Building Regulations Division
Professional Lighting and Sound Association
Royal Society of Health
Trades Union Congress
Cor! The FRS were brave going up against that lot! It even includes some of their own 'mates'.
But, of course, they weren't. Their target was a little RP. They obviously didn't realise that some RPs are prepared to fight back, and can call on the above troops as back up!
Hopefully the 'bullies' have now scurried away with a bloody nose and will think twice before 'picking on' the small kids in the future. In fact, if they don't act a bit more reasonably, maybe the headmaster should remove their 'prefect' privileges!
-
I'd like to point out that I actually have no problem with the F&RS trying to make our lives safer. I know that 99% of people involved in such, are doing so with the best intentions.
However, I would like to see the F&RS work to make changes to the recognised 'authorative guidance' where they consider there is a problem, rather than by taking action against a RP who has complied with the authorative Guidance
The preparation of this British Standard (BS5839 Pt 1 2002) was entrusted by Technical
Committee, FSH/12, Fire detection and alarm systems, to Subcommittee
FSH/12/1, Installation and servicing, upon which the following bodies were
represented:
Association of British Fire Trades
BRE Building Research Establishment
BRE/LPC Laboratories
British Cables Association
British Fire Consortium
British Fire Protection Systems Association
British Nuclear Fuels plc
BT plc
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Department of Health NHS Estates
Electrical Contractors Association
Energy Industries Council
Engineering Industries Association
Health and Safety Executive
Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate
Institution of Fire Prevention Officers
Institution of Fire Safety
Institute of Petroleum
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Line of Fire
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MOD — UK Defence Standardization
National Association of Fire Officers
National Caravan Council Limited
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting
Nuclear Industry Fire Safety
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — Building Regulations Division
Professional Lighting and Sound Association
Royal Society of Health
Trades Union Congress
Cor! The FRS were brave going up against that lot! It even includes some of their own 'mates'.
But, of course, they weren't. Their target was a little RP. They obviously didn't realise that some RPs are prepared to fight back, and can call on the above troops as back up!
Hopefully the 'bullies' have now scurried away with a bloody nose and will think twice before 'picking on' the small kids in the future. In fact, if they don't act a bit more reasonably, maybe the headmaster should remove their 'prefect' privileges!
It was the Caravan Council that got me shaking in my boots!
-
I'd like to point out that I actually have no problem with the F&RS trying to make our lives safer. I know that 99% of people involved in such, are doing so with the best intentions.
However, I would like to see the F&RS work to make changes to the recognised 'authorative guidance' where they consider there is a problem, rather than by taking action against a RP who has complied with the authorative Guidance
The preparation of this British Standard (BS5839 Pt 1 2002) was entrusted by Technical
Committee, FSH/12, Fire detection and alarm systems, to Subcommittee
FSH/12/1, Installation and servicing, upon which the following bodies were
represented:
Association of British Fire Trades
BRE Building Research Establishment
BRE/LPC Laboratories
British Cables Association
British Fire Consortium
British Fire Protection Systems Association
British Nuclear Fuels plc
BT plc
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
Consumer Policy Committee of BSI
Department of Health NHS Estates
Electrical Contractors Association
Energy Industries Council
Engineering Industries Association
Health and Safety Executive
Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate
Institution of Fire Prevention Officers
Institution of Fire Safety
Institute of Petroleum
Institution of Electrical Engineers
Line of Fire
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MOD — UK Defence Standardization
National Association of Fire Officers
National Caravan Council Limited
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting
Nuclear Industry Fire Safety
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — Building Regulations Division
Professional Lighting and Sound Association
Royal Society of Health
Trades Union Congress
Cor! The FRS were brave going up against that lot! It even includes some of their own 'mates'.
But, of course, they weren't. Their target was a little RP. They obviously didn't realise that some RPs are prepared to fight back, and can call on the above troops as back up!
Hopefully the 'bullies' have now scurried away with a bloody nose and will think twice before 'picking on' the small kids in the future. In fact, if they don't act a bit more reasonably, maybe the headmaster should remove their 'prefect' privileges!
It was the Caravan Council that got me shaking in my boots!
Point I am making is that if the F&R Service representation had concerns about the type of detection the BS is suggesting for hotel bedrooms why did it not open its gub at the committee stage, or did it forget to turn up?
The very fact that the BS was published as is suggests to me that it was with the F&R Service's blessing. Why did it then question a technical issue of a document it had already nodded through?
-
I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob :'(
In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?
Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.
-
I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob :'(
In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?
Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.
The determination has been very useful and informative and draws a line in the sand from which we can all move on but rather than criticising each other let us remember what I think was a ligitimate concern of the fire and rescue service in this case and which needed examination.
At the time of review of BS5839 part 1 in 2002 the principal focus was on the early detection of fire to ensure that the alarm was raised long before the escape routes become affected by fire or smoke. The longer it takes for the occupants of the building to respond and evacuate, the more comprehensive the need for detection to ensure a sufficiently early warning.
When the Fire Safety Order came into force in 2006 there was a new focus- the relevant person - and many people felt that perhaps the old 2002 standard did not give adequate protection to relevant persons in hotel bedrooms.
There was no empirical evidence to show that there was a problem, but as the new Order is so clear in applying the principles of protection many of us in the industry and in the enforcement agencies took the view that perhaps a person may be better protected if they are sleeping in a room fitted with a smoke detector rather than a heat detector.
There has been no research to justify this stance but it seems a reasonable premise to me. After all the BS5839 recommends rooms designed for use by disabled persons should be fitted with smoke detection to give them earlier warning of fire, as they take longer to respond. I also note the possible detrimental effect of more unwanted signals.
In an ideal world the fire authority could rally its forces and campaign for meeting of the various CFOA committees and this could lead to a call for a review by the BSI technical committee to review the standard but that would take forever.
The best way and quickest way forward is to use the determination process provided by the legislation, on condition that all parties are aware of the consequences and willing to see the process though to its conclusion. I believe this was the case in the recent determination and we all benefit from the clear guidance that resulted. We have a benchmark from which to work and I for one am grateful. It makes my job a lot easier, even if personally I disagree with the decision.
-
Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.
IIRC It is mentioned in the determination that there were no other factors put forward to be taken into account. It was just an average hotel.
-
Mr Angry, the FRS represent me, the taxpayer, and whilst I am not anti FRS (far from it), I am anti wasting my money, and particularly where it is done by trying to force a business owner to spend money on something the authorative guidance hasn't asked for.
If the FRS think that smoke detectors in hotel bedroom (or whatever) is important, and even when the authorative guidance says differently, then they should spend the taxpayers money on getting the guidance changed and not tell people 'we know better than the guidance, do as we say or else'
-
I believe that the use of Article 36 is important and should be used more often to look at the areas where difficulties lie, the HD SD argument is one of these difficult areas. I believe that Oxford FRS will not allow sleeping risk accommodation without SD in bedrooms but actively enforce the Uwfs policy as well.
The determination process is good much like the ACAS scheme but I would rather it be enforced by a neutral party rather than Home Office staff.
-
But how many of the above named organizations can double declutch a red HGV.
-
Wiz, I am at a complete loss as to where this wastage of tax payers (of which regretably I am one) money is coming from.
There was no prosecution it was a simple determination of dispute = no cost.
-
Oh and Colin, they are mostly autos nowadays...get with it. ;D
-
I seem to remember the old discussion of SD in hotel bedrooms from a few years back. It still amazes me how the life of the occupant/s of the room of origin can be discounted when determining the level of detection. What if this is a family room accommodating mum, dad, 2 kids and a baby. With today’s technology it is relatively simple to confine an initial sounder to the room of origin and alert the duty hotel staff. This should alleviate any concerns about unwanted alarms.
Incidentally I spent many years at military establishments attending hundreds of unwanted alarms and very few were caused by smoking in bedrooms. Even though said bedrooms fitted with S/D were frequently occupied by numerous persons, all happily smoking away.
It’s about time we started to think about saving the lives of the persons in immediate danger of the fire and not concentrating solely on the wellbeing of the rest of the occupants, who are already in a place of relative safety.
-
I think most people would agree with you in principle, Davey, but what's good for new build is not necessarily good for retrospective application. That's what this case is about - a number of brigades were trying to make existing buildings change their heat detectors to smoke (at considerable cost).
Stu
-
I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob :'(
In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?
Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.
The determination has been very useful and informative and draws a line in the sand from which we can all move on but rather than criticising each other let us remember what I think was a ligitimate concern of the fire and rescue service in this case and which needed examination.
At the time of review of BS5839 part 1 in 2002 the principal focus was on the early detection of fire to ensure that the alarm was raised long before the escape routes become affected by fire or smoke. The longer it takes for the occupants of the building to respond and evacuate, the more comprehensive the need for detection to ensure a sufficiently early warning.
When the Fire Safety Order came into force in 2006 there was a new focus- the relevant person - and many people felt that perhaps the old 2002 standard did not give adequate protection to relevant persons in hotel bedrooms.
There was no empirical evidence to show that there was a problem, but as the new Order is so clear in applying the principles of protection many of us in the industry and in the enforcement agencies took the view that perhaps a person may be better protected if they are sleeping in a room fitted with a smoke detector rather than a heat detector.
There has been no research to justify this stance but it seems a reasonable premise to me. After all the BS5839 recommends rooms designed for use by disabled persons should be fitted with smoke detection to give them earlier warning of fire, as they take longer to respond. I also note the possible detrimental effect of more unwanted signals.
In an ideal world the fire authority could rally its forces and campaign for meeting of the various CFOA committees and this could lead to a call for a review by the BSI technical committee to review the standard but that would take forever.
The best way and quickest way forward is to use the determination process provided by the legislation, on condition that all parties are aware of the consequences and willing to see the process though to its conclusion. I believe this was the case in the recent determination and we all benefit from the clear guidance that resulted. We have a benchmark from which to work and I for one am grateful. It makes my job a lot easier, even if personally I disagree with the decision.
Kurnal, i totally agree.
-
The determination process is good much like the ACAS scheme but I would rather it be enforced by a neutral party rather than Home Office staff.
They are a neutral party. F&RS's are funded by their respective Local Authorities and are run independently of each other. All of them have slightly differing views and stances, which is why we so often compare and refer to the differences of each authority.
CFRA, works as an advisor to the government as an independant entity (in respect of this discussion). They have no affiliation to any F&RS, company or financial organisation. Because of this they do not have a vested interest either way in a dispute.
-
Wiz, I am at a complete loss as to where this wastage of tax payers (of which regretably I am one) money is coming from.
There was no prosecution it was a simple determination of dispute = no cost.
Mr Angry, I do not profess to fully understand the process of this 'determination' and I apologise for my ignorance. However, previous posts have indicated that the Responsible Person had to 'defend' his stance in refusing to use smoke detectors instead of heat detectors. Did he not have to pay for someone to defend his point of view? Did he not have sleepless nights worrying why he was being made an example of, just for following the 'authorative guidance'?
At the end of the day his losses were probably far lower than they could have been. But I bet he had losses that he shouldn't have had in the first place.
The rules should be the rules. We can't have the FRS (or anyone else) just making up new rules just because they think they might be valid. There has to be a process that enables them to lobby for 'rule changes' and which doesn't drag in an innocent party.
-
The other advantage with determinations is that they go to the people who are responsible for the legislation and guidance.
This ensures that they have to deal with some of the problems that they have created. This could just motivate them to resolve some of them.
-
Terry, Sir KK was the Commissioner of the LFB and still has numerous contacts within Fire Brigade circles, his staff are and were serving Fire Brigade Officers.
Can you explain how this is a neutral poistion?
-
The other advantage with determinations is that they go to the people who are responsible for the legislation and guidance.
This ensures that they have to deal with some of the problems that they have created. This could just motivate them to resolve some of them.
Good point.
-
Terry, Sir KK was the Commissioner of the LFB and still has numerous contacts within Fire Brigade circles, his staff are and were serving Fire Brigade Officers.
Can you explain how this is a neutral poistion?
And since when did being a Commissioner or a F&R Service officer mean having any sort of knowledge of Fire Safety pray tell?
-
Anyone fancy a pint?
-
In the hotel room I am sitting in at the moment, there is a SD positioned directly outside the bathroom. Apart from actually being in the bathroom, this is the worst position it could be in.
This part of the hotel has been up about 12 months.
Obviously the alarm installers position the heads where there is the highest liklihood of unwanted alarms, so they get called out more.
-
In the hotel room I am sitting in at the moment, there is a SD positioned directly outside the bathroom. Apart from actually being in the bathroom, this is the worst position it could be in.
This part of the hotel has been up about 12 months.
Obviously the alarm installers position the heads where there is the highest liklihood of unwanted alarms, so they get called out more.
Davey,
I'm in a hotel at the moment looking at a smoke detector right outside the bathroom. Are you next door?
Stu
ps When are you going to stop that banging?
-
Would you two be quiet and go to sleep.
Night Stu. Night Davey.
-
Would you two be quiet and go to sleep.
Night Stu. Night Davey.
Well,Im in a hotel just outside Stroke City and the night porter is serving beer,and will continue to do so until (i) I go to bed or (ii) breakfast is served!
As far as AFD goes,half the rooms (the "new" bit) have AFD via a Minerva 80,the rest don't but have detection in common areas (via a JSB panel) and neither set the other off!!!
Can anyone set me straight on what the requirements are in this quaint liilte place we call Norn Iron!
-
Heres another angle on the discussion of detection in hotel bedrooms.
If a hotel sets aside Bedrooms for use by staff this constitutes an HMO.(As I read the Housing Act 2004).
The staff bedroom is therefore domestic premises and so the Fire Safety Order does not apply within it? No requirement can be made in respect of the provision of detection within rooms under the Fire Safety Order?
-
The staff bedroom is therefore domestic premises and so the Fire Safety Order does not apply within it? No requirement can be made in respect of the provision of detection within rooms under the Fire Safety Order?
Kurnal -
Can it not be argued using the following articles from the RRO that indeed the RRO does have bearing to the staff rooms and therefore co-operation of their occupants is required:
Article 13,1 Fire-fighting and fire detection
13. —(1) Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that—
a) the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and
Article 17,1 [/b] - 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.
(2) Where the premises form part of a building, the responsible person may make arrangements with the occupier of any other premises forming part of the building for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.
(3) Paragraph (2) applies even if the other premises are not premises to which this Order applies.
(4) The occupier of the other premises must co-operate with the responsible person for the purposes of paragraph (2).[/b]
(5) Where the occupier of the other premises is not also the owner of those premises, the references to the occupier in paragraphs (2) and (4) are to be taken to be references to both the occupier and the owner.
-
Heres another angle on the discussion of detection in hotel bedrooms.
Bedrooms set aside for use by staff in hotels are HMOs.(As I read the Housing Act 2004).
The staff bedroom is therefore domestic premises and so the Fire Safety Order does not apply within it? No requirement can be made in respect of the provision of detection within rooms under the Fire Safety Order?
K. Is a staff bedroom not an extension of their workplace and as such come under the Order? If they are at their place of work are they not at risk in that part of the workplace where they and others sleep?
Just a thought.
-
Hightower I refer to article 6(1) a of the FSO- the order does not apply to domestic premises. In my hotel, there is only a single occupier so the provisions of article 17 (2)
are not relevant to the case. ( I think!)
NT- The definition of a workplace means "any parts of premises not being domestic premises...."
Domestic Premises means "premises occupied as a private dwelling...."
The Fire Safety Order does not define private dwelling. Paragraph 6 of Guidance note number 1 adds a statement that "........the Order does not apply to domestic premises used for domestic purposes"
Sections 254-260 of the Housing Act 2004 deal with the determination of whether premises are a HMO. Guidance notes published by local authorites do to some extent vary in their interpretation, but for example in the East Midlands the Government funded Decent and Safe Homes (DASH) East Midlands guidance clearly covers staff bedrooms in workplaces- eg staff bedrooms in hotels, staff bedrooms in restaurants etc.
-
Terry, Sir KK was the Commissioner of the LFB and still has numerous contacts within Fire Brigade circles, his staff are and were serving Fire Brigade Officers.
Can you explain how this is a neutral poistion?
No. in short. Nowhere will you find a truely neutral position.
but i don't think the example you refer to is much different in any organisation. An investigation by any organisation or company could be impacted on by familiarity, especially in the field of fire safety. I would be richer than Mr abramovich if i had a quid for every time i heard ' oh, i used to be a fire officer before i retired and started this job'. while i've still got my rose tinted glasses on i would like to add that, we hope everyone everywhere uses there proffessional judgement.
-
Not doubting the wisdom and knowledge of others this is an interesting legal piece about the definition of a dwelling.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm
-
Kurnal, for it to be a HMO then there would have to be 3 or more unrelated tenants and rent (or other consideration) would have to be paid.
Back to common sense... Would a room in a hotel be classed as private just because it is 'put aside' for staff? I would suggest not, and I would challenge it on that basis. I would also point out the decision regarding self-catering holiday lets, the decision being that the RRO applies even though it is quite specifically domestic use. The hotel room also has the added duty of having to comply with the HSAW Act due to the presence of employees.
Even if someone could convince me, or someone else, that it was private and domestic then the occupier would remain a relevant person, and require protecting one way or another. If people argue about access to fit detection/sounders etc then we go down the route of passive measures or prohibition.
-
Yes civvy I have in mind a third floor of a five storey hotel building which has 12 staff bedrooms, the top floor is hotel penthouse rooms for hotel guests. The staff are mostly migrant workers who sleep in the rooms and mostly eat in the staff dining room. All single people though some rooms have two matresses. The staff kitchen is on the first floor. Licensable HMO?(for arguments sake and for comparison with the approach of the Old FP act)
-
Sounds quite specific, I guess you are not being creative and thinking up new ways to confuse us?
-
I thought my query was particularly relevant to this thread as the outcome could affect the authority of the Fire Brigade to requre the installation of ANY detector in a staff bedroom of a hotel as I see it, never mind an argument over heat or smoke. I used a specific hotel scenario because that is the subject of this thread, the premises that I have in mind is actually a restaurant with staff bedrooms for migrant workers and the case is still ongoing. But the fundamental issue is the same.
The detail in the hotel scenario is deliberately structured and embellished to query other peoples views on the licensing of HMOs, because the Housing Act and National Guidance give different definitions of what constiutes a 3 storey HMO.
I posted here out of interest because in the case involved the brigade had served a prohibition notice on the bedrooms and subsequently lifted it on completion of the work required. It seems that nobody had addressed the HMO licensing situation. I got involved as part of the additional requirements - to carry out a risk assessment.
Overall for me its one of those uncomfortable situations where I am suggesting to my client all sorts of ramifications to regularise things that go beyond what the enforcement guys are asking him to do- like apply for a licence for example and install smoke detection in the common areas and fire doors to the bedrooms - the brigade have just asked for a sounder connected to the alarm system in the commercial rooms below. Sometimes it makes you question your own actions and this is as good a sounding board as any other.
But to me it raises very interesting questions over the way staff bedrooms in hotels are dealt with since the Fire Safety Order and the demise of the FP Act.
-
Kurnal I see your point and think you raise a valid argument
In response I would have to say that even with staff accomdation provided a Hotel is not in part nor in full a HMO. The reasons being are as follows:-
1) A hotrl is purpose built as a hotel. Just because staff stay there doesn't change that definition.Even depsite any argument that it may be in part HMO the use of the building would be predominantly that of a hotel without argument.
2) The hotel should have been built to the prevailing building regulations at the time. Most HMOs are converted domestic dwelligs which didnt obtain building regs approval. If the hotel was built to prevailing building regulations it would automatically rule out it being a HMO according to the Housing Act.
3) A hotel room regardless of who stays in it has the potential to affect the means of escape for the premises and relevant persons. Thus measures to protect the common moe take presidence either through detection / fire seperation, or where that can not achieved the immediate and unmitigated use of a prohibition notice or restriction notice by the fire service. This has already been done on several occassions.
4) The responsible person has a duty to protect relevant persons. This includes staff as well as guests. By virtue of this detection would have to be installed anyway atleast in a hotel scenario.
5) LHA would not have any jurisdiction in a hotel unless the building was proven to part HMO which is highly improbable. Otherwise the fire authority has by law full jurisdiction to make requirements in a hotel under the RRO regardless of whether staff or members or public stay there or indeed any tennancy conditions are prevailing therein (which again is highly unlikely).
-
Tough one.
The wording in Lacors guidance seems to point towards the whole HMO needing to be at least 3 storeys, not necessarily just occupying any floor above the first floor.
I don't see what is wrong with what you are doing. It might seem to your client that you are being a bit meaner than the FRS, but you are giving advice on something that is beyond the FRS's power to enforce or request, although the local Authority should have been dragged in to this by the FRS.
Is your client aware of the penalties for not having a licence where one is required?
-
2) The hotel should have been built to the prevailing building regulations at the time. Most HMOs are converted domestic dwelligs which didnt obtain building regs approval. If the hotel was built to prevailing building regulations it would automatically rule out it being a HMO according to the Housing Act.
The relevance with building regs only applies with reference to premises converted into flats.
-
Sorry this appears to be going off thread. Thanks for the replies, I agree that the issue hangs on whether staff bedrooms, which are charged for by deduction from the hourly rate, constitute domestic premises. On reading the guidance to support the Housing Act there is much to persuade me that they are domestic premises, whereas several fire service colleagues disagree and think that it is part of the workplace. I guess it may take another determination to be sure.
-
Sorry this appears to be going off thread. Thanks for the replies, I agree that the issue hangs on whether staff bedrooms, which are charged for by deduction from the hourly rate, constitute domestic premises. On reading the guidance to support the Housing Act there is much to persuade me that they are domestic premises, whereas several fire service colleagues disagree and think that it is part of the workplace. I guess it may take another determination to be sure.
What about just tossing a coin? Then we will not be less wrong than right nor more right than wrong.
That from the developing wisdom of my student - Solomon.
-
K
Excuse my ignorance but surely they are not at work, not receiving remuneration, so surely the rooms are not a workplace ???
Agree with Clevey!
davo
-
K
Excuse my ignorance but surely they are not at work, not receiving remuneration, so surely the rooms are not a workplace ???
Agree with Clevey!
davo
Davo. When an employee is on meal break using staff canteen/rest room they are normally not receiving remuneration but it is still part of their workplace. IMHO
-
I think I have it........
If you want to claim that rooms in a hotel are indeed 'domestic' dwellings then apply to building control for a change of use from purpose group 2 to purpose group 1 and see how far you get.
Until you have successfully done that and changed the purpose group, they are not private domestic dwellings, as such the RRFSO points towards them being a workplace and the people in the rooms are without doubt employees.
Do I win?
-
CivvyFSO
I think we all know the answer to para one, especially if the rooms are basic hotel type ie no kitchen etc etc as we would expect in our own residences.
I still say Clevey's point about affecting the other areas is the most valid
davo
ps do I get another prize for being the 100th post ???
-
Yes Civvy. Both you and Cleveland have touched on what I think is the main point - The official designated use of the premises in law.
What was the premises built as? Has there been a change of use? If so have building control been informed / agreed to that change of use?. If they haven't the building remains defacto and de jure a hotel.
What business tax (or whatever the correct term is for it) do they pay? Is it for a hotel or HMO?
Also you will probably find that any tenancy agreements in place for the staff staying there will differ from those offered to tenants in HMOs.
I can find little in the Housing Act that convinces me (atleast in a hotel scenario) that part of the hotel could be classed as a HMO.
-
What was the premises built as? Has there been a change of use? If so have building control been informed / agreed to that change of use?. If they haven't the building remains defacto and de jure a hotel.
So. If I take a house and convert it to a shop. But I don't get Building Control Approval. The Order doesn't apply............as it remains a house.
Perhaps a rethink......
-
Perhaps a rethink......
Nope
If you did that you would need to inform Building Control. If you didn't thats by the by you may find Building Control pay you a visit!
The fact is you would be creating a workplace and therefore RRO would definately apply.
-
Midland, I think you just made his point for him. Simply not informing building control does not mean it stays in its original purpose group.
However, I still say you cannot call it a private domestic dwelling until you compartment it off from the other purpose group as would be required under building regs. Until you do that it remains part of the hotel, thus NOT private.
This might take someone looking through the Housing Act in more detail than I am willing to bother with...... :)
If I found this happening on inspection, I would look at it from the point of these rooms being no different to having a member of the public in them. If the hotel owner wanted to say that I couldn't ask for the detectors in those rooms maintained etc then I would point him towards building regs and the housing act, and until he has changed the purpose group I would deal with it under the RRO. I would let anything he appealed go to determination unless some information was forthcoming that proved it was private and domestic. (Or a ship) Once he has changed the purpose group and got it through building regs then we should have no problem anyway.
-
Midland, I think you just made his point for him. Simply not informing building control does not mean it stays in its original purpose group.
Nope don't think I have made his point for him at all. If Wee B was a law obiding ciitzen he should have informed building control and made the relevant applications before doing the works. If he chooses not to thats his lookout, but he risks Building Contol taking legal action
The point I'm making is this: If your hotel owner tells you politely to bugger off because the hotel is now partly a HMO and points out you dont have the jurisdiction to undertake an inspection in the bedrooms then I'd be asking him to prove the premises are a HMO.
Did he seek a change of use ? Does he pay business rates as a HMO? What are the tennancy agreements? Do the staff get deductions out of the wages for rent. Are they entitled lodgings in their contracts of employment.
Besides the hotel can not be a HMO anyway if:-
1) It was purpose built as a hotel
2) If it was a building CONVERTED into a hotel to building regs standards it can not by definition be a HMO either. Even if the hotel was converted to provide student accomodation lets say (and done so to current building regs) it would fall under the designation of a flat or maisonette potentially but not a HMO
-
I am in agreement with you in the main part Retty. Particularly how we would deal with a stroppy hotel owner.
The point I am making (And that WB made) is that you can change the use of a premises without informing building control. It is wrong, and you could get into much trouble for it, but you can still do it. I could get a dodgy builder in to the hotel in question, rip out the ground floor and turn it into a shop. I have effectively changed its use as it is now used as a shop. I haven't complied with the Building regs and done any of the work that would have normally accompanied that change of use, but I have changed its use nevertheless. (Just the same way as you can break the speed limit.)
Where does it say in the housing act that a hotel cannot be a HMO? Don't get the converted building thing confused with the housing act definition regarding premises that have been converted into flats or purpose built as flats.
P.S. Just to argue a slightly different point there. You would need access to the rooms to ensure that detectors are still there protecting the escape route to the L2 standard required for a hotel. Even if the RRO does not apply to a premises, that doesn't affect your rights of entry if they are justified, and the occupier has a duty to assist the RP with regards any maintenance requirements. I am not saying it will be easy though. :)
-
Hi Civvy
It seems we agree on the meaty / important bits of the argument
But Wee Bee argues his mythical premises wouldnt be subject to the RRO - if he turned part of his home into a shop yes it would because it is obvious the use of the building would no longer be soley a domestic premises, and we know the order applies to workplaces.
My argument is based on something not quite so black and white.
I still standby my comments regarding the fact that a purpose built building simply can not be a HMO .
If I bought an old factory building and decided to carve it up into little self contained flats and didnt consult Building Regs and I start letting out those rooms then yes you could say it is a defacto HMO in that respect. But I'd be operating illegally!
If however I took that factory, went through all proper channels, got planning / buuilding regs approval and did a proper job I wouldnt have an HMO I'd have a block self contained flats, it wouldn't be classed legally as a HMO.
-
Wee Brians argument was based around pointing out the fault in our own logic. :-\
Ok. Awkward head going on...
I have just bought a fully functioning 6 storey hotel from Kurnal.... (Gave me it cheap he did too)
I am going to run the first 3 storeys just as a hotel.
The top three floors I am going to rent out, to 15 of my unrelated minimum wage workforce.
I am going to convert one room on each floor into a kitchen for the floor to share, it already has a FD30S door on it so should meet any other guidance I can be bothered to consider.
I am going to completely remove the detection from the rooms in this area apart from the kitchen, and replace it with detection in the corridor only. (I don't want my own staff causing evacuations)
Community fire safety can come talk to my tenants and give them some free smoke detectors if required.
Show me any part of the housing act that says that this can not be a HMO. (I am not suggesting that you can't, just that I have looked and I can't find it. :))
However, if it is not a HMO, then are you also saying that the rooms are not private and domestic? If so should you really enforce the replacement of the L2 system? How would I stand arguing that they ARE domestic because people are living there, as their permanent home, referrring you to the case law that nearlythere pointed us towards.
(I think this is Kurnals problem. If the FRS involved are happy with detection in the common area only, are they really saying that as far as they are concerned it is private & domestic use. If it is truly domestic then the RRO won't apply to the rooms but then housing act needs to be considered. Kurnal either needs to say that the rooms are not domestic, and as such he will be recommending a higher level of fire alarm than the FRS has asked for, or if he says they are actually domestic then he is having to suggest that the RP pays for a HMO licence, which the FRS haven't mentioned. So Kurnal looks like the bad guy. Am I reading this right Kurnal?)
-
Civvy Civvy Civvy I can't help but feel that you've wandered into the realms of fantasy there!... I'll nevertheless indulge you.
If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations
Those nice people at Building Control will require you two seperate both "uses" with appropriate F/R. They would see the HMO part as a dwelling, and the Hotel part as a hotel. Simples!
So if you were a good little Civvy and did that I'd be perfectly happy!(Or if I felt the AFD wasn't to the correct standard in the your newly created HMO I'd pass my concerns onto the local housing authority for them to take it up).
If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.
I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible), justify why you have lowered standards and I'd then be duty bound to report you to the local Building Control Dept.
Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!
With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.
Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe. You can by all means allow staff to stay on the premises, but their accomodation should be protected by fire precautions of the same standards to those found elsewhere in the hotel.
Yes you could be underhanded and go ahead and lower the standard anyway, but if an inspector calls you know what would subsequently happen.
-
Shall we try to go back to basics and to the original thread.
Hotels have always had wings set aside for staff. They are invariably extremely grotty and you would not dream of letting them to paying guests. Sometimes they were part of the hotel main building and sometimes they were annexes. The good old FP Act specifically covered staff rooms and made provision for their control via the fire certificate.
Now heres the rub. The Fire Safety Order specifically excludes domestic premises (except for article 31). Could we consider staff bedrooms to be part of the workplace ? From my interpretation, the definition in the FSO of a workplace excludes parts of premises used as a private dwellings. As far as I know the only definition of a private dwelling appears to Case Law and the Housing Act.
Looking at the definitions in the Housing Act (and the guidance and case Law - thanks NT) it appears to me that a room occupied by an employee as part of the job is a private dwelling- ie Domestic Premises. And taking it further if there are a number of such rooms in a building then it is probably a HMO.
Hence my question. Hope this has clarified it a bit.
(Civvy you nearly have it right in the real life scenario I am dealing with at the mo which is not relevant to this thread- hence the hotel scenario. Research got me thinking about hotels tho. The real case in point is a restaurant with staff bedrooms on the 2nd floor and attic that have been used as staff bedrooms for donkeys years. New owner (my client) bought the place on condition that the previous owner did the necessary work to lift the prohibition. There is no detection in the second floor at all and the only thing required on the prohibition notice was a sounder connected to the system in the restaurant. Worse still the bedrooms are inner rooms off the restaurant laundry / staff room on the 2nd floor and also without detection. No fire doors apart from the head of the staircase that leads into the first floor restaurant, there is alternative MOE from the second floor bedroom corridor in the form of a wall hatch that leds to an external platform and a vertical ladder. Six staff. Have made appropriate recs and spoken to local authority who were aware of the property but not aware that there were more than 2 staff. Have advised client to apply for HMO licence)
-
Kurnal. We can "try" anything you like. It was you who bought up the hotel scenario so I fail to see why you seem to sigh at the side argument it has created, which in itself has brought up some interesting debate, if somewhat off topic.
In the case of the hotel scenario I think Midland Retty is quite correct. Infact I know of several hotels who are slowly changing from being hotels to HMOs because longer term lets mean better financial security for the owners. That fine so long as there isn't mixed occupancy. That is to say it either has to be a HMo or hotel, no in betweens permitted. Better a hotel turns into a HMO than a HMO turns into a Hotel because atleast if the existing precautions from a hotel are carried over to a HMO they will be a better standard rather than vice versa.
Talking your point Kurnal about a restaurant with sleeping accommodation abive for staff the argument about seperation that Retty talks about still holds true. In reality of course if the status quo has been in place for years building control won't take any action and you will then be left with the housing act to deal with your little problem, which means the housing authority would enforce the sleeping accommodation. <May not be a HMo by definition, but it may be a dwelling and therefore the RRO wil not apply.
-
Not doubting the wisdom and knowledge of others this is an interesting legal piece about the definition of a dwelling.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm
Ive read this and find it somewhat dubious, unsuited to the real world !.
-
Kurnal, for what you have described I think you are doing the right thing. I don't think that, in the circumstances you give, relevant persons are really being protected. The FRS should have asked for more protection in what must be the common areas, rather than simply a sounder connected to below. And it should also have been passed to housing regardless of the need for a licence. It will seem tha tyou are being more harsh than the FRS were, but the RP needs to be made aware that the work needed in order to lift a prohibition does not mean that the RRO is being complied with.
Anyway... This is really just to provoke more discussion than it is to support what I actually believe to be right. ;).....
If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations
But I didn't. And it was over years ago.
If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.
Appeal ahoy! You can't just prohibit it because you don't like it. We have 60 mins compartmentation betweeen floors. My tenants are not being a risk to the hotel, nor are they being put at risk by the hotel.
I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible)
From powers of inspectors:
to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the following purposes—(i) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether the provisions of this Order or any regulations made under it apply
Therefore it is up to you to ask questions to ascertain whether the order applies through 'enquiry', there is nothing there that says I have to prove it to you. However, I AM saying that it meets the definition of HMO in the Housing Act.
Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!
In line with Wee Brians thoughts, what if I decided to move poorly older people in who need medical care? If I don't tell building control do hotel standards still apply, or is this only when it suits you?
With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.
I am saying that since you can't find anything in the housing act that discounts this from being a HMO, these floors constitute a HMO, thus they are clearly domestic. Due to that I am saying that your responsibility ends at the front door to the rooms. I have 30 mins between the rooms and the escape routes. I have LD2 detection as per Lacors. (I will worry about the safety rating issues when housing arrive.)
Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe.
It is none of their business.
-
You are partially correct Cleveland. Ideally when first constructed you would have expected the two purpose groups to have been properly seperated. However some shops were prupose built with accomodation above them for the purpose of the shop owner to live in rather than for the accommodation to be rented out to third parties or staff members.
Kurnal is therefore correct in assuming that the sleeping accommodation in his scenario is probably a HMO
Dependent on the numbers sleeping there it may also be a licensable HMO. Also if only two members of staff sleep on the premises then it wouldn't be a HMO but the local housing authority could still enforce standards using the Housing Health & Safety Rating System.
-
Kurnal, for what you have described I think you are doing the right thing. I don't think that, in the circumstances you give, relevant persons are really being protected. The FRS should have asked for more protection in what must be the common areas, rather than simply a sounder connected to below. And it should also have been passed to housing regardless of the need for a licence. It will seem tha tyou are being more harsh than the FRS were, but the RP needs to be made aware that the work needed in order to lift a prohibition does not mean that the RRO is being complied with.
Anyway... This is really just to provoke more discussion than it is to support what I actually believe to be right. ;).....
If you want part of your Hotel to be a House in Multiple Occupation you should in the first instance apply for a change of use under current Building Regulations
But I didn't. And it was over years ago.
If you didn't seek the relevant approvals and I came across your little scenario on a routine inspection I'd simply serve a prohibition notice on the upper floors.
Appeal ahoy! You can't just prohibit it because you don't like it. We have 60 mins compartmentation betweeen floors. My tenants are not being a risk to the hotel, nor are they being put at risk by the hotel.
I'd also be asking you to prove that the premises are a HMO (impossible)
From powers of inspectors:
to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the following purposes—(i) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether the provisions of this Order or any regulations made under it apply
Therefore it is up to you to ask questions to ascertain whether the order applies through 'enquiry', there is nothing there that says I have to prove it to you. However, I AM saying that it meets the definition of HMO in the Housing Act.
Because unless youve had Planning and Building Regs approval to officially change the use of the premises your building will still be recognised in law as a hotel, not a HMO. Thus the hotel standard would apply!
In line with Wee Brians thoughts, what if I decided to move poorly older people in who need medical care? If I don't tell building control do hotel standards still apply, or is this only when it suits you?
With that firmly in mind I would then be confident in the knowledge that my powers to inspect would extend to all parts of the building and to enforce the re-instatement of AFD in the affected bedrooms.
I am saying that since you can't find anything in the housing act that discounts this from being a HMO, these floors constitute a HMO, thus they are clearly domestic. Due to that I am saying that your responsibility ends at the front door to the rooms. I have 30 mins between the rooms and the escape routes. I have LD2 detection as per Lacors. (I will worry about the safety rating issues when housing arrive.)
Building Control does not allow mixed uses in a building in the way you describe.
It is none of their business.
Civvy I can't be bothered anymore, this has gotten a bit silly. You are throwing more and more stuff into the argument and changing the scenario. Im not going to keep countering stuff you add or change !!
I stand by my original response, if you dont agree then no probs.
-
OK. Just trying to make you or anyone prove it is not a HMO. The answer might still be out there somewhere.
The standards such as 60 minutes between floors and 30 mins to escape routes are common to a standard hotel occupancy, so I didn't consider that to be making anything up. But I must admit.. taking the alarm system back to an LD2 system was simply me being stroppy.
Anyway, it is the theoretical arguments which often raise awareness of the finer points regarding definitions, acts we don't normally deal with that may still have relevance, and case law etc.
-
Apologies Civvy Im afraid I got out of the wrong side of bed this morning
I realise you were only trying to spark healthy debate.
If your floors are 60 mins F/R (you didnt mention that before) then prohibition wouldn't be necessary and I'd be quite happy with that.
I still wouldn't be overly pleased with your level of AFD however, probably not prohibitable based on the fact that staff live there ,will know each other, will know the layout of building etc. If I couldn't enforce you to upgrade your AFDthen I'd pass my concerns onto the LHA.
With the seperation you speak of you then you could call your upper floors a HMO - I wouldn't argue against it. I would if it was 30 mins F/R and would still ask you to convince me how it could be without adequate seperation. I know it isn't a HMO and would continue to treat it as a hotel . Atleast I've given you the opportunity to convince me otherwise.
As Building Control have informed me if they were to hear of anyone using part of a hotel as a HMO without adequate seperation they would take action (note Im only talking about a hotel here as per your scenario). If you don't believe me contact your local building control officer see what their views are.
It's not about what suits me Civvy its about the law, and our interpretation of it. Yes the hotel standards would still apply if you decided to move people in who need medical care at the premises
You either make it wholly a rescare home or wholly a hotel - you cant have a mix like you suggest. If you do want a mixed use building you have to seperate each group.
Simples
Im off now to have a G&T on the lawn and chill.... its friiiiday!
-
Thanks to all for your contributions. And Cleveland must have pin sharp ears to hear me sigh, good job he did not comment on other things he may have heard through my posting. Must be more careful what I have for tea when going on the firenet.
I still think that staff rooms in a workplace or hotel may actually be domestic premises.
-
Wizzo, You are right to question the ludicrous suggestion that there is no cost. There are lawyers, consultants and Counsel involved in a determination. You paid for the fire and rescue authority's lawyers via the corporation tax of Wizzyco. The consultant acting on behalf of the client was of course very inexpensive as did the ratepayers of the county in question.
Kurnal, there was no new focus under the RRO , and you are incorrect in your bold, but unfounded assertions (which you state as though they were facts) regarding the intent of the revision of BS 5839-1.
-
Kurnal, there was no new focus under the RRO , and you are incorrect in your bold, but unfounded assertions (which you state as though they were facts) regarding the intent of the revision of BS 5839-1.
Sorry Colin but that is too cryptic for me. I assume you are referring to posting number 61 in this thread, in which my intention was to refer to the change in the focus of Fire Safety enforcement and not to the review of BS5839. On re-reading this I apologise if I was unclear. With the advent of The Fire Safety Order, our focus moved to the "Relevant Person" whereas previous legislation was focussed on the protection of employees in a workplace and the number of occupied beds in a hotel. I believe this to be fact.
The other comment in the posting is that some of us in the industry questioned whether "Relevant Persons" were afforded appropriate protection by a fire alarm system in which their bedroom is equipped with a Heat Detector. That concern has now been been fully resolved by the determination.
-
Thanks to all for your contributions. And Cleveland must have pin sharp ears to hear me sigh, good job he did not comment on other things he may have heard through my posting. Must be more careful what I have for tea when going on the firenet.
I still think that staff rooms in a workplace or hotel may actually be domestic premises.
Im intrigued by this - I think its a very important matter for consideration and as such Ive done a little bit of research into it.
I approached two councils (two housing officers) on whether or not their respective authorities would deem sleeping accomodation for staff in a hotel to be domestic premises.
They both said that they would not class the sleeping accomodation in that respect to be domestic premises because the main use of the building is that of a hotel. If the two "groups" were "seperated" by one hour F/R it would be a different matter.
If on the other hand you had a standalone building within the hotel grounds providing accomodation soley for staff that would then be a HMO (but I think we knew that already).
Just as a side note the old purple guide (FP Act 71) Appendix A P.98 also makes reference to this issue. It states that general staff accomodation within a hotel is not a dwelling. The only exception being if the hotel owner wants to live on the premises and thus uses part of the hotel for his or her own private quarters.
The housing officer's opinions are based upon their experience and interpretation of existing legislation - but only a determination / case law would give us the true definition.
Food for thought.
-
Just my 2 pence worth here..
In the LACORS guidance it states that the document does not cover;
areas in workplaces where staff ‘sleeping-in’ is a condition of employment or a business requirement,
as in hotels;
But they fall under;
These types of accommodation fall under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and detailed fire safety guidance for them is contained in the HM Government Fire Safety Risk Assessment Sleeping Accommodation Guide.
Do I get change out of that 2 pence???
-
Hi Hammer1
You do indeed get some change
Simply let us have your bank account and sort code details and I'll ensure you get the appropriate change deposited into your account ;) ;)
-
Thanks Hammer 1
Yes I came across that interpretation, though could not find any further reference to it in those terms in other guidance, such as the Govt guidance to the Housing Act and Regualtions. But am still looking.
Whether the staff sleeping in is a condition of employment or business requirement is also debateable considering modern employement practice. Nowadays some of the employers in question wish to employ migrant workers because they can pay them the minimum wage and make a deduction from even that for living expenses. The migrant workers are happy because through a frugal existance and long hours they can live on the remaining pittance and still send cash home. To me this sometimes smacks of convenience rather than business requirement. Yes those working unsocial hours may have a relevant case in accordance with "business requirement" eg finishing shifts in the early hours when there is no public transport.
The restaurants similarly could not attract migrant staff on the same basis unless they offered living accommodation. Especially in the city centres where rent alone would be prohibitive. Is that a business nned?
Perhaps political arguments are not appropriate here though.
-
Kurnal your points are valid and hold true. There is no doubt migrant workers are exploited badly. Alas the politics behind it are by the by. Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO. I think its almost a forgone conclusion that staff accomdation in part of ahotel could never be a HMO.
-
I have to say K you are to be admired for refusing to go down without a brutal struggle. Interesting issue this one and all because of a bedroom. Do your bedroom exploits usually attract this degree of interest from the many watchers just to see how you handle yourself, if you pardon the pun?
-
I have to say K you are to be admired for refusing to go down without a brutal struggle. Interesting issue this one and all because of a bedroom. Do your bedroom exploits usually attract this degree of interest from the many watchers just to see how you handle yourself, if you pardon the pun?
Ohhh,errrrr,Matron!!
-
Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO.
Debatable... :) They do not benefit from same passive fire separation as is required in flats or HMOs. And if they are being evacuated every time the alarm goes off, will that not create the same issues we always speak about with alarms in the common areas of flats? i.e. Complacency leading to people not evacuating, sounders removed etc. So we have a fire alarm system that is potentially not going to move people out of their rooms, which could have simple partition walls between them and a fire. How is this better than 30 or 60 minutes separation between the occupier and a fire?
There are many other things that make up the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS). As somewhere to actually 'live' it is probably far from ideal. Do you have adequate privacy, space, security, ventilation, is it quiet enough, can you control the temperature to your liking in your room? This warrants the control that the housing act supplies. It is not a fire safety issue, but I doubt Kurnal is suggesting that they apply for a HMO licence for fire safety purposes.
IMO the dividing line is whether people are truly living there. If they are, then I don't see how anyone can say it is not occupied as a private domestic premises and the LHA need to be aware of it, and they should make sure it is fit for purpose (as living accomodation) by applying the HHSRS.
It raises a whole new question of how you define 'living there', as if you switch rooms regularly are you living there?
Too many grey areas.
-
What's all this about "HMO" standards. Whether its a hotel, a HMO or a bit of both relates to what powers exist and who might enforce them.
The technical standard should be based on the risk.
-
Surely those migrant workers are better protected if the hotel standard is applied than that of a HMO.
Debatable... :) They do not benefit from same passive fire separation as is required in flats or HMOs. And if they are being evacuated every time the alarm goes off,
Not sure I agree there Civvy! In flats I will accept there is greater seperation - but not in a traditional HMO - such as a converted victorian terraced house. At best the seperation will be the same as hotel (30 mins) in my experience most conversions have been done on a tight budget using questionable materials.
-
A tradition HMO (if lacors guidance is followed) should have suitable separation between the occupancies. No separation is required between the actual rooms in a hotel.
We can talk about sub-standard hotels just as much as we talk about sub-standard HMO's, but at some point we have to assume that they meet the standard, or as enforcers/risk assessors we are involved with bringing them up to such a standard.
Wee Brian, that is the point. If we can't decide whether people actually living in a hotel can be classed as 'private & domestic' then we don't know what is to be enforced, or who enforces it. The housing safety rating is there for a reason, it is to ensure that people who rent (or pay by some other means, i.e. labour) accommodation are entitled to a suitable standard. So, IMO, if workers are actually 'living' in a hotel they should be entitled to the same system protecting their health and safety. This, IMO, potentially takes that certain section of the hotel out of the remit of the RRFSO.
-
A tradition HMO (if lacors guidance is followed) should have suitable separation between the occupancies. No separation is required between the actual rooms in a hotel.
We can talk about sub-standard hotels just as much as we talk about sub-standard HMO's, but at some point we have to assume that they meet the standard, or as enforcers/risk assessors we are involved with bringing them up to such a standard.
Sorry Civvy you have misunderstood me (or perhaps I wasn't very clear)
You're correct there was no requirement for hotels to have seperation between bedrooms. But most often they are by virtue of the materials they are constructed with because of privacy and noise attenuation factors. Lacors doesn't require 30 minute F/R between bedsits either it just asks for sound traditional construction. Again this might also be 30 minutes F/r if its 12.5 mm plasterboard
Therefore whichever way you look at it a traditional HMO will not offer any better protection than that of a hotel. A flat would however (60 mins)
In some examples it does use the phrases "ideally" thirty minutes fire resistance.
What really is to be gained from altering the existing standards prevailing from the hotel anyway?
Local Housings Officers I questioned, and the Building Regs Officers I spoke to all lead me to believe that a HMO in a hotel couldn't exist (unless appropriately seperated), and that the staff quarters aren't domestic dwellings. Look also at past legislation as point of interest, the FP Act stated that Staff quarters are not dwellings.
So I still say the Fire Authority could enforce standards within areas used for staff accommodation in a hotel. if there was seperate annexe housing staff on site that would of course be different.
Along the way if a hotelier did desperately want to have a HMO inside a hotel I would ask, and subsequently try to enforce adequate seperation between the two groups, and to allow a mix of standards if that is what the hotelier wanted .
-
Lesser standards exist in HMOs than they do in a hotel. Hotels have self closers on fire doors, better detection because Part 1 detectors are more intelligent and sophisticated than part 6 detectors, else why not just have part 6 in large hotels? The higher stadard in hotels is down to the fact members of the public stay there and are unfamiliar with building layout. Also the false alarm issue doesn't wash with me either. Apart from the old problem of steam from en suite bathroom setting of the bedroom detection which generally got sorted out over time Ive never known hotels to have excessive false alarms in all the time was in the brigade either operationally or as an FSO. And as far as Im aware false alarm has never been a reason to get rid of detection completely. May change smoke for heat or move siting of detectors but never remove.
-
Can you not see the big difference between what you are calling staff quarters, and people actually living there.
Do these people not get the same protection regarding their standard of living?
-
There is no difference Civvy, no.
I acknowledge and agree that the staff living quarters are their home. Never argued against that.
My argument is that in a mixed building you can't mix standards, atleast not without adequate seperation.
The Fire Precautions in a hotel (lets assume it has an existing L2 fire alarm system, self closing fire doors on all rooms, EL in the corridors, manned reception at night) afford just as much protection than those in a HMO, infact they are normally of higher standard because public sleep there. So Im not sure I understand your issue about protection in that sense .
Are you looking at it from general housing standards view point or their rights as tennants? if so what specifically do you mean? And why would those rights be any different if they lived in a hotel necessarily?
-
If the staff are living there and paying for the privilege, then surely they have the same rights of security/noise/health/space etc as Mr Student living in his HMO?
yes/no?
I say yes.
That being the case the only legislation looking after those rights is the Housing Act?
yes/no?
Again, I agree with myself and say yes. (surprise)
The Housing Act surely does not apply unless it is domestic?
-
Civvy thanks for taking the argument forward over the last few days.
To many it may seem an irrelevant technical argument because the fire safety standards can be enforced through one or other regimes by the relevant authority, either under their own legislation or through the protocol.
But I think it does matter. If the staff bedrooms are domestic premises then it should indeed enjoy the full spectrum of protection and facilities afforded by the Housing Act. And if the Housing Act does apply then the rooms involved must be domestic premises and not subject to the FSO. The determination over detection in hotel bedrooms would then be irrelevant if they were occupied by staff.
I feel sure that throughout I must have overlooked something obvious and that there must be some case law or guidance to give a definitive answer on this.
Someone will know the answer - where are you Phil?
-
Civvy thanks for taking the argument forward over the last few days.
Ha, not sure how far forward I have taken it. I have certainly convinced myself that it is not as straightforward as it seems. Got a bit of a "dog with a bone" thing going on here.
Someone will know the answer - where are you Phil?
Indeed. Where are you when we need you Stampy?
-
If the staff are living there and paying for the privilege, then surely they have the same rights of security/noise/health/space etc as Mr Student living in his HMO?
yes/no?
I say yes.
That being the case the only legislation looking after those rights is the Housing Act?
yes/no?
Again, I agree with myself and say yes. (surprise)
The Housing Act surely does not apply unless it is domestic?
Right now Im with you Civvy
I didn't realise you were talking about general tenant's rights - I thought you were simply arguing the fact over fire precautions !!
I again, not to argue with you Civvy , but to simply find out where the land lies on this contacted my friendly Local Housing Officer - hopefully the following will ease the Prof's mind a little
A hotel room still definately can't be a domestic dwelling in her opinion. Furthermore the Housing Act probably doesn't apply either in this scenario (Hotel)
Fortunately however they can deal with tenants rights / housing standards issues by other means. (HHSRS)
Prof, I understand why you are concerned for the tenants, whether you believe it is a dwelling is up to you (I think my postings show otherwise), in actual fact it is a pointless argument because whether it is a dwelling or not the Local Authority can enforce standards for the protection of tenants regardless .
If youre still concerned why not put your own mind at rest by contacting the Local Housing Standards team in the area covering the hotel and garner their opinion.
If you have accepted the fire precautions to hotel standard and advised the hotelier to approach local housing authority about other issues the staff accomodation I would suggest you have done the right thing.
And Oi Prof whadya mean "Thanks to Civvy" - what about all the phone calls I made to building control, local housing authority, the time I spent sifting through endless bits of paper, the sleepless nights all on this issue - yet no thank yous, no gratitude not a peep - Cheers Prof :'(. ..... ;D
Joking aside - it's been a useful and healthy debate
Mr Barry / PC Stamp wont help - I bet he's too busy practising his golf swing.
-
Mr Barry / PC Stamp wont help - I bet he's too busy practising his golf swing.
No Retty far too busy for that!
In my humble opinion a hotel room would not be classed as a domestic premises.
-
MR I truly appreciate and am grateful for all your work and input on this topic. If you were to agree with me I may even thank you as well. ;)
As I have said before the query was prompted by totally unsuitable accommodation for staff living above a restaurant A licence application for a HMO has now been made and the Local Authority will consider their position and will respond in due course with their decision.
But that got me thinking about rooms in a hotel dedicated for use as living accommodation by staff..... and I am still looking for a definitive reason...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Now look here Prof, you can either accept my opinion or admit you're wrong ;D
I'm glad you bought the issue up for discussion.
It doesn't rest easy with me that staff sleeping accomodation above a restaurant would be classed as a HMO (depending on the numbers staying there) yet staff accomodation in a hotel wouldn't be.
Its thrown up quite a few legal anomolies associated with staff quarters in hotels - and its been useful to me to thrash them out and look at it in detail - so suppose I should thank you really :) and you too Civvy, and erm you Phil, and Cleve.. and... zzzzz
-
because whether it is a dwelling or not the Local Authority can enforce standards for the protection of tenants regardless .
If this is the case then that is the answer I was looking for.
However I don't see how they (LA) can enforce standards unless it is a residential premises, because;
From The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (England) Regulations 2005:
Citation, commencement and application
(2) These Regulations apply in relation to residential premises in England only
From the The Housing Act:
(4) In this Part “residential premises” means—
(a) a dwelling;
(b) an HMO;
(c) unoccupied HMO accommodation;
(d) any common parts of a building containing one or more flats.
“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to
be occupied as a separate dwelling;
From Housing Health and Safety Rating System - Guidance for Landlords and Property Related Professionals:
Dwelling – any place which is used or meant to be used for living purposes.
For any of this to apply we are clearly labelling the areas a dwelling. So our only way in through the RRFSO is to try define a legal difference between a dwelling and a private dwelling, and to be able to give a legal reason why they are not private dwellings.
I believe that in the circumstances we are talking about we potentially have;
a) Somewhere that the RRFSO applies, but tenants who are clearly permanently living there do not have the same rights regarding their standard of living as other tenants elsewhere.
b) The possibility of a dwelling, where the RRFSO clearly does not apply, within a hotel.
Joking aside - it's been a useful and healthy debate
Indeed.
-
For your info.
Sir Ken Knights determination in respect of the fire safety adequacy of fire detection in a hotel.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/1311357.pdf (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/1311357.pdf)
-
I believe that in the circumstances we are talking about we potentially have;
a) Somewhere that the RRFSO applies, but tenants who are clearly permanently living there do not have the same rights regarding their standard of living as other tenants elsewhere.
b) The possibility of a dwelling, where the RRFSO clearly does not apply, within a hotel.
Civvy you're like a dog with a bone you... :P
I can't argue with what you have stated. I agree with your conclusions. I'll do a bit more digging with the housing officer on Monday - I'll ask if she meant the HHSRS as the appropriate mechanism or whether she meant something else!
-
Civvy you're like a dog with a bone you... :P
It has been said before. :P
-
In terms of the Housing Act 2004 its pretty clear from Ultratemp Ventures vs Collins
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/uratem-1.htm that an hotel room can be someones dwelling - so HHSRS could be applied if that how the hotel rom is being used.
IMO, for the RRFSO, whether the domestic premises exception aplies sems to be more linked to whether the room can be said to be a private dwelling. That seems unlikely for an hotel room used by a member of the public and also pretty unikley if it is staff accommodation for which they have no security of tenure and can be moved or lose the accommodation at the employer's whim - especially if the employer has the right to entyer and check the rooms.
-
Cheers for that Smokey, I think it clears it up nicely.
IMO, The Housing Act is the most appropriate tool to deal with the given example, and the case you mentioned shows that it could/should be used.
-
I think we need to be a little careful here.
The case referred to is regarding a long term tenant rather than an employee whom had lodgings as part of their job.
The lovely housing officer I contact stated that the explanations I gave in earlier posts from her were based on the fact that:-
1) The scenario was that of a hotel and
2) The accommodation was provided for staff and not Mr Joe Public seeking long term tennancy
Smokey Donkey also raises a fair point - is a hotel bedroom provided for staff only a private domestic dwelling.
In general terms, and in the case Smokey sent us the link to, I can see why the Housing Act applies, but just to argue the point and to be clear, the case given does not refer to an employee who was given accomodation as part of his contract.
-
This bit makes it totally different to an employee occupying a room in a hotel whilst in the employ of the hotel.
13. I am of the clear opinion that room 403, if let to Mr Collins under a tenancy, was let as a separate dwelling-house. For these short reasons, as well as those given by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Steyn and Lord Millett, I would allow this appeal.
-
Remember, we are not talking about a room put aside for staff who might stop over occasionally or as part of their duties.
I feel that if the case Smokey pasted is read properly it shows that there can be no doubt that in the instance Kurnal is talking about the rooms could be seen as a dwelling. It is quite simply where someone lives.
From para 58 of the case: the only question is whether, at the date when the proceedings were brought, it was the tenant's home. If so, it was his dwelling. (He must also occupy it as his only or principal home, but that is a separate requirement)
-
Re one of our hotel clients.
After considering all relevant information our risk assessment recommended heat detection in staff bedrooms
Just been advised by Hants F&RS that their policy is to insist upon smoke detection (extension to existing system) be provided in
staff bedrooms.
The case was put to HFRS quoting ALL of the relevant information available however they would not budge or give a
reasoned argument other than to say that my client has a duty to protect ALL relevant persons.
Dismissive of the CLG guidance and BS5839 we were advised that this was an HFRS policy. We have asked for the FA to give, in writing their reasons for the decision.
Watch this space!!!
Why will my client not take the matter any further? Because the FA have been co-operative on other fire safety matters.
Perhaps the next audit will recommend that SD in staff accomodation be replaced with HD.
-
Write to nice John and detail your reasoning. He may be accommodating if you quote stuff to him from the determination. Mind you they are not the only FRS which insists on SD.
-
Right, the thing to do is write the brigade concerned a stongly worded letter. Ask them to reply within 7 days and explain WHY they will not accept current PROVEN guidance such as BS 5839 or CLG guidance. Threaten legal action if they don't rely in your time frame.
Address the letter straight to the Chief Officer, copy in the chair of the fire authority, and your client's MP. Watch how the brigade in question will trip up over itself to try and placate matters.
I hate non compliant organisations, but I also loath Fire Authorities that do stuff like this. It is totally unacceptable. Take it to the top, dont be fobbed of with an ADO or station commander, you want a reply directly from the Chief if you can get him off the golf course or out of the masonic lodge doing funny handshakes that is. That will ruffle a few feathers. Queue a hasty u turn from the brigade.
-
Re one of our hotel clients.
After considering all relevant information our risk assessment recommended heat detection in staff bedrooms
Just been advised by Hants F&RS that their policy is to insist upon smoke detection (extension to existing system) be provided in
staff bedrooms.
The case was put to HFRS quoting ALL of the relevant information available however they would not budge or give a
reasoned argument other than to say that my client has a duty to protect ALL relevant persons.
Dismissive of the CLG guidance and BS5839 we were advised that this was an HFRS policy. We have asked for the FA to give, in writing their reasons for the decision.
Watch this space!!!
Why will my client not take the matter any further? Because the FA have been co-operative on other fire safety matters.
Perhaps the next audit will recommend that SD in staff accomodation be replaced with HD.
It’s easy to make a snap judgement on SD or HD. but there may be more to why the FRS has asked for SD.
Are the guest's rooms covered by SD? If they are, then the FRS may argue what’s the difference.
Are the staff bedrooms on the same corridor as the guests? This may relate to above and/or there may be a concern of the staff rooms affecting the MofE for Guests.
What are the staff bedrooms? Are they for 'on duty' night staff. Or living accommodation when off duty? This could make a difference. Living accommodation would have a higher fire-loading and could be occupied by inebriated people. Whereas on-duty accommodation would have less fire-loading and sober (you'd hope) staff.
Some, none or all of these could be relevant or not. My point is, it’s not always as simple as 'should it be SD or HD'?
-
Are staff not relevant persons?
The requirement of the Order is to safeguard the safety of all relevant persons. To me that means providing early warning of fire so that they can effect an escape.
-
Baldyman, it is more of an issue of whether they have complied with current guidance, and the CLG guidance says that BS5839-1 is a suitable standard, and BS5839-1 states that heat is ok for bedrooms in a sleeping risk. And further to that, the original thread subject is one of a determination whereby a FRS was overturned trying to enforce SD in hotel bedrooms.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is how it is.
-
Have to agree with CivvyFSO on this.
I think the Brigade concerned are on very dodgy ground, unless there are other factors we aren't aware of that have led them to take such action.
Even still, I can't think of any scenario where the brigade could enforce that smoke detection must be installed instead of heat detection.
-
I didn't say anything about enforcing smoke detection did I?
I acknowledge that BS5839 is an acceptable standard and heat detection is OK in rooms to reduce unwanted fire signals but surely with the advances in technology for detectors, the availability of multi criteria heads etc, it's time to progress.
The guidance is just that .... guidance.
On a point of the determination, my understanding is that it is not applicable to all, just the particuar premises over which it was brought so I will stand by my comment that the Order requires the responsible person to safeguard the safety of relevant persons being staff or guests so surely the suitability of the alarm should be determined through the risk assessment?
-
So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?
-
So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?
Have you considered a career in the foreign office diplomatic corps?
:)
-
So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?
Have you considered a career in the foreign office diplomatic corps?
:)
[/quote]
I Think we would be at war ten minutes after he started ::)
-
So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot?
Perhaps you need to read back a few posts to Civvy and Midland Retty's comments to my post. I know you can't enforce smoke detection, so yes, a recommendation for change could be considered appropriate, but that would also depend on the view of the responsible person to agree.
My response was that BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then?
I didn't say it was wrong and there isn't another standard.
Why would you go against 5839?
Did I say that?
What should the hotel do?
Review their policy? Fit smoke detectors? What do you think they should do?
What should the fire authority do?
What do you think they should do? You're the one who seems to have all the answers.
Why should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used.
We've done that one previously.
Whats the crack jack?
I take it you had a bad day at the office Clevelandfire? ;)
-
Im a lover not a fighter Stevo and Big A the Diplomatic Corps couldn't afford my services.
Baldyman no one has had a bad day at the office. Infact I have had a great one. Your post appeared to kick itself up the backside. You are saying that the hotel should adapt to technical change. But why?
You said "I didnt say anything about enforcing did I" and you insinuate Im getting tetchy? It seems you were getting somewhat defensive of Civvy and Midland Rotweillers comments.
I asked what you think should happen, you implied that you would expect the hotel to spend some wedge on upgrading their detection when current guidance tells them there is no need to adapt to technical change in this way, so I find myself questioning you. The hotel says it wont adapt to technical change and that its happy with its heat detection what then? The fire authority cant enforce it, so whats the end result? Yes youre right you can recommend they change their detection but for what purpose? The thread started talking about the fire authority trying to enforce the hotel changes the detection. Perhaps you should read the thread again.
-
I have read through this thread (again!) and have looked at the determination.
There are many comments about the Fire & Rescue Authority 'enforcing' smoke detection in the hotel rooms, so here is the introduction:-
1. In accordance with article 36 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) the enforcing Fire and Rescue Authority and the responsible person for the premises jointly applied to the Secretary of State for the determination of the disputed matters related to technical fire safety. The parties were not in agreement over the appropriate technical solution to satisfy the requirements of the FSO.
2. The Secretary of State has requested me to provide technical advice to the Secretary of State, in my role as Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser on receipt of a valid request for a Determination.
No mention of enforcement then.
There are many who have condemmed the FRA for using the process, but when you read the determination, both sides have been criticised:-
"Neither the responsible person or the Fire and Rescue Authority have offered any technical or evidential based analysis.... " (Although there is alot of other informtion to suggest otherwise)
The determination also states " BS 5839-1 does note that the use of heat detectors in bedrooms is not to provide the earliest warning of fire to the occupants but to provide an adequate means of fire detection when combined with smoke detectors in the escape route" but at what point does the smoke detector actuate and is the relevant person in the room protected?
This is my point about looking at the technical advances coupled with the fact that early detection means early intervention and can reduce the impact to a business in terms of damage and continuity (which I have not previously mentioned)
The sleeping risk guide identifies an L2 system in a hotel ... detection in the escape route and rooms off, referring to BS5839 as the standard, but no mention of the type of detector.
We seem to be back to reccommendation for change along with some reasoning and hope that the responsible person agrees. Or perhaps another FRA should go through the process and see what happens.
-
I am sure that Mr Todd could elucidate this better but detection is there to warn others of a fire in progress not necessarily the occupant of any particular area. I am not so sure that smoke in staff areas is beneficial because we may then add a false alarm or Uwfs process. I know, to reduce the false alarm rates change the sd to hd.
-
Hi Baldyman
The fundemental issue as Jokar points out is that detection is provided to give warning of fire occuring to residents but not to protect the occupant in the room fire has originated.
You could argue a fast reacting detector may buy that extra bit of time to raise the alarm, rouse the person in the room of origin and hopefully allow them to escape, but all research shows that regardless of the detector used the person in the room of origin is ever saved.
So it is futile to recommend or enforce that the hotel should upgrade its current fire warning system - It could cost a serious ammount of money for little or no benefit in return. You can't manage risk in that way.
-
No mention of enforcement then.
[/quote]
You need to remember that this can only go to determination if the RP admits a failure but them and regulator cannot agree on the solution.
My interpretation of this is that every determination will always make the RP do something ( as they admit there is a failure) but in this case they didnt. Very strange or never really a determination?
-
No mention of enforcement then.
You need to remember that this can only go to determination if the RP admits a failure but them and regulator cannot agree on the solution.
My interpretation of this is that every determination will always make the RP do something ( as they admit there is a failure) but in this case they didnt. Very strange or never really a determination?
That is a very interesting and useful point footieboy. The Fire Safety Order did not make provision for the scenario we have been discussing. Even the Guidance notes are confused over this matter- They both specifiy that there must be a failure to comply but then guidance note number 2 gives an example very similar to the subject of this thread.
In these cases the Secretary of State is really being asked to determine whether thare has been a failure or not, rather than to determine an appropriate technical solution to a specific issue.
I would guess that such a "determination" has no standing in Law as the Fire Safety Order does not provide for it.
Heres the relevant paras from the gidance notes.
""Article 36 – Determination of disputes by Secretary of State
Guidance note number 1
158. Where the responsible person has failed to comply with the Order and cannot agree with the enforcing authority what measures are necessary to remedy the failure, the Secretary of State may be approached to make a determination of the dispute. Both parties must make the approach. This approach can be made when a notice has been served by the enforcing authority on a responsible person.
Guidance Note Number 2
3. Where both parties (the enforcing authority and the responsible person) agree that there is a need for improvements to fire precautions but disagree on the technical solution to be used, they may agree to refer the issue to the Secretary of State for independent determination under article 36 of the Order.
Example Following an inspection the enforcing authority has written to a responsible person suggesting that six monthly maintenance inspections of the fi re alarm system are inadequate and that a competent contractor should inspect the system every three months.
The responsible person disputes this and agrees with the enforcing authority to seek determination from the Secretary of State.""