FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: CivvyFSO on June 30, 2010, 12:06:49 PM
-
Since we went quite severely off Jaspers original topic, could we continue any discussion on hazard & risk in here?
Kurnal has pointed out, from both the BS and the BS EN on Fire Vocabulary:
3.343
fire hazard
potential for injury and/or damage from fire
3.374
fire risk
product of the probability of occurrence of a fire to be expected in a given technical operation or state, and
the consequence or extent of damage to be expected on the occurrence of a fire (simply put: likelihood x severity)
Looking just at fire risk, as I have said before, just cutting the probability down will very rarely mean that you can reduce any form of protection, so since you are going to protect against it anyway, is lowering the probability just an exercise in futility? (It clearly won't be to insurance companies though) To me it is simple to defend in court, as you would have to prove that people were put at risk of death or serious injury, so providing people can and do get out safely, surely I have fulfilled my duty?
Probabilities do have a place in things, particularly in cause and effect / fault trees, when we are looking at a chain of events/failures causing a problem. But with these we should generally start from the point of actually having a fire, (i.e. The actual probability of having a fire is irrelevant yet again) as we are generally interested in the workings and the outcome from that point onwards. There is also the probability of fire spread, from a point of origin, but again we copnsider the fire as a starting point so its likelihood is irrelevant.
Saying there is no point protecting against the probability is a bit extreme, but I think it raises a question as to whether the RRFSO is truly linked to prevention in the way people think it is, are we preventing the fire or preventing person from harm if there is a fire?
Re: Article 4.
If you read the guidance note it says quite clearly that the article is intended to show the clear difference between precautions due to process risks, and general fire precautions. Article 4 is one of the only times that likelihood is mentioned in the order apart from in reference to explosive atmospheres. In the guidance note the word is linked with consequences, but any need for reduction is always pointing towards reducing the risk.
From the CLG guides;
The aims of the fire risk assessment are:
• To identify the fire hazards.
• To reduce the risk of those hazards causing harm to as low as reasonably
practicable.
• To decide what physical fire precautions and management arrangements are
necessary to ensure the safety of people in your premises if a fire does start.
Everything seems to be worded to avoid directly saying that anyone is expected to lower the actual likelihood of fire.
-
I take your point Civvy but the question is do we assess it as a risk of fire or a risk from fire. One is fire precautions and the other fire safety.
Perhaps both apply and the employer has a duty to take general fire precautions and protect persons from an outbreak of fire.
The best form of safety is to take precautions to prevent a fire happening but I get your point.
The CLG guidance to the RRO suggests to me that fire precautions and prevention should be a significent factor in assessing fire safety although it does say "......the princples of reduction of risk remain and the overarching objective of the Order is to ensure that relevant persons are safe from fire and enforcing authorities must act towards this objective".
Does that mean we accept the higher risk of fire from poorly maintained equipment so long as we can protect persons from that risk, and if we do the risk is reduced that way?
Think I'm starting to ramble now. Best go cut the grass before the rain comes.
-
I think the "spirit" of the order is geared toward protecting people from fire, rather than necessarily reducing fire in the first place.
Looking at in reverse, from an enforcing authority's point of view, if our dodgy electrical installation as discussed from Kurnals previous topic, catches fire, but was held back by adequate precautions, allowing people to be warned and make their escape safely, has a serious case offence been committed?
No. So to my mind, Civvy, you are quite correct.
-
Think I'm starting to ramble now
Don't we all do that?
Does that mean we accept the higher risk of fire from poorly maintained equipment so long as we can protect persons from that risk, and if we do the risk is reduced that way?
It is a higher probability of fire. But, as Inspectors or risk assessors are we not predominantly looking at it from the point of view of 'if you have a fire'... ? Therefore, if a fire occurs in the poorly maintained equipment it then poses the same risk as a fire in well maintained equipment. So I would say that I agree with what you say and you have to prevent people from coming to harm
FWIW, the CLG guides talk about "preventive measures required by the Order" but I cannot see where the Order strictly tells anyone that they have to prevent fires. It says that where preventive and protective measures are taken they should be in line with certain principles. Of those principles the only one which leans towards reducing the likelihood seems to be "combating the risks at source".
-
I follow your argument Civvy but consider the following.
If a fire occurs we are reliant on the physical and managerial arrangements being adequate to ensure escape. How often do we then have to check the managerial and physical arrangements to ensure they are in place as arranged and sufficient to ensure all things work when required. The greater the risk of fire the more reliant we are on ensuring all things are in place.
Taking a different slant on things - we now have cars that are built with all sorts of gadgets to ensure our safety if involved in an accident - we still however have speed restrictions to reduce the risk of those gadgets needing to be activated. So hand in hand we get to our desired point of tolerable risk i.e. by reducing the chances of a crash (fire) and then by having gadgets (physical and managerial arrangements) in place to ensure if a crash still occurs we have some cushioning from it. If you want to go the full hog you buy a Volvo or 4x4!!
To totally rely on one and not the other would give a disproportionate balance to the whole thing - I thinks
-
FWIW, the CLG guides talk about "preventive measures required by the Order" but I cannot see where the Order strictly tells anyone that they have to prevent fires. It says that where preventive and protective measures are taken they should be in line with certain principles. Of those principles the only one which leans towards reducing the likelihood seems to be "combating the risks at source".
Duty to take general fire precautions
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.
also
Meaning of "general fire precautions"
4. (1) In this Order "general fire precautions" in relation to premises means, subject to paragraph (2)-
(a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises;
Doesn't this mean the RP has to conduct an old fashion fire prevention inspection and not to get too deeply involved in the likes of process risk leaving that to the HSE?
-
It appears fairly straightforward to me. Whilst there is different terminology regarding ‘Hazard’, ‘Risk’ and ‘Risk Assessment’ the guidance available tends to agree on one point – (fire) risk is a product of both the probability of a fire happening and the consequences of that fire.
The fire protection that we know and love is almost exclusively aimed at reducing the magnitude of the consequences – hence controlling risk on the assumption that a fire might occur. Reducing the probability of a fire can also reduce risk – hence legally one must do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce that probability, even if you’re complying with good practice as regards consequence-based risk reduction (e.g. fire protection engineering). Using the example of PAT for portable kit – it's good industry practice & it manifestly reduces the risk of fire occurring – entirely legitimate therefore (perhaps necessary) to recognise as a fire risk reduction measure and to consider it in the fire risk assessment.
The ‘How far do I go’ question can be answered by reference to (and compliance with) relevant good industry practice – if you’re doing that then it’s unlikely (but admittedly not impossible) that you’ll be going far wrong.
-
I think the "spirit" of the order is geared toward protecting people from fire, rather than necessarily reducing fire in the first place.
Looking at in reverse, from an enforcing authority's point of view, if our dodgy electrical installation as discussed from Kurnals previous topic, catches fire, but was held back by adequate precautions, allowing people to be warned and make their escape safely, has a serious case offence been committed?
No. So to my mind, Civvy, you are quite correct.
Think I might have to disagree with your "spirit" approach MR. An underlying factor I believe is that the Gov want the number of fires reduced and want employers and persons with responsibilities to make a significant contribution to achieve this by preventing the outbreak of fire in the first place. If the number of fires is reduced then the level of fire cover can be reduced accordingly. If the level of fire cover can be reduced then the cost to the taxpayer also.
Then the Gov can waste the money saved on uselss projects.
-
Hi NT
Yes there is a lot of truth in what you say . If you reduce fire you can reduce fire cover but the legislation just doesn't seem geared to support that, atleast not in ensuring fires are reduced, because going back to my earlier post someone can have a fire, so long as everyone evacuates safely then any formal enforcement will be unlikely.
-
Hi NT
Yes there is a lot of truth in what you say . If you reduce fire you can reduce fire cover but the legislation just doesn't seem geared to support that, atleast not in ensuring fires are reduced, because going back to my earlier post someone can have a fire, so long as everyone evacuates safely then any formal enforcement will be unlikely.
Think there are going to be differences of opinion on this one MR.
Incidently, did you know (in my best Michael Cain impersonation) that the FBs in Southern Ireland attend very few domestic chimney fires. Not because of good fire precautions by the ooccupiers but because many of the Brigades charge for this service and the occupiers either let them burn out or deal with them themselves. Can be between 50 & 150 Euro depending on the Brigade area.
Some even charge for attending fires in commercial premises. Is that the way forward to focus peoples attention a little more on preventing fires?
-
NT
Formal enforcement may be unlikely, however, if it can be demonstrated that all reasonable and practicable steps were not taken to prevent the outbreak of fire then the risk of enforcement increases.
MR
It is also not unusual to have to pay circa €600 for attending false alarms at commercial premises.
-
Hi Bleve
(I didnt mention false alarms by the way - that was Nearlythere - you got us mixed up) ;D
Anyway, to answer your point about level of enforcement.
A prosecution is only likely to result if someone has been put at serious risk, has been injured, or, heaven forbid ,killed by fire.
What level of enforcement would you expect if say a hotel had a fire, but everyone got out safely and no one was put at particular risk because the fire precautions held up as they should, and were to the correct and current standards? What would happen would an enforcement notice be issued? Would it be an informal letter?.
Nothing in the fire safety order states that you should not have a fire, nothing in the order states that if you have a fire you have automatically committed an offence.
So going back to the original thrust of this argument is the legislation geared to wards limiting the amount of fires? Partly. But isn't it geared more towards protecting against fire. To me it's the latter and if it was the government's intention to reduce fire cover by virtue of driving down the amount of fires then:-
a) domestic premises are still the places we have most fire deaths anyway (Fire Safety Order doesn't apply)
b) the RRO doesn't support reducing fires in that respect, it is more about protecting people from fire, in my opinion
If givernment does want to reduce fires across the board in commercial premises, then additional legislation or a revamp of the fire safety order would be required.
-
MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.
In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.
-
MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.
In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.
Only if those failures place any one at serious risk.
-
MR
But by virtue of article 4 and article 8 by not taking reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises, the RP may be prosecuted for a breach.
In addition, in any place of work, there is also in certain circumstances the possibility of enforcement from the HSE.
Only if those failures place any one at serious risk.
Fraid I'm with Bleve on this one MR, so there :P. (I never mentioned false alarms. You been on the cheap juice again?)
As Bleve points out there is adequate provision in Arts 4 & 8 to support the fire reduction and precautions approach.
-
NT, Bleve can I join your group I also believe art 4 and art 8 requires the RP to reduce the risk of fire on the premises I cannot interprat any other way.
-
NT, Bleve can I join your group I also believe art 4 and art 8 requires the RP to reduce the risk of fire on the premises I cannot interprat any other way.
No prob Tom. To join please send full details of your bank accounts including pin numbers to my email asap.
-
MR
I would reckon that the fact that a fire had taken place when it was reasonable & practicable to have prevented the fire is enough of a failure or ommission to have placed one or more occupants at risk. I believe this to be the case regardless of other fie safety measures being in place.
You can have MOE, travel distance to these within requirements but that does not always mean that any particular individual or group will make it to a place of safety.
If this was the case, we would not have any fire deaths.
People will react in an unexpected fashion even on being made aware of a fire alarm, they may be disorientated, visibility reduced or due to irratation efect of smoke products unable to proceed even with an acceptable degree of visibility.
Pressurised MOE may also be rendered virtually useless as doors are held open by evacuating personnel etc.
-
We will have to agree to disagree then, although I follow your logic the legislation isn't necessarily that clear cut.
Again I would ask what level of enforcement would you expect in a premises where there has been a small fire, but everyone was warned adequately and evacuated safely without encountering smoke or flame?
-
Would all depend on the cause of the fire and if it was foreseeable and readily preventable, the yes I would expect some form of enforcement
The key issue is life loss versus property loss and as I have said just because we have made provision for escape, it does not always work out as we intend.
For that reason fire prevention must also be a consideration imo
-
Then again what is a small fire ?
500 kW, 1MW?
:o
-
As Civvy said earlier a fire hazard is where there is the potential for injury and/or damage from fire. So even the smallest of fires has that potential.
-
But the small fire doesn't pose much of a 'risk' does it, unless it is on your head or in your pocket. The need to stop the fire growing is covered by the duty to mitigate the spread of fire, and 'precautions' should be put in place regarding this. (Only so far as is needed to protect relevant persons though)
Thinking about enforcement and offences is muddying the waters a little. Someone does not have to be put at harm to enforce anything, an FRS can enforce anything that ensures compliance with the Order. i.e. The need to record the risk assessment is not something that will lead to a life threatening situation, but I can enforce it providing that the legislation requires it in those circumstances.
I think there are two main points;
1: No matter how far down you take your 'likelihood', unless the likelihood is zero then we will generally protect against the fire that "could" happen. Now "should" that fire happen, it presents just as much risk regardless of its likelihood, as its likelihood is irrelevant as it has already happened. It is like the chances of throwing two sixes on a dice when you have already thrown one of them.
2: The legislation and the guidance note to accompany the legislation never specifically mentions reducing the likelihood of a fire. Article 4 looks at reducing the 'risk', and fair enough you can impact the risk a little by dealing with the likelihood, (But '1' above clearly comes in to play) but that is not the same as legislation that specifically requires you to reduce the likelihood.
I would reckon that the fact that a fire had taken place when it was reasonable & practicable to have prevented the fire is enough of a failure or ommission to have placed one or more occupants at risk
At risk of death or serious injury? If a small fire can place people at risk of death or serious injury then there must be many other issues. You would have no chance in court.
-
Ah but risk is the product of likelihood and severity. I myself reckon the person responsible for drafting the legislation did not know the difference between hazard and risk.
-
Not forgetting that all fires start of as "small" ie summerland, stardust etc
-
BLEVE
We all want the chance of fire occurring to be to zero. But if we could achieve that we wouldnt need fire precautions. Now im quite good at my job but i dont have a crystal ball so could never guarantee a fire would never occur. The thing Midland and Civvy are pointing out is that the legislation isnt phrased to support even a small fire being considered a sure fire enforceable offence. Because all the legislation is able to cover is life safety and ensuring people can get out safely. If this achieved during a fire that says by default the fire precautions worked.
Civvy enforcement doesn't muddy the waters because the level of enforcement has absolutely everything to do with it and stems from your original question doesnt it.The way the fire safety whatsit is written. Its the root of your original question.Try taking me to court for not recording my significant findings it would never happen. Ill pose the same question as Retty. What enforcement would you take against me if I failed to record the significant findings of my risk assessment. What enforcement action would be taken if i had a fire but everyone got out and the fire precautions behaved as they should. Same question to you Bleve. Read the question this time. THE PRECAUTIONS STOOD UP THE FIRE: EVERYONE GOT OUT; THE PRECAUTIONS WORKED BLEVE. THEY WORKED FOR THE VERY REASON THEY WERE INSTALLED are you going to prosecute me Bleve or Civvy? Ill answer for you. NO YOU FLIPPIN WELL AINT. YOu might take some sort of action but it wont be a straight prosecution, you know that as well as i do.
-
Boys, boys ::)
Lots of good stuff and obviously risk assessment has to be about both strands. Ignoring the definitions, if I reduce the likelihood of fire the I reduce the likelihood of my staff and others suffering from the effects of fire. Lets not forget Part 3 of article 10, eh?
davo
-
Oi, calm down, calm down!
What enforcement would you take against me if I failed to record the significant findings of my risk assessment
Primarily I would be looking at issuing an action plan, where you agree to record the findings, set a timescale and ensure that it was done in that time. If it was not agreed, or not done in that time then I would issue an enforcement notice stating that you had failed in your duties under the RRFSO and that under article 9(6) you had to record the prescribed information detailed in 9(7)(a) & (b).... What would your next move be then? (This is not necessarily muddying the waters, but I could see this going off in another tangent.)
all fires start of as "small" ie summerland, stardust etc
All fires start small, but we have specific mention in the Order to help deal with the risk (again) that the growth/spread presents. So you will not be making your buildings from, or lining your walls with combustible materials.
I myself reckon the person responsible for drafting the legislation did not know the difference between hazard and risk.
Regardless of the capabilities of the person who drafted it, it is still the Order that has to be complied with, not well-meaning interpretations of it. The wording of it will be taken at face value by in a court room. So if it is written badly that is unlucky.
Consider Clevelands example. Everyone got out safely, the precautions worked. Article 8 says that fire precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of employees & relevant persons. He has quite clearly succeeded in that duty, so there is nothing for us to enforce under article 8.
-
if I reduce the likelihood of fire the I reduce the likelihood of my staff and others suffering from the effects of fire. Lets not forget Part 3 of article 10, eh?
But you are never going to reduce it to zero, so you have to still protect your staff from the fire that MIGHT start.
Article 10 states that WHERE preventive meaures are taken they must be in line with part 3 of schedule 1. If I don't take any 'preventive' measures, and just go to protect everyone from a fire that might start, do you think that still applies?
-
Oi, calm down, calm down!
Consider Clevelands example. Everyone got out safely, the precautions worked. Article 8 says that fire precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of employees & relevant persons. He has quite clearly succeeded in that duty, so there is nothing for us to enforce under article 8.
I disagree, an injury or fatality does not have to occurr. This is clearly the intent of article 32
Offences
32. —(1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—
(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;
As can be seen where the failure had placed one or more person at RISK of death or serious injury an offence has been committed, it is not the case that the fatality or injury had to have taken place.
-
My goodness we are certainly a passionate lot on Firenet
Bleve.
You are quite correct that you have only have to place persons at risk of injury or death to commission an offence, an injury or death doesn't have to occurred before action be taken.
But consider cleveland fire's example again (WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MY EXAMPLE CIVVY!!!) ;D ;D ;D - s(Sorry I couldn't resist shouting like C3 there- it seems the done thing on this thread).
Why has someone been put at risk simply because there was fire? surely the control measures sufficiently coped and everyone was able to evacuate safely.
This is why I keep saying that the legislation is more about ensuring people are protected from a fire when it occurs rather than totally focusing on reducing fire completely.
-
Because precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended.
In addition, I or we are talking about the outbreak of fire when it was forseeable and readily preventable.
-
My goodness we are certainly a passionate lot on Firenet
Bleve.
You are quite correct that you have only have to place persons at risk of injury or death to commission an offence, an injury or death doesn't have to occurred before action be taken.
But consider cleveland fire's example again (WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MY EXAMPLE CIVVY!!!) ;D ;D ;D - s(Sorry I couldn't resist shouting like C3 there- it seems the done thing on this thread).
Why has someone been put at risk simply because there was fire? surely the control measures sufficiently coped and everyone was able to evacuate safely.
This is why I keep saying that the legislation is more about ensuring people are protected from a fire when it occurs rather than totally focusing on reducing fire completely.
OK. Not that I necessarily agree but am certainly open to persuasion, provided that my local FB are of the same line of thought. And in conjunction with my recent question to Bleve vis:-
"Bleve. You say "Are we over complicating the matter? There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place."
Your view please.
Situation:-
Two storey office block, single stairway with exit direct to open air at ground floor. 10 office type persons above ground floor.
Existing Control Measures:-
Protection of escape rouute - All doors enclosing starway 1/2 frscss in good condition. L3 auto detection and manual system, emergency lighting. Therefore, tolerable risk.
As the risk to the first floor occupiers has been addressed with existing adequate control measures, is your line of thought that there are no significant findings in regards to this and as such would not be recorded?"
Now, if my "existing control measures" are in place and there is an unmaintained electrical risk in one of the rooms off the starway, which is isolated by a fire door from the fleeing occupants, we need make no comment about the possibility of electrical fires nor the risk to people on the first floor, reducing the FRA by half a page?
I am running out of "s.
-
NT
Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs
(6) As soon as practicable after the assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where—
(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; etc
(7) The prescribed information is—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and
(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
In the case of the situation presented:
If travel distances are acceptable in relation to a single direction of escape, plans in place if applicable for assisting disabled, typical fire loading for office type premises, then only the measures required by the order need be recorded.
However, you did not specify the type of door or glazing provided at the corridor/offices art the upper floor.
-
Taking the above into account, if there are no significant findings, then it would only be necessary to describe the premises, statement of compliance with ADB, Statement of provision and maintenance of PFE, Fire Detection, Emergency Lighting and Electrical appliances.
Final ststement that following the completion of risk assessment no significant findings were recorded.
Statement that risk assessment is to be reviewd on significant change or within x periosd of time.
-
Taking the above into account, if there are no significant findings, then it would only be necessary to describe the premises, statement of compliance with ADB, Statement of provision and maintenance of PFE, Fire Detection, Emergency Lighting and Electrical appliances.
Final ststement that following the completion of risk assessment no significant findings were recorded.
Statement that risk assessment is to be reviewd on significant change or within x periosd of time.
That's my view. The FRA is essentially to identify risks, to whom, control them and record.
If no risks are identified because there are sufficient fire control measures already in place, then no risks identified, no risk to persons, no control measures necessary and nothing to record. Job done.
Have we over complicated what should be a simple process, or have I over simplified what is a complicated process?
PS, Only my granny can suck eggs.
-
I think we often over complicate these things.
However, we cannot expect to have no findings on every job.
I had an interesting task where I was asked to review a fire risk assessment, the ra had not considered the effect of radiant heat from a bund (pool fire) intended to collect immiscible flammable liquid and sprinkler water run off. The external travel route required evacuating personnel to travel close to the bund
-
Of course there is always something to find on every job, from just a few management issues to a snagging list requiring the felling of three amazonian trees.
-
I disagree, an injury or fatality does not have to occurr. This is clearly the intent of article 32
Offences
32. —(1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—
(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;
As can be seen where the failure had placed one or more person at RISK of death or serious injury an offence has been committed, it is not the case that the fatality or injury had to have taken place.
I don't think I have said that an injury or fatality has to occur for there to be an offence. There is plenty of case law to show there doesn't have to be a fire.
Take Clevelands - SORRY... Retty's example, again. In order to lower the risk, fire resisting construction was used, along with a fire alarm system, management etc etc etc. A fire occurs in a non PAT tested toaster with knackered wiring and a dicky widget that only pops the toast up occasionally. Everyone gets out with plenty of time to spare. The spread of fire was minimised by minimal fire loading in the kitchen, the fire was dealt with by trained staff with serviced portable FFE. Jolly good show everyone. Which requirement of the Order are you going to use to justify a potential offence?
The words are there in Article 32 of the Order, "in case of fire" That, to me, shows that they are addressing it from the point of "if a fire were to occur then the risk to people should be low" which is different to saying that "the risk of having a fire should be low"
-
Chaps
Just read p11 onwards of the OS guide ('5 steps')
Simples ::)
davo
-
The words are there in Article 32 of the Order, "in case of fire" That, to me, shows that they are addressing it from the point of "if a fire were to occur then the risk to people should be low" which is different to saying that "the risk of having a fire should be low"
If a fire were to occurr and there was at any time a risk of death or serious injury as a result, then that is an offence.
We must consider fire prevention in addition to fire precaution as there can be failures in both.
To suggest that we do not have to consider fire prevention because we have passive and active fire safty measures cannot be substatiated.
The order clearly states that a RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises.
This can only be acheived by fire prevention.
If we then have a fire that was clearly foreseeable and preventable then it is apparent that this duty was not met
-
Yes Bleve agreed. A failing may have occurred. But a failing is something very different from an offence.
Now you mentioned in response to my earlier post that "precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended". Ok, I can go along with that.
But is it not then fair to say that lack of maintenance and testing may result in the fire precautions failing or not operating as originally intended? And if not then how far do we go with this?
Also as you say the RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire. Is installing AFD, Adequate MOE, Fire compartmentation, et al not reducing the risk, and if it is not then what is the point of them?
I agree a fire that is a "clearly forseeable" and "preventable" should be dealt with, but I still have to go back to my original question.
Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.
Thankfully because of my passive and active fire precautions no one was put at serious or imminent risk of injury or death. What are you going to do to me?
Are you going to:-
a) prosecute me?
b) take other formal enforcement action ? (such as an issuing an enforcement notice)
c) will you take informal enforcement ? (send me a report asking me to x,y, and z to prevent a similar fire from occurring again)
d) check that indeed everyone safely evacuated, no offences were committed and once confirming that give advice as appropriate.
-
Yes Bleve agreed. A failing may have occurred. But a failing is something very different from an offence.
Now you mentioned in response to my earlier post that "precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended". Ok, I can go along with that.
But is it not then fair to say that lack of maintenance and testing may result in the fire precautions failing or not operating as originally intended? And if not then how far do we go with this?
Also as you say the RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire. Is installing AFD, Adequate MOE, Fire compartmentation, et al not reducing the risk, and if it is not then what is the point of them?
I agree a fire that is a "clearly forseeable" and "preventable" should be dealt with, but I still have to go back to my original question.
Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.
Thankfully because of my passive and active fire precautions no one was put at serious or imminent risk of injury or death. What are you going to do to me?
Are you going to:-
a) prosecute me?
b) take other formal enforcement action ? (such as an issuing an enforcement notice)
c) will you take informal enforcement ? (send me a report asking me to x,y, and z to prevent a similar fire from occurring again)
d) check that indeed everyone safely evacuated, no offences were committed and once confirming that give advice as appropriate.
Great post M.R.
But your scenario descibes what I would call an accident. I believe accidents are no longer acceptable in this country. Someone must be held blameworthy. Therefore, a) Prosecute. There must be something we can get you on!
-
Sorry Wiz our survery said "nerrrr nerrrr"
-
Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.
If this happened then it would be, as you say, an unforseen fire and you had taken reasonable steps to reduce the chances of a fire happening to your electrical equipment by PAT testing et al.
However, if the fire had broken out because you had not taken reasonable fire precautions by doing PAT et al you could maybe be slapped in some way.
Prosecution? Maybe not, unless someone was hurt or worse.
But here, it's Friday. Time to prop the bar up. Monday's another battle and remember that when you think that life is going too fast, visit your local post office.
-
I would say (D)
but we were talking about forseeable and preventable fires in the context of atricle 4 and 32.
Am way ahead of you on the bar front and makes posting on phone difficult.
-
We must consider fire prevention in addition to fire precaution as there can be failures in both.
To suggest that we do not have to consider fire prevention because we have passive and active fire safety measures cannot be substantiated.
The order clearly states that a RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises.
This can only be achieved by fire prevention.
If we then have a fire that was clearly foreseeable and preventable then it is apparent that this duty was not met
I agree, if you have not complied with the fire prevention aspect and passive and active fire safety measures then you are in breach of the order. Then the next step is enforcement action and if that fails then consider any possible offences also do you have adequate evidence to take it to court.
Using the above terminology makes it clearer and simpler to understand.
-
I agree, if you have not complied with the fire prevention aspect and passive and active fire safety measures then you are in breach of the order. Then the next step is enforcement action and if that fails then consider any possible offences also do you have adequate evidence to take it to court.
Using the above terminology makes it clearer and simpler to understand.
The above is slightly wrong. If there is an offence being committed then that is something that should be dealt with immediately, evidence collected, interviews done etc. Enforcement is used to rectify any faults found and would be a completely separate issue to any prosecution, if enforcement fails then we will simply prosecute for not complying with the notice. (This could be a secondary prosecution to any initial one initiated due to the faults found.)
The order clearly states that a RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises.
This can only be achieved by fire prevention.
How do you work that one out? I thought that it was quite clearly documented that risk is a product of likelihood and consequences? You seem to like maths BLEVE: R = L x C, Hold L constant, what happens when you lower C? I am reasonably sure that it would have the effect of lowering R.
-
The order clearly states that a RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises.
This can only be achieved by fire prevention.
How do you work that one out? I thought that it was quite clearly documented that risk is a product of likelihood and consequences? You seem to like maths BLEVE: R = L x C, Hold L constant, what happens when you lower C? I am reasonably sure that it would have the effect of lowering R.
[/quote]
The Order states that measures must be taken to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises.
It does not say reduce the risk from fire but of fire..................... meaning ignition and combustion not the products of combustion or pyrolysis.
To that end, how do you reduce the risk of fire occurring........you apply fire prevention measures............in other words keeping fuels segregated from ignition sources.
This is clearly supported by the guidance notes continual reference to the 5 steps of an assessment.
It is foolish to think that a building can have 100% reliance on passive and active protection measures, as previously satted these can have and do fail. It is only by taking into account fire prevention and precautions that the risk of and from fire can be reduces so far as is reasonably practicable.
I hope my universal translator is working because obvioulsy I have been writing in some other language thus far.
BTW I do not particularly like math it is one of my weaker subjects but I get by
-
Civvy
In my first statement I was trying to say, if an RP and others do not comply with any of the relevant articles they are in breach of the order but may not have committed an offence (placing relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury) but would be subject to enforcement action. If they failed to comply with the enforcement action they would then have committed an offence. But of course I accept there are times when you go straight for the juggler.
My second statement was never based on academic argument R, L and Cs I am a thick ex fire bobby I simple used what is in the order. Definition of “General Fire precautions (a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises”. Which I interpret if I am inspecting the meter cupboard and find a piece of silver paper being used as a fuse I would have it be removed and replaced with a standard fuse of the correct rating. If it continues to blow, I would have them sort out the problem with the wiring, even if all the wiring was protected to an half hour standard which obviously it would not be.
To me that is taking measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises.
-
Tom
I should have been clearer in my quoting, the second part was aimed at BLEVE. Message received and understood. It was the part where you said "consider any possible offences" that confused me, as a failure to comply with an enforcement notice is obviously one clearly defined offence.
BLEVE, we are going round and round in circles. You are still talking about the RISK of fire, not the likelihood. But something as simple as the word 'of' in the context you give it could be the key, and I am sure appeals/defences and/or determinations have rested on such fine details. It could be that it is accidental that there is no real mention of likelihood in the order, but it strikes me as strange that it is mentioned quite specifically in the guidance note in relation to H&S requirements of lowering the likelihood in explosive atmospheres etc due to work processes etc.
The CLG guides use the word "prevent" often, and that is the closest I have come to finding any justification for saying that we should be lowering the likelihood.