FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: Speyside on December 21, 2010, 01:43:54 PM
-
It looks at first glance as if the fire risk assessor for the hotel is in court as a defendant. Anyone know details of the case and if he is indeed the fire risk assessor the owners 'employed' as competent; this could be very significant following the alarm engineers prosecution recently.
http://www.info4fire.com/news-content/full/two-appear-in-court-to-face-penhallow-hotel-charges
-
Anyone know details of the case and if he is indeed the fire risk assessor the owners 'employed' as competent;
Yes he is. From this link http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/HOTEL-WARNINGS/article-1053197-detail/article.html (http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/HOTEL-WARNINGS/article-1053197-detail/article.html)
"Martin Tricker, health and safety consultant with Hawthorn Safety Consultancy, who said he was responsible for advising Holdsworth hotels, told the court that the hotel did not have the L2 system installed, which would have meant smoke detectors and a 75-decibel fire alarm in every bedroom."
Indeed, this will be one to follow. And for all those of us who have ever said "no" to a potential client because we didn't consider we had the necessary expertise - be glad you did.... (I know I have and I am)
-
Hi Meerkat, I cant access your link (damn firewall grrrr:( ) could you give me a brief synopsis of it please?
-
From what I can see in the newspaper report of the inquest there are a number of barristers trying to lay the blame at other peoples doors. Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong but the risk assessor believed that the AFD within the building was adequate as it had been in place for a number of years and didn't make any recommendations to upgrade to L2. The hotel owners barristers are claiming that he should have made this recommendation and that an L2 system was 'required' after October 2006.
So the barristers are claiming that the legislation changed and required L2 post RRO and the risk assessor is claiming that the legislation was not retrospective and the existing system was fully functional (assumed) and adequate for the purposes of giving warning in case of fire.
-
It's a newspaper report from the inquest in June 2009. Disclaimer - I have no first hand knowledge of the incident at all so am only going by what I read.
It appears that the hotel had been told by Cornwall Fire Service (in July 2006) that their alarm system needed upgrading but this had not been picked up or mentioned in the subsequent fire risk assessment. The Assessor was "... responsible for advising the hotel group on all aspects of health and safety from February 2007 and had looked at the hotel's fire risk assessment in March of that year."
At the inquest it looks as though the Barrister for the Company running the hotel was trying to imply that it was the assessor's fault for not bringing this to the attention of his client. "Jonathan Waite QC, the barrister representing the Holdsworth Group, said .... "Looking back at it now and knowing how Holdsworth were relying on your advice, was it a glaring admission not to flag up the need to install the L2 system?"" The Coroner told the assessor that he did not have to answer the question as "under what is known as Rule 22, he did not have to respond to questions which may or may not incriminate him."
There's clearly more to it than that as a separate Fire Safety Consultancy had also at some stage given advice that the alarm system should be replaced and this seems to have been disregarded, however I don't know enough about the case to comment. I'm sure there is further discussion elsewhere on the forum from a while ago and someone will be along to point out where in a minute I expect!
-
Thanks Meerkat,
I was curious as to why the Advisor would face action, but from your synopsis it makes it a bit clearer as to why...............goes to show why a register of Fire Risk Assessment Advisors is required!
-
Sanddancer I really can't see how this goes to show how a register is required!! This is an inquest not a criminal court and until all of the evidence is heard it is impossible to determine what the verdicts will be.
-
"Looking back at it now and knowing how Holdsworth were relying on your advice, was it a glaring admission not to flag up the need to install the L2 system?""
Golden,
my thoughts based on the above, but you are right I shouldn't judge until its done and dusted!
-
Mr. Waite is clearly trying to place the blame on someone else apart from his client in putting this question, I think it is quite telling that the parties involved have QCs representing them at a coroners court as they all know there's likely to be huge implications in the criminal courts. There are a number of interesting issues in this small article - the training and disabled evacuation are mentioned later in the piece.
The coroners court will be very interesting but it won't be until the criminal case is heard that we really know the answers and the effect it will have on the fire industry.
-
The coroners court will be very interesting but it won't be until the criminal case is heard that we really know the answers and the effect it will have on the fire industry.
The Inquest was held some time ago (June 2009). It returned an open verdict on the direction of the coroner as arson was suspected but not proven. http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/SHOCK-HOTEL-INFERNO-VERDICT/article-1071749-detail/article.html (http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/SHOCK-HOTEL-INFERNO-VERDICT/article-1071749-detail/article.html)
A comment from the linked article "The inquest had been told the hotel, part of the Holdsworth Hotels group, did not have the required fire safety procedures in place. Guests giving evidence said the fire alarm could not be heard on the third floor where all of the people who died were staying. Witnesses also spoke of suitcases being left in the corridor overnight."
The coroner commented "that all hotel and guesthouse owners needed to be reminded of their responsibility to comply with fire safety measures." and (with regard to the RRO) "In particular, one aspect of the order stipulated that they must ensure that their premises have been subject to a fire risk assessment which is reviewed regularly and identify those general fire precautions that need to be put in place."
However you are correct that the criminal trial will be the one that has the lasting effect on our industry.
-
Thanks Meerkat; its clear that you are a very knowledgeable and thorough contributor (unlike myself) and will soon be held in the same regard as the top contributors to this forum whilst I have some work to do methinks.
I was associating the two reports and taking my info from the newspaper without looking at the respective dates - very careless!! I think it will be a number of years before the truth is known in this case; the judgement on the FRA will be the most interesting particularly if either the owners or the consultant are cleared of their charge.
-
Kurnal? Kurnal! :o I wouldn't presume to be that knowledgeable, but actually we don't look anything like each other. Try Compare_the_consultant.com and you'll see ;D
-
Thanks Meerkat - I've edited my post to correct the mistake and acknowledge your post.
-
If you use the link to Meerkats This is Cornwall, then select Penhallow Hotel in the second paragraph it opens a page with a whole host of reports on the fire and inquest going back to the time of the fire.
I think this case may show that relying on older standards or Building Control approvals is no defence if a fire risk assessment identifys that somthing is not compliant with current standards. The use of the term "Legislation Not Retrospective" will not help once an issue has been identified. Not respective is a common reason given to me for not needing to consider some fire risk assessment recomendations.
-
I know that in Scotland the fire risk assessor would be classed as a Duty Holder and if a case did go to court via the prosecutor fiscal if it was in the interest of protecting the public, the assessor could face the full force of the law.
I think in England there does need to be some accountability of the fire risk assessor who is after all selling their expertise. If something they have done isn’t fit for purpose as determined by a court then he or she should have to face the music. I know that some of the assessors on here won’t agree, but in my opinion it will improve standards as those with limited ability may start to think twice about doing dodgy assessments if they may end up paying for it some time in the future.
-
Seconded Speyside;)
-
Just FYI - the cause of the fire was quite a bit more than suspected arson. However, all the investigators were asked the same question by the Coroner along the lines of "are you certain it was arson, are you reasonably sure or are you unsure". It was made clear that "certain beyond reasonable doubt" was not an option. Given the choice of only these 3 options; all the investigators (and I was one of them) were obliged to pick the middle ground.
-
Of course the coroner is only interested in fixing the cause of death not placing the blame, however I gather that the CPS decided some time ago that they didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone with murder / arson although the Police still consider this an unsolved murder case?
The current court case is more about why people didn't get out once the fire had started and is concentrating on those seen as having the duties under the RRO.
Reminds me a bit of all the times that the CPS has chickened out of taking a manslaughter (corporate or otherwise) case for deaths at work and instead left the HSE to prosecute for breaches of H&S.
-
Quote from Jayjay:
I think this case may show that relying on older standards or Building Control approvals is no defence if a fire risk assessment identifys that somthing is not compliant with current standards. The use of the term "Legislation Not Retrospective" will not help once an issue has been identified. Not respective is a common reason given to me for not needing to consider some fire risk assessment recomendations.
[/quote]
Jayjay; this is why this case has far reaching implications. I don't know the full story of the fire detection and alarm but the issue of compliance with current standards is the critical aspect of the prosecution. I can't accept that legislation in this case can be retrospective as it will cause an horrendous cost for businesses across the country, with respect to the AFD/alarm I can see that it would be prudent to give the advice that the system doesn't comply to the current standards and to back that up with reasoned argument why it should be upgraded. My main issue is where do you stop? Has every fire door, emergency light, sign, external escape, panic bar, etc. to be changed as well? I could also give a number of examples of buildings that have been built in the past year that don't comply but have been passed by various bodies.
If this is the role of the risk assessor then we may as well just give the RP a copy of the building regs. and tell them to start again. I am quite happy for a register of fire risk assessors as I can only see this as beneficial to my company but what I really would like to know from this case is how far reaching is the RRO - does it mean as seems to be inferred by some of the reports - that every building that it applies to has to comply with the latest set of British standards? Or maybe I am once again reading this wrong?
-
Or maybe I am once again reading this wrong?
I think you may be reading too much into the current discussions but am confident that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment carried out by a competent person will identify the correct solutions to fire safety problems without seeking to retrospectively apply new standards.
Look at the way the definition of an offence is worded in the Order, its a functional issue rather than a technical issue.
The Principles of Prevention require us to adapt to technical progress. What does that mean? Upgrade all safety systems to the latest standards? I say not.
I say it requires us to look at the underlying reasons WHY the standards have been changed and apply the new understanding of the issues in carrying out your fire risk assessment. If your old fire doors remain in good condition and will still give sufficient protection in your particular circumstances then there is no need to upgrade them. Just record the background as to why you made that decision.
I still have sufficient faith in the system to believe that as long as you make an informed and diligent decision to evaluate what you have, ensure it is as good as it can reasonably be and will protect people from risk of injury or death in case of fire using the old definition of Reasonably Practicable.
We earn our living by exercising our professional judgement to advise other people. But make no mistake if any of us makes such a judgement and someone later dies in a fire as a direct result of the decisions made then clearly it was wrong decision! And we will quite rightly have to answer for our actions.
Its no different really to any other aspect of H&S from the guy who MOTs your car and makes a judgement over what remains serviceable and what needs replacing or the Doctor trying to decide whether to give you a triple or quad bypass.
-
That is how I have always understood the legislation and professional judgement is the key to earning our living, if everywhere/everyone complied with the latest legislation we would be out of a job. In my opinion it is also why FRAs need an experienced - as well as 'qualified' - practitioner who can apply balance to the role and look at the principles behind the standards (post war building studies was my old 'mentor's' favourite) and the incidents that have led to the legislation.
I'm taking an interest in this discussion and the case as it may become one of those landmarks that will take the RRO legislation forwards another step. Thanks for your comments - there may be many more issues to come during the trial.
John.
-
Professional judgement comes with experience, and I am sure we all have made mistakes, I know I have but at least I wave the red flag when I am out of my depth and send for help.
In regard to standards, a hotel that size deserves modern standards, whereas, as K says, there are in other places where you might record the standard as a moderate.
He also makes an interesting comment re adapting to technical progress. Again, we realise that these straightened times we cannot in all conscience recommend multi sensors for every premise but only when there is clear justification.
I have had problems with private BCs for some years (and the odd tame I/O) and as one of you knows, passing shoddy plans and shoddy workmanship that has to be corrected after handover.
I wouldn't advise accepting guilt in those circumstances K, as we all know we can only deal with what we find and realise circumstances change- what was excellent managership when you do your RA can soon change if some slacker takes over and negates the strategy for escape, or some stupid contractor tears a door in the fire blanket just to pass a cable through (I have the photo :o)
regards, merry Xmas and keep it coming people ;D ;D
davo
-
I for one will be watching this case, not for macabre reasons, but I was on holiday in Newquay at the time and in fact, had walked past the hotel some hours before the fire.
Cornwall Fire and Rescue service came under alot of crticism at the time about only one appliance being turned out on the initial call, the fact that everyone thought it should be wholetime crewed not day duty, the lack of aerial appliance cover and the nearest one coming from 50 miles away, but no attention was focussed on why things had gone so badly wrong.
This case should be welcomed. The responsible persons should be brought to account and, if matters have/were not addressed following advice, especially when some of it has come from the F&RS, then they should be held responsible for their actions, or lack of actions.
It is intersting to note that two people have refused or declined to answer questions. That alone speaks volumes to me. What are they hiding?
I'm sure the families of those lost want a definitive answer and the courts provide them.
-
Latest press coverage
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Penhallow-case-committed-Crown-Court/article-3151617-detail/article.html
-
Strangely the consultancy hasn't linked this story in their 'Industry News' section :D :D :D
-
Hotel Company fined £80k + £62k costs:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/halifax_firm_fined_80_000_fine_for_hotel_blaze_that_killed_three_1_3347181 (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/halifax_firm_fined_80_000_fine_for_hotel_blaze_that_killed_three_1_3347181)
(See also UK Prosecutions section.)
-
"several major failings were found. These included a lack of an “L2” alarm system, which features loud smoke and fire alarms in every room"
Why L2? does anybody know the details?
-
Wee Brian I find this aspect very frustrating! Obviously some information will come out in the future following the court case but as far as I understand the FRA didn't recommend an upgrade to the existing system to bring it in line with current guidance. I haven't any idea what category of system was provided and how outdated and would like to know where the courts would draw the line with respect to upgrading existing fire protection measures however from what I can glean from the press coverage and the comments above the system provided was not fit for purpose.
This case does of course highlight the need for regular fire risk assessment in these type of premises and how this has developed from the FP act. and the vital role of the management in fire safety. It has crossed my mind about when the last FB inspection was carried out and/or a fire certificate was issued on the hotel?
-
Brian, if not L2 then what would it be?
-
Brian, if not L2 then what would it be?
How about L1?
Table A.1 of BS5839-1 suggests a typical category of L1 or L2 for a hotel or hostel. Within the comments section we find the phrase '...In practice, few, if any areas are left unprotected and the system Category is effectively L1......'
I don't really know this building, but I understand it is not a modern building and contained sleeping persons who are unlikely to know where the escape routes are. Personally, I'd be surprised if it was assessed as requiring anything less than L1
-
Charges were dropped against the consultant because the prosecution apparently offered no evidence. Looks as though FRA wasn't part of his role for the Hotel Compnay at all and he's just been made a scaepgoat.
http://www.shponline.co.uk/incourt-content/full/charge-dropped-against-hotel-fire-consultant (http://www.shponline.co.uk/incourt-content/full/charge-dropped-against-hotel-fire-consultant)
"Following his not-guilty verdict, Mr Tricker told SHP that while his company provides health and safety, as well as food-safety services, to O&C Holdsworth Ltd, it was not engaged to provide fire risk-assessment services for the company prior to the fire."
If this is indeed the case then why did it take so long to come out? Hasn't done the guy's reputation any favours these last months has it!
-
Brian, if not L2 then what would it be?
Err ignore that - brain wasn't in gear.
In terms of the - when do you upgrade question. The approach that's in CTs draft guide to blocks of flats might be one we could adopt for all such questions.
-
Base upon the information available my initial thoughts were that the consultant held a degree of accountability.
I now have a degree of sympathy for the individual.
What I fail to understand is that how difficult is it to investigate and identify ownership of a fire risk assessment.
Sounds to me like an 'own goal' by the authorities. Not the first and will not be the last.
Steve
-
Base upon the information available my initial thoughts were that the consultant held a degree of accountability.
I now have a degree of sympathy for the individual.
What I fail to understand is that how difficult is it to investigate and identify ownership of a fire risk assessment.
Sounds to me like an 'own goal' by the authorities. Not the first and will not be the last.
Steve
In some sectors too many 'own goals' leads to relegation. In the Public sector no-one seems to care - it's only tax-payers money they waste and other people's living they damage
-
Brian, You say the nicest things! Have you gone all cuddly since my taxes have been contributing to your salary?
-
Base upon the information available my initial thoughts were that the consultant held a degree of accountability.
I now have a degree of sympathy for the individual.
What Universities offer degrees in accountability and degrees in sympathy? They sound like useful courses.
-
The vultures appear to have abandoned what they thought was a dying man.