FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: The Colonel on February 08, 2012, 09:05:06 PM
-
Ladies and Gents
I know the subject has been aired before but a local housing association is looking for some clarification and guidance on where their responsibilities lie and if they are going in the right direction. I have received the following from them.
I need some clarification regarding our responsibilities as the Landlord of these premises. We ensure the relevant fire detection systems have been installed & maintained as per statutory requirements.
As these are domestic premises what is our responsibility in terms of evacuating the tenants? We don’t have an on site warden however we are looking to appoint individuals who will respond when an activation takes place. The intention would be for someone to attend to reset the panel once the fire & rescue service have given the all clear plus to act as a “meet & greet” with the fire & rescue service providing they haven’t left by the time the member of staff arrives. We have identified those tenants who have mobility or mental issues and intend to forward this list onto the fire control centre plus keep hard copies of tenant details in the fire box at each sheltered scheme. This will be maintained and updated on a monthly basis. The facilities team will carry out regular checks to ensure adherence. We were looking to check those areas where we have non ambulant individuals to ensure their flats are compartmented plus check the integrity has not been compromised. A PEEP will be recorded for each individual however we will be stating that each such person will be operating a stay put. Is this acceptable? As these are domestic premises are we getting too involved? I’m presuming as landlords we have a duty of care to ensure an evacuation procedure is in place and communicated however where does our responsibility lay with regards to non ambulant tenants?
The local fire authority have met with the housing association and put the wind up them. As they intend to adopt an evacuation policy for their sheltered housing the fire authority have indicated that it is the associations responsibility to ensure all occupants have evacuated and if they don't they will take action against the them. I have also spoken to the officer concerned to clarify the situation which is, they expect the landlord to be responsible for evacuation and that someone from them should be on site within 20 minutes to carryout evacuation of those that cannot leave. If this is not achieved they will carryout an investigation to determine if the landlord has exercised due diligence and done all the can in the circumstances, surly the fire authority cannot hold the landlord responsible for a tenant holding two fingers up to any evacuation.
The landlord has had risk assessments carried out and have put into place almost all recommendations from the assessments and intends to ensure that all flats where those that cannot evacuate live are fully compartmented. They are documenting all actions to ensure that they are exercising due diligence. I think the fire authority may be being to hard on the landlord. I agree that they are there to fight fires and not to evacuate people but was that requirement not aimed at other premises other than domestic, because once you enter the flat it is a domestic premise and not covered by the RRO. the communal areas are not in dispute, the fire authority acknowledge that the communal areas are covered by the RRO
Has anyone come across this before, are the fire authority being to hard line or can the landlord do more except having someone waiting to spring into action 24/7.
-
It all sounds a bit of a mess and a muddle Colonel.
Sheltered housing nationally has lost its wardens due mainly to the working time directive. I think those areas that can stay put should stay put. This way they remain domestic and the Landlord does not have to make arrangements for their evacuation in my opinion. The Landlord has then done his duty in providing safe premises and a suitable matching emergency strategy.
On the other hand if there are communal areas or flats with an all out evacuation strategy then someone needs to take charge and we have tried a number of solutions. One way is to identify two or three "Responsible tenants" who can be employed on a turnout basis and paid a small fee. They work to a clearly defined role, are trained to that role and it works in some cases.
In our schemes their role may include checking the panel if accessible, calling the fire service, knocking on doors, meeting the brigade, handing them the PEEPS folder, resetting the panel or calling the engineer.
In some other cases where there is a intercom system and a call centre a response team can be employed. This is the most successful solution in my experience in an urban setting. Scheme managers are on site during the working day and work a duty rota out of hours. We too set an attendance criteria of 20 minutes which seems to work reasonably well.
The fire services we have dealt with have accepted these solutions as a reasonable and realistic response.
Those same officers who are suggesting landlords should employ extra staff to evacuate tenants are no doubt telling you that their own organisations are having to make cuts, will not send a pump to AFAs, eliminating guaranteed attendance times from their IRMP and cutting staffing on pumps to the bone.
-
Do Sheltered Dwellings on the mainland have to license by statute?
-
Kurnal
Interesting comments, thanks. We are getting the same comments from the fire service about cut backs, less pumps etc oh and by the way you must have people on site as we are only going to fight fires and are fed up with evacuating people.
Also interesting about residents helping out and being trained to assist, just need to be careful that they don't take on the superhero mantle and put themselves at risk. The housing association are getting more of their on call staff such as electricians and other trades trained on alarm panel resetting etc and when to call out the alarm engineers but may not meet the 20 minutes time frame as the association covers a whole county. They do intend to try and get a good spread but no guarantee that other call outs won't affect service.
The fire service officer is particularly keen that guidance doc 12 is used, the supplement for disabled persons, though this is mainly aimed at work places and public areas not so much at sheltered housing. Don't get me wrong there are some good suggestions in No12, extra hand rails, additional doors in corridors to reduce travel etc which they intend looking at. FS also suggested that less able residents should only be on the ground floor if they aren't able to evacuate, not something that can be enforced and I would suggest discriminatory as it take away choice.
Nearlythere, no licence required over here.
-
So is sheltered accommodation just a building containing private dwellings just like a block of flats or are they in a particular category of care? The dwellings are not relevant premises I assume?
-
Many sheltered housing schemes comprise a building containing individual flats that are FR compartments with communal corridors, communal residents lounge, laundry etc. Effectively each flat is a residents own domestic premise but with others around it. The ones I refer to are just flats within a building with no additional care provided by the landlord other than a housing officer who is the contact between landlord and resident
-
Is the building suitable for a stay put policy where only the flat invloved in fire need evacuate and does the fire alarm installed support stay put or does it sound a general alarm? If the building can be adapted to support a stay put policy then that is the way to go and full evacuation is not an issue. Maintain a PEEPs log of those that need assitance from the fire service to evacuate and make sure it is accessable to them. See anex Q6 of BS 9999.
-
Many sheltered housing schemes comprise a building containing individual flats that are FR compartments with communal corridors, communal residents lounge, laundry etc. Effectively each flat is a residents own domestic premise but with others around it. The ones I refer to are just flats within a building with no additional care provided by the landlord other than a housing officer who is the contact between landlord and resident
Is it a case then that your F&RS is looking at all blocks of flats on this matter? Or do they consider sheltered accommodation to be care premises?
-
William, many of the buildings would be suitable for stay put, where findings have been identified in the risk assessment the housing association have undertaken everything asked of them, its only the tenants that cause problems. Intrusive surveys inside flats are being considered by the HA. Your comment on the fire service assisting is where our local FRS have put up the problem in that they state that it is there job to fight fire and not to help evacuate people and that the evacuation is down to the landlord to sort out. It is almost a case of we are going to have less staff to work with so you as the landlord will have to have staff available to evacuate residents.
Nearlythere. the only blocks the FRA are concerned about at the moment is sheltered housing, general needs doesn't seem to come into it. Its interesting about being a care premises because most residents are left to their own devices, housing support staff are available but only during the day and usually from a remote office, they provide no care. Some residents may have care staff visiting or home helps etc but these come from the local council social services.
-
How do the residents pay for living in sheltered accommodation? They sound a lot like Fold Housing as we have over here. They are primarily for elderly persons who have their own self contained flats but have access to communal areas where they can congregate and socialise with others if they want to. They are not in care and I believe hand over their pension books when they take up residence unless they have a private means to pay to stay. To me they are private dwellings just like any other block of private flats.
-
Yes thats one type of sheltered accommodation as we call it over here.
If its well designed the flats will be stay put but generally communal facilities are evacuated and have an L2 spec alarm. Always difficult writing emergency plans for these places because we know full well most people in the common room will try and head for their flat if the alarm sounds rather than the exits. OK if a false alarm but one day it will be a fire.
-
Exactly that NT, I believe that some are owner occupied too.
-
NT. You've got it except for the handing over of pension books. the flats are private and as far as I am concerned the RRO stops at the flat front door and don't quite understand how the fire authority can insist on the landlord getting everyone out. The resident pays the rent by various means, but as with many types of accommodation for the over 55s they may be fit when the move in but things as we know go down hill, how on earth can a landlord be held responsible if he has done all in his power to ensure compartmentation, warning, escape, advice etc.
-
NT. You've got it except for the handing over of pension books. the flats are private and as far as I am concerned the RRO stops at the flat front door and don't quite understand how the fire authority can insist on the landlord getting everyone out. The resident pays the rent by various means, but as with many types of accommodation for the over 55s they may be fit when the move in but things as we know go down hill, how on earth can a landlord be held responsible if he has done all in his power to ensure compartmentation, warning, escape, advice etc.
People in private traditional flats as we know them can go downhill as well. Does the F&RS police all private flats looking for people who are candidates for residential care?
-
William, many of the buildings would be suitable for stay put, where findings have been identified in the risk assessment the housing association have undertaken everything asked of them, its only the tenants that cause problems. Intrusive surveys inside flats are being considered by the HA. Your comment on the fire service assisting is where our local FRS have put up the problem in that they state that it is there job to fight fire and not to help evacuate people and that the evacuation is down to the landlord to sort out. It is almost a case of we are going to have less staff to work with so you as the landlord will have to have staff available to evacuate residents.
Quite simply the fire service need to be challenged on this one, its well worth a fight given the impact it has on so may similar situations up and down the Country. A small fact they seem to forget when dealing with housing associations with several hundred properties.
-
Kurnal, you should really be careful about recommending fire alarm signals are transmitted via a social alarm system. It is not designed for life critical applications like a fire alarm system or associated transmission equipment.
-
Colin there are weaknesses and strengths. One thing is for sure. European working time directives together with the English interpretation of how they should be implemented have ensured the demise of the live in wardens. Even in the good old days though they had to have leave and go shopping sometimes leaving the the sheltered housing scheme unprotected. Dont forget when many of these places were built if an alarm was fitted at all it was only a mains 240 volt manual system installed and one live in warden on call 24/7 often with a valve based TR intercom system and no smoke alarms..... Over the years the installation of alarm and detection systems has increased the safety of residents greatly but also increased the number of unwanted alarm signals and the wardens have all been given their P45s. If you are lucky now you may find a scheme manager visiting once or twice a week for a few hours.
I am all in favour of a redcare type link between a communal areas alarm system and the call centre and recommend this be installed (but often it is not). The use of a social intercom to verify a call does have potential pitfalls but it does allow a level of support and verification which bring huge benefits to all, on a par with NHS direct- except the connection is automatic.
Its swings and roundabouts - the system is far less resilient than we would like it to be but it is bringing advantage safety and security to thousands of vulnerable people today and every day. If we purse our lips and suck our teeth we will deny these benefits and have nothing to put in its place. By all means lets develop a system that does achieve a life safety standard but it has to be available and affordable now. Plus it needs to be connected to the LD systems in each flat as well as the communal areas alarm, on an individually addressable basis.
So your mum burns the toast. The LD detector in the flat operates and the call centre calls your mum and speaks to her on the intercom. If they get no response they call the fire service and the response team. A level of service and support far above and beyond the scope of BS5839 parts 1 or 6. Plus they are usually tested every day by the call centre speaking to each vulnerable resident.
Unless you know of a better solution that will work, is available now and are prepared to share the details with us?
-
The LD detector in the flat operates and the call centre speaks to the tenant on the intercom. If they get no response they call the fire service and the response team
Provided they do. Hummmmmmmmm
-
Well Sam what else do you suggest? We arent going to get resident wardens back, the best housing associations operate response teams but with a response time of 20 minutes can that be called a life safety response? Crikey the Doctor dialled an emergency ambulance a couple of weeks ago by 999 when my ma in Law had a stroke and it took an hour to arrive on blues and twos. My mate had a heart attack at work- 40 minutes for the ambulance to come. We cant be having response times like that from the emergency services on the one hand and at the same time telling cash strapped social housing providers that they have a duty to employ more staff and give a better response.
hmmm they say things come in threes.
-
Kurnal, you should really be careful about recommending fire alarm signals are transmitted via a social alarm system. It is not designed for life critical applications like a fire alarm system or associated transmission equipment.
Yes Kurnal. You can only have that if you have a three mile cable with a 65db bell on the end of if. Any more can get a tad difficult pull. Emergency radio signals over a longer distance e.g. the moon and back, are not proven yet for fire warnings.
Now what system would you trust? A commercial social networking system or a British Government special?
-
Kurnal.
Based on recent experience I would say the minimum social call centres (carelines etc.) should do is to train their operators to recognise an emergency situation rather than a social care situation. If they are monitoring a flat by listening they should be able to recognise the sounds of a single point alarm sounding; or if they are connected to a FAS installed in the premises and it actuates and they are unable to contact the resident by the intercom (radio or whatever) then they should call 999 and say so. If they are unable to raise the resident then they should act accordingly. To always mobilise a social response team (local warden, buddy, key-holder etc.) before calling an emergency service may not be the best way for a resident in distress.
IMHO :)
-
Kurnal, I suggest you talk to the coroner who has expressed concerns about the way social alarm systems monitor fire signals. After which, I suggest you think twice before recommending that the communal system be transmitted by this means. Alternatively, you could write in the fra action plan that it should be ensured that no resident uses their social alarm system less than 15 minutes before the outbreak of a fire. That might prevent unacceptable transmission delays.
Sheltered housing is a mess that has been exacerbated by the publication of the highly flawed BS 9991. Since the committee responsible for that standard did not competently deal with the issue, it will need to be dealt with in other new guidance that does the job for them.
-
Sheltered housing is a mess that has been exacerbated by the publication of the highly flawed BS 9991. Since the committee responsible for that standard did not competently deal with the issue, it will need to be dealt with in other new guidance that does the job for them.
Colin, are you aware of some new guidance coming out or are you writing some for us?? ;D
-
Willie, I have put proposals that new guidance should be produced in 3 different fora. In two cases, my proposals were accepted and I will be working in each case to help draft the guidance. The third proposal is under consideration and I will be attending a meeting to discuss in March or April.
-
Thanks Colin, if the guidance is along the lines the purpose built flats guide then I think that will be a good leap forward. In my view there are many such areas that need clarification from when the HM Gov guides were first produced. One very grey area that no one seems to be able to agree on is supported or assisted living premises. Those "domestic" type premises that are not single private dwellings but in reality operate in much the same as a domestic household. ???
-
I can't argue with Kurnal's logic. Whilst communal communication systems should not be relied upon, it doesn't mean to say we should discount them completely. They do represent an extra tier of protection in my opinion.
As the only means of rasing an alarm I would of course agree that communal communication is totally inappropriate. But where it is installed, comms can compliment the protection offered by the Part 1 (communal) / Part 6 (individual flat) fire alarm systems.
If a resident has kealed over in their flat, left cooking on, and a blaze occurs, it would only be if and when the communal system activated that other residents in the scheme would be alerted to the fire, and call the emergency services. By that time the resident may have persished.
With a part 6 alarm linked to the communal comms system someone at a control centre will be alerted to the fact an alarm has been activated. The call centre staff may attempt voice communication with the resident. If there is no response they would call the fire service. Furthermore it might be argued that this process could occur faster than the time it takes for the communal alarm system to activate, and other residents to call 999. So when used in that way I don't see why there is a problem with comm/comm systems.
I appreciate that it all depends on the quality of the call monitoring centre staff, and you can't solely rely on comm systems only to raise the alarm for obvious reasons.
-
With a part 6 alarm linked to the communal comms system someone at a control centre will be alerted to the fact an alarm has been activated. The call centre staff may attempt voice communication with the resident. If there is no response they would call the fire service.
Spookily close. But they did, she didn't and they then didn't and she did'nt make it.
-
Either you can rely on something or you cant. If it is perceived to be life critical you should be able to rely on it. As already indicated, Retters, one needs to determine the objectives. You, like many other people, have lost sight of the ball as to why signals were to be relayed to an arc from the flats in the first place. It was NOT to save the individual in the flat of fire origin. Sometimes you need to go back to basiscs. It worked for John Major (not).
-
Yes Sam and tragic news will result. What we never hear about is the very many times when they did , she didn't so they did and probably saved a life.
I can give two examples of this on one scheme in the last 12 months.
-
Fair comment Kurnal :)
-
Either you can rely on something or you cant. You, like many other people, have lost sight of the ball as to why signals were to be relayed to an arc from the flats in the first place. It was NOT to save the individual in the flat of fire origin. Sometimes you need to go back to basiscs. It worked for John Major (not).
Sir Todd you have totally misunderstood me squire (you loose several brownie points for that).
I'm talking about the standalone detectors inside a flat linked to an ARC, not the communal alarm system necessarily. The type of alarm links I've seen in S/schemes came about because the ARC link was already installed for other purposes - for example if a resident feels unwell he or she pulls an emergency chord to call for help - and so the smoke alarms were also linked as a matter of course.
I clearly said that comm/comms can not be relied upon for fire alarm monitoring and I have always known Sir Todd that detection is not there to protect the person in the flat of fire origin. That is not the argument I'm making here.
I was simply saying that under current standards standalone detectors don't have to be monitored. However if the standalone detector was already linked to an ARC then in my ficticious scenario who is to say that the brigade wouldn't have been called much quicker, improving the residents chances of being rescued, as a point of debate. Subjective I grant you, and would of course depend on numerous factors.
The point I am making is this - if I came across an existing s/scheme where the standalone flat detector was linked to an ARC I wouldn't be asking for the detector to be disconnected from the ARC. It may be of benefit, maybe it won't, but eitherway there is almost by default a possible additonal level of protection there, in my opinion.And if the ARC staff are good diligent folk they could alert the emergency services very quickly to a potential problem.
Therefore to simply disregard comm/comms that are already in place I think is erroneous - they could offer some additional benefits over and above and the usual fire precautions. Im not saying it can ever replace those fire precautions.
Then there is the issue of the communal fire alarm being monitored, and whether that is a good or a bad thing. I'll debate that another time.
-
Col. If the flats own alarm gets connected to an arc or remote welfare centre as they often do for good knows what reason, proabably a sparky gleening some extra cash out of a job, it won't cause any harm, cos it aint breaking any code or standard. so why knock it. Even if it isn't a life safety fail safe method that can't be relied on. No one is relying on it so its a bonus measure. if only on one occassion it means people at the arc know about a fire before anyone else does then surely its gotta be good. I see your point though wee man, connected to an arc or not the person in the flat thats on fire is probably gonna get barbequed anyway.
-
Retters/Clevers, you are both close to the point but not quite there. I drive a car with good brakes, so I drive accordingly. If someone sells me brakes that work sometimes but not others of course they are better than no brakes, but, if I think they can be relied on, I may be living in a fools paradise and get a shock when I want to stop one day. The fact that the brakes worked on 9 other occasions out of 10 is little consolation to the person who I ran over when on the 10th occasion the brakes failed.
The connection from the smoke alarm to an ARC IS a legal requirement for new sheltered housing in effect becaue it is recommended by AD B, which is only concerned with life safety. AD B does not say put in something that might work some of the time because it is better than nothing. There is an inherent assumption that it will work and get the FRS there (which is its purpose) so that they can initiate an evacuation of other residents if necessary.
There are things that can be done to make the social alarm system less likely to delay a fire alarm signal (just like the coroner has requested). But until it is a requirement there is no impetus for the social alarm industry to enhance their systems. It is not even their fault. They provide a system that is designed to help old dearies like Kurnal when they fall over. People have got them to connect smoke alarms on the commonly encountered philosophy of never mind the engineering feel the concept. Sadly, no one ever thought to stop and evaluate the engineering or how the systems actually worked. The fire safety profession needs to get its house in order and define why we want the connections, what we hope they will do and how reliable we want them to be.
-
No Mr Todd we are at cross purposes here. I don't disagree with anything you have said above, infact I whole heartidly agree. But you are missing the point.
The monitored systems that go through to the ARC are, as you state, normally fitted to come to the aid of someone who needs assistance (normally medical).
So at present in existing s/schemes (not new ones) you should find a communal L2 fire alarm system and a Part 6 grade D detector in the individual flats. The Part 6 detector is there to warn the resident of that flat of a fire, in the hope they will be alerted, the communal alarm is there to protect everyone else.
No other form of warning or alarm is required - the L2 / Part 6 provision would tick the right boxes for appropriate fire warning and detection in an existing sheltered scheme.
Now most s/schemes I have been to have tunstall system, or similar, fitted so that if Mrs Tom Cobley falls over in her flat she can press her pendant and get help, or speak to ARC staff via a comms box on the wall. Most of the time I find that someone has had the idea to also connect her Part 6 detector to the ARC too.
But connecting that detector to an ARC isn't a recommended or lesgilsative requirement. If it was a legislative requirement (which as you say is by default the case now in new sheltered schemes) then your comments above would hold true.
But in existing schemes your comments are academic, because we haven't asked for the part 6 detector to be linked. Thus any such connection is surely a bonus, which may actually be worth its weight in gold, even though not designed, or certified as being part of the overall fire safety or fire warning procedures for those premises. No one is stating we are relying on that link, it is there for other purposes, but may actually serve as boon to poor Mrs Cobley in the event of fire, and I'm sure there are cases where this has happened in real life. The management of the scheme need to appreciate however that the ARC link isn't their for life protection in terms of fire safety of course.
-
Retters, alas you are still not quite right. As this is unlike you, I am prepared to come to Retty Towers as you have offeredin the past and put you right, while Mrs Retty fusses over us both and brings us food and drink. The concept of connecting the smoke alarm to an ARC is not new. It goes back to the earliest standards and was there for the purpose intended. The fact the you did not ask for it as an I/o is irrelevant.
-
You're still not getting my drift Uncle Colin (my bestest friend in the world).
At the risk of boring you to tears let me put my argument another way.If that doesn't work I suggest we continue this discussion over a pint of Talisker.
You will agree that in existing premsies there is no legal requirement to connect any form of fire alarm or detection to an ARC. You can of course do so if you wish, and the relevant sections of BS 5839 Parts 1 or 6 tell you how it should be done properly, especially where life and limb relies upon it.
As long as the sheltered scheme has an L2 system fitted (plus the usual other fire precautions of course) the fire authority will be happy, and it cannot, of course, enforce the provision of a part 6 detector inside individual flats.
So no lawful requirement under the RR(FS) Order exists to link that detector, unless, according to the BS, the findings of a fire risk assessment identifies that one is required. Even then the fire authority can't enforce the requirement and it is perhaps subjective anyway, considering that we accept that the person in the flat of fire origin will perish. So long as the fire precautions protect everyone else then legally you have done everything reasonably practicable.
With that all in mind the job of the Part 6 detector is to warn the person in the individual flat of a fire occuring. And alas we know it may or may not be successful in saving someone's life The detector is required however under building regs, a link to a social alarm is not. So if I put one in, even if it is not the current BS have I commited a crime? have i made the situation anymore risky? or have i put something in that may actually flag up that there is a fire in Mrs Toms Cobley flat meaning that someone might, just might, raise the alarm quicker than the communal alarm is activated (or atleast quicker than other residents may call the fire service) and have I given Mrs Cobley a better chance of survival? The link won't necessarily warn her but it may result in the brigade getting to her quicker and effecting a rescue.
The answer is possibly. Just as the part 6 detector may possibly rouse someone who has fallen asleep of a fire occuring in the flat, who knows that link may also aid the situation. It does of course on several things, are SAS staff alert and well trained? Has the fire burnt through the link? but if we see such a link as a bonus, not a legal requirement, then what harm does it do?
-
Thanks for your points Midland but I do see where Colin is coming from too. Fact of the matter is this. Most flats have a tunstall or similar and since it has a pair of terminals marked smoke detector input it would be crackers not to use them. So they get used and deliver a huge non statutory benefit.
The problem is this though. And I hold my hand up to this which is what Colin was getting at.
If I already have a tunstall and a call centre then the temptation is to use it in lieu of any other arrangements for passing on fire alarms from the L2 system. Such other arrangements you might normally expect would be a responsible person on site or a fully secure redcare type interface.
Then I am on less secure ground and am perhaps unwise to rely on an unmonitored circuit to a busy call centre, especially if the L2 alarm only comes up in the control room same way and with the same priority as all other social and domestic calls.
In the case I was quoting at least the call centre is directly owned and managed by the Social Housing provider, work only for them and meet strict performance criteria, together with a strategic response team with good performance standards. In giving advice we can recommend a back up such as a redcare link or auto dialler but the client decides at the end of the day.
-
Retters as always we are not far apart. Your problem is that having spent your formative years in the British Fire Service, you keep thinking of what legislation requires, what codes say and what is a legal requirement. Consultants, like Big Al and I, on the other hand, are about keeping people safe from fire in buildings. Legislation is a major part of this. Codes etc are only used as guidance.
Consultants are also sometimes concerned about their own liability. Kurnal can carry on recommending connections via social alarm systems as a wee bonus..... until it all goes wrong and the barrister says " Your name is Big al kurnawywyzywcav-ski and you are a self styled consultant. Presumably, Professor kurnawwywyzyaxe, in recommending this alarm arrangement, you considered it appropriate for the protection of life? Can you tell the court what you know about alarm signalling and the reliability of the arrangement that failed so disastrously resulting in the sad death of Mrs Blenkinsop's dearly departed mother. Oh , your view Professsor is that well, it was better than nothing. Is that the standard of safety to which you aspire for your clients Professor?? Did you bother to tell the housing provider that, sometimes the signals are blocked because an old dearie is feeling poorly in another part of the scheme?
Now, because I am Big Al's favourite nephew, I shall be his expert witness (though I will want more than a bottle of cheap Polish vodka for my trouble). I shall cite custom and practice and indeed probably say that I would have recommended the same thing at this point in time. I shall say that Retters, who, having been in the fire service, is an expert in alarm communications systems, said that it would do. But I will also say that I recognized a long time before that better than nothing is not good enough and am spending lots of time without pay to try to make it better. I shall say that, for no good reason, a BS committee dumped all the guidance that existed on the subject, notwithstanding that the FIA (as a result of Big Al and I working in their offices until 11.45 pm one night) tried to tell the committee that they were doing harm to the safety of the public but that, arrogantly, they took no notice and were more interested in promoting sprinklers that will not work when the electricity supply to the pump fails. Then I shall visit Big Al when he does his eight months bird in Strangeways.
Now, about that Talisker...... Have Mrs Retty go to Sainsburys and get some roast leg of lamb and telephone my office at your earliest convenience to arrange the time and date, as I doubt I have anything more to add.
-
Well I'll be in court supporting Prof. K. aka Big Al
I won't yet reveal, at this stage, any of my critical evidence that will prove the Prof. to be innocent of all charges against him, but it will be devastating! :)
-
Thanks for your points Kurnal but I was discussing a slightly different issue.
I'm looking at this argument from experience. Many RPs out there aren't familiar with what the British Standard states with regard to monitored alarms. Instead there are very adhoc connections to Social Alarm Centres out there which are not "up to spec"- and then there is the issue of the SACs themselves.
I'm sure the SACs are very good at what they do, but they aren't necessarily geared up to, nor trained in monitoring or reacting to fire alarm signals in the way we, or the standards, would expect.
I'm asking how far we go as fire safety professionals in bringing such systems up to spec, and what incentivises an RP to do it when it isn't a legislative requirement?. If I am an RP why should I be forking out my hard earned wedge to upgrade a system which simply serves as a bonus measure - I might argue that it is better to have a system fitted, albeit sub-standard, rather than having no system at all. I could tell you that I don't rely on the SAC for primary protection, I rely on my L2 system, and individual part 6 detectors for that, but I do see monitored detectors as very useful additional measure.
And with regard to your court case scenario, who would be taking Prof. Kurnal to court? Wouldn't be the fire authority, I doubt it would be the housing authority, so whom? coroner? the family of the dead resident? On what basis would they be trying to nobble poor old Kurnal?
I totally accept as a competent fire consultant your responsibility is not just to consider what the law expects, but to actually make "relevent persons" safer and going beyond those legal requirements .
You will be pleased, or perhaps shocked, to hear that I share the same view, having been a safety practioner in private industry in a former life. But what argument would you use to a your client to upgrade an existing sub standard SAC linked system?
Now regarding the Talisker. There is no current Mrs Midland ... I could ask the ex-Mrs Midland to wait on us hand on foot. Alas I think we might get a negative answer - for example to 'go forth and multiply' isn't something I would normally do, except on saturdays!
-
I'm sure the SACs are very good at what they do, but they aren't necessarily geared up to, nor trained in monitoring or reacting to fire alarm signals in the way we, or the standards, would expect.
How so very true ! Some are very good . Others ( Extremely )less so. As (Allegedly) proved to my team recently.
so whom? coroner? the family of the dead resident? On what basis would they be trying to nobble poor old Kurnal
The Coroners Rules 1984 as amended 2008
Rule 43 provides coroners with the power to make
reports to a person or organisation where the coroner
believes that action should be taken to prevent future
deaths.
Could be a very uncomfortable inquest if nothing else
-
Well I'll be in court supporting Prof. K. aka Big Al
I won't yet reveal, at this stage, any of my critical evidence that will prove the Prof. to be innocent of all charges against him, but it will be devastating! :)
As ever I am indebted to you Dr Wiz for your generousity in deed and spirit. Indeed so grateful that you are welcome to share my cell for as long as you wish to stay.
-
Samuel, I have been trying to tell you that there already HAS been such an inquest. Retters, I have no problem making the arguements, and already work with many social housing organizations. Which is why we are trying to sort outthe mess.
Ok, I accept the point that Mrs Retters dumped you (though I am sure for no good reason and that she deeply regrets it. However, please simply amend the instruction, such that you still phone to make the arrangements but order a carry oot on the occasion of my visit. I shall bring the Talisker though not one of the very expensive ones.
-
Colin is the inquest report in the Public domain? Can you signpost us towards it?
-
...and did the inquest relate to the interlinking of part 6 detection to a social alarm centre or did it relate to the communal fire alarm being monitored remotely?
I do hear what you are saying Colin. You're saying that whilst interlinking detectors is currently optional at present (unless its a new build ) if it is installed then it should be done properly, to the appropriate standards - and I absolutely agree.
My frustration is that there is no mechanism, unless a good fire safety professional is brought in and clocks it, to get substandard systems brought up to spec. It's purely down to how good the RP is.
Therefore it probably won't be until there is a death that such inadequacies are highlighted in a coroner's court (which it seems has already happened from Colin comments above). But the Coroner doesn't sentence anyone. They establish how someone perished and what circumstances may have lead to that death, but they don't physically prosecute anyone.
So who is going to prosecute Joe Bloggs if he installs and inadequate system? If it's so important why isn't there greater awareness of the standards, and perhaps legislation to cover it? Because unless the intervention of a good fire safety professional changes things, there is no incentives for RPs and installers to follow those standards, let alone be prosecuted if things went wrong). In other words at best RPs may only be vicariously liable. And if someone does get sued what stops other RPs in similar schemes removing the links from their schemes in fear of facing civil action if it all went wrong. Sounds like a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" scenario to me.
Hence why I was saying that perhaps sometimes something is better than nothing. I don't know - just thinking out loud!
-
I agree Retty but fear you are leaning against an open door. If something is that important legislation should control it in my opinion.
-
Mr Todd
Had an interesting day last week on one of your training days on the new guidance for purpose built flats, thanks. Earlier in this tread you eluded to there being some problems with guidance on sheltered housing and BS 9991 not helping but making things worse and I agree. During our day your colleague also indicated that a new guide on sheltered housing was needed but there is as yet no indication if it will be forth coming in the near or distant future. I don't suppose you could shed any additional light on the subject could you?
I know of two fire authorities in our neck of the woods who I believe are pushing the boundaries with regard to sheltered housing. One has issued enforcement notices which has caused a stir and may even end up at the very top and is the subject of examination by the legal beagles.
This grey area is in need of some clarity and soon.
-
Reading through some of the original comments about wardens or lack of them it appears that staff were on site here -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-17271253 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-17271253)
-
Field marshall, Thank you for your kind comments on our flats training, which is proving very popular. I have no doubt that you liked my colleague much more than you would have liked me.
I have promoted action on the serious problem of sheltered housing on three fronts. (Pretty ambitious, as Hitler only managed two and look what happened to him.) As a result of me banging on about the subject, and possibly just to make an old man very happy, there will be some new guidance in BS 5839-6, since the committee responsible for BS 9991 demonstrated total incompetence to do so (possibly because they were too busy selling sprinklers), there will be guidance produced by the Business Engagement Forum in Scotland, and the matter wll be considered by the Fire Sector Partnership in April.
if you need any more, please feel free to contact me.