FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Kelsall on January 04, 2013, 11:45:00 AM
-
The enforcement of the RRO is inconsistent at the moment and with only 8% of buildings subject to the legislation being inspected annually, (English fire service returns) there is no burden on industry to comply with current fire safety legislation. With such a low level of enforcement visits, many businesses are not making adequate provision and indeed 41% of buildings that are inspected are ‘unsatisfactory’.
The current regulation enforcement regime is inadequate and with cuts in the fire service budgets I can only see a further decrease in inspection visits with a move towards post fire or formal complaint inspections only. This will lead to a decrease in fire safety provision by many businesses sectors; especially those who consider themselves low risk. Within some high risk sectors this could lead to over provision and over expenditure. The health and safety culture of the last 10 years, where every potential hazardous activity was banned for ‘health and safety’ reasons could be adopted by many public sector organisations for fire safety; thus leading to over provision and excessive management regimes. Costing industry more in the long run!
The cost of fire safety compliance to business is in the measures necessary for compliance not in accommodating a fire and rescue service officer for at best an annual visit. I believe that fire safety enforcement needs more regulation and enforcement not less and therefore a review would be welcome. BIS are undergoing a series of reviews of all legislation and with falling fire deaths I can see that the RRO will be a target for a review; however there may be a predetermined outcome for financial and not safety reasons.
‘Let them burn and fine them later’ isn’t the way it should be going in my opinion.
-
Agreed. One solution? Fire risk assessments should only be carried out by an authorised body/company/individual - this should be able to be demonstrated and a national register of competence should be maintained (think, gas safe).
A fire risk assessment should be carried out within a certain time frame - say 12 months of the scheme starting. The risk assessor's recommendations should be carried out or closed off and a return visit by the assessor arranged after the time scale specified in the assessment. The assessor must then tick off compliance with a set category:
i.e:
Fire Alarm YES / NO
Fire Extinguishers YES / NO
Escape Routes YES / NO
etc YES / NO
etc YES / NO
He either ticks YES or NO and can enter further details. Each business/premises is given a unique reference number and the assessor uses this number to upload details of the return visit onto a national database. Subsequent visits may be required in order to fully close off the outstanding issues. The dates of any outstanding issues could be flagged up after an excessive amount of time and enforcement officers could then use this information to investigate.
A closed off record would be required to be reviewed on a frequency set by the assessor - the review may be able to be carried out by the RP at site. A new fire risk assessment should be carried out on a set frequency - maybe 3 years as standard but can be subject to variation.
Obviously there'd be a few wrinkles to iron out but whatta you think? Got legs?
-
What about an annual MoT style certificate for businesses. The business has to approach a provider for the certificate of compliance with the Order. FRS can then audit premises to check for compliance.
-
Trouble is that's basically what they've got now - they need to approach businesses to find out what shape they're in. That's wasteful of their time. They're the guys that should be enforcing the RRO rather than wasting their time carrying out random site audits then requesting a fire risk assessment be carried out. What they need is a heads-up with who isn't playing ball.
-
With a reduction of 50% in manpower, in fifteen years in my former FRS and even higher in fire safety, we, like the HSE, are going to move to a reaction system from the present proactive inspection program. Manpower means costs and in the present situation costs are likely to be driven downwards for some considerable time, cutting costs in the FRS means primarily cutting manpower. While the fatality statistics are falling year on year its a good excuse to move to a reaction type inspections which is what I consider will happen.
I am afraid ‘Let them burn and fine them later’ will be the order of the day.
-
With a reduction of 50% in manpower, in fifteen years in my former FRS and even higher in fire safety, we, like the HSE, are going to move to a reaction system from the present proactive inspection program. Manpower means costs and in the present situation costs are likely to be driven downwards for some considerable time, cutting costs in the FRS means primarily cutting manpower. While the fatality statistics are falling year on year its a good excuse to move to a reaction type inspections which is what I consider will happen.
I am afraid ‘Let them burn and fine them later’ will be the order of the day.
Yep. Doesn't matter if it works as long as it's cheap. Government policy.
-
Sadly I fear a bad multi death fire and the usual knee jerk response by the regulators. The potential is out there I am sure.
-
An MOT style cert. with check by the FRS! isnt that basically a fire cert?
i dont agree that all FRAs should be done by accredited competent persons. The whole philosophy of the RRO was place the onus on the RP and provide him sufficient guidance. Lets face it. a newsagents kiosks FRA could be written on one side of piece of paper by a lay person. That doesn't need an accredited assessor. At the other end of the spectrum. You won't find a nuclear power plant trawling the yellow pages for a risk assessor. And to be honest accreditation isnt the bee all in my view.
We all criticise the HSE reactionary approach. But their public profile is so high that everyone knows what's expected and is fully aware the legislation exists. So there is no excuse to not comply.
If fire safety had the same profile (and in my view, we're getting there) then why do we need to go out and audit and educate them to get a FRA done. They will know they need one. If we are to truly adopt the intent of the RRO. Then we should raise the profile such that we can leave it to the RP to comply. And therefore only be reactive.
My views only
-
Couldn't agree more TM
-
The MOT is a great example. Thanks to that system all cars on the road have been tested and shown to be OK.
-
On the day of the test of course! It is down to the owner/user to keep it that way through servicing and maintenance. The enforcing authority can do random testing as the local policy dictates.
-
The RRO is DIY legislation and to give it an analogy it’s like the government scrapping the MOT and saying to car owners; “you know your car well, just make sure it is road worthy” You would get carnage on the road if that happened. The potential for fire carnage is real alright and if people like New Look, Shell and Tesco can get it wrong then the SME owner can too. 40% of those who need an FRA don’t have one and 40% of FRS inspections are ‘unsatisfactory’. It isn’t just about the risk assessment; ongoing management is as important if not more. However there are duty holders who do not see fire as an area they need or want to invest time or money getting right. Perhaps the shift to reactive prosecutions will make a difference who knows. However I believe the public sector are much more aware because of the information they have available. Therefore they have a much better audit record than the private sector. In fact I think they are 10 times less likely to be served a prohibition notice than the private sector according to my limited research.
I wouldn’t like to guess how many fire risk assessments have been done and then get stuffed in to a drawer by the duty holder never to be looked at until the FRS call; if they ever do. The English FRS IRMP returns show that only 8% of known building get inspected annually and as the FRS focus on high risk buildings they tend to do the same ones over again.
I see the inquest in to Lakanal House starts today 3 years after the incident happened. Cost isn’t an issue for those who lost loved ones I appreciate that and an enquiry is very justified in my opinion. My sympathy goes out to those friends and family who lost people in that fire. I hope they get the answers they deserve. It is however a shame that all the money being spent wasn’t allocated to education, information and inspection to prevent this tragic event happening in the first place. I am also not sure another event like this won’t happen again unless something comes out of this enquiry.
Indeed the Independent ran an article this weekend which seems to suggest the potential is out there.
-
Kel, try not to lose sleep worrying about. Statistically you are more likely to die going downstairs to get a sleeping tablet than die in a fire. And remind us all how many people died, were seriously injured or even cut a finger in New Look, Shell or Tescos???????????????
WeeB, As a public sector employee I cannot believe that you drive a car old enough to have an MoT. Or are you talking about the runaround you keep on your country estate?
-
You're the legal expert; does anyone actually need to die?
Reasonable provision! Penhallow, Rose Park and possibly another one to add to the list.
There are lots of places out there with the potential, and so what if not many people die in fires; when its your loved one I am sure being one of a few deaths a year makes no difference to the sense of loss or the sense of wanting to know if it was avoidable.
The public should expect a reasonable level of fire safety and certainly shouldn’t be paying to be put in danger, for example in a hotel. Is it acceptable that some hotels take fire safety seriously and some don’t care? Do guests just have to take a risk and see how they get on?
Because the risk is low, it doesn’t make it right. Low numbers of deaths is true but what is the figure for potential exposure to harm?
I will have to check the figures but I think 5 schools were given prohibition notices last year. 51 hotels, 4 care homes, 53 licensed premises and 6 purpose built flats. How much potential in that lot? How many exposed to that potential? How long have they been exposed to it?
Low risk agreed, but high consequences also.
You must have seen the relatives at inquests; where is your heart man, where is it?
-
Will the bright honourable member for the Wirral please answer the question about the number of cut fingers in the premises he bandies about so liberally, namely Shell , New Look and Tescos, and as an expert in statistics, can he tell the House how many people have died in the last 50 years in office buildings, shops and supermarkets, including those before and after the F P Act applied to the premises. Please exclude hotels and care homes from your answer.
-
1956 - Eastwood Mills: 8
1960 - Hendersons Dept Store: 11
1969 - Top Storey Club: 19
1972 - Maryhill Road Fire: 2
1973 - Summerland:50
1977 - Murray House Fire: 7
1979 - Woolworths:10
1985 - Bradford FC: 56
1987 - Kings Cross: 31
1993 - Littlewoods, Chesterfield: 2
The list excludes hotels, care homes and hospitals, which would swell the above significantly. Single fatality fires not widely reported (& thus not known about)are excluded as are those with only fire fighter deaths
If you take from the above those only associated with shops and offices you get 30 (including Maryhill as it started in a shop)
-
I said offices shops and supermarkets. So thats 4 incidents and 30 deaths in 55 years? In the same period there were about 50, 000 deaths from falling down stairs. Kelsall, quick, we need a certification scheme for stair risk assessors. Get onto it quick. it is bound to be more successful than your other schemes.
And have you seen the number of deaths in that period in garden sheds???? I am just glad I employ a gardner, cos you wouldnt get me in one of those dangerous sheds.
-
Part of the problem for people running a small business is they know jolly well that the chances of them getting inspected are minimal unless something goes wrong. I was assessing a small licensed premises last week where the new owners HAVE decided to take their responsibility seriously and get an assessment done. Despite being an old premises, it seems to have never had an assessment or an enforcement visit before.
They asked me how likely it was they would have ever had a visit from the local F&RS if they hadn't bothered to take this seriously. I'm afraid I had to tell them that they'd have got away with it in all probability unless they had an incident! They don't have money to chuck around and so they asked me if I thought that was fair, since they are aware of others in their business in the area who are doing nothing. Not much I could say to that really was there?
-
I have thought of that Colin
(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/16706882.jpg)
-
Part of the problem for people running a small business is they know jolly well that the chances of them getting inspected are minimal unless something goes wrong. I was assessing a small licensed premises last week where the new owners HAVE decided to take their responsibility seriously and get an assessment done. Despite being an old premises, it seems to have never had an assessment or an enforcement visit before.
They asked me how likely it was they would have ever had a visit from the local F&RS if they hadn't bothered to take this seriously. I'm afraid I had to tell them that they'd have got away with it in all probability unless they had an incident! They don't have money to chuck around and so they asked me if I thought that was fair, since they are aware of others in their business in the area who are doing nothing. Not much I could say to that really was there?
A few points -
It is a small licenced premises why should I be inspecting it regularly. it comes down to choices - Residential care or corner shops? chemical works or small country pub? You might in some brigades receive a visit from an operational crew with a series of questions to enable us to assess the level of compliance.
Brigades are concentrating on reducing fire deaths in the home with some success, although with an ageing population it is estimated that fire deaths will increase by 11% in the next 25 years.
If they don`t have money to chuck around why not carry out the FRA themselves? It isn`t that difficult in a small licenced premises.
You are right - if you have a fire, or we receive a complaint or you create lots of unwanted false alarms from all that unnecessary detection we will visit. I think this government calls it better regulation.
All sorts of enforcement officers visit premises - environmental health, housing and police to name a few we all talk to each other, so if the environmental health officer has fire safety concerns during their visit they tell us.
In some respects I agree with Colin, the data shows fire deaths in commercial premises are low BUT (and it is a big but) in 20 years time when fire deaths in commercial premises increase, will it be due to the Fire Safety Order and self regulation or through lack of enforcement
-
It is a small licenced premises why should I be inspecting it regularly. it comes down to choices - Residential care or corner shops? chemical works or small country pub? You might in some brigades receive a visit from an operational crew with a series of questions to enable us to assess the level of compliance.
I would agree that you should not be inspecting a small licenced premises regularly, but the point is that the small licenced premises should expect a visit some time, in fact all premises should expect to be inspected.
Residential care or corner shops? chemical works or small country pub? most of the bigger places will have got their act together, so why keep on revisiting a place that is complying just because it is big, whilst ignoring a smaller place that probably isn't?
It is a dangerous situation when the responsible person can take the attitude 'Oh they will never come here it is too small'.
The brigades could adopt some of the marketing strategies, why not mail shot all the pubs saying the brigade will be carrying out random inspections and then publicise the ones you do inspect to get the message across?
-
I think you miss the point Colin. Sheds and stairs!
Colin these were most likely to be casualties in their own house, down their own stairs or in their own sheds. The numbers are low for fire deaths; which is a good thing, but when fire deaths occur in a premise other than a dwelling house there is normally a lack of reasonable provision. That lack of provision is common in the UK. I believe the potential exposure to circumstances that could lead to a death in fire is a real problem. Thankfully fires do not occur often, but when they do and people die, they have friends and family who want to know why it happened and why didn’t someone take the reasonable precautions to prevent their loved ones from dying.
What you seem to be saying is that because there aren’t many people dying in fires where someone else has control, their deaths don’t matter; it’s insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Will you be called to the Lakanal enquiry? If you do, good luck with that stance; “Your family and friends are insignificant in the grand scheme of deaths in the UK, be thankful they lived in a flat and didn’t have a garden shed, and thank Southwark for keeping the lift working so they didn’t die on the stairs”
Fire precautions are there for a reason and the general public/employees shouldn’t be put at risk because the duty holder is willing to accept risk (knowingly or not) on their behalf.
-
Dave - I'm not saying you should be inspecting them regularly either! I do understand that there have to be priorities in inspection unless you have infinite resources and yes of course care homes, hotels and high risk premises should come first. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of small business owners out there who DO take the attitude that they can carry on as they have always done and get away with it until something goes wrong. I don't know the answer to that, but it's happening as I am sure you know better than I do.
As for why weren't my pub owner clients (who I should emphasises HAVE decided to be responsible and make some changes) doing this for themselves? I did suggest when they contacted me that I could point them to relevant guidance and that they could possibly do the assessment themselves, but they did not have the confidence to take it on. Now I have seen the place I think they were right, as despite being small it does have some interesting issues and has clearly not had any fire safety improvements made since about 1890 (think no detection, no alarm, no emergency lighting, inadequate exits for the numbers present on function nights, etc, etc) I shall set it up so they can undertake the actions, improvements and ongoing assessment on their own, since I believe now I've got them started they will have the confidence and the understanding of their situation going forward.
-
kelsall, is it cost-effective to identify, assess and eradicate every possible risk?
I think not.
-
I think not too!
I am just about to book a hotel in Cornwall as I am doing a seminar there next week.
Wherever I end up staying, I expect that in the event of a fire I will be awakened by an audible alarm to give me a chance of escaping the fire. (Penhallow and Dial Hotel)
In the event I need to leave by a final exit other than the front door I expect the final exit to open. (Tanton hotel)
In the event of a real fire I expect the staff not to silence the alarm and tell me to go back to bed its all ok (Tanton Hotel)
The other day one of the smoke alarm batteries died in my house. I didn’t have another one in the house and didn’t get to a shop to replace it for a couple of days. It is my risk and my acceptance of that risk. I am not risk averse; I don’t replace smoke alarm batteries when I should, I own a garden shed, I have stairs in my house. I like to live on the edge!
Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.
-
Given that he argues emotively about the death of loved ones and so on, will the rt honourable member for the wirral please answer when he is going to start a certifrication scheme for stairs and garden sheds, which I hope he promotes as aggressively as he does his certification scheme for fire risk assessors. According to his arguements a death is a death, so why is he so willing to right off the occupants of garden sheds.
-
Incidentally, Murray House, Maryhill & Littlewoods were all smaller premises that wouldn't have had as much scrutiny as indeed Woolworths and Hendersons did (with no success either as the fires and deaths still occurred).
Fire gets more attention from people probably because unlike safety hazards that usually take out a single individual at a time fires kill several in one go. Rightly or wrongly the attention of the public & then the legislators is attracted by multi fatality or near multi fatality incidents. So if on the 10th anniversary of the FSO there is the 1500th death due to the 1500th individual stair incidents, but on the same day there is a fire that kills 4 or 5 people and injures a few dozen more bringing the 10 year fire total to let's say 27 from about 12 incidents, we all know which one will get the press and calls for new legislation & tougher enforcement.
Also with domestic deaths from stairs, garden forks, etc the general public seem to accept that it's an accident and that as it's the victims home (usually) they are knowingly accepting the risk of wearing the wrong footwear or not getting that loose tread refixed. With fire you are in somewhere you have little control over and so expect every reasonable measure to be taken to make it safe.
-
I would agree that you should not be inspecting a small licenced premises regularly, but the point is that the small licenced premises should expect a visit some time, in fact all premises should expect to be inspected.
Residential care or corner shops? chemical works or small country pub? most of the bigger places will have got their act together, so why keep on revisiting a place that is complying just because it is big, whilst ignoring a smaller place that probably isn't?
It is a dangerous situation when the responsible person can take the attitude 'Oh they will never come here it is too small'.
Mike, some businesses do take the attitude that they won`t come here. In my area I do use operational crews to carry out compliance checks on small businesses.this will amount to around 500 visits per year. People on this forum may be suprised that most businesses have a few minor items but the general fire precautions are ok.
Dave - I'm not saying you should be inspecting them regularly either! I do understand that there have to be priorities in inspection unless you have infinite resources and yes of course care homes, hotels and high risk premises should come first. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of small business owners out there who DO take the attitude that they can carry on as they have always done and get away with it until something goes wrong. I don't know the answer to that, but it's happening as I am sure you know better than I do.
On occasions they do get the the RP with the attitude of "I have been in business for 20 years, I haven`t had a fire, why do I need a fire alarm, extinguishers etc." and I have had that phrase quoted at me. This business got its enforcement notice.
Just one point to add my brigade did some research and identified 50,000 business in the county, at the time we had 20 inspecting officers. It now has 9.
-
Dave,
It sounds like the old days when the operational crews carried out inspections under OSRA whilst the FP Officers did the Fire Certificate jobs.
However why stick at the operational crews doing the small businesses? surely the way forward would be for the operational crews to check all businesses with the brief that if they find serious problems to pull out and pass it to the inspecting officers.
-
.................Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.
Kelsall, I believe we already have a robust culture and legislation in respect of fire precautions in this country. I believe it is already at the level where the cost of achieving it is already affecting the financial stability of the country. Since business pays for absolutely everything we must ensure that it can flourish.
I read Mr Todd's comments to mean that the current level of deaths due to fires is small in comparision with deaths caused by so many 'innocent sounding' activities and daily occurrences. Can we afford to try and reduce fire deaths further, and why are these more important than deaths by other causes? And I say this as a person who makes his living by providing fire precaution equipment and services.
-
Mike,
one of the major problems with operational crews inspecting under the RRO is that they have no in depth knowledge of what is required, at least with the fire certificates there was a plan to follow - minor items can of course be picked up but how many major items are missed? I was never too comfortable with crews inspecting anyway and have dealt with a number of issues where following a FSO visit soon after a crew inspection there have been major issues found and its impossible to explain to a building owner why there is a difference - the fire brigade inspect a premises and to an owner it doesn't matter if its a fully qualified fire engineer from the fire safety office or a probationer from the local station. Now there doesn't have to be a plan (although I know some would like to see this) and the responsibilities are a lot less clear from a fire fighter perspective e.g. multi-occ buildings, etc. and an emphasis on management as well as fire protection measures.
With respect to fire safety officers the RRO was always going to be the end of them - unless fire deaths start rising in commercial premises and HMG realises that it takes more than a 3 day course before people are competent in carrying out FRA on anything other than the common parts of a (well managed) 3 storey block of flats. On the other hand the risk of fire occurring is dwindling and with technological and societal changes with respect to electrical equipment, soft furnishings, heating systems, etc. the incidence of fire will continue to fall therefore the likelihood of a multi-fatality fire will also fall - fire is quite a random unpredictable occurrence and to be cost effective and 'safe' is a fine line.
Edit: took a rather long phone call before posting this and would like to say am in agreement with Wiz's post above - define the level of risk first as its never going to be zero and then when the level is defined we have to agree how much money we're going to spend on attaining that level of risk. Can the money be better used elsewhere?
-
Given that he argues emotively about the death of loved ones and so on, will the rt honourable member for the wirral please answer when he is going to start a certifrication scheme for stairs and garden sheds, which I hope he promotes as aggressively as he does his certification scheme for fire risk assessors. According to his arguements a death is a death, so why is he so willing to right off the occupants of garden sheds.
Colin! Genuine question for you. Do you have a drink problem? I really don't understand you!
:o
-
.................Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.
Kelsall, I believe we already have a robust culture and legislation in respect of fire precautions in this country. I believe it is already at the level where the cost of achieving it is already affecting the financial stability of the country. Since business pays for absolutely everything we must ensure that it can flourish.
I read Mr Todd's comments to mean that the current level of deaths due to fires is small in comparision with deaths caused by so many 'innocent sounding' activities and daily occurrences. Can we afford to try and reduce fire deaths further, and why are these more important than deaths by other causes? And I say this as a person who makes his living by providing fire precaution equipment and services.
The cost to business is in complying with the minimum requirements. I don’t think you are suggesting that these minimum requirements can be ignored because they cost money or that if things are tight the fire safety part of your budget can be diverted to help your business grow. But I am not sure what you are saying. Is the minimum too much?
just seen this, is it apathy or lack of spending on training, or what?
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/ipswich_suffolk_patient_almost_died_as_fire_alarm_was_ignored_eight_times_1_1748189
-
.................Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.
Kelsall, I believe we already have a robust culture and legislation in respect of fire precautions in this country. I believe it is already at the level where the cost of achieving it is already affecting the financial stability of the country. Since business pays for absolutely everything we must ensure that it can flourish.
I read Mr Todd's comments to mean that the current level of deaths due to fires is small in comparision with deaths caused by so many 'innocent sounding' activities and daily occurrences. Can we afford to try and reduce fire deaths further, and why are these more important than deaths by other causes? And I say this as a person who makes his living by providing fire precaution equipment and services.
The cost to business is in complying with the minimum requirements. I don’t think you are suggesting that these minimum requirements can be ignored because they cost money or that if things are tight the fire safety part of your budget can be diverted to help your business grow. But I am not sure what you are saying. Is the minimum too much? ..............
Kelsall, your earlier posts suggest that we are currently not doing enough. You asked for more regulation and enforcement.
You are now saying the cost to business is only in complying with the minimum requirements and you ask is the minimum too much? Who says what is the minimum? I would suggest that the term 'minimum' is not a definitive term in itself and means nothing. A level acceptable to the majority is what we should be striving for.
I have previously confirmed that in my opinion we have probably got it just about right now. Deaths from fires are low and, as Mr Todd, points out far lower than those caused by some other regular circumstances.
Of course, I don't believe funds should be diverted from fire safety to enable businesses to grow. But I would if the financial climate gets much worse, cuts would have to be made to enable business to survive. Without business the whole economy is dead. Everything depends on business flourishing.
It is pointless demanding more and more in trying to achieve an impossible target especially when it bankrupts the economy.
If we were in the bottom 10% of countries for fire safety I would suggest that we might not be doing enough. But that is not the case. Let's not waste any money that we might have available in the future when there is so much else that needs improving. I would suggest that we have currently got fire safety and precautions just about right for the amount we can afford to spend on it.
-
Wiz things are tight at Kelsall’s house at the moment too, I think I’ll stop paying mine and the wife’s car insurance and spend the money on some new gardening tools so I can set myself up as a part time gardener and make a few extra quid.
I do think that the governments thirst for removing red tape is going to go too far. They will be basically saying don’t bother spending money where you think its not needed and spend it on getting the nation back on its feet. Didn’t New Look get done for making a big profit and not spending money on fire safety?
42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.
I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.
-
42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.
Unfortunately FRS have not been filling in their returns correctly, or more to the truth most officers (myself included) have been putting unsatisfactory when the correct response based on the CLG guidance should be satisfactory. Where officers issue action plans or enforcement notices then clearly the result is unsatisfactory. Where informal action is taken apparently the correct response is satisfactory!
It all sounds like an episode of Yes Prime Minister to me
I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.
Sorry, totally disagree, still too many jack booted fire safety officers out there. I would like to think that I am fair and have reasonable judgement but I make mistakes. Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.
-
Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.
Well a lot of parking control is operated by private companies on behalf on Councils and they make a profit.....
.....which creates a whole new discussion on outsourcing enforcement (I hope no Government Ministers are reading or we will see this in the next set of proposed Bills!)
-
Kelsall, you dont understand me because you dont understand risk. That is presumably because of lack of background in the subject. I know it must be frustrating for you that no one wants your certification scheme because of lack of demand for certificated fire risk assessors, but telling everyone that we are all doomed Mr Mannering is totally out of context. Fire deaths are at their lowest since records began. It sounds a bit hollow to bang on about how awful it all is.
If you really want to save lives (as opposed to sell certification schemes) get a job as a carpet fitter and go round sorting out all these carpets on which people are tripping to their deaths.
-
42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.
Unfortunately FRS have not been filling in their returns correctly, or more to the truth most officers (myself included) have been putting unsatisfactory when the correct response based on the CLG guidance should be satisfactory. Where officers issue action plans or enforcement notices then clearly the result is unsatisfactory. Where informal action is taken apparently the correct response is satisfactory!
It all sounds like an episode of Yes Prime Minister to me
I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.
Sorry, totally disagree, still too many jack booted fire safety officers out there. I would like to think that I am fair and have reasonable judgement but I make mistakes. Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.
Finally in this blog someone has mentioned Jack booted fire safety officers, taking on their over zealous, anti consultant 'I'm a fire policeman, do what I say' role. I'm with CT's views on this one
-
Agreeing really with CT’s general comments….a big fuss over nothing in terms of how Government views fire safety regulation and enforcement. The RRFSO as we all know places the responsibility for fire safety on the RP and the days are gone when the fire officer held your hand through the Fire Cert process and the period where we had the FP Act and the WP Regs. There are not the resources, experience and perhaps desire in most fire safety departments now other than to be reactive to fire safety issues.
I spent a number of years in a large inner city fire safety dept. with 14 fire safety inspecting officers, 2 dedicated building regs officers, a dedicated licencing officer and 2 senior supervisory officers. The city and buildings haven’t changed, (apart from several areas have been redeveloped!) nor have the workloads but that same office today has just 4 fire safety inspecting officers.
-
Lets not go down the route of fire authorities issuing on-the-spot fines.
-
Well a lot of parking control is operated by private companies on behalf on Councils and they make a profit.....
We all known how popular they are.
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2013/01/21/traffic-warden-hands-out-ticket-to-van-that-was-overhanging-yell/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D147555 (http://cars.aol.co.uk/2013/01/21/traffic-warden-hands-out-ticket-to-van-that-was-overhanging-yell/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D147555)
I think this comes to to expectation and the perception of risk. Colin rightly points out the data doesn`t support the over enforcement that some advocate.
-
Likelihood low consequence high. Shouldn't reasonable precautions be put in place so as to mitigate consequence? Colin I risked assessed daily for years in fact I micro risked assessed every working hour. I think there is still a difference to be made not at any cost but within the limits of the order and its nothing to do with sales.
Anyone who has lost someone in a fire will tell you it isn't something you would wish on your worst enemy and I don't wish it on you. Put your family in the Penhallow hotel and then say it doesn't matter.
-
Hi Kelsall, I don't think anyone would disagree that there needs to be regulation, but regulation has to be balanced.
The chances these days of dying in fire are actually very low compared with other "accidents" or incidents. We all know there are risky places out there that really do need bringing up to scratch (HMOs spring to mind) But overall how big is the problem of fire deaths? I'd have to argue that compared to other accidents (motorway maintenance contractors get killed regularly for example) death from fire, in non domestic dwellings is minimal. Im not saying that is acceptable or insignificant, Im simply saying we need to view it in context.
-
I always feel when an arguement deteriorates to the emotive stuff about fire deaths, Kelsall, the arguement is lost. I am afraid is is a "must try harder D minus for you".
By the way, could the member for the Wirral please advise us as to whether the Penhallow hotel had a fire certificate? And is he aware that the 3 deaths, all of which were tragic, were the greatest number of fire deaths in a UK hotel since 1969, when the rt honourable member was almost certainly not even born.
-
Likelihood low consequence high.
High? Higher than what? A fire in an oil refinery?
-
There is a duty to implement general fire precautions under the RRO; a duty which is not being met by some RPs. The enforcement process is picking this up but at the rate of inspection currently; there remain many out there that are not meeting these requirements.
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
I for one just can’t see how that is an acceptable position to be in. My point about putting yourself in that position is very relevant i.e. people are very willing to accept it when others are involved but if it was your own family you would undoubtedly be seeking some form of justice. Would those on the forum who are willing to accept that risk now, just accept the loss as unlucky? No, I think Colin would be his own expert witness in any litigation; if he could.
The conference I attended in Cornwall was all about hotel fire safety and unfortunately the relative of those who died in the Penhallow Hotel couldn’t make the event as he has in the past. I believe from speaking with the officers involved that he doesn’t have a sense of justice being done. However like many relatives of victims, he wants to ensure it doesn’t happen to anyone else’s family.
It doesn’t matter! Hardly seems like a very convincing defense for an RP to use.
“Mr Smith you failed to get your fire alarm serviced, you had no fire risk assessment, you didn’t train any staff and three of the final exit doors where locked from the outside. Have you anything to say in your defense?”
“Yes; it doesn’t matter! So few people die in fires these days! It was just unlucky!
In 2010, 35 people died from food poisoning. That is insignificant surely; so why then do we need all those food inspectors visiting all food retail and wholesale outlets? For a fly on the wall TV series perhaps!
-
There is a duty to implement general fire precautions under the RRO; a duty which is not being met by some RPs. The enforcement process is picking this up but at the rate of inspection currently; there remain many out there that are not meeting these requirements.
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
I for one just can’t see how that is an acceptable position to be in. My point about putting yourself in that position is very relevant i.e. people are very willing to accept it when others are involved but if it was your own family you would undoubtedly be seeking some form of justice. Would those on the forum who are willing to accept that risk now, just accept the loss as unlucky? No, I think Colin would be his own expert witness in any litigation; if he could.
The conference I attended in Cornwall was all about hotel fire safety and unfortunately the relative of those who died in the Penhallow Hotel couldn’t make the event as he has in the past. I believe from speaking with the officers involved that he doesn’t have a sense of justice being done. However like many relatives of victims, he wants to ensure it doesn’t happen to anyone else’s family.
It doesn’t matter! Hardly seems like a very convincing defense for an RP to use.
“Mr Smith you failed to get your fire alarm serviced, you had no fire risk assessment, you didn’t train any staff and three of the final exit doors where locked from the outside. Have you anything to say in your defense?”
“Yes; it doesn’t matter! So few people die in fires these days! It was just unlucky!
In 2010, 35 people died from food poisoning. That is insignificant surely; so why then do we need all those food inspectors visiting all food retail and wholesale outlets? For a fly on the wall TV series perhaps!
There may have been 35 deaths from food poisioning Kelsal but I'm sure there were many thousands got very ill.
Is it because of all those food inspectors that there are not many more deaths?
35 of course is nothing compared to the recently reported thousands who die every year from neglect in hospitals. And thats at the hands of qualified, registered, certified, accredited, etc. etc. professionals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591814/Patients-starve-and-die-of-thirst-on-hospital-wards.html
By and large I would think that the risk to the public or employees from fire is a heck of a lot less than from anything else. H&S statistics I believe show that prople in the workplace are mostly killed by impact or falling.
-
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
According to google that means about 5000 hotels inspected last year, none of those by me. I spent last year inspecting residential care homes.
When the Fire Safety Order was introduced I inspected all the hotels in my area within 12 months (clearly I don`t work in Blackpool). Based on those inspections we haven`t returned except for complaints, we would also return if they had a fire - But none of them have had a fire!
I do sympathise with your concerns, but I am concerned about your unrealistic expectations. As an I/O I can realistically carryout 2 audits per week. My office receives about 20 building regulation consultations and 2-3 complaints per week between 3 of us. On top of this I have to maintain operational capabilities, this takes about 2 days a month.
My brigade is prepared to work with businesses to promote fire safety, we may have a softer approach than some, but if you were to compare those brigades that continually prosecute businesses and those that don`t are the former brigade areas a safer place to work or live? I would suggest not. But what our approach does encourage is investment in the local area by national and international companies; this in turn creates employment and prosperity.
-
Spot on DD a veritable fountain of common sense :) & for gawds sake please never ever give us the power to introduce on the spot fines.
-
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
I do sympathise with your concerns, but I am concerned about your unrealistic expectations. As an I/O I can realistically carryout 2 audits per week. My office receives about 20 building regulation consultations and 2-3 complaints per week between 3 of us. On top of this I have to maintain operational capabilities, this takes about 2 days a month.
My brigade is prepared to work with businesses to promote fire safety, we may have a softer approach than some, but if you were to compare those brigades that continually prosecute businesses and those that don`t are the former brigade areas a safer place to work or live? I would suggest not. But what our approach does encourage is investment in the local area by national and international companies; this in turn creates employment and prosperity.
I rest my case as i said on my last post, there just aren't the resourses anymore to inspect like we used to (now audits of courses). And these audits can be samples of buildings. It's very much a reactive approach than proactive enforcement now in my view.
-
I audit many different property types, and always find issues. (Wish I only had to do 2 audits a week like the poster above - I normally do two or more a day ;D - I'm not baiting here - I know it all depends on the brigade you work for, the area you cover, the building being inspected, sample or full audit etc etc)
Anyway the issues I find range from minor failings where abit of advice and education is all that is required, all the way up to premises you would call "death traps", places where if a fire occurred you would expect injuries and probably fatalities.
I went to a "death trap" on friday afternoon, and we come across places like that on a fairly regular in my neck of the woods due to the demographics of the area in which I work.
But these death traps aren't factories, hotels, shops, schools, hospitals, care homes, sheltered schemes, etc etc these "death traps" are HMOs. As enforcement of standards in HMOs is undertaken predominantly by Local Authorities it leaves me to wonder what other kind of death traps do fire authorities come across on a regular basis?.
I have dealt with some of the above property types (shops, factories, care homes etc) where standards were shocking, even to the point where they were "death traps" if you like, but they are few and far between.
The HMO problem doesn't apply to all parts of the country necessarily, I deal with them regularly because I work in a large Metropolitan area with hundreds if not thousands of HMOs in the area, so its no suprise I come across them.
So Kelsall I would have to say that apart from HMOs, in my area there are some risky premises that need addressing for sure, but they aren't generally places where people are going to get injured or killed (from fire atleast).
-
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
According to google that means about 5000 hotels inspected last year, none of those by me. I spent last year inspecting residential care homes.
When the Fire Safety Order was introduced I inspected all the hotels in my area within 12 months (clearly I don`t work in Blackpool). Based on those inspections we haven`t returned except for complaints, we would also return if they had a fire - But none of them have had a fire!
I do sympathise with your concerns, but I am concerned about your unrealistic expectations. As an I/O I can realistically carryout 2 audits per week. My office receives about 20 building regulation consultations and 2-3 complaints per week between 3 of us. On top of this I have to maintain operational capabilities, this takes about 2 days a month.
My brigade is prepared to work with businesses to promote fire safety, we may have a softer approach than some, but if you were to compare those brigades that continually prosecute businesses and those that don`t are the former brigade areas a safer place to work or live? I would suggest not. But what our approach does encourage is investment in the local area by national and international companies; this in turn creates employment and prosperity.
And that's the problem DD, 'the interpretation culture' I will open my new business in your area where I can rely on a visit from a local FO with common sense and we can be prepared to work towards a safer environment together, rather than in %^&**£shire where the 'gotcha' jackboot fraternity is the order of the day.
-
There is a duty to implement general fire precautions under the RRO; a duty which is not being met by some RPs. The enforcement process is picking this up but at the rate of inspection currently; there remain many out there that are not meeting these requirements.
English FRS did 19% of known hotels last year and served 39 prohibition notices, by simple extrapolation that could mean there are a 156 hotels in the UK that could potentially cause a death or serious harm to staff or guests due to lack of general fire precautions; in the unlikely event of a fire.
I for one just can’t see how that is an acceptable position to be in. My point about putting yourself in that position is very relevant i.e. people are very willing to accept it when others are involved but if it was your own family you would undoubtedly be seeking some form of justice. Would those on the forum who are willing to accept that risk now, just accept the loss as unlucky? No, I think Colin would be his own expert witness in any litigation; if he could.
The conference I attended in Cornwall was all about hotel fire safety and unfortunately the relative of those who died in the Penhallow Hotel couldn’t make the event as he has in the past. I believe from speaking with the officers involved that he doesn’t have a sense of justice being done. However like many relatives of victims, he wants to ensure it doesn’t happen to anyone else’s family.
It doesn’t matter! Hardly seems like a very convincing defense for an RP to use.
“Mr Smith you failed to get your fire alarm serviced, you had no fire risk assessment, you didn’t train any staff and three of the final exit doors where locked from the outside. Have you anything to say in your defense?”
“Yes; it doesn’t matter! So few people die in fires these days! It was just unlucky!
In 2010, 35 people died from food poisoning. That is insignificant surely; so why then do we need all those food inspectors visiting all food retail and wholesale outlets? For a fly on the wall TV series perhaps!
There may have been 35 deaths from food poisioning Kelsal but I'm sure there were many thousands got very ill.
Is it because of all those food inspectors that there are not many more deaths?
35 of course is nothing compared to the recently reported thousands who die every year from neglect in hospitals. And thats at the hands of qualified, registered, certified, accredited, etc. etc. professionals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9591814/Patients-starve-and-die-of-thirst-on-hospital-wards.html
By and large I would think that the risk to the public or employees from fire is a heck of a lot less than from anything else. H&S statistics I believe show that prople in the workplace are mostly killed by impact or falling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905
With all the problems in our hospitals is fire safety really that important?
Is their sufficient evidence that forcing expensive fire safety legislation on businesses is warranted and necessary?
Can any say, perhaps with the exception of detection in sleeping risks, that the normal fire safety standards imposed are really that "life saving"?
Other than in death or injury situations has any FS every carried out any routine investigations into fires to see if the fire safety measures served a useful purpose, certainly within the first 10 - 15 minutes from outbreak?