FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Tadees on March 23, 2016, 02:04:19 PM
-
I fire risk assess HMOs and blocks of flats on behalf of local authority as does a 3rd party (an independent external company).
Is the responsible person (local authority management) allowed to refuse to provide details of personal emergency evacuation plans to the local authority or 3rd party fire risk assessor on the basis that this may constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act, i.e. providing information to a 3rd party?
If no, where do I locate proof that this is not permissible
-
Who does the personal emergency evacuation plans involve, if is it the tenants or work people in the premises.
-
Tenants
-
The RR(FS)O only apply to the common areas of block of flats therefore the flats themselves are exempt and consequently the residents, (except for article 32.2). As you can see from that, how do you create an evacuation plan if the tenants are free to decide to take part or not, all you can do is provide a general notices? However you still have to consider their safety as relevant persons and provide a competent standard of fire safety with plenty information for the tenants on their actions in case of fire.
Examples of fire action notices and fire safety advice for residents can be found in the guide "Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats" ( http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1138bf70-2e50-400c-bf81-9a3c4dbd6575 )
-
That might be the case Tom, but in HMOs they have to use the communal parts to escape. In fact, even in a stay-put policy in a block of flats, they have the right to escape if they so wish. If we are siting them on upper floors and we don't have details of their PEEPs because of data protection, then how can the FRA be suitable and suffcient?
-
If whatever has been requested contains personal data from which the person concerned could reasonably be identified, then I think they might be right, though I'm no expert (had to do an NHS Data Protection Act training course once & that's what I recall from it).
-
I wouldn't even go there Tadees. If you think the lack of a PEEP may put relevant persons at risk, and the RP will not help you by providing evidence that PEEPs are in place then that's an action for them in your risk assessment. Make them responsible for the action if they won't help you to help them.
Sounds like a jobsworth who doesnt know the answer, can't be bothered to find out so hides behind any excuse to avoid doing anything helpful.
Is that excuse a relevant one? I assume that in respect of data protection issues your company is registered with the Information Commissioner and you have a nominated Data Controller? This would give you the answer to the question which you initially asked- but I still would not go there. Don't let a jobsworth let their laziness and ignorance become your problem.
-
To counter the old 'Data Protection' excuse I suggest to clients when requesting other RP's PEEP's that the other RP can redact the personal details such as the name as it's the nature of the issue requiring assistance and the proposed solution that is of importance, not who they are.
-
Out of interest, who will implement the findings of a PEEP in a block of flats?
So, the wheelchair user on the first floor, who uses a lift to access his flat, now identifies he needs to be taken down the stairs on an evac chair. Who does this Tadees?
-
If it's a purpose built block of flats with a stay put strategy the PEEPS might simply add to the general advice to the tenant for example pointing out that as the individual with mobility impairment does not have the option to evacuate further on their own volition, they may be reassured that there is an adequate degree of fire separation to protect them on the same floor eg within the protected staircase.
But in his second posting Tadees points out he is more concerned about the HMO.
It is a matter of concern that the current policy for care in the community can lead to persons with very significant special needs being housed in inappropriate premises where these needs cannot be met. Of course this may also occur for existing tenants as their health deteriorates. There are no easy answers, and it's all part of the much wider housing and social housing problems the country faces.
My suggested solution is to have a chart for fire service use in the entrance foyer. The chart would indicate each flat or HMO dwelling showing a code for special needs in an emergency, the code understood by the emergency services to include the full range of needs. This could be a simple but insecure coded series of numbers or letters, or a bar code read by a reader device that would be more secure.
-
It may also be prudent to point out any single mothers with two or more children under the age of five or any drink/drug dependency among the tenants as these are other risk factors - or is this now going beyond what may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case?
-
This country is incredible. ::)
-
Jim my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted that - but I have been asked!!
-
Out of interest, who will implement the findings of a PEEP in a block of flats?
So, the wheelchair user on the first floor, who uses a lift to access his flat, now identifies he needs to be taken down the stairs on an evac chair. Who does this Tadees?
Thanks Jim this would have been my follow up question and the same would apply to HMO's. I am afraid it is every residential unit for themselves and if they want a fire plan, create it for themselves like those in single private dwellings.
-
I don't doubt it Golden.
I visited Australia some years ago. Although I know little about the health and safety laws of warmer climates, I recall there were signs everywhere that reminded people that "Your personal health and safety is your responsibility".
On the basis of this attitude, I understand that employers etc are still duty bound to do similar to what they do here. However, the big thing that struck me was the recognition of not becoming a nanny state.
I get frustrated with the overused and misunderstood concept of PEEPS. Yes they have a very important place, in the right context and premises.
Just like the over zealous inspector I have recently met, who suggested that every visitor to a shop required a PEEP performed. Apparently generic plans are not good enough. >:(
Maybe I should conduct a PEEP to ensure I can get down my stairs without falling over after a night at the pub when the wife sets the smoke alarm off in the morning!
;)
-
I am not entirely sure that, if disabled or similarly at greater risk of injury by fire, I would like my vulnerabilities in a fire to be plastered over the wall of the flats for fire service use in the unlikely event of a fire. I can see the sign now:
Number 31: D(deaf). WB (wheelchair-bound) LA (lives alone) A (alcohol dependant)
More likely will be local yobs using that information to target me for harassment and maybe even burglaries?
Remember the Middlesbrough migrants homes painted in red and the problems that caused???
-
I am sure you are right Messy. I was really seeking to explore (or perhaps provoke!) the fire service response to such an idea on the basis of the responsibility of the housing provider and whether it is appropriate and fair on the emergency services to turn up with zero information and have to resolve issues in real time, when care professionals and housing scheme managers have information they can share but do not. We have had dialysis information on appliances for example for 40 years and no problems have arisen from this.
We all often tend to focus on evacuation chairs as being the only special needs issues. We need to look much more widely than this especially in respect of mental health needs. Sadly people do not realise how much of a lie the term "Care in the Community" is, it's a phrase so vaunted by politicians as a "good thing" and it's not till you have a relative who needs such care that you realise it actually means "Zero Care but out of the way" and persons are buffetted amongst housing providers and landlords to find accommodation irrespective of how unsuitable it may sometimes be. Surely the Landlord bears some responsibility for making sure the accommodation is at least suitable from a fire perspective? Or to give a bit more advice to to supplement the standard procedures in BS9991 to cover those people who cannot follow the standard procedure - something such as advice that "You are safe in the staircase"? That's all a PEEP needs be - but someone should consider it.
Does not seem like Utopia to me but I am interested in, and respect other viewpoints.
-
Kurnal I'll have a bit of an early morning reply/rant - I don't think the fire service can be responsible 'after the fact' - i.e. post ignition. In a previous uniformed life I formed partnerships between my borough and a variety of disadvantaged groups from mental health, elderly, drink/drug dependent, etc. with fire awareness information and smoke detector fitting as the basic provisions. Surprisingly the local housing almo wasn't that interested but I did try.
I hesitate to promote a nanny state though; fair enough for those that need some assistance such as those who would have been receiving care in purpose built facilities pre-Maggie but many of those shouldn't have been there either - I also used to work on a station with three large Victorian 'mental hospitals' on the ground which were virtual prisons for many. The Housing Act should ensure that the basics of smoke detection is provided and a modern housing provider should give tenants fire safety advice when moving in and when there are any changes but to be honest how many people bother reading that advice and secondly how many of the vulnerable would understand; its difficult enough trying to get so called professionals to understand 'defend in place/stay put' strategies and sometimes ignorance may be bliss. I don't believe that signs on buildings will help as many of the client group are constantly on the move and as an OIC I may be tempted to effect rescues of people that have moved out months before that may jeopardise fire-fighter or other lives - remembering that you'll have one pump and four crew for a while at many of these incidents. The housing provider also cannot afford the time or money to keep such signage up to date - it distresses me to see very expensive (and often empty) premises information boxes fixed to 3 storey blocks - I recently saw one on a NHS 'portakabin' - when the money could be much better spent elsewhere.
Apart from the odd occasions most fire victims die in their own homes, often in the room of origin and with one of the age/infirmity/dependency characteristics that any experienced fire officer will recognise. I'm not saying we should ignore these factors and give up but reduced incidences of fire due to various social and technological factors and the initiatives in furnishings, coupled with the availability of cheap smoke detection and alarm has given many a better chance than they had 20-30 years ago when the death rates started falling dramatically. Fire safety measures and appropriate information, utilising local contacts such as housing officers and carers, is the way forward. The way backwards is to design and build shoddy buildings that push the limits of tried and tested fire safety design - and that concerns me more even though there could be a nice profit in it for me if I ever decide to jump on that particular bandwagon!