FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tall Paul on October 11, 2005, 12:06:01 PM
-
Within the RRFSO is there a requirement for record keeping?
The requirement of a suitable system of maintenance of premises, facilities, equipment and devices would tend to support a need for record keeping.
Similarly it would be difficult for a responsible person to make arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures without a system of records - particularly as the size and/or complexity of the undertaking increases.
The Secretary of State may impose requirements as to the keeping of records of instruction or training given, or other things done, in pursuance of the regulations. This appears to be an empowering section of the regs for possible later inclusion.
It is an offence for any person to make in any register, book, notice or other document required to be kept by or under this order an entry which he knows to be false.
So whilst there would appear to be an implied need to keep records there is no actual requirement.
I'm just looking for confirmation or otherwise that I am reading the regs correctly.
-
No there is no requirement. However the responsible person will , in certain circumstances, have to record the significant findings of his risk assessment and his arrangements for plannining, organising, control, monitoring and reveiw of the preventive & protective measures.
So therefore, in all but the simplest of premises, how can you demonstrate due dilligence without records?
-
The FSO reads:
"PART 2 FIRE SAFETY DUTIES
6) As soon as practicable after the [fire risk] assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where—
(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
(c) an alterations notice requiring this is in force in relation to the premises.
(7) The prescribed information is—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and
(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
...
Fire safety arrangements
11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.
(2) The responsible person must record the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1) where—
(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
(c) an alterations notice requiring a record to be made of those arrangements is in force in relation to the premises."
My interpretation of this is that there is a requirement for records in the circumstances detailed above.
I think that this is one of those examples where it is not immediately an offence not to comply but it can be made part of an enforcement notice; and non-compliance with an enforcement notice is an offence.
Oh, to clarify; the reason I don’t think that it is "immediately an offence" is that it would be hard to prove that not keeping records would place "one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire." (Offences- 32.)
-
Steve, This a record of the fire safety arrangements (ie the emergency plan) not necessarily a record of each weekly test.
-
Interesting point Colin.
I think it is likely that recording the routine maintenance of protective measures will be included as part of their control and monitoring.
Or perhaps it would be included as part of the "suitable system of maintenance " required in article 17.
BS5839 states as part of Section 6. Maintenance, 44 Routine testing, 44.2 Recommendations for weekly testing by the user, "The result of the weekly test and the identity of the manual call point used should be recorded in the system log book"
-
I think that this is one of those examples where it is not immediately an offence not to comply but it can be made part of an enforcement notice; and non-compliance with an enforcement notice is an offence.
If the FA start issuing Enforcement notices for no maintenance records then they have learnt nothing. Enforcement notices are for reducing a serious risk to relevant persons (almost a Article 31). The FA should spend more time educating the responsible person to comply.
-
I have to agree with Colin!!! It is not a requirement to record all weekly tests...and don't forget smaller premises may not have to record anything.
I believe this is the correct approach otherwise you may have a jackbooted inspecting officer using the thumbscrews on Mrs Prendergast in her corner shop for not recording her fire drill that she carried out on her own!!!
Johndoe enforcement notices are not there soley to reduce the risk to relevant persons. If an inspector found minor deficiencies that the responsible person was unwilling to rectify an enforcement notice would be entirely appropriate.
-
I have to agree with Colin!!! I have to agree with Colin!!! I have to agree with Colin!!!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-
Now that I am over the shock, Steve, it is certainly good practice to keep records. It makes life easier for the I/O, gives confidence to whoever carries out the inspections and is a potential defence against liability, should that question arise. However, BS 5839-1 is only a code of good practice. No one would advocate that records are not kept, but it is not, strictly, a requirement. This is also a common misconception under the WFPL. FRSs even put it in enforcement notices. It is, however, such a trivial point that no one usually minds doing it anyway.
-
I agree that having records of routine maintenance is not strictly a requirement; however having a "suitable system of maintenance" is a requirement. Is this another one that the courts will decide? It sounds a bit like the "do you need plans" argument - sorry to bring that up now Colin and Phil are getting on so well.
-
Yes it is a requirement to maintain but not to record....not an explicit requirement...but as I have said before how can you show due dilligence without records???
Yes Steve similar to plans arguement...dont go there!!!!
-
Gentlemen, thank you for the contributions to the debate. The question of whether records were necessary/useful to demonstrate a clear management approach was not an issue. It would be hard to demonstrate compliance, particularly with the requirement for maintenance, without a logical audit trail.
However, as you have also noted, the records themselves are not, at this stage, a requirement. As an enforcing officer who does not believe in jack boots I am simply wanting to iron out points that fellow officers may have an issue with and was looking for confirmation that I was on solid ground.
Paul
-
Colin, I think that an enforcement notice could be written along the lines of " failure to have a suitable system of maintenance" and then "keep records of maintenance" as one way of complying with the regulations. In the end the FRS might have to convince a court that keeping records was an essential part of a system of maintenance in that case.
Edit - I can only see this happening if there is evidence of actual failures to maintain protective equipment leading to equipment not working.
-
Yes Paul you're on solid ground...I think you will find that no previous Fire Safety or Health & Safety legislation requires records to be maintained.
Regulations made under Care Standards Act do!
SI 2001 No.3965
Social Care, England etc.
The Care Homes Regulations 2001................RECORDS TO BE KEPT IN A CARE HOME
…...14. A record of every fire practice, drill or test of fire equipment (including fire alarm equipment) conducted in the care home and of any action taken to remedy defects in the fire equipment.
-
In terms of showing due dilligence in respect of fire alarm testing, you could bus every employee in the building up to the magistrates court, all of whom will swear on the Good Book that, every Monday moring when tehy came into work, there was a sign saying that the fire alarm would be tested at 10am, and that, sure enough, at 10am, it was sounded for 50 seconds.
-
Yes he could Colin but how about staff training, arrangements for planning, organising, controlling, monitoring, reviewing..and the emergency action plan. Surely all these would usually have to be recorded.
Lets face it we shouldn't be in court unless relevant persons had been placed at risk. Most competent counsels could demonstrate to a court that the accused could have done more...i.e. could have kept records. If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence.
-
Due dilligence doesnt mean - do all you can.
it means - do all that you could reasonably be expected to do.
-
Yes of course...would it be reasonable to maintain records...usually yes...so no due dilligence.
-
Thats up to the court to decide.
-
So Wee Brian are you saying it's not reasonable..what is your point??
Yes it is up to the courts to decide and yes due dilligence is doing all that reasonably could be done.
But enforcing authorities will have to decide what in their opinion is reasonable in each particular case before going in front of the man with the funny wig.
We all know that ultimately only the courts can decide!
-
PhilB I was just trying to clarify what you were saying.
You said "If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence." I don't think you meant it in such definate terms.
What is reasonable will probably vary between buildings. In most cases it would make sense to keep a log book.
-
It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to achieve a prosecution because of poor record keeping - unless there was evidence that, what was supposed to be being maintained, did not work.
-
Wee Brian what I said was:
"Most competent counsels could demonstrate to a court that the accused could have done more...i.e. could have kept records. If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence."
I agree Ian and I would hope that an enforcing authority would not take a prosecution purely for that failure. But in a prosecution for failure to comply with a requirement of the order it may tend to knock out the defence of due dilligence if there were no records. In my humble opinion of course.
-
Lets simplify this. I like digital things, being young and modern. There are two men in this world. There is the wee man who does all his testing and maintenance, but he keeps no records. He is no danger to anyone. He is a nuisance to those who inspect his premises. He might be a bit short on protection agaisnt liability if it all goes pear shaped. But, in terms of the fire safety in premises, he might be absolutely ace. Then there is wee man number 2. He has no records, because he never does any testing, maintenance or staff training. He is a disaster waiting to happen. One has to decide which wee man you are dealing with. (OK there is a third wee man who has the records but never did the tests that he records ). Why would anyone want to drag wee man number 1 before the courts????
-
Johndoe enforcement notices are not there soley to reduce the risk to relevant persons. If an inspector found minor deficiencies that the responsible person was unwilling to rectify an enforcement notice would be entirely appropriate.
I do not want to apear argumentative but you are correct but if the guidance for RRO is like FPA circular 28 then the fA should not be issuing Enforcement Notices for Minor offeces they should educate move on and target high risk as per FPA 29 or IRMP4. If afire occurs in the building with minor defects and people are injured/killed (god forbid then the Responsible person will be prosecuted and nothing would happen to the FA because it is not there law.
-
If there was no other breach, ie. the premises comply in every other way and there is no serious risk, who cares whether the keep records?
Hit them for maintenance, supply of info, not supplying sig findings to parents of wee bairns, not complying with schedule 1, 2 or 3.
It only becomes an issue if the failure to keep records causes some other breach...and lets face it, there are plenty to choose from.
-
Have you been drinking Johndoe or has your spell checker failed???...only joking now please don't take offence!
I hate to come back to the point of significant findings but I must. How the hell can a responsible person be complying with the order or the WPFPL if the preventitive & protective measures are not adequately recorded. I believe they are significant findings and I think they should be recorded.
Have they got a fire alarm???...is it maintained???...Yes...then that is a significant finding that should be recorded.
If you choose to adopt another definition of SFs it is still a requirement of WPFPL and RRO that fire safety arrangements are recorded.
So back to Colins attempt to simplify..... if all the wee men can demonstrate compliance without records ok....but in reality not many will be able to satisfy an enforcing authority or a court without some proof that they are doing all that is reasonable...i.e. records. But as I said previously wee man No1 should be left alone. Wee man No.3 should be thrashed to within an inch of his life if he has placed relevant persons at serious risk.
Val...how can an enforcing authority tell if someone is complying if there are no records?
-
Lets face it, there are a lot of people out there who when you ask if their fire systems, etc are maintained will say yes when it is not the case. I for one know better than to accept verbal assurance and insist on seeing evidence.
Obviously a failure of maintenace would come to light if a failure occured that lead to or contributed to death or injury, but by then it's too late for some poor s*d & makes the law and inspectors a waste of time.
It's not difficult, time consuming or expensive to keep records, so there should be no excuse for anyone at any level.
More and more it seems we are lowering & lowering safety standards, with it becoming easier and easier to ignore the law - do we need a Summerland, Woolworths or Valley Parade to see the error of our ways?
-
I see your point and I have been drinking its the o nly way I can get through watching that team that at most are not fit to have 3 lions on their chest.
This might be a different thread but why then was a requirement to kept not put more robustly in the order? hic!
-
Because Johndoe if it was explicit or more robustly required.... every little premises would have to record every single test....risk approprriate ...that's the answer.....and at least we won tonight!
-
Yes but they could have used the 5 or more rule or if you say its risk based then low risk premises will not have that much to record.
-
yes fair point.
-
As far as any items that can reasonably considred to be work equipment are concerned (and the definition and HSE guidance are very broad), there are duties under the 1998 PUWER Regs for them to be maintained in an efficient state, efficient working order and good repair and also for machinery with a log to be kept up to date. Additionally, where the safety of work equipment depends on the installation conditions, it has to be inspected before first use and when relocated - and where conditions could cause deterioration resulting in a dangerous situation it has to be inspected at suitable intervals. One would be hard pressed to prove this without appropriate records.