FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Chris Houston on November 25, 2005, 06:48:18 PM
-
In what circumstances can a FRS charge for their services?
In what circumstances do FRS usually charge for their services?
-
In London
We (may) charge for:
*Chemical incidents
*Commercial (NOT domestic) floodings
*Some minor special services (making safe and filling tanks etc)
The current charge is around £270+ VAT per appliance per hour. It's set to rise to £293. (Consider that even a simple chemical job uses 5/6 appliances for 2/3 hours and it's a good little earner)
We cannot charge for fires or false alarms however caused (including by AFD)
We are considering charging for attending RTAs (from your lot Chris - the insurance companies) and perhaps for lift incidents
And of course we charge for certain FS work, including fire certs, FI reports, interviews with staff, photographs etc etc
Its all open for debate right now in this age of the modernised FRS, and things could have changed in the time it's taken you to read this!!!
-
Whatever they charge for you , messey, I am sure it is money well spent.
-
What about fire and rescuse services in Scotland attending road traffic accidents?
-
Charging: s 19 Fs act 2004 make sprovison for the Secretary of State to authorise FRAs to charge for their services. The first such order, applying to all FRAs is in consultation and so not yet in force. Road traffic collisions (as they now must be called) are a part of our duties and the Sce of State has made claer he will not presently authorise any charging for these. Under no circumstances (except fires at, or under the, sea) may the Secretary of State authorise a FRA to levy a charge for extinguishing fires, or protecting life and property in the event of fires. . No charge may be levied for emergency medical asisstance either. The charge may be imposed on, or recovered from, a person other than the person in respect of whom action is taken by the authority
The consultation document is here: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1125699#TopOfPage The document was for comments by MAy 2004, I am not aware of the order having been made, nor can it be found on the ODPM website.
Note that future charging for RTCs and FADs (in particular) is possible, I would envisage work on FADs as these are a drain on FRA recources.
As I see it, reading the FS act 2004, a FRA charging for anything may be acting illegaly unless they hold an authority from the Secretary of State to do so. Another point is that the act makes it a requirement that any charges are not set above the actual cost of providing the service "In setting the amount of a charge, the authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the authority's income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of taking the action for which the charges are imposed". So the actual cost to the authority should not include any element for the wages (unless persons are brought in on additional payments to provide the service, or maintain other services as a result), the appliances (again unless others are purchased to cover) or equipment used (again unless it was purchased ofr this action) - an interesting test case awaits somewhere, I have no doubt. I really doubt that it COSTS LFB £270 per appliance per hour to deliver any such service. Whilst that may be what they determine to be the cost of the crew and vehicle per hour they are not having this cost imposed on them for taking the action as theses costs would already be there, fuel etc may be all that can be legally charged?
-
The Scottish Executive are similarly consulting on charging for their FRA : http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/04/0792221/22222
-
So, I see that Scotland is considering it, does that mean that the info in the first of your two posts applies to Scotland too?
-
As far a I am aware - you would need to read the Scottsish Fire Act and remember that some of the 'information' was my personal opinion.
-
Thanks for your help, I am in correspondance with someone who said that FRS charged his friend money to attend a road traffic accident, which his friends insurers' paid. I challenged this, as it was my understanding that ambulances did this, but not FRS. So I said I would look into this and let him know the situation, it was in Scotland. So if anyone can clarify if this sort of thing happens, would be most grateful.
-
Doesn't happen in Cheshire, except for the usual SSC type incidents, for which the Crew Manager must make those in need of the crew aware of those charges prior to starting work.
As far as I am aware this has happened for years.
-
Depending upon when this happened there is absolutley no reason why a FRS couldn ot have charged, only since the two FS acts has the RTC become a duty. After all if the ambulance service charge why not the FRS? If the insurance company paid then it is for them to look into, surely? Knowing how they do their absolute best to wheedle their way out of paying they must have accepted this one, if they had anyway to get out of it they would have!
-
I would not know what stance his insurers took, or who they might be.
I can't speak on their behalf, but I would disagree with your perception of insurers. In my dealings with them, I have found the opposite to be true, that they tend to pay out when they could have argued against doing so in order to maintain good relationships with their customers.
-
Your not the man from the Pru are you Chris??
-
Your not the man from the Pru are you Chris??
I work for an insurance company, but this is not a work related question.
I'd rather avoid mentioning who I work for, as I am not a spokesperson for them or for insurance companies generally.
-
Chris didn't mean to put you on the spot, was tongue cheek rather than anything else.
-
Messy
When I tore myself away from the LFB in the year 2k, I know that the Brigade were charging large commecial premises(hospitals) in the event of repeat AFA's.
RNOH is an example?
Or so my ADO led me to believe
-
It is ILLEGAL to charge for AFAs at present, indeed one FRS found itself in the dock for trying.
-
Ah the old Northampton case Firey.
-
Just for the 'record', Northamptonshire Fire Authority were never in any dock regarding charging for false alarms.
-
No, they were ''innocent'' bystanders in the case of the health authority v Thorn Security, the health authority refusing to pay for false alarm charges that the fire authority charged Thorn and that Thorn understandably passed on.
-
That is correct.
-
And thre result was that Thorn quielty told the FA of the court's decision...................., prior to Thorn suing the FA
-
Wrong again fireftrm. Nothing further happened - strange but true.
-
Whole thing was strange. If they had continued to charge they could have afforded to take the City Logistics case to the Court of Intergalactic and Alien rights.
-
Ah not quite - every FRA stopped any idea of charging and the one concerned stopped too. Hardly nothing, but no further court actions, true. So it did have a reaction, or is the change of policies nothing? no, Thorn did not have to sue the FA, whether they got any of the money back, I do not know but maybe this wqas out of court nad thuis why it remains quiet. The case demonstrated thatit was ILLEGAL for FAs to charge for AFA calls. Quite an important decision for those who were already charging.
Also the action made it to the Bain review -
5.21 In their evidence to us, ODPM have pointed out that the 1947 Act also allows fire authorities to use fire brigades for purposes other than dealing with fires, such as assisting at road accidents. But we note that there is no significant funding for this activity. Fire authorities have the power to charge for the use of brigade assets in certain circumstances such as road traffic accidents when fire is not involved. But they cannot currently charge for attendance at automatic fire alarms following the Court of Appeal decision Thorn v Sackville (1992).
And from LFEPA submission to Bain:
False alarms from automatic fire alarms
5.30 The fire service is responding to an increasing number of false alarms generated by automatic fire detection equipment. This is a drain on our resources, diverting time and effort away from other more important activities, such as community fire safety and education work.
5.31 Until the Court of Appeal decision in Thorn Security Ltd v Sackville (1992) many fire authorities levied a charge on companies having fire alarms with a direct line into Brigade mobilising centres, when false alarms resulted from faulty equipment. As a result of that case, such charges can no longer be levied. This has resulted in a denial of potential income to London's fire authority of a six figure sum annually. It has also removed a substantial financial incentive for fire alarm companies to install alarms correctly, keep them properly maintained and ensure that staff and properly trained in their correct use.
So nothing at all happened after the case...............................................
Right again fireftrm, wrong Ian Gough
-
Nothing happened insofar as you alleged (twice) ie Northants were not sued - and no action even commenced against the fire authority. I agree debate has rumbled on in many quarters.
-
I made the comment of a FA 'in the dock' but not that they were sued, the 'second' attempt was - "speaking to them before they sue" rather that I was trying to convey that no case had to be pursued, I apolgise if this was mistaken by you. It is my impression of the case that no case was taken forward as the Thorn one made it quite clear to the FA what the legal situation was, no doubt an out of court settlement kept the issue as one of 'incommunicado'.