Should an Anonymous phonecall be made?

[Donna]

Phil, it was regarging to the poor light in the area that had obstuctions in, HSEs exact written words via email was this;
"We have now finalised our enquiries into the lighting issues which you have raised, and your concerns in respect appear to be justified.
Tests have provided evidence that the lighting in the area concerned are below the reccomended minimum levels for"traffic zones" in indoor workplaces which are specified i BS British Standard en 12464-1:2002 "light and lighting"
As there is no specific illuminence levels contained within H&S legislation itself, HSE would use the BS as its benchmark in terms of lighting requirements to reduce the risk of slips/trips.
HSE have therefore written to ?? ?, specifying the minimum amount and a timetable in which this must be acheived.

Phil this is the same corridor that one is locked in! from the outside door, you go in and they lock the external door, then the staff of the building overtake you so they can unlock the next internal door! (so at this time one is in between two locked doors and in the dark, oh with obstructions that you cannot see!, then you go through the same process to go through the third door, this is not a DDA matter, this is just HSE and Fiire I think? it was the DRC that advised me to make the complaint to the two authorities in the first place.

[PhilB]

Donna

I cannot really comment further as I do not know the building you refer to.

However the fact you are accompanied by staff who lock and unlock doors as you enter does not concern me greatly. Yes you are locked in but you are accompanied, I know of many buildings that have similar procedures, banks for example.

The fact that llighting levels are below those recommended for traffic zones does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with means of escape.

I repeat my recommendation to contact the FRS, they will be happy to explain what action they intend to take.

[Fishy]

I think Donna should be commended for her tenacity.

As someone who is a Responsible Person, and has the job of pursuading the 'Bean Counters' to dole out money for risk reduction measures that I regard as necessary, my life would be made much easier if the occupants of buildings were more aware of and vocal about these kind of safety issues.  Fire safety is, in my experience, a complete 'Grudge Purchase', in the eyes of premises managers.

If the Fire Authority is not willing to follow up her concerns (and let's remember, she pays their wages), then shame on them.  I would have thought that this is just the type of community vigilence that they should be encouraging.

[Donna]

Thanks Fishy,  Guess who got a letter from the fire service today, (a copy to the owners of  the above mentioned building), it read; (cutting out the in-betweeny bits)
Notification of Deficiencies,
Further to the recent visit carried out on **/**/2006 the fire authority is in the opinion that you are not fully complying with the above legislation, (regulatory reform (fire safety) order 2005
blah blah blah.....you are strongly advised to obtain the appropriate "Fire Safety - Risk Assessment publication for your premises, blah blah.....

REPORT
Deficiency from article 9 (1)
The fire Safety risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient
REMEDY, blah blah.... "you guys know the wording"

Deficiency from article 9 (3)
The F.S.R.Assessment has not been reviewed on a regular basis
REMEDY, "ditto"

Deficiency from article 11 (2)
The F.Safety arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventative and protective measures have not been recorded where appropriate,
REMEDY, The responsible person must record F.S Arrangements......blah blah...
a) He employes five or more employee;
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.

(this bit above "b" anc "c" Im not to sure what it means, so if anyone can post the answer, that would be great)

and finaly

Deficiency from Article 14 (2)(g)
The escape routes were not provided with adequate signage.

REMEDY, Suitable and sufficient signage indicating all emergency routes and exits is to be provided.

so thanks so very very much for all your help and patience with this on going problem, (and you all know who you are)

I will keep you informed of the above in regards to the DDA, that bit will take a bit longer, slow..slow process.

Donna

[PhilB]

a) He employes five or more employee;
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.

(this bit above "b" anc "c" Im not to sure what it means, so if anyone can post the answer, that would be great)

Donna

There is a requirement to record certain information if the premises has any kind of licence regardless of the number of persons employed. This would include a wedding license. However I would have thought that the organisation you are dealing with employs five or more employees anyway.

An alterations notice is a notice that the enforcing authoriity may serve that prohibits making changes without their approval. Not relevant in your case.

I am glad to hear you are getting a response.

[Donna]

Thanks for your response,  as far as the 5 or more employees, yes I would have thought that they would already employ 5, because that would be common sense,  but the fact is that up to the point of the fire report being received, they only had 2! and that was the "2" Ive been refering to that neither is the "said" responsible person, and they (one of the said, 2) also told me that they wouldnt know what to do in the event of an emergency, and have not been told either,
But hopefully now, this wont be a problem in the future,  its all to well to assume that there will never be an emergency, but in reality anything can happen!  I am so glad I pushed with this one, but it does just make me think how many members of the public notice safety bits and bobs, and think " oh well I'll leave that to someone else, It wont affect me because I dont have to access that building again"  the mind boggles....