Painting Fire Extinguishers

[PhilB]

Ah... but could it be that you are also a 'RP'?  It's my understanding that the RP's responsibility relates to the extent that they have "control" over the fire safety measures in the premises.  If you are performing the relevant assessment, it could be pretty difficult to divorce yourself from the concept that you have, to some extent, control over the measures, and you are therefore the RP, in that particular respect?  The result - if there is a breach in the law, you could be prosecuted directly, even if the employer isn't.

If the premises is a workplace the responsible person must comply regardless of the extent of control. It is true that some other person could be found liable and prosecuted if he has shown all due dilligence.

[Mike Buckley]

The RRO defines the Responsible Person which is the person who has control over any part of the premises i.e. occupier or owner. In my view this means the person who can do things. For instance if I can decide what colour to paint the place, buy and sell stuff for the place, in fact do what I like in the place I would be the responsible person. If however I have to get approval to do these things I am not the responsible person, the person whose approval I must get is the responsible person.
It also goes on to say that in a multi-occupied complex there may be more than one responsible person all of whom must take all reasonable steps to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other. This is to cover places like shopping complexes, factory units etc.
So you cannot be the responsible person with control over just one field and in this case if you were the responible person there would be no problem because you have the power to get the "proper" extinguishers in.

[Ken Taylor]

I can't see that you have control of premises or the work activity of others as an advisor - unless your contract specifically gives you a measure of control. You can, however, be sued by the client if loss has been suffered through your wrong advice or prosecuted if in breach of statute law.

[John Webb]

Re Fishy's comment that the person conducting the FRA might be an RP because they have 'control' over the premises - I don't think this is correct. If the person conducting the FRA is being employed from outside the firm using the premises they have no 'control' over the management of the building - they cannot dictate how the place is run, including the expenditure of money on fire precautions, the training of staff and other management procedures - they can only express their opinion on how it ought to be done for observation of the FSO requirements. Therefore they have no control and would only count as a "competent person", surely?

[AnthonyB]

. Or are BAFE suggesting that stainless steel extinguishers are breaching the Regs?

Unlikely as many of the member companies including some of the powerful multinationals that founded BAFE make a tidy sum selling stainless extinguishers.

BSEN3 is a manufacturing standard and nothing more. It is good practice to use equipment to this standard, but the whole point of the new regime is to allow flexibility - hence why for aesthetics or hygiene stainless steel extinguishers with appropriate signage are acceptable in certain cirumstances and also why for example, despite EN3 stating CO2 extinguishers must be of no less than 2 kilo, Chubb manufactured a 0.427 kilo CO2 extinguisher for the RNLI.

I agree the user painting them is not the most appropriate thing and they should have gone for purpose manufactured aesthetical extinguishers with signage if not red ones, but at the end of the day they are responsible - as long as the maintenance contractor makes the appropriate comments on service records and the assessor makes their objections, rationale and consequence of non compliance and both ensure the user's attention is drawn to these, then they should both be covered.

[PhilHallmark]

. Or are BAFE suggesting that stainless steel extinguishers are breaching the Regs?

Unlikely as many of the member companies including some of the powerful multinationals that founded BAFE make a tidy sum selling stainless extinguishers.

BSEN3 is a manufacturing standard and nothing more. It is good practice to use equipment to this standard, but the whole point of the new regime is to allow flexibility - hence why for aesthetics or hygiene stainless steel extinguishers with appropriate signage are acceptable in certain cirumstances and also why for example, despite EN3 stating CO2 extinguishers must be of no less than 2 kilo, Chubb manufactured a 0.427 kilo CO2 extinguisher for the RNLI.

I agree the user painting them is not the most appropriate thing and they should have gone for purpose manufactured aesthetical extinguishers with signage if not red ones, but at the end of the day they are responsible - as long as the maintenance contractor makes the appropriate comments on service records and the assessor makes their objections, rationale and consequence of non compliance and both ensure the user's attention is drawn to these, then they should both be covered.

Why bother buying the kit in the first place? Why bother paying someone to maintain it? The guy obviously needs his insurers to have a quiet word before he is faced with a lawsuit from a disgruntled guest.

Some of the posts on this board seem to find this act almost trivial, which I cannot comprehend especially from people who are obviously keen to promote and enforce fire safety.

I agree with Anthony B, this is the Hoteliers responsibility, assuming all parties have written proof of their objections and advice. I wonder if he has cut any more corners in the name of aesthetics or personal preferences??

Whats the hotels name? Straitjacket Inn?

[TallyHo]

I was in a building last week which was provisioned with foam extinguishers.  The extinguishers at various locations had been provided by different suppliers.  Some of the foam extinguishers at the same fire points were red with the 5% cream colour coding and many others were all red with no colour coding.  I asked a few people working in the building what they thought was in the extinguishers and most said that foam was in the ones with the colour coding and water was in the ones without.  

Some of you are saying that untrained persons should not use extinguishers; how do you enforce that?

If someone sees a fire its likely that they will try to put it out, be it employee or visitor.  You can train employees but you have no control over a hotel guest or unescorted visitor trying to extinguish a fire.

For me this thread has also highlighted the fact that if IO’s have wide differing opinions on this, what chance does the fire risk assessor have of coming up with a decision that is going to please all.  A visit from one IO may say that they are acceptable and a visit from another may disagree.

What would be the consequences if the hotelier had a cream coloured corridor and had painted all the extinguishers in that area cream.  A deep fat fryer fire then occurs in an adjoining kitchen and someone grabs a cream coloured extinguisher from the corridor (which in fact contains water) and kills himself whilst trying to extinguish the fryer fire?

Who would be responsible, would it be the dead person for not reading the label?

[afterburner]

Afterburner the answer must be that if the RP does his own thing then there is nothing you can do. The RP has employed you to advise him and you have given him the best advice you can, if the RP chooses to ignore your advice then that is a decision that he has taken and he will be held responsible. What you need to do as an adviser is to ensure that your advice is clear, you give the reasons why he should follow your advice and the possible consequences if he does not follow your advice.

At the end of the day the RP is your customer and if he wants to pay out good money for your advice and then ignores it that is up to him, just make sure he understands what you are saying then if the proverbial does hit the fan, you can defend yourself that the RP was properly advised.

Mike, I think you have got this very concisely and correctly considered.

[kurnal]

Davey
Foam would most likely not put the fryer out in any case. They should have bought a class F wet chemical for the kitchen.

 And foam spray types are better than water on class A fires.
But dont worry about the IOs. Just tell them when they have got it wrong. They usually listen to sound resoning.