Enforcement process?

[Rachel]

Can anyone tell me, have there been any prosecutions under the Fire Safety Order yet (or the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations)? Is the enforcement process working as expected?

[CivvyFSO]

We have had a few prosecutions so far. One in particular hit a person quite heavily, with fines for each article not complied with, and multiple set fines for blocked exits etc. (5k per exit for example.)

Seems to be working better than the old way, which unless it was enforcement tended to be a written letter of 'recommendations' which was not followed up. Now everything is followed up, so once we have got our claws in we are going to make that place safer one way or another.

[kurnal]

Have been helping out a hotelier today, owner of a former fire certificated hotel in the midlands. This was his first inspection since RRO - last year he had an inspection under the FP Act  all satisfactory.

He has been served with a prohibition notice - to improve means of escape and detection.  (unsatisfactory staircase layout discharging into bar with alternative vertical ladder from first floor flat roof from 2 rooms, and no detection except in corridors and staircase- upgrade to L2.) I went through his bulky files- no letter of recommendations on file, certificate dated 1997. He feels harshly treated but recognises the problem.

I supose it shows the RRO is working-  as intended??

[wee brian]

Just out of interest did the hotelier have a FRA in place? (thats before the brigade and you goodself got involved?)

[kurnal]

Yes- it was a tick box thing issued by the brigade and given out on last years inspection under the heading of the Workplace Regs. It was based on the old FPA checklist to which the brigade had added a couple of pages for the RP to add his significant findings and action plan. I am fnding these things all over the place- I wish they wouldn't send them out.
Full of questions like
" Is the means of escape suitable and sufficient?"
"Is the alarm system adequate"
"Are there adequate arrangements for emergency lighting"

Of course the uneducated person is just going to put a tick in all the boxes- and why not- he had a fire certificate.

[jokar]

The means of detection on a Prohibition Notice is interesting when it should only show means of escape issues.  I would suspect that they would have difficulty with that in an appeal court.  The PN should only show those things that will immediately take it out of prohibition and other items should be subject to an enforcement notice.

[kurnal]

There are two letters- one  is the prohibition notice itself with the MOE and detection requirements and an accompanying letter that lists further items that are considered unsatisfactory and that should be reviewed within a month after which a further inspection will be made. "If appropriate following that visit these matters may be made the subject of an enforcement notice". Hmmm.

Remember the original proposal when the workplace regs were first drafted for a "notice of intent to issue an enforcement notice"? Bit like that I think.

[CivvyFSO]

The means of detection on a Prohibition Notice is interesting when it should only show means of escape issues.  I would suspect that they would have difficulty with that in an appeal court.

Surely the means of escape can be insufficient due to a lack of suitable detection in certain circumstances?

But I have to agree with the appeal issue in this case. If there are detectors in the corridors, then it is not ideal, but it could easily be deemed as satisfactory until a more suitable system is in place and it wouldn't seem that a prohibition notice was called for.

Could have been one of those events where the certificate was issued with mistakes, and as such we were unable to rectify the situation unless material alterations etc had taken place. I can see where certificates have been issued with mistakes that could only be rectified once the RRFSO came in, but prohibiting the use of that place is like admitting incompetence. "You issued a certificate to say the premises is safe, and now you are saying that the premises is so dangerous that people are at serious risk?" ... "ER.. Yes m'lud"

[messy]

Kurnal

Can you confirm hat this was an Article 31 Prohibition Notice and not an Enforcement Notice??

[kurnal]

Yes it was an article 31 prohibition notice.

The means of escape from these two first floor rooms was pants- an internal stair which was open at the bottom to the main bar, enclosed at the head, with an alternative french window exit from one room leading onto a flat roof and then to a vertical ladder, with a bypass door to enable the occupants in the second room access to the roof exit. So it was pretty poor - even by 1971 standards. If there had been an external rather than a ladder then it would have been more or less ok.
Appeal- no. Within a week of the prohibition there has been an internal protected route installed leading direct to a final exit. The RRO has worked and has led to improved standards. The destination is great, the route to get there a bit dodgy. Just makes you wonder why it did not happen years ago. Would a letter of recommendation have done the trick? To be honest I doubt it, but it would have smoothed the road.