Bites at the cherry

[kurnal]

Hi Davo

That attitude was common but was never the official policy. Sounds like your chap was just sloping shoulders. This sort of thing led to perpetuation of bad standards. It was so easy to sort out problems like yours in the  old prescriptive days- I accept it is much harder for them now to maintain consistent standards especuially if they dont have access to the file. Thats barking and actually goes against the governments enforcement protocols.

Do you remember in the early days of drafting the RRO there was a clause in there that made it obligatory for IOs to check the file and have regard to what had been said in the past? This was removed fromt the order itself in final drafting as I think it was felt more appropriate to the enforcement protocols.

[Tom Sutton]

I accept it is much harder for them now to maintain consistent standards especially if they don’t have access to the file.

As you know in the old prescriptive days we were always being accused of inconsistence by commerce and as you say it’s much harder now to be consistent. But very rarely did owners or occupiers evoke the complaint procedure and I believe if they had this would have improved standards. In this case if the RP did go to the FRS and to court if necessary, with your support, everybody would benefit.

You may get as infamous as Toddy did.

[johno67]

I'm not one for saying 'I told you so', but I did see this coming.

If it isn't to a set guide then a situation that one IO finds acceptable another could find unacceptable.

If anyone can come up with a system for ensuring that all Fire Safety Professionals work to the same standards under Risk Assessment then I'm sure everyone would be absolutely delighted to hear from you.

I won't talk about this particular case as it is a bit too close to home, although I have no involvement or previous knowledge of it.

I can however say that I have always respected Kurnal's views and opinions.

[Izan FSO]

PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION
The principles are—
(a) avoiding risks;
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided;
(c) combating the risks at source;
(d) adapting to technical progress;
(e) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or less dangerous;
(f) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work and the influence of factors relating to the working environment;
(g) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; and
(h) giving appropriate instructions to employees.

Playing Devils Advocate....should the IO have an expectation that the resposible person may apply some of the aboven principles? and try to do somthing better with a bad design?

Working on the assumption that a lot of local authority FPO's these days are half trained box-tickers, who do not read files, I would request a meet with what probably passes for the Brigade's SFPO.

Just on another point from a previous post did YOU half train these box tickers in a previous life?

[kurnal]

Well I visited the place today and have to correct my first posting in this thread. Its only fair to put the record straight.

The owner asked me to visit and prepare a case for a complaint against the fire authority about taking two bites at the cherry. So I visited the place today and found that the owner has upgraded some fire doors in the ground floor. The client ordered a pair of FD30S doors from the joiners he used. They have installed a pair of hardwood doors with glazed panels. First thing was that the fire resisting glazing was simple quadrant 12mm beading secured by panel pins and no intumescent glazing system.  
So I phoned the joinery firm involved.

Their answer "Of course they are fire doors they are hardwood and all hardwood doors are fire doors. And it is fire resisting glass - its got the kitemark".

I say no its got the BS6206 kitemark but not the BS476. "Thats fire safety glass why are you making a problem everybody else accepts it"

No it isnt. What about a certificate for the doors?  "Do you think I am mad? It costs £4000 for a door to be tested nobody in their right mind does it. Look all the authorities accept them"

So sorry WMFS for casting doubt, you are doing a great job. And hopefully it will be a call to the trading standards on Monday if my client agrees.

[lingmoor]

Sounds an interesting one Kurnal...keep us informed of the outcome

ps...this mentions glazing

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/html/fsequip/firedoor.htm

[Tom Sutton]

ps...this mentions glazing

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/html/fsequip/firedoor.htm

Kurnal knows a lot more than the person who wrote that page.

[kurnal]

ps...this mentions glazing

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/html/fsequip/firedoor.htm

Kurnal knows a lot more than the person who wrote that page.

TW How dare you.

The person who put the firesafe pages together deserves a lot more credit that that. I often refer to them and recommend them to others. He deserves our respect and support.

If you should ever come across him in the pub I suggest you buy him a few beers in recompense. And mines a pint while you are going to the bar.

[Tom Sutton]

Sorry Kurnal and lingmoor just couldn't resist it.

[Tom Sutton]

What about a certificate for the doors?  "Do you think I am mad? It costs £4000 for a door to be tested nobody in their right mind does it. Look all the authorities accept them.

How many enforcers require the certification or third party certification for fire doors as it is the only way to be certain the fire door meets the standards. I assume we still require commissioning certificates for sprinklers, AFD and such and do we fully understand all these certification processes.

I am in the process of writing a handout on the certification of fire doors and during my research I discovered stuff I should have known but didn’t. What I do not know is the situation in the real world because what happens on paper does not always reflect what happens in practice. To this end when I have finished the handout I will provide a link to it and await your constructive criticism. :rolleyes: