Fire Hazard and Fire Risk

[messy]

...............  However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this.  I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"?  No it is a commercial premises.  Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.

Isn't this the real reason why some consultants and some IOs code hug?

There is no case law, just a set of guidance notes and thousands of different/contrary points of view from various quarters, including perhaps (we are yet to find out) the legal community.

Hands up who wants to be first to test any part of the FSO via the courts and potentially end up with several chicken loads of egg on their face. A consultant may lose a customer (or two). A fire authority loses - well- some authority. Everyone takes a chance of losing bucket loads of ca$h.

Is it any wonder then that many in the industry are using the codes as PPE to protect themselves from legal flak?

I audited a building in the summer, which on the strength of my impending audit, the RP revised the FRA. The building was due to be demolished by this Xmas. The assessor did a great/thorough job, but took no notice that the building had weeks before being turned into dust. He recommended the replacement of a basement ceiling which had partially collapsed, to return the fire separation to 60 mins. I looked at the job and said I'd be happy if they extened their SD (1 head) into that part of the unused G floor to provide early warning to those in the three floors above.

My point is that the assessor should have proposed and justified this action - not me, the auditor. The new ceiling (which would be needed to be fixed onto soaking joists) would have cost thousands - my solution, a couple of hundred??. That was in June. I noticed on Monday that the building is now clad in scaffolding and will be down by November. I don't think the expense of a new ceiling for a few months was justifiable

It seems that many assessors and IOs are looking after their own backs rather really considering the whole picture and where necesary, justifying 'variations' from the code. It's not a competence or confidence issue, but merely one of survival!!

[nearlythere]

...............  However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this.  I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"?  No it is a commercial premises.  Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.

Isn't this the real reason why some consultants and some IOs code hug?

There is no case law, just a set of guidance notes and thousands of different/contrary points of view from various quarters, including perhaps (we are yet to find out) the legal community.

Hands up who wants to be first to test any part of the FSO via the courts and potentially end up with several chicken loads of egg on their face. A consultant may lose a customer (or two). A fire authority loses - well- some authority. Everyone takes a chance of losing bucket loads of ca$h.

Is it any wonder then that many in the industry are using the codes as PPE to protect themselves from legal flak?

I audited a building in the summer, which on the strength of my impending audit, the RP revised the FRA. The building was due to be demolished by this Xmas. The assessor did a great/thorough job, but took no notice that the building had weeks before being turned into dust. He recommended the replacement of a basement ceiling which had partially collapsed, to return the fire separation to 60 mins. I looked at the job and said I'd be happy if they extened their SD (1 head) into that part of the unused G floor to provide early warning to those in the three floors above.

My point is that the assessor should have proposed and justified this action - not me, the auditor. The new ceiling (which would be needed to be fixed onto soaking joists) would have cost thousands - my solution, a couple of hundred??. That was in June. I noticed on Monday that the building is now clad in scaffolding and will be down by November. I don't think the expense of a new ceiling for a few months was justifiable

It seems that many assessors and IOs are looking after their own backs rather really considering the whole picture and where necesary, justifying 'variations' from the code. It's not a competence or confidence issue, but merely one of survival!!

Good approach Messy. Could a resolution even have been to empty the basement area to make it sterile?

[Ricardo]

So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes

I would very much think not,  I would say that is where Part 6 comes to offer sound advice.

and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not?

I would have to say yes to that one, wouldn’t you?

A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?

Compared to what? Part 1 yes I would say so, some Grades of Part 6, I would say yes to that as well, does the £4 single point “alarm” not have its limitations? Part 6  advises it does.

Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge

I fear it may very well be so for some unfortunately

[nearlythere]

So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes

I would very much think not,  I would say that is where Part 6 comes to offer sound advice.

and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not?

I would have to say yes to that one, wouldn’t you?

A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?

Compared to what? Part 1 yes I would say so, some Grades of Part 6, I would say yes to that as well, does the £4 single point “alarm” not have its limitations? Part 6  advises it does.

Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge

I fear it may very well be so for some unfortunately

Is there not the potential for employers/occupiers to install lesser standards of everything and anything? Even fire doors or rather, not fire doors. We are suppose to have a F&RS police force to prevent this.
With the new draft safety leaflet for B&Bs advising that solid wood doors in some premises may be acceptable, is this the thin end of the wedge to owners installing eggbox doors instead?
Is the provision of a hand lamp instead of a BS safety lighting system the thin end of a wedge to owners supplying guests candles and matches?
Is the thin edge of the wedge a valid arguement if adequate policing is undertaken?

[messy]

Good approach Messy. Could a resolution even have been to empty the basement area to make it sterile?'


That's what was so mad - The basement & Ground floor were empty and would never be occupied again.

[jokar]

Had my input on 9999 over the last 2 days.  Supposedly the BS but it will not be published until 15 October so can not teach it until published.  Put up with the DD instead which is similar but not the real thing and there are numbers of changes from the DD to the BS.  The risk profiling methodology works very well and put risk assessment into the equation for travel and widths of stairs and doors.  It likes sprinklers and AFD and will give % increases in travel and decreases in widths and stairs for these additional measures where a benefit is accrued.  The amazing thing is it can be applied retospectively as it is a design guide and can be used for existing buildings, imagine being able to design out exits from a building by using the additional measures.  Comparisons on some exercises we did with ADB gave 2 exits in 9999 to 5 from ADB.  More shocks to come when this is published as the travel can be extended to 90 metres in 2 way travel which will give a floor lenght of double that.

[nearlythere]

Had my input on 9999 over the last 2 days.  Supposedly the BS but it will not be published until 15 October so can not teach it until published.  Put up with the DD instead which is similar but not the real thing and there are numbers of changes from the DD to the BS.  The risk profiling methodology works very well and put risk assessment into the equation for travel and widths of stairs and doors.  It likes sprinklers and AFD and will give % increases in travel and decreases in widths and stairs for these additional measures where a benefit is accrued.  The amazing thing is it can be applied retospectively as it is a design guide and can be used for existing buildings, imagine being able to design out exits from a building by using the additional measures.  Comparisons on some exercises we did with ADB gave 2 exits in 9999 to 5 from ADB.  More shocks to come when this is published as the travel can be extended to 90 metres in 2 way travel which will give a floor lenght of double that.

Sounds like more frustrations brewing on the horizon between Building Regs and FRAs.
Is it reckoned that this BS of this will superceed John Prescott's guides? What about the horse hotel? Its not in the draft.

[jokar]

No mention of fire hazard in it and therefore can not be used instead of the guides, but then many people are not using the guides anyway.  The risk profiling is good and backed up by engineered bits from other BS, I think that once it is out and people are comfortable with it, ADB b1 will be dead in the water.  The other thing is the profiling tables are easy to follow and use once you understand then all.