Fire Authority Enforcement

[stevew]

I had good vibes about the RRO when it was first discussed.  Unfortunately as soon as it was introduced things started to unravel due mainly to matters already discussed in this forum.  I would like to know if the following is an isolated case or not.

I am aware of a fire authority who after 3 years of the RRO have set up an inspection programme to audit all sleeping risk premises over an 18 month period.  The approach appears to be that three years is long enough to assess and impliment.  I personally support robust enforcement, where necessary.  However the second half of the plan is to use the CLG guides as a standard with little room for deviation through risk assessment.

Is anyone else aware of a fire authority with a similar approach.   

[kurnal]

They are not alone but as always theres policies and then theres the people who are tasked with implementing them.

The policy really has to be as it is written. I dont fear such a policy, there has to be a benchmark. I think its more likely than not the people carrying out the enforcement will interpret the policy in a reasonable manner. Proof of the pudding will be in the eating though.

[stevew]

Hi

Benchmark standards are needed and I accept that.  However its the fact that inspecting officers have not been given the opportunity to use their on-site judgement (perhaps we could call it risk assessment) that would allow a reasonable deviation.

Examples include:
Insisting on providing fixed FRG within 1.8m horizontally from an external escape stair where the risk is not from any room but from a sterile fire area. This plus the fact that the alternative routes are adequately separated thereby reducing the risk of both routes being compromised by one fire as negligible. 

Not allowing a hotel owner to install heat detection in staff rooms in order to reduce the risk of false alarms.  There are management systems in place however with the turnover of staff and the environment some appear to prefer to live in (bear with me here I am trying to avoid being rude to hotel staff) the risk of false alarms in heightened. 

Its the policy makers not the inspectors.   
 

[Phoenix]

Hi Steve,

I was just about to post to ask you for a little clarification on your post and..... Bingo!  You posted the clarification before I could ask!  You're good!

However its the fact that inspecting officers have not been given the opportunity to use their on-site judgement (perhaps we could call it risk assessment) that would allow a reasonable deviation.

It is fundamentally essential that inspecting officers be given scope to make their own judgements and interpretations when carrying out their inspections.  Any managers that take away this ability are displaying reckless naivity.  Frankly, I find it difficult to accept the situation you present and I'd ask you to re-assess your understanding of the situation carefully.  If you're right, why not name and shame.

Insisting on providing fixed FRG within 1.8m horizontally from an external escape stair where the risk is not from any room but from a sterile fire area.

That would be ridiculous.  I'd love to see a FRS try to defend it in court!

This plus the fact that the alternative routes are adequately separated thereby reducing the risk of both routes being compromised by one fire as negligible.   
 

Just a quick point on this.  Alternative exit routes adequately separated are normally all that's required.  But do be careful where high numbers of people are present in the building - it may be that all staircases are required to be used in order to achieve an effective evacuation.

Not allowing a hotel owner to install heat detection in staff rooms in order to reduce the risk of false alarms.
 

There's been a recent thread on this issue.

However the second half of the plan is to use the CLG guides as a standard with little room for deviation through risk assessment.
   

What's the problem with having the CLG guides as a standard?  They're intended to guide the person conducting the FRA so they should be appropriate for auditing the FRA.  They're far from perfect, of course, there are errors and they are not complete but what else are you going to use?

Stu

[mr angry]

There is a perfectly robust appeal system for those that feel the need to utilise it.

[Phoenix]

There is a perfectly robust appeal system for those that feel the need to utilise it.

That's true but it does have the problem that many punters will not have the confidence or the resources available to consider appealing against the fire authority.  The easiest solution for them will often be to simply bite the bullet, make an appointment with the bank manager and comply.

The fire service have a responsibility to the public they serve to be fair, consistent, open and honest (refer to the Enforcement Concordat).  They also have a duty to give best advice.

Stu

[stevew]

Hi Phoenix

I am always wary of giving any examples on this forum.  With respect I was not asking anyone to accept or reject the examples but to
consider the principle.

I can assure you that I do not have to re-assess anything however please clarify what you find difficult to accept, my approach or the fire authority's.

The fire authority's policy is as follows.
    Audit
1. Assessment in place.
    Disagree with content and/or timescale
    Give the responsible two alternatives.  Either submit an action plan (no right of appeal) to the authority for approval or receive an   
    Enforcement Notice.
    The RP is made aware of the fact that all Enforcement Notices are displayed in full on the fire authority's web site.  This generally has
    the effect of forcing the RP to go for the action plan route. 
2.  Assessment not in place
     Issue a Deficiencies Notice Item I carry out a fire risk assessment Items 2 onwards urgent matters that require attention.
     RP now feels that the premises are satisfactory apart from a couple of comments on the Notice.  No time given to carry out the
     FRA (over3 years into the RRO!!!) and not told that the inspection was purely sampling standards not a full inspection.

I would like to expand further however I have to go out to dinner at a restaurant of one of my clients (not a freebe I would add).   
         

[Clevelandfire 3]

whats a deficiencies notice then ? As far as I was aware you have informal action such as a letter or report detailing deficiencies which 9 times outta 10 is what most RPs get. Then you have an enforcement notice if something needs addressing PDQ or informal action hasnt worked, and a prohibition or alterations notice.

Most of the fire brigades Ive dealt with fall into two distinct categories. Most conduct an inspection or audit as per the old days. You can interchange the term audit and inspection as much as you like they are basically the same thing its just government speak to make on something has changed. Some may choose to do a full inspection if they think the assessment is shabby or conduct an inspection anyway because you could have a blinding risk assessment but the premises might be rubbish. Likewise you can have safe premises and a poor risk assessment.The second group audit the risk assessment only and if it seems ok on paper they tend to walk away. If not they then look deeper. Enjoy your dinner. Im off for mine now

[Phoenix]

please clarify what you find difficult to accept, my approach or the fire authority's.

In my experience FRS officers are the most reasonable body of persons involved in the fire safety world.  Neutral, fair, open and consistent.  When I first came into fire safety many years ago there were certainly plenty of officers like Sub Officer Jack Boot or Station Officer J. Obsworth.  But times have changed and that's just not the case now.  Officers strive to be reasonable in their approach and to bring unsatisfactory premises up to only the minimum appropriate standard of safety.  Indeed, they cannot insist on anything above the minimum required otherwise they run a risk of finding themselves in court trying to justify unnecessary works.

So, in answer to your question, what I'm finding difficult is visualizing a FRS that is not allowing flexibility of approach by its officers.
I wasn't questioning your approach at all.

 
2.  Assessment not in place
     Issue a Deficiencies Notice Item I carry out a fire risk assessment Items 2 onwards urgent matters that require attention.
     RP now feels that the premises are satisfactory apart from a couple of comments on the Notice.  No time given to carry out the
     FRA (over3 years into the RRO!!!) and not told that the inspection was purely sampling standards not a full inspection.

This does seem a strange and inadequate process.  Of course, you had to get to your meal (not a freebie!) so we only have the scantest of details but the FRS should not leave the RP with the impression that only a few points have to be addressed when there are other problems within the premises.  That sounds like they're setting themselves up for a big fall.

Go on, tell us who it is......

The second group audit the risk assessment only and if it seems ok on paper they tend to walk away. If not they then look deeper.

Quite a few years ago in a large fire safety office in the 8th largest city in the UK there was a station officer who produced the most beautifully crafted fire certificates.  Unfortunately, any other officers who subsequently inspected his buildings found that the buildings were nightmares and had never been up to the standard purported in the fire certificate.  That station officer had an oft quoted motto, "never let a bad building spoil a good fire certificate."  We laughed.  As we cried.

I would suggest that there's always time for at least a quick peek at the building.

Stu

[stevew]

Hi Clevelandfire3

Pleasant evening over I now have another restaurant worthy of recommendation.

I use the word 'notice; for something in writing you would refer to it as informal action. Unfortunately most of the ones I have come across leave a lot to be desired when it comes setting out anything beyond 'carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment'.  Some inspectors stop at that. some set out several items that they have identified between the front door and the office and others raise only what they refer to as urgent items.

I agree with your comment on audit and/or inspection, and the inspection approach you describe appears to be consistent.  Concerned  with your second group approach of only viewing the assessment.  I would expect an inspector to at least 'sample' a part of the building and maybe talk to staff.

Reference the inspector and the fire certificate I think that most fire safety departments have come across this individual at some time.
In my case the individual was reprimanded and then recommended for temporary secondment to fire safety department at a well known College.  There he stayed until he retired, oh by the way after at least one further temporary promotion.

Hi Phoenix

I retired from a fire authority 10 years ago and now work with other ex-fire safety officers from more than one brigade.  We all share the same concern when it comes to standards expected by inspectors in the authority in question.  You refer to a minimum appropriate standard.  If the CLG guide is to be used as a benchmark then inspectors MUST at least listen to and consider alternative solutions put forward by experienced competent assessors.  If not where does risk assessment come into play.  In fact my understanding is a FA is required to put in writing their reasons for NOT accepting an alternative solution (the words fair. consistent, open and honest  come to mind).

I will not name the FA but will say that they submit all notices on their web site in FULL (not a criticism), enough to frighten any RP.
Yes they are also my ex-employer.     


 

[CivvyFSO]

SteveW

I think you are seeing the "action plan" option slightly wrong. It is really a kickback from the Enforcement Concordat, where before taking formal enforcement action we are to discuss how the problems can be solved by informal means. Most RP's will accept this alternative, but it is not being put forward just so that nobody has a right of appeal. It is informal, you have the legal right to lie through your teeth then not to do any of the work, since it is not a legal notice, however if that happens it will simply end up as enforcement, and you then have the right of appeal.

Telling people that enforcement notices are available for the public to see is not a threat, they would almost always be relevant notices, and are a matter for public record. It is my personal opinion that if enforcement is downgraded to action plan then it should still be a matter for public record. (If it is important for enforcement notices to be available to the public, then any building of a poor enough standard to be enforceable should form part of the same records regardless of the method used to ensure compliance)

Cleveland, a deficiencies notice is generally a 'notice' that doesn't get followed up. More of a confirmation of a few less serious issues that should be addressed. This is US telling the RP what is required. This would only normally be served on a premises where the general standard is high, and we can reasonably expect the RP to take heed of whatever is found. At action plan level, it should be the RP telling US what he is going to do to rectify more serious faults, it gets an agreed timescale and always gets followed up. It gets enforced if it passes the timescale. (It often ends up with us telling the RP what needs to be on the plan though)

[stevew]

Hi CivvyFSO

Thanks for your input.

Surely a fire risk assessment is an action plan.  So if not in place and no one is being put at serious risk the inspector would simply issue a deficiencies notice stating that a FRA should be carried out.  No follow up.
Interestingly enough I have come across FA standard deficiencies notices that state that all items require 'urgent attention'.  Not as you put it 'less serious' items.

I take it that if a FRA is in place but unsatisfactory, no serious risk, then the inspector would consider an action plan with a follow up.

In my experience some RP are so desperate to stay off the public register that they will do whatever the FA ask without considering alternatives. 

[CivvyFSO]

Surely a fire risk assessment is an action plan

On the few occasions it is done properly yes. But I have seen good RA's where none of the actions have been implemented by the RP, so even having an action plan does not ensure compliance unless followed up. Don't get me wrong here, if the RA is in place and is suitable with an action plan that is being visibly adhered to, then there is no need to enforce anything as the system is working as it should.

if not in place and no one is being put at serious risk the inspector would simply issue a deficiencies notice stating that a FRA should be carried out.  No follow up

If the RA has not been completed then this will, 95% of the time, lead to many other failings of the legislation. The RA is the primary tool for seeing what is needed to protect relevant persons.

Don't get offences confused with non compliance. We enforce the order. If someone is not complying it is up to us to see to it that they comply. They have to comply regardless of risk, but the nature of how they comply will differ regarding the actual risk. If people are being put at serious risk then we have an offence that should be dealt with accordingly, and second to that they still have to comply with the order.

I have come across FA standard deficiencies notices that state that all items require 'urgent attention'.  Not as you put it 'less serious' items.

They shouldn't be doing that if the are following the CFOA model. It might be simple laziness, i.e an FRS or Inspector who can't be bothered with the process of enforcement.

In my experience the RP doesn't consider alternatives because they just want to know what they have to do to comply/get us off their back, and then get on with running their business.