Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I have read through this thread (again!) and have looked at the determination.

There are many comments about the Fire & Rescue Authority 'enforcing' smoke detection in the hotel rooms, so here is the introduction:-

1.   In accordance with article 36 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) the enforcing Fire and Rescue Authority and the responsible person for the premises jointly applied to the Secretary of State for the determination of the disputed matters related to technical fire safety. The parties were not in agreement over the appropriate technical solution to satisfy the requirements of the FSO.
2.   The Secretary of State has requested me to provide technical advice to the Secretary of State, in my role as Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser on receipt of a valid request for a Determination.

No mention of enforcement then.

There are many who have condemmed the FRA for using the process, but when you read the determination, both sides have been criticised:-

"Neither the responsible person or the Fire and Rescue Authority have offered any technical or evidential based analysis.... " (Although there is alot of other informtion to suggest otherwise)

The determination also states  " BS 5839-1 does note that the use of heat detectors in bedrooms is not to provide the earliest warning of fire to the occupants but to provide an adequate means of fire detection when combined with smoke detectors in the escape route" but at what point does the smoke detector actuate and is the relevant person in the room protected?
This is my point about looking at the technical advances coupled with the fact that early detection means early intervention and can reduce the impact to a business in terms of damage and continuity (which I have not previously mentioned)

The sleeping risk guide identifies an L2 system in a hotel ... detection in the escape route and rooms off, referring to BS5839 as the standard, but no mention of the type of detector.

We seem to be back to reccommendation for change along with some reasoning and hope that the responsible person agrees. Or perhaps another FRA should go through the process and see what happens.

[jokar]

I am sure that Mr Todd could elucidate this better but detection is there to warn others of a fire in progress not necessarily the occupant of any particular area.  I am not so sure that smoke in staff areas is beneficial because we may then add a false alarm or Uwfs process.  I know, to reduce the false alarm rates change the sd to hd.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Baldyman

The fundemental issue as Jokar points out is that detection is provided to give warning of fire occuring to residents but not to protect the occupant in the room fire has originated.

You could argue a fast reacting detector may buy that extra bit of time to raise the alarm, rouse the person in the room of origin and hopefully allow them to escape, but all research shows that regardless of the detector used the person in the room of origin is ever saved.

So it is futile to recommend or enforce that the hotel should upgrade its current fire warning system - It could cost a serious ammount of money for little or no benefit in return. You can't manage risk in that way.

[footieboy]

No mention of enforcement then.


[/quote]

You need to remember that this can only go to determination if the RP admits a failure but them and regulator cannot agree on the solution.
My interpretation of this is that every determination will always make the RP do something ( as they admit there is a failure) but in this case they didnt. Very strange or never really a determination?

[kurnal]

No mention of enforcement then.


You need to remember that this can only go to determination if the RP admits a failure but them and regulator cannot agree on the solution.
My interpretation of this is that every determination will always make the RP do something ( as they admit there is a failure) but in this case they didnt. Very strange or never really a determination?

That is a very interesting and useful point footieboy. The Fire Safety Order did not make provision for the scenario we have been discussing. Even the Guidance notes are confused over this matter- They both specifiy that there must be a failure to comply but then guidance note number 2 gives an example very similar to the subject of this thread.

In these cases the Secretary of State is really being asked to determine whether thare has been a failure or not, rather than to determine an appropriate technical solution to a specific issue.

I would guess that such a "determination" has no standing in Law as the Fire Safety Order does not provide for it.

Heres the relevant paras from the gidance notes.

""Article 36 – Determination of disputes by Secretary of State

Guidance note number 1

158. Where the responsible person has failed to comply with the Order and cannot agree with the enforcing authority what measures are necessary to remedy the failure, the Secretary of State may be approached to make a determination of the dispute. Both parties must make the approach. This approach can be made when a notice has been served by the enforcing authority on a responsible person.


Guidance Note Number 2

3. Where both parties (the enforcing authority and the responsible person) agree that there is a need for improvements to fire precautions but disagree on the technical solution to be used, they may agree to refer the issue to the Secretary of State for independent determination under article 36 of the Order.

Example Following an inspection the enforcing authority has written to a responsible person suggesting that six monthly maintenance inspections of the fi re alarm system are inadequate and that a competent contractor should inspect the system every three months.
The responsible person disputes this and agrees with the enforcing authority to seek determination from the Secretary of State.""