NOTICE OF FIRE SAFETY DEFICIENC!ES

[Tom W]

Thus the use of a Dorguard®™...

*Dorgard 

So whats the difference between a NoFSD and a letter of non compliance?

[Midland Retty]

Sorry for the spelling deficiences Piglet 

To answer your question they are one and the same thing.

As Civvy has already stated a letter of no compliance (or notice of deficiences as some refer to it even though it isn't a notice in legal terms) should state something along the lines of "failure to comply with the requirements detailed in this letter / report could lead to the issue of an enforcement notice".

It should not state that "failure to comply with this letter / report may lead to prosecution", as that is misleading and too heavy handed.

[jokar]

Not an enforcement option so why use it?  It has no legal standing just perhaps a cross over between the FRSA and the RR(FS)O.  Be big and brave let the RP's do their job or enforce/prohibit or prosecute.

[CivvyFSO]

Believe it or not some companies actually request them. Companies that have strict audit procedures like to have it to 'close the loop', others might need it to warrant any money being spent.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Not an enforcement option so why use it?  It has no legal standing just perhaps a cross over between the FRSA and the RR(FS)O.  Be big and brave let the RP's do their job or enforce/prohibit or prosecute.

A letter of deficiences is enforcement. By your logic a copper should charge me from driving even if Im found to be 0.1mph over the speed limit. There are varying degrees of enforcement and if you want fpos issuing notices for small to medium failings then good luck to you but its not what i or most rps want.

[Tom W]

And I quote
"The visit was not a comprehensive audit of all fire safety matters but looked into a variety of aspects from which our findings a drawn. Failure to address the items specified in the report could result in enforcement action being taken. The letter and attached schedule are raised without prejudice to any legal action which may be subsequently be taken regarding failures to complying with the legislation."

One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.

How can you raise any points when you have not even bothered to read the risk assessment!!

FYI no rights of appeal were given. The RP is simply left with a schedule and told that a further visit will be carried out to ensure the requirements of the schedule are met.

[nearlythere]

And I quote
"The visit was not a comprehensive audit of all fire safety matters but looked into a variety of aspects from which our findings a drawn. Failure to address the items specified in the report could result in enforcement action being taken. The letter and attached schedule are raised without prejudice to any legal action which may be subsequently be taken regarding failures to complying with the legislation."

One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.

How can you raise any points when you have not even bothered to read the risk assessment!!

FYI no rights of appeal were given. The RP is simply left with a schedule and told that a further visit will be carried out to ensure the requirements of the schedule are met.

Failing to read the Fire Risk Assessment is a significent issue which I would follow up. It is quite common for IOs to carry out a sample audit but, without fail, if an issue is identified the Assessment must be referred to.

[Midland Retty]

One aspect the fire officer didn't look at was the Fire Risk Assessment, refused to read it. Saw they had one but would not read it. In my eyes this is a bully boy letter for someone that doesn't want to raise an enforcement notice.

I dont know why the IO didnt look at the fire risk assessment.

But to suggest the IO didn't want to raise an enforcement notice is incorrect. Again as has already been stated there are varying levels of enforcement. if you want a regime which issues enforcement notices as a minimum you enter a very unfair enforcement system.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Difficult to comment on the IO not looking at the FRA without knowing the type of inspection being carried out.

I will give the following as an example.

local shopping centre built to BS588 10 units not having the alternative exits marked.

I give verbal advice to all of them - 5 of the occupiers signed the exits within days. However, 5 don`t more verbal advice given. still have`nt looked at FRA. 6 weeks later the occupiers aren`t playing ball. I issue a notice of fire safety deficiencies. Still haven`t looked at the FRA. (Do I need to?)  All the work is done within the week. as Piglet says there are various levels of enforcement. I don`t want to issue an enforcement notice to get the above item done. Althought if they don`t do the work I would eventually, but only after a full inspection looking the FRA.

[AnthonyB]

Although you could argue that the lack of signs should trigger a review of their FRA as signage should be considered in the FRA and it could indicate that it (& other precautions) may be inadequate.

What annoys me is when IO's deliberately take a blinkered look at a part of the premises & miss something major - a site I've revisited is liable for a jump straight to enforcement notice for general site wide issues and one area for prohibition, but the IO visits the 3% that looks perfect & says all is well.....until something in the other 97% catches fire and the general fire precautions don't do their job....

[Dinnertime Dave]

Anthony you are probably right

But thats why the fire safety order puts the responsibility on the RP.

My example identifies the most efficient use of my time in my opinion, and as i said I would have carried out an audit before taking any further action.

My fire authority has identified approx 50,000 business premises. we have limited number of IO. we can`t be everywhere. Unfortunately, that is the sad truth.

But compare the fire safety IO to the HSE officer. the HSE officer is nearly completely reactive not proactive.

[AnthonyB]

I know resources are tight & fire enforcement still retains more pro-activity than others.

It's just that trying to get the RP to do something that is genuinely needed is difficult if an I/O has visited and not bothered to mention anything. (When they do it's like you are given a blank chequebook by the RP to correct it & you feel justified that the actions you've been telling them for years were essential after all)

[CivvyFSO]

It is not up to you to get the RP to do anything. You simply tell them what is required in your opinion, it is up to them to do it, or not, as the case may be.

RP's tend to want to know that once an inspector has been that they have a complete clean bill of health which is essentially 'signed-off' by the Fire Authority. That was clearly the ethos of certification, but that has gone and people are going to have to get used to less "holding of hands" and accept their responsibilities. However, this needs to be made very clear by the FSO both during the audit and in any paperwork that follows.