It's not a notice

[Tom W]

This note although not a formal Enforcement Notice lists matters below that you should deal with in order to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The matters listed below should be dealt with as stated below.

Blah blah blah

Date Required 16 March 2016.

Soooooo how is this different to an Enforcement Notice? It doesn't have to contain information on how to appeal?

[kurnal]

You are right Piglet its intended to bully rather than to persuade. They often require the RP to sign an agreement to implement the matters listed by a certain date. Unlike an enforcement notice they often contain Gold plating in addition to the key issues- often insufficiently robust in their own right that would not be included in an EN. Failure to comply is not an offence but signature then places the RP in a difficult position later if an EN is issued. I think they, along with plea bargaining are a travesty of justice and way outside the provisions of the enforcement concordat.

Although I am generally of similar opinion to the fire service with regard to technical and managerial failures to comply, if asked I always used to advise RPs to have nothing to do with them. If the IO cannot persuade the RP to see the error of their ways through information and education  then if concerned  they should issue an EN and give the RP the legal  right of appeal.

[AnthonyB]

I find a small number of RP's prefer to accept them than call the fire officers bluff because at least these don't go on the Public Register nor have to be declared in tenders, etc.

We ask our clients to get in touch as soon as an inspector is unhappy (unless it's an obvious 'fair cop' issue) so we can try and head off this paper exercise and have managed to get the more dubious ones withdrawn.

However on other occasions it's a case of 'don't say we didn't warn you!'

[Mike Buckley]

I have come across these letters as well and usually there is a letter attached to the notice which the RP is asked to sign to acknowledge reception of the notice. The wording on the letter usually states that in signing the letter the RP accepts that he is going to carry out the work and he will get an Enforcement Notice if he doesn't. This as far as I can see will remove any right of appeal against the EN as the RP has accepted that he will get one.

My usual advice is to send a written reply to the IO along the lines of 'I have received your letter, I am considering the contents.' and not sign the FB letter.

[Bruce89]

Nothing less than sharp practice at best. Letter of deficiency followed, and only when negotiations have broken down, by an EN should be the way in my opinion.

[stevew]

Client recently sent a letter, not a notice from a fire authority following a routine audit.
The letter stated that the client was in breach of the regulation by having an electrical risk within an escape route.
The risk had in fact been accepted during the last three FA audits.
My subsequent assessment of the risk accepted a more cost effective workable arrangement to that 'recommended' by the FA.
Follow-up telephone call from the FA lead to a letter accepting my solution but 'strongly recommending' that
my client follow the FA recommendation.  The letter ended stating that if there is a fire in the area the fire authority would consider prosecution. Cake and eat it comes to mind.

[Jim Scott]

The letter ended stating that if there is a fire in the area the fire authority would consider prosecution.

On what grounds?

If everybody escapes and no one has been put at risk of death or serious injury, what's the problem?

More bully boy tactics from organisations aiming for unachievable 'zero' risk.

[Mike Buckley]

Or a case of sour grapes from someone not getting their own way.

[nearlythere]

It's a little friendly crack of the whip to get things done. It's what is mostly done in NI because we are friendly types. Now as for the cracking of whips.....