Two hats approach - confirmed human behavoir

[Fire Monkey]

Hi,

I would like some advise regarding a situation where one is both a fire risk assessor and a representative of the landlord (owner) with duties to manage and maintain the building but not occupy it my self. Take a sleeping accommodation building (where the occupiers are fire aware) where the fire doors are permanently propped open by various means. The areas of risk include a commercial kitchen (two gas appliances). If I know, both as a fire risk assessor and a person responsible (but not directly managing or controlling) that the fire doors are always propped open, what are my responsibilities and duties of care (other than informing the occupants of the illegal nature of this and possible taking the complaint up the managerial ladder). Would I be obliged, in any way, to fit door release mechanisms, such as magnets, and connect them to the fire alarm, if I understand how the occupants will act when they are not being inspected? The scenario is that the occupants will 'need' to prop open doors to allow the moment of equipment, for food serving, for building communication and to move around the building quickly when required. Oh not forgetting - to just make life easier for them selves 

Thanks,

[Mike Buckley]

First there is no conflict part of the original idea of the FSO was that people would be able to carry out their own FRA on their premises. Following this there has been long discussion about the competence of people and third party accreditation, see elsewhere on this forum.

Following this, what exactly is your position. Is the building occupied by the landlord or is it leased out to another company? From this you will be able to determine who the Responsible Person is and it is their role to take suitable action.

The key is determining who is the RP. The other thing to bear in mind is that under the order all RPs have a duty to assess the risk in event of a fire, the main difference is that if more than 5 people are employed the significant findings have to be recorded.

[Fire Monkey]

Hi Mike,

The situation is - building occupied by a Blue Light organisation. I am a registered fire risk assessor and also a representative (employee) of the landlord who is a Council of which the Fire Service is part of. The RP will be the station commander, myself and a colleague or two.

So what I really what to be clear on is the question of culpable liability - if I know the occupants will prop open the fire doors and I all do in the FRA is tell them to cease that activity in the Action Points am I 'in the clear'. I don't directly mange the building but as landlord have some control and enforcement capability. I am I expected to modify the door controls to meet the real or supposed needs of the occupants?

Cheers,

[wee brian]

I think the answer is yes. You should take into account the likely behaviour of the people in the building.

[Tom Sutton]

The RP will be the station commander, myself and a colleague or two.

If it is a fire station (workplace) then the employer is the RP, the council (fire services committee). As fire risk assessor, you are a person having control and should be dealing with the FS committee. The FRS is the enforcing authority and if the FSC does not carry out their duties art 8 to 22, then they should prosecute the FSC, this could be very interesting.

[JT]

Tom - they will never prosecute themselves, the same as when their commercial arm does an inadequate FRA.

[Fishy]

The RP will be the station commander, myself and a colleague or two.

If it is a fire station (workplace) then the employer is the RP, the council (fire services committee)

Tom's point is something that (as a fire risk assessor) you should really take note of & communicate to others.  The RP will not be any one of these individuals - in most cases it will be the Employer (which is unlikely to be an individual in any but the smallest of organisations).  I've lost count of the times when I've been sitting in presentations on FRA where the presenter asks "Who is your Responsible Person" and then goes on to mislead their audience into thinking that it's an individual.

[Bruce89]

The body corporate as the legal people refer to it.

[wee brian]

The trick is to differentiate between the responsible person, and people that have responsibilities.

[Fishy]

Andy Jack did explain to me once why they used this particular terminology (where we have the potentially very confusing situation that the "person" isn't likely to be a 'person')!  It was over a pint, though, & as a result my recollection is rather hazy.  It was something to do with it corresponding with an associated piece of H&S legislation, or perhaps it was one of the European Directives?

[Davo]

Fishy

spot on, it was used extensively in the EC Directives of the late 80s

davo