Interpretation of Article 38

[AnthonyB]

The standard interpretation of Article 38 in the various guides is that there is a duty to maintain facilities and equipment for fire fighters that already exists, but there is no requirement under the FSO to assess the need for and provide additional facilities.

I have a brigade that is trying to enforce on a building for a variety of issues (many fair, some arguable) but one of note is that they are trying to get a firefighting shaft and lobbies retrofitted or a pressurisation system installed in lieu of it.

The premises is a normal risk office block that has a rising main in the main protected stair shaft and also a standard passenger lift with the usual car preference override fire fighters switch, all in keeping with the build standards at the time.

Are they exceeding the actions they can bring under the FSO by requiring such significant alterations - they are only citing reg 38 for the works and are not requiring lobbies or pressurisation under any other Article for the protection of Relevant Persons?

Opinions please!

[Messy]

When you say 'retrofitted', I assume  that the measures they are asking for have never been installed and then subsequently been removed?

If so, I can't see Article 38 being relevant as its all about maintaining infrastructure that was installed to protect firefighters under the Order or previous legislation. If its never been installed I cannot see Article 38 applying

[Dinnertime Dave]

I have a similar argument with a brigade.

They then tried Article 4 - General fire precautions "measures to mitigate the effects of fire".

[Jim Scott]

I have a similar argument with a brigade.

They then tried Article 4 - General fire precautions "measures to mitigate the effects of fire".

Really?  Are they now claiming to be Relevant Persons then?

[Jim Scott]

Are they exceeding the actions they can bring under the FSO by requiring such significant alterations - they are only citing reg 38 for the works and are not requiring lobbies or pressurisation under any other Article for the protection of Relevant Persons?

Opinions please!

Yes, fundamentally.

Article 38 is very clear.  The facilities must have been required under an enactment in the first place and the emphasis is on 'maintain'.  No power in Article 38 to 'provide'.

I have the argument on a frequent basis.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I have a similar argument with a brigade.

They then tried Article 4 - General fire precautions "measures to mitigate the effects of fire".

Really?  Are they now claiming to be Relevant Persons then?

Jim, I totally agree with you posts on this subject, and I have had to argue that maintaining does not mean provide.

The quoted case above was around the provision of a hydrant.  I agreed that there should have been one installed 7 years ago when it was built, but there wasn't.

As a company we did install one at a cost of ?12k. We saw it as a sensible thing to do on a ?25m asset, but we weren't going to told we must do it because they said so.

[AnthonyB]

None of the features they request were ever installed, the building reflects the approved layout and installed features when built over 40 years ago.

Thanks for the opinions so far.