Amending Article 50 - Are the HMG Guides Now (Almost) Prescriptive?

[Messy]

I note that an amendment to the Fire Safety Order is to be made and I quote:

'Amending Article 50 of the FSO to state that in proceedings where it is alleged an RP has contravened Articles 8-22B of the FSO or any regulations made under Article 24, proof that they failed to follow relevant Article 50 guidance may be used to evidence such a breach or conversely proof that it was followed may be used to establish compliance'.


So what status do the the HMG Guides have following this change? It seems on the face of it that they are no longer guidance but de facto prescriptive - almost an appendix to the legislation.

However I am hoping that the 'may be used' parts means you can apply other solutions if the risk assessment provides a rationale as to why the information in the guides cannot be used.

[AnthonyB]

This change in status only applies to 'relevant buildings' which are defined as a building in England containing two or more sets of domestic premises, so for most workplace & assembly type buildings nothing will change.

This does bring the guidance nearer to prescription, but in practice relies on enforcers willing to go to court more as whilst proving a case is potentially far easier it will still be a drawn out process that is hungry on resources & budget.

Also if the new guides are anything like the draft version already out for small blocks there will still be some risk based flexibility given, e.g. with fire doors.

Normally they should have been out by now, but I fear the PEEP debate is holding things up.

[Messy]

Thank you Anthony. That's a relief

Its clear I need to do a little reading insofar as the amendments to the FSO

[Wils]

In reality, I don?t think it changes much. From the prosecution point of view, it was always a potent paragraph to include in your witness testimony that had the defendant followed the freely available HM guidance and sought free advice on compliance we probably wouldn?t be in court?.