Breach & Offence

[Fishy]

No Davo I have to disagree.

Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last.

There may be no persons in the building or in that particular area at that particular time when the door is wedged, how would you prove to a Court that persons were placed at risk of death or serious injury???

Absolutely right Phil

Someone asked "why give someone 28 days to comply by way of an enforcement notice".

An inspecting officer / fire officer has to be 110% sure that lives are being or will iminently be put at risk of serious injury or death or the prohibition notice or prosecution will be easily challenged with sometimes heavy financial implications for the fire authority concerned.

An enforcement notice is a shot across the bow in a sense - failure to comply is an offence - simple as that.

I nearly prohibited the use of a restaurant the other day as the travel distance from the basement seating area was excessive and the fire exit was locked.

But because no one was eating down there at the time a clever barrister would argue no one was being put at risk at the time of my visit.

Its a very tricky issue.

I'm really not sure that it would work like that; Davo is closer to being correct, I should think.  By providing a piece of safety kit, according to HSE guidance you are taken to have concluded that the kit is necessary in order to reduce risks as low as reasonably practicable.  It is unacceptable to use risk assessment to remove that kit or render it inoperable (this is known as "reverse ALARP" and is strictly frowned upon - see HSE research report RR151, available from their website).  Therefore, if you do so you must be placing persons at unacceptable risk.  My understanding is that the only acceptable justification for removal is if it has no safety benefit at all (e.g. removing sprinklers from a store room where the use is changed to make it completely empty and sterile).  

In the case of “the building was empty, so no-one was at risk” – the building wasn’t empty when the propped-open fire door was found, was it?  Unless there is a convincing case that the management made sure all the doors were closed as soon as the building became occupied, it really doesn't hold water.  If it were prosecution time, I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that.

The fire doors that don’t need to be issue is a real one, but then they shouldn’t have the ‘Fire door keep shut’ signs on them, so if they are maintained properly it really shouldn’t be an issue.

[Midland Retty]

See where you are coming from fishy and common sense would dictate you are right.

Unfortunately though it does depend on several factors.

Take my scenario of the restaurant.

If the building was occupied and the failing constiuted a risk then great - should be no real problem pursuing enforcement / serious case prosecution.

if not however you will struggle (in most cases but not all) to take any major level of enforcement other than perhaps an enforcement notice.

You'd be amazed at what defence barristers can come up with, and they really do come up with some pearlers!

You have to prove people were put at risk based on what you have seen when trying to prosecute for serious case offences.

I couldn't make presumptions in court (I could offer a proffesional opinion as to what might have happened i.e:-

 "Your honour I am of the opinion that if people were down in the basement at the time the fire exit was locked then they would have been put at risk because of x, y and z"

but you still need to be very careful what you say, as the defence may be able to noble you such as:-

"My client claims she only locks the fire exit when the basement isn't in use, at the time of your visit mr fire officer of course the exit was locked ; there was no one in the basement"

My findings have to be based on what I witness at the time, not hear say, or generalised "what ifs" or "maybes" etc.

So its a very hard game at times.

[PhilB]

I'm really not sure that it would work like that; Davo is closer to being correct, I should think.  By providing a piece of safety kit, according to HSE guidance you are taken to have concluded that the kit is necessary in order to reduce risks as low as reasonably practicable.  It is unacceptable to use risk assessment to remove that kit or render it inoperable (this is known as "reverse ALARP" and is strictly frowned upon - see HSE research report RR151, available from their website).  Therefore, if you do so you must be placing persons at unacceptable risk.  My understanding is that the only acceptable justification for removal is if it has no safety benefit at all (e.g. removing sprinklers from a store room where the use is changed to make it completely empty and sterile).  

In the case of “the building was empty, so no-one was at risk” – the building wasn’t empty when the propped-open fire door was found, was it?  Unless there is a convincing case that the management made sure all the doors were closed as soon as the building became occupied, it really doesn't hold water.  If it were prosecution time, I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that.

The fire doors that don’t need to be issue is a real one, but then they shouldn’t have the ‘Fire door keep shut’ signs on them, so if they are maintained properly it really shouldn’t be an issue.

Sorry Fishy that is exactly how it would work. For an offence to be committed there must be a failure to comply with articles 8-23 and that failure must place relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury.

If for example I remove an extinguisher (that would fit with your example of removing a piece of safety kit) I am not commiting an offence unless persons are placed at serious risk by its removal.

In the case of the empty building , no it wasn't empty when the door was found wedged open but a wedged open fire door will not always place persons at risk.........e.g. a fire door to an empty store.


"I really can’t convince myself that the Court would be convinced by a specious argument like that."...Fishy the Courts, can only operate using the Statute that has been written...it may not feel right or convince you but the offence provision is quite clear.....relevant persons must be placed at risk of death or serious injury or there is no offence.

[wee brian]

Its not about the door - its about the management of doors in that workplace. Are they actively trying to get employees to close fire doors. Are they fitting hold open devices or improving the ventilation?

[jokar]

Going back to the fire door bit.  I work in a building where the landlord has placed "fire door keep shut" signs on all the doors.  Quite clearly the majority of the doors, in the office environment are not fire doors and there is no requirement for them to be so.  An inexperienced enforcer may take the view that as the door has a sign it must be so, very dangerous ground indeed.  Yes I have reported it and yes, my opinion is worthless.

[wee brian]

Not dangerous though - is it.

[Davo]

Phil B wrote

'Fire doors are frequently used where they are not required, e.g. many office corridors with escape in two directions will have fire doors opening onto corridor often because the architect wants robust doors that will last. '

I agree many architects put fire rated doors in for such a purpose, but does that make them fire doors per se?
Do you then compartment every wall in the place, cos without that the fire rating is meaningless. I would not put a fire door keep closed on such a door, what about ventilation to the rooms? Do you then put fire rated grilles in the doors?
Staff will (mostly) close doors they can see has a purpose, how do you explain an office door with maybe a computer or two?

[PhilB]

I agree many architects put fire rated doors in for such a purpose, but does that make them fire doors per se?
Do you then compartment every wall in the place, cos without that the fire rating is meaningless. I would not put a fire door keep closed on such a door, what about ventilation to the rooms? Do you then put fire rated grilles in the doors?
Staff will (mostly) close doors they can see has a purpose, how do you explain an office door with maybe a computer or two?

Yes they are fire doors but they are not required for the safety of relevant persons. They may help for property peotection, mission continuity etc. but if they are wedged open persons are not placed at serious risk so there is no offence.

No I wouldn't put a fire door keep shut sign on either but that was my point....often they are marked as such........so the fact that a fire door is wedged open does not necessarily mean an offence or contravention has occured.

[nearlythere]

Say you take your car for an MOT and it fails. As the MOT process is there for safety reasons, is the car therefore dangerous? Defective brakes may be a big safety issue but being caught with them will not result in prosecution for dangerous driving.
Philb mentioned the removal of FFE. Firefighting equipment is not put in place to enhance the MOE. It is there for firefighting reasons. The MOE must not be dependant on the use of extinguishers and therefore not having FFE does not mean the MOE has been compromised.
I think many people over react a little to fire doors being wedged open or without self closers. If this created a dangerous condition then every time someone applies for a fire certicate they may as well lock the door for a while because applications normally result in a notice of requirements.  And if a notice is issued it means that the existing MOE is inadequate.
A dangerous condition means that a serious risk to life and limb is present and very likely to happen. A welder working within a single stairway situation whilst standing in a bucket of petrol and smoking is a dangerous situation. A door without a SC is not.

[Davo]

Phil B
Glad we agree re the signs.  In my area its usually lack of or removed FDKS that is the problem, not the overegging!.  
Its a lack of understanding if the RP sees a manufacturers sticker and decides he has to put two blue FDKS on as well. As professional assessors would you advise removal of the FDKS?

More important to me is the lack of manufacturer's sticker to identify if its a fire door. Why don't they all follow BS8214 with the coded plug?

[kurnal]

FDKS signs should only be displayed on doors that perform an important fire protection role- be it life safety, property protection or to protect business continuity.

The sign should identify to all building users that this is an important door and the sign needs to be complied with. Managers  fire wardens and supervisors need to take action when they see doors wedged- either to find out why it was wedged and recommend a proper hold back device or give someone a rolliking. Thats why they should have an enhanced level of training- to understand the fire strategy so they are armed to inform and educate others.

If you put signs on all doors irrespective of whether or not they really need to be fire doors then you undermine all this because wedges will become common place. Keep it to the minimum.

Finally if the door is not provided for life safety then no offence is committed. Its not an offence to endanger business continuity, property or the environment- eg a server room in an open plan office with good means of escape may well have a fire door to protect the IT from the effects of a fire in a waste paper bin. The only thing at risk is business continuity.

[Neil G]

Kurnal  - surely FDKS signs should be displayed on doors that only perform an important life safety fire protection role?

The FDKS sign is a mandatory safety sign and should not be ambiguous. We all agree that fire doors provided only for property protection or to protect business continuity are safe to be left open so why stick a FDKS sign on it?

[kurnal]

I see where you are coming from Neil but to be exactly technically correct I could argue that blue signs should also be used on doors that need to be shut for environmental protection because protection of the environment is one of the four foundation objectives of the Health and Safety at work (etc) Act 1974.
 
I also think that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment should also identify basic fire precauutions relating to key risks to business continuity in order to mitigate the effects of fire. If we dont people may lose their jobs and suffer  stress as a result.  Emotional wellbeing and mental health  caused by workplace issues are also covered by the HASAWA .

In any case the employer will want to protect his business by identifying the door to the server room as a key fire door needing to be kept shut. To do this it would be folly not to use the standard safety colours and signage that represents best practise. Bit like providing double the extinguishers that you need and painting the extra ones in the colours of the rainbow.

Feelin argumentative tonite- does it show?

[Davo]

Kurnal
Section 2d of the HSW Act talks about maintaining the working environment, that still goes.
Section five referred to preventing noxious substances being emitted into the environment, this was repealed and put under the EP Act.
In relation to business continuity, we have our business continuity people and I'm told its nothing to do with me by my (H & S) boss.
Thats one of the reasons I'm not keen on the H & S links that now seem to keep cropping up.
(By the way, I do include it, it would be remiss of me not to do so)

[Neil G]

Kurnal,

I fully accept the point about business continuity and I have come across the situation several times where fire doors have been installed throughout the building for business continuity.

There is no risk to staff for these fire doors to be left open when the offices are occupied, but they need to be shut when the office is closed for the night or when each worker leaves the office. This limits fire spread in the event of a fire to the room of origin, thereby protecting the rest of the building; business continuity. By not having FDKS signs on the doors means they are not contravening safety instructions by leaving them open; these doors are not for protecting people from fire.

Those fire doors which do have to be shut for safety reasons have the FDKS sign and everybody understands that these doors must be kept shut - no ambiguity ("which fire doors can I wedge open?")

If you start putting FDKS signs on all fire resisting doors you start causing unnecessary problems, or cause people to break safety rules.

However only today I saw a sign during a safety visit that I hadn't noticed before: a blue circular mandatory sign with "Keep shut when not in use" - would this solve our problem if more widely used?