Electrolux V's Reliance security.

[Guest]

It was reported in the weekend papers that Electrolux are to sue Reliance Security Services (RSS) for £21 million following a fire at one of their depots.  

According to the report Electrolux claim RSS were negligent and in breech of contract. However, the only details given re Electrolux’s claim were that RSS had failed to hold monthly client meetings for the four months preceding the fire. I suspect that a lot more will come out in court.

Is anyone aware of any similar case’s where security firms have been successful sued for damages arising from their acts (other than arson) or omissions during a fire?

Having worked as an operational fire fighter and a fire safety officer in commerce and industry for over twenty years, I can honestly say that I have only ever come across one security firm that specifically employed experienced fire safety staff for their skills as fire fighters/officers. And that was at the insistence of the client.

It has been my experience that the majority of security officers, no matter who they work for, are insufficiently trained or experienced to fulfil the role imposed upon them by their employers.  I would also question the managerial ability of the contract company’s to support their employees in this aspect of their work.  Does any one know of any examples that contradict the rather poor impression of guard company’s that I have?

Could this be a landmark case for guard force companies?  Will they be forced to upgrade their staff training programmes and the calibre of their staff, or could they be forced in to abandoning the fire response/safety aspect of their contracts?

 

For information:
The fire, which occurred in 1999, destroyed Eletrolux’s Buckinghamshire distribution centre including £9 million worth of stock, a training centre and 12 forklift trucks. In addition to this, the company have had to rent temporary accommodation and unless they can terminate the existing agreement, will be liable to pay £1.6 million a year in rent for the fire damaged property.

[AnthonyB]

It's common in a lot of multi-occupancy premises for there to be a building manger (BM)on site, who as well as manning reception undertakes a lot of tasks related to the running of the building including MoE checks, fire alarm weekly tests, ensuring service visits occur, etc and importantly acting as overall evac co-ordinator in the event of a fire.

Generally it's not uncommon to find they've recived appropriate training, usually always involving at least a days external course in addition to internal training.

Increasingly however, contracted security guards or "Commissionaires" as one contractor titles them, are becoming increasingly used for this role in place of direct employees of the managing agent, with area building managers becoming increasingly common instead.

It's more often the case with these guards that they still have to retain the fire safety & evacuation roles that a BM would carry out, but have little or no training, either by their employer or client. A lot of the time it's up to the individual guard to be proactive and research & develop a building fire safety procedure and external formal training is rare.

We insist in assessments that BM & security staff are trained commensurate with their role in addition to basic "N1/N2" fire action briefing- this is easy and often done with BMs, but with contract staff there is a reluctance and conflict over who pays, not helped if there is a high turnover/rotation of guards (a BM would normally stay with a building virtually "for life").

The results of this case would be of interest!

[GL]

Apart from the obvious financial direct loss it seems that is only the start. Add on indirect losses, potential damages, legal fees, consultants fees, loss of jobs(?) and environmental damage this fire could reach £40m?

Why on earth were sprinklers not fitted to this building? When faced with this sort of loss what arguments can be put forward (sensibly and justifiably) for not putting in sprinklers?

Although I have to say that in the last couple of years I have been involved in a fire that had a direct loss of £8m. During talks about rebuild sprinklers were again recommended but ignored and the warehouse has been constructed without sprinklers.

Good to see that the review of the building regulations will be looking very closely at the provision of sprinklers in a far wider variety of buildings.

Sorry to pull the point around to this line but if people are going to be serious about reducing the incredible but true cost of fire in this country we have to grasp the sprinkler nettle firmly.

[Guest]

Ah, the old “why didn’t they install sprinklers” debate.

The fact is that, in the vast majority of the UK’s building stock, the risk of a fire involving major/total loss of assets is low.  We can all refer to cases where such fires have caused companies to ‘go under’ – it must happen regularly, but dire consequences do not necessitate action, if they are low probability.  If you were shot in the chest you would probably die, but we don’t all shell out for bullet-proof vests and walk round with them on, for obvious reasons.  Neither life nor business is hazard free and in both we take risks, either knowingly or unknowingly, every minute of every day.  If the risks are low, the chances are that we’ll get away with it.

If one knows what the risks are in any particular building type, and you know the ‘life’ and replacement cost of all the assets that could be lost then the maths for a risk assessment are relatively straightforward. Several companies that I know of have had this risk assessment done and the fact is that the costs of the fire protection necessitated to significantly reduce the risk rarely, if ever, stack up.  It is better for their businesses to spend the cash on better training, security, marketing etc. – these may all improve the chances of the company surviving better than shelling out for property / asset fire protection.

The only way for insurers / consultants / sprinkler suppliers to convince companies (and, in most cases, that means the financial controllers) to part with their hard-won cash for asset fire protection is to demonstrate that, in hard financial terms, it makes good business sense for them to do so.  I can’t help but think that, if this were possible, one of the above would be doing this already?

James Whittaker

[SeaBass]

First of all I should point out that I posted the first message in this debate and I'm not sure why it came up as guest.

Secondly my questions were sod all to do with sprinklers. I've no idea whether or not the building was sprinkler protected, and to be frank, it's not relevant.

The point is: in modern buildings operating with engineered solutions and risk assessments as opposed to prescriptive codes, is it acceptable to place the future and reputaion of your business, and the safety of your staff and visitors, in the hands of a security guard or building manager who's only experience of fire or fire safety is what they have picked up on an unaccredited, no pass mark, two day training course ?

[AnthonyB]

In most multi occupancies, yes. In a perfect world everyone would go on a weeks assessed course, but unless it was high risk industrial where you could justify the cost of fire team training in the cold real world of property management you are not going to get anything extra.

It's hard enough to get them to give any external training and the cost of anything more than a day is too much for their budgets - you have the cost of covering the building while they are on the course (and short term relief staff usually have no building specific trainnig at all) and the fact that where an agent agrees to provide training they will generally do the lot, so they've the cost of external H&S & appointed persons course days as well.

Most of these premises are office buildings, sometimes with shops below and the actual risk of fire is not that high, making it more difficult to justify tons of extra training.

Generally in the higher risk leisure and retail premises more training & practices occur, but a lot of the training is in house.

In the premises at the centre of the case a high standard of training is indicated, but may not have been delivered or was nor site specific. Most security companies marketing literature rattle on about their guards wonderful fire prevention & reaction abilities and cite dozens of small fires detected & extinguished, but from experience the actual instruction & training to back these claims up are negligible.

But thats what you get when you effectively deregulate, it becomes more difficult to convince some clients (& tenants) of their responsibilities when you don't have a prescriptive code to quote as unless there is something in law (as oppose to a BS for example) saying "do x" they are reluctant to

[GL]

Well Ruby, I can tell you that the building was not sprinklered (properly installed, maintained, used and on), if it was we would not be having this conversation.
But I take your point, usually these things come to light when it all goes bottom up. The only winners are the lawyers. They win even when they loose.
Best avoided in my experience.

[banjo 2]

I think expecting security guards to have or gain fire safety knowlege to the type of standard users of this forum has is expecting too much, especially considering the salary most receive.  However, they should be trained in fire prevention measures, fire doors closed, removal of rubbish, clear fire exit routes etc.  This coupled with a set procedure/training in the event of fire should all that be requied of them.  Inspections should be carried out  by professionals, consultant or in house, and if their advice is acted upon, coupled with  security guards trained as above, any premises should be as safe as can reasonably be expected.  there will shortly be a requirement for security firms to have a higher standard of training for their guards, unfortunately the old one day extinguisher training will be the only requirement for fire. So advisers add the above training to your survey report.

[colin todd]

I have to add an anecdote. I once did a one day fire safety training course for project managers and surveyors of one of our major corporate clients. The people on it were all technically qualified (though not in fire protection), excpet two security guards who turned up too, complete with uniform jumpers with holes in the elbows. The guys were internal security at a large landmark central London building, where external security is contracted out, but internal were directly PAYE employed on, I have to say, a pitifully low salary. I felt sorry for these guys at first as they had come on a course that looked at fire safety design, legislation, means of escape, etc. They sat silent all day until, during the afternoon session, I talked about fire doors. I asked how many hinges there should be on a fire door. People were shouting out all sorts of (wrong) suggestions when, from the back, I heard one of the security guards say something, which I asked him to repeat, as I could not believe my ears. '' They should be 'ung on free steel 'inges'' he said. I asked how on earth he knew that.
The guy then announced that, though I probably would not remember, I had trained the security guards in that building several years before. Since then when on their patrols they remembered to check that any new fire doors they saw had 3 hinges and that all now cable penetrations were fire stopped and that protected staircase doors all closed properly etc etc.  One of the surveyors asked me why they needed 3 anyway, so I referred her to the security guard who informed her that ''wifout da free 'inges the door probably wouldnt pass the Bri-ish standard fire test''. Sad though it may seem the guy made my whole day, if not life, seem worthwhile. But I learned a lot that day about how security guards who had some interest and very basic training can make a very big difference. We now always recommend to clients with internal patrolling security guards that they have basic training in hazard spotting,etc. Just a happy optimistic thought to end the Old Year!!!!

[Guest]

I agree with the training/sprinklers/etc. issues that are raised.  However, in this particualr case it is more to do with arson(http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/031229/237/ehz94.html), so the real issue is who had access to this building and when?  If Reliance were in control of the keys they held for Electrolux as part of their manned guarding service, surely they would be in a better position to defend the claim.

[Guest]

Good point on controlling who has access to what keys.  Security companies offer a keyholding service in addition to their guarding service.  Clients should be more tuned in to how security companies handle their keys.  It would be very good for security companies to have a proper control system in place, especially where they are handling clients keys.  Its probably also important that clients have a similar system in place at their premises.  I saw a system called KeyTrak at IFSEC 2003, and I must say that it is brilliant for exactly this.  I have no doubt that if Reliance Security had KeyTrak in their offices, they would have a better chance in defending this case.  Surely using a proper system shows due dilligence and the fact that risk assessment has been done, and a solution implemented.  As far as I understand, KeyTrak seems to be capable of holding staff accountable for their us of keys.  I reckon something like KeyTrak should be made a vital part of the overall security solution.  I know that a major security firm in the UK currently uses KeyTrak successfully across 54 branches, so that must mean something.  I think their web site is www.keytrak.com if you want to get more info.  The risks that companies and security firms take have been highlighted in this discussion, and I agree that too many companies are turning a blind eye to this.  The general train of thought seems to be "It will never happen to us" which is precisely when things go wrong.  I'm sure both Electrolux and Reliance Security are feeling the pain now.  If only they had taken precautions.

[Guest]

Key control is a big issue, and too many companies don't have proper control over their keys.  This must be costing them a fortune, and I don't think they even realise it.  This KeyTrak system sounds interesting, and I will have a look at their web site.  Maybe it is something I can recommend in future to help with reducing the risk for companies.  Thanks for the info.

[KeyTrak]

It certainly has been a difficult experience for both Electrolux and Reliance.  Thanks to those who have mentioned KeyTrak as a possible solution to use in this area of security.  We are certain that KeyTrak can help with the control of keys, assets and people.  Our web site is correctly listed as www.keytrak.com and we are happy to help with information.  Please feel free to email me.