Guidance and Standards

[jokar]

I have read a large number of posts recently which are about standards and "Code Hugging".  What concerns me I think, is the terminology.  When is it okay to use a standard that is prescriptive in its outlook to undertake a professional job and when it is okay to deviate from Guidance because it has no standing in law.  The RR(FS)O is a piece of risk assess legislation which by its own terminology states that prescription is not the answer all the time.

Lancashire FRS are taking court cases and using the Guidance as a prescription, is this right?  obviously the courts think so.

[kurnal]

Lancashire FRS are taking court cases and using the Guidance as a prescription, is this right?  obviously the courts think so.

Or perhaps the RP is not doing a good enough job of convincing the fire authority  and the magistrate that he has reduced the level of risk as far as is reasonably practicable.

I think the root of all these arguments is this. We have a difficulty here in interpreting what ALARP actually means in terms of fire safety. If you look at the legal definition arising from Case Law it does not serve us well because it means driving down the risk until it will become so disproportionately difficult or expensive to reduce it any further that the costs or disadvantages grossly outweigh the benefits.  

But Society tolerates a certain element of risk from fire and this acceptable level of risk is that expressed in the guides. So whilst the Scottish guides, which throughout detail best practice are probably close to ALARP (if anyone can afford to implement their standards in full) the English guides  may represent a satisfactory solution acceptable to the fire authority that is actually well short of the definition of ALARP.
Its not surprising confusion abounds.  

And then to put icing on the cake the guides go on to talk about the need for proportionality.

The RRFSO is very specifically intended to be proportionate, ie to fully take into account the size and nature of each business; it requires RPs  to take "such general fire precautions as may be reasonably required in the circumstances of the case" (Article 8.1.b). These (fire safety) arrangements must be "appropriate, having regard to the size of the undertaking and the nature of its activities" (Article 11.1).  The words "so far as is reasonably practicable" appear three times in article 12, as does "appropriate to the nature of the activity or operation".

Proportionate appears to be a very difficult term for us all to deal with. How can we effectively apply a consistent standard of enforcement? I think the guides can help us- if the premises are small, travel distances are low, number of persons at risk are few, the ratio of Responsible Persons to Relevant Persons is high then we perhaps dont need to install all those fire doors or smoke detectors that we would in a larger premises.

[messy]

My view is that a deviation from any guide or standard is OK if there is a sound case for that deviation. perhaps the caused by the unusual layout/design of the building or the use to which the building is being put. Any such deviation should be fully justified in the FRA.

It's almost certain that any deviation will be to below the benchmark standard, in which case the justifications recorded in the FRA should contain how the RP intends to achieve that standard by another means.

A good example would be the thread that was posted on fire net in the past, where the poster put a reasonable justification together for introducing a time delay on the MCPs of a large Hotel to prevent unwanted fire signals.

Where it is not acceptable is where there is (even a hint) that the RP is reducing the standard merely or mainly for financial gains.

Perhaps what is needed is a mechanism for RPs to pass their proposals through the local FRS to get agreement (similar to a voluntary article 29) on a deviation before the RP shells out a fortune, just to find the next IO on an audit doesn't like the look of it.

In my team, IOs would respond to such a request, but unofficially as the our management still have the "It's the RP's responsibility not ours" attitude.

[CivvyFSO]

Lancashire FRS are taking court cases and using the Guidance as a prescription, is this right?  obviously the courts think so.

The point people will possibly be missing here is the standard of the premises that Lancs are taking to court. They won't be anywhere that has been visited or 'fixed' by a competent risk assessor, they won't be somewhere that is missing strips and seals from a lobby door, they won't be where there is a dead end of 20m as opposed to 18m.

The chances are that they will be the sort of premises where fire exits are padlocked, open staircases through 3 floors, no RA has been attempted etc etc etc. There is nothing wrong with using the guides as prescription in this context. It is purely taken as a theoretical benchmark. i.e. "In this sort of premises the government guidance suggests that the stair should be protected, L3 category fire alarm, and fire exits should be unlocked. In this particular premises there was no fire alarm, no doors to the stair, and the exit was locked." Seems fair to me.

(Due to the mention of the guides I am assuming that it is nothing to do with an enforcement notice and as such people must have been put in danger for the offence to end up in court.)

[Midland Retty]

The point people will possibly be missing here is the standard of the premises that Lancs are taking to court. They won't be anywhere that has been visited or 'fixed' by a competent risk assessor, they won't be somewhere that is missing strips and seals from a lobby door, they won't be where there is a dead end of 20m as opposed to 18m

Absolutely correct. Where a premises is found to be of a poor standard which warrants immediate or rapid action FSIOs will use the appropriate guide to specify what precautions are required. That's not prescription. The RP is free to suggest alternatives, but as Civvy points out they maybe premises where the RP has no clue or intrest about risk assessment.

[Mike Buckley]

The courts seem to be taking the same attitude to the guides as they do to the Highway Code. The Highway Code is not law, however if you are charged with an offence such as dangerous driving the court looks to the Code.

In a similar way I would see the argument in court for, let us say, inadequate means of escape being that the travel distance is excess of the guide. If the maximum distance in guide is 25m and the actual distance is 25.5m but everything else is ok, I would expect the court to throw it out. However if there are a number of breaches of the guide then it would be included.

At the end of the day the courts will decide and I don't think it will be too much of an issue until the penalties start to have teeth. If a night club can earn more in a night by breaching the guide than it pays in fines at court it will look at it as a occupantional hazard.

When the penalties start to bite that is the time the arguements in court will really start and that is when the real lawyers will get involved.

[Fishy]

Absolutely; the guides / codes / standards set a 'benchmark' level of safety that society/regulators/the industry have determined is acceptable.  

The presumption is that, unless there is good reason not to, you follow them, thus achieving the accepted level of safety.  Deviation is fine provided that you can demonstrate you've achieved an equivalent level of safety by other means.  

So, we don't (and shouldn't) 'hug' the codes, but we must measure our assessment of risk against them.

[kurnal]

So, we don't (and shouldn't) 'hug' the codes, but we must measure our assessment of risk against them.

Hi Fishy

I agree with you but am not sure what this means in practical terms. My experience of several brigades leads me to think that
 for example in a small chocolate box  B&B,
-irrespective of size and layout and travel distance
-irrespective of the assessment of risk of fire occurring
-irrespective of the standard of management
-irrespective of the numbers and profile of guests

we must have fire doors to each room opening onto the escape routes and we must take the guides definition of an LD3 system with a detector in every room leading onto an escape route. (which differs from the BS5839 definition?)

It seems to me that irrespective of the findings of the risk assessments, many brigades will not ever relax these provisions as illustrated on page 97 of the guide. Even for one letting bedroom on the first floor of a traditional two storey dwelling house with an enclosed staircase . The guidance says that the  arrangement shown in the diagram on page 97 is suitable for buildings accommodating up to 60 persons per floor. Clearly there must be a very significant difference in risk between a building capable of housing 60 person per floor and one housing a handful of persons- even taking the basic liklihood and consequences approach  to risk assessment.

This attitiude to enforcements limits scope for finding a  proportionate compromise,  ie to fully take into account the size and nature of each business; to install  "such general fire precautions as may be reasonably required in the circumstances of the case" (Article 8.1.b). or any relaxations of page 97 fire safetyarrangements that may be "appropriate, having regard to the size of the undertaking and the nature of its activities" (Article 11.1).

It has been suggested to me that the only alternative to installing fire doors may be sprinklers.

[Izan FSO]

It seems to me that irrespective of the findings of the risk assessments, many brigades will not ever relax these provisions as illustrated on page 97 of the guide. Even for one letting bedroom on the first floor of a traditional two storey dwelling house with an enclosed staircase . The guidance says that the  arrangement shown in the diagram on page 97 is suitable for buildings accommodating up to 60 persons per floor. Clearly there must be a very significant difference in risk between a building capable of housing 60 person per floor and one housing a handful of persons- even taking the basic liklihood and consequences approach  to risk assessment.

Kurnal, i would also point out that in my experience as an IO when we are given a risk assessemnt by the RP who has paid good money for a competent risk assessor to come and carry out his risk asessment for his small B & B I have NEVER yet seen one that does not advise the RP to fit a fire alarm to 5839 replace all the doors with fire doors and fit a full emergency lighting system to 5266. i have even had one that suggested ripping out the doors of a Grade one listed building until we suggested the RP consult with the LA conservation Officer and work with us to come to a more suitable and safe arrangement. so are we all guilty never relaxing those provisions?

[kurnal]

Thanks Izan- dont disagree with what you say. I am not wishing to start a war over this, I really want to know and understand what do those words about proportionality and taking into account the size of the undertaking and circumstances of the case really mean in real terms.

If every small dwelling house with a guest bedroom or two has to upgrade all doors  to FD30SC and fit an LD3 system (but to an L3 standard of coverage), do their pat, gas and electrical testing,fit a couple of emergency lights in the escape routes   then why dont the Govt just tell them that and save them a lot of hassle in carrying out a risk assessment that they dont need to record  and will be disregarded in any case?

(And if that is the right standard for a small B&B isnt it odd that a small care home built to HTM88 with five clients with learning disabilities and mental illness each totally dependent on a member of staff in an emergency only have to adopt identical measures? Something dosnt balance up somewhere.)

[jokar]

I wonder sometimes about what we are all after.  A safe place of work, a safe place to visit or resort to and a safe place to sleep.  Would the provision of AFD in every property make those places safe?  Would passive fire safety to the extent of 30 minutes protection make us safe?  Would travel distances to the extent they are detailed make us safe.  A lot of guidance would suggest that is the case but I think we know that it is not the answer.  Some aged people would not make 18 metres travel in a dead end before smoke fumes or fire got to them.  Some younger people could travel 50 -60 metres in a dead end and still make it out as they are agile.

Risk assessment for me is in part about the people not the building, not travel distances not always AFD and certainly not always about loads of passive fire safety.  Guidnace is just that, something to work on, no 2 premises are the same, no 2 premises have the same or similar chance of a fire occurring or the same fire loading.  Surely, the Risk Assessor and the FSO have to lok at premises as individuals and have regard then to the individual approach.