hose reel

[AnthonyB]

FA authority permission may have been necessary in the old days if the reels were listed as being part of a fire certificate, but now its down to your risk assessment in most cases.

Most 'misuse is an offence' quotes refer to Section 8 of HASWA '74 "No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions", although some may argue as to if it could be applied to equipment under the fire regulations.

I would agree that in a lot of premises they are not appropriate cover & they are gradually disappearing from buildings year by year

[Chris Houston]

They are, of course, probably the most appropriate in environments where fires are common.

[Fishy]

If the hose reel is connected to a dedicated fire-fighting supply, then this might be an offence under the Water Industry Act 1991:

"73.—(1)  If any person who is the owner or occupier of any premises to which a supply of water is provided by a water undertaker intentionally or negligently causes or suffers any water fitting for which he is responsible to be or remain so out of order, so in need of repair or so constructed or adapted, or to be so used—
(a)  that water in a water main or other pipe of a water undertaker, or in a pipe connected with such a water main or pipe, is or is likely to be contaminated by the return of any substance from those premises to that main or pipe;
(b)  that water that has been supplied by the undertaker to those premises is or is likely to be contaminated before it is used; or
(c)  that water so supplied is or is likely to be wasted or, having regard to the purposes for which it is supplied, misused or unduly consumed,
that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

    (2)  Any person who uses any water supplied to any premises by a water undertaker for a purpose other than one for which it is supplied to those premises shall, unless the other purpose is the extinguishment of a fire, be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

... could be an offence under both (1) and (2)?

[Mike Buckley]

But how many premises have an independant dedicated mains water supply solely for firefighting?

All of the places I know have a metered supply with a bypass which the FRS use to bypass the meter when they have to use the internal fire mains for firefighting. As far as the FRS is concerned the reason for bypassing the meter is to gain a better flow rate rather than saving water.

[Tom Sutton]

It is also because the occupier will not have pay for water used for firefighting. When a builder uses a hydrant for a water supply during construction phase he has to get the permission of the water undertaker and pay for the water he uses also pay for any damage.

[Fishy]

Most of the premises I'm familiar with have wet fire-fighting mains (rising or falling), so my response was influenced by that.

So, if the hosereel is on the metered supply, it's not an offence, but if they are on a fire-fighting supply, it might be?  Well, you live and learn...

But how many premises have an independant dedicated mains water supply solely for firefighting?

All of the places I know have a metered supply with a bypass which the FRS use to bypass the meter when they have to use the internal fire mains for firefighting. As far as the FRS is concerned the reason for bypassing the meter is to gain a better flow rate rather than saving water.

[John Webb]

Interesting, all these comments. At the Fire Research Station site at Borehamwood we had feeds from two water mains, both metered and without by-pass valves. We could get circa 1,500gpm from any two hydrants simultaneously. So the water we used for fighting (test) fires was actually paid for along with the 'domestic' consumption. Hosereels in some laboratories were used frequently, and we found it best to fit these with 'Maynell' nozzles - these had the advantage of rapid adjustment between spray and jet, and needed much less maintenance/replacement than either the old MPBW HR jet nozzles or newer plastic twist nozzles, due to their robust construction and rubber covers.
Staff were trained to rewind the hosereels as tight and neatly as possible so that in an emergency they would run out smoothly, and few problems were experienced.

[PhilHallmark]

Phil

Slow down mate.

Hosereels cannot be used for anything other than FF? Misuse? - What tosh!!

If I as manager or RP, authorise MY staff that they can use MY hosereel for watering the company flower bed or cleaning my Aston Martin, whilst simultaneously gaining valuable experience in using the equipment and ensuring that it works, then they bl**dy well can (as long as they do it safely).

Surely it's a win-win situation

Good to see an employer is taking staff annual fire training seriously!

Still stick to my reasoning though

[Martin Burford]

philH
If your giving that sort of advice about hose- reels.......your dangerous!
Conqueror.

[PhilHallmark]

philH
If your giving that sort of advice about hose- reels.......your dangerous!
Conqueror.

Me and the IFEDA Hose Reel Servicing course I did last month

[Midland Retty]

Right...

CAN YOU USE FIRE HOSES FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN FIREFIGHTING:-

Answer is

YES:-

1. If it isn't fed from a dedicated unmetered supply for firefighting purposes (otherwise the water board will get extremely cross and may take action against you under the Water industries Act 1991 cos you aint paying for the water) - then agaion you might argue who the bloomin heck would know?

2. Water pressure would not be noticeably affected by one hose reel being operated as someone suggested!

3. As stated elsewhere it atleast ensures the hose reels get used, people become familiar with their locations, stagnant water is fluhed out, people know its working etc etc

4. The theory that using a fire hose for purposes than firefighting is a misuse of that equipment is open to interpretation.

You could argue that an offence has been committed under article 23 "duties of employees" if for instance two employees had a laugh and joke and decide to chase each other round the car park hosing each other down.

But even then theyd probably have to physically break it in some way rendering it inoperable to be considered as commiting an offence.

BUT if an employer has told his employees they can use it for other purposes then not a problem.

5. No mention otherwise in RRO or F&RS Act 2004 of misuse being an offence.


The above is irrelevant frankly -s havent you heard that there is a Nationwide hose pipe ban?

[wee brian]

Quite right - but dont forget those hosereels that are fed by an emergency pumped supply - if you run the hosereel you could trip the pump which won't turn off automatically.

[kurnal]

I was not aware of a nationwide hosepipe ban- certainly not in the east midlands.

[AFD]

'Sensible' operation and use of a hosereel without damage! it does not matter what the water lands on, be it car, flowers, floor ! If done with the permission of the owner, it cannot be construed as 'misuse'.  I believe this means someone damaging it by stupidity or with malicious intent and generally without permission of the owner.