Dry rising mains

[AnthonyB]

Here's a situation for you (From a colleague).

Warehouse complex, many decades old. Originally sprinklered throughout, with rising mains.

Previous poor management has left the systems rusted and inoperable.

LFB come in and demand restoration of risers & sprinklers to working order.

All goes well until an occupier (ex-LFB) objects to the costs and says there is no legal requirement for risers.

LFB then backtrack and say contact insurers as they can't enforce the repairs. Insurers say they would refer back to landlord's risk assessment & aren't bothered either way.

L'lrds RA indicates they are needed. Building Control say Section 20 doesn't apply and that as there are no changes to the premises they cannot bcome involved.

If a building is originally fitted with rising mains (regardless of height), it is still used for high risk uses similar to those in the original usage many moons ago & the Landlord's Risk Assessment supports their keeping in order, can the tenant object (purely on fire regs terms) to their presence.

The same tenant also objects to upgrading the alarm from category M to category L3 despite their being only 1 usable stair available, their being "high risk" processes & storage on many floors and multiple ocupancy.

Thoughts........?

[afterburner]

With some trepidation I offer the simplistic view that if nothing has changed the original fire defence provisions should remain available. Or is this too easy because of multiple occupancy etc?

[Guest]

I believe that the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order will make it a requirement to maintain safety equipment provided under earlier legislation. (H&S Law already says this but no-one seems to take any notice). Will be interesting to see how Fire Authorities go about enforcing this....regardless of cost?
As dry risers are primarily supplied to assist firefighters there is a duty of care element too. Even if several upper storeys are vacant, the dry riser may still be needed to help firefighters deal safely with a fire started, for example, by an intruder.
Whole new area for Colin and LFB to disagree over. He, he.

[Guest]

If the occupier/owner (Landlord) informs the LFB that the riser is not operable - then it is up to LFB to adjust their 'risk assessment' accordingly.
So long as the means of escape is then satisfactory, then I believe that the Landlord has complied with current legislation.

[Guest]

In addition to the above post - someone should write and complain to Chief Exec of LFB about their officers acting 'ultra vires'!!

[Guest]

If, and this is under the current workplace regs, the landlords are in some measure the 'dutyholder' (seems likely in this case) and their RA indicates that a dry riser/L3 detection is necessary then they are under an obligation to act on those significant findings. Any other course would now leave them horribly exposed in law if a fire occured and people/firefighters were injured or killled.
Whether LFB have any role in enforcing the significant findings of the landlords RA is another dodgy question. LFB would have to argue that failure to act on the significant findings would cause a breach of the Regs.

Whether the landlord can defer some of this cost to the occupiers is a question for the lawyers and the tenancy agreement.

The key here though is the RA and the duty to take action to mitigate any risks, as far as is reasonable, that that RA highlights. A comparable situation would be guarding a machine, you identify that a guard is needed, record that finding and do nothing. If you get away with it...well and good...if you don't...pack your toothbrush!

[Guest]

Gary
I couldn't see for one second, LFB (or any other brigade for that matter) being able to tackle the issue of a lack of firefighting equipment for Fire Brigade use with the FP(Workplace) Regs. These regulations are for the safety of occupants only. Also, come the fire, which has to claim the lives of persons in the building, it would be a very skilled lawyer in my view who could then make the case that this 'failure' resulted in the deaths.
Sorry, currently with exisitng legislation fire Brigades are stuck - unless they enjoy the luxury of a local act.
It will be interesting indeed to see if Regulatory Reform tackles this issue - but I'm not holding my breath here.

[colin todd]

It is likely that the RRO will contain requirments for ongoing maintenance of measures to assist the fire brigade if they were required under building regs (ie B5 in E&W). As for what brigades may try on under the workplace regs, we have seen a requirement for a sprinkler block plan and a sprinkler stop valve sign on an enforecement notice issued under the regs by the said fire authority!

[Guest]

I didn't say that fire authorities should or could enforce this under the current regs, nor hopefully does anybody have to actually die before legal action is taken.
What I was trying to show was that the dutyholder owns the risk, if their R/A indicates that x, y and z are required and they don't act upon those findings they have almost certainly left themselves open to prosecution if it all goes pear shaped. Otherwise, what is the point of having a R/A? We might as well pull the jackboots on and go back to prescribing the exact location of every safety sign. That there is scant evidence that a self complince regime will work any better than the current one (FP Act) is a matter for further discussion. As Rosemary Everton says, 'the good employers will continue to be good, and the bad employers will continue to be bad.

Colin,
I think the RRO will stretch a bit further than you say but I accept that for all practical purposes, what you say is probably right.

[Guest]

But Gary come on - if 'they' don't want to act on the findings then the 'findings' surely wont be found in the first place! Surely this is the issue with Risk Assessments, all sounds great in theory but in practice so much hot air.