Battery Back Ups For Fire Alarms

[wee brian]

I doubt one could claim - due diligence - if you knew that the alarm was in contravention of a statutory requirement and did nothing about it.

I think you will find that the Signs and signals regs will be enforced by EHOs (who are all power crazyed megalomaniacs - so dont be too cocky)

[PhilB]

Graeme you make an excellent point. ....." He then tries several other companies,one of which takes on the site and tells the RP that all the others companies who did'nt are talking nonsense....."

The real danger I see is consultants who will fudge their RAs to save a company money. Soon many hotels will face the prospect of upgrading fire alarm systems to comply with current standards.

Now do they spend several thousand pounds installing AFD in all bedrooms...or pay a consultant a few pounds less to come up with a risk assessment that says the old system is fine....believe me this is already happening.

Calm down dears I wasn't supporting keeping inferior alarm systems in schools or calling Kurnal incompetent...I was merely pointing out that prescriptive fire safety is a thing of the past!


Wee Brian...look into Safety Signs & signal Regs and see who the enforcing authority is for those Regs in premises to which the workplace fire precautions legislation applies...answers on a postage stamp.

[Graeme]

i have had an enquiry from a hotel recently who need to upgrade their FD+a system.
It was a wierd system with no panel,mcp's only and the batteries were in a old speaker type looking thing.
The wiring was the same for a 3 wire system.

They may have their work cut out trying to find someone to say it's fine.(but you never know)

The log book had an entry from Noah when he originally commissioned the system.

[kurnal]

Graeme
I expect you probably remember Noahs signature from a cheque he once wrote out for you

Phil
no offence just trying to promote a good debate- we are all such gentlemen on this forum afraid to tread on each others toes!

[val]

Phil,
'Suitable and sufficient' will eventually reach the Courts but until that time it is up to the enforcing authority, (yes there are still some left, they are just not paying MinM prices for an ancient classroom with 30 students and rabbit hutches to sleep in), to decide whether the FRA is indeed suitable and sufficent. Many FRS insist, as a matter of course, compliance with the signs and signals regs. Never been challenged yet! I look forward to the first case of a dodgy landlord trying to convince a judge that bell wire and air raid sirens represent suitable and sufficient.
Don't get too hung up on the minutae of the law...enforcing authorities are still there to enforce. The name gives it away.

[Graeme]

Graeme
I expect you probably remember Noahs signature from a cheque he once wrote out for you

I think that one bounced, i would need to look it up as i was not even thought of back then being so youthful.

[PhilB]

Val, I look forward to suitable & sufficient hitting the Courts as it is not defined unfortunately in the order or the new guidance. The other vital term, significant findings is defined, but that definition varies from guide to guide and differs from that in ACOP to MHSW Regs.

So you don't like the FSC, ok but many FRS do send their IOs there as do many from other organisations. The FRA course does explain what constitutes S&S & SFs.

Unfortunately many IOs....especially those who attend other courses....wouldn't know what constitues a suitable & sufficient RA.......so how are they going to challenge one in Court..... and...."Many FRS insist, as a matter of course, compliance with the signs and signals regs."............

I afraid Val that the FRS cannot insist, unless they are prepared to serve a notice....and they certainly cannot prosecute unless employees are placed at serious risk.

I know many dinosaurs are still out there using the Bluff & Persuation Act but it is for the responsible person to determine what is required following his RA..........not the enforcing authority..............yes they can challenge his RA but I would recommend attending a suitable & sufficient training course.....perhaps one on prosecution procedures......before doing so.

[Chris Houston]

It seems somewhat irresponsible to ignore a piece of legislation such as the Signs and Signals Regs.  

Much of the debate in FireNet on this subject and others seems to focus on complying with legislation and avoiding enforcement action.  I think the people who use the services of a consultant might hope that they do more than the legal minimum!

Has anyone got any arguments about why we should ignore the Signs and Signals Regulations other than that doing so may not lead to enforcement action or that doing so saves money?

[PhilB]

Chris I'm not suggesting we should ignore the regs but I am saying we need to apply risk appropriate fire safety and not be precriptive. In some premises rigid adherence to the regulations may not be necessary or appropriate. Consider this I have an old listed building that is only used by me and one employee who is familiar with MOE. No visitors resort to building.

I have an old red illuminated fire exit sign above my fire exit that clearly does not comply with said regulations but adds charcter to my building and I like it.  Both me and my employee know where the exit is.

Please explain why I need to change the sign. Will anyone be safer if I do change it? or do I need to change it just because the regulations say so?

[Chris Houston]

Chris I'm not suggesting we should ignore the regs but I am saying we need to apply risk appropriate fire safety and not be precriptive. In some premises rigid adherence to the regulations may not be necessary or appropriate. Consider this I have an old listed building that is only used by me and one employee who is familiar with MOE. No visitors resort to building.

I have an old red illuminated fire exit sign above my fire exit that clearly does not comply with said regulations but adds charcter to my building and I like it.  Both me and my employee know where the exit is.

Please explain why I need to change the sign. Will anyone be safer if I do change it? or do I need to change it just because the regulations say so?

If I were you I would probably make the same argument.  But the situation is we chose to live in a society that has laws and complying with them isn't optional.  Besides, this is a different situation from the school that was the previous hypothesis.

[PhilB]

Oh I see so we have to comply with the regulations regardless of risk....just because the law says so...now I understand. Maybe one day in the future we might move to enforcement appropriate to the risk rather than prescription...that would be a novel idea don't you think?

Just one last point to satisfy an anorak wearing legislation saddo like me......If I refuse to change the sign...when you drag me into Court....what offence have I committed and what statute contains it?

[Chris Houston]

Oh I see so we have to comply with the regulations regardless of risk....just because the law says so...

Sorry my friend, but I think that is the idea of the law.  I think I can drive faster than the law permits, but that's not an excuse.  

I'll leave the second bit of your question to someone braver than myself to answer.  But laws are laws.  We can't choose the ones that suit.  Some permit a risk based approach.  Some don't.  For example guards on moving machines, they are mandatory.  Hard hats below cranes are mandatory.

I would again add, that even if enforcement of a law is difficult for the authorities, I don't think that should result in us ignoring it.  Is that Fire Safety?

[kurnal]

But the law is different Chris. You quote different reglations - as you say  the difference comes with the level of duty imposed by the specific regulations, ie Absolute duty, as far as is practicable or as far as is reasonably practicable. Your examples set a level of duty that is absolute ( hard hats, hearing protection etc) or  as far as is practicable ( machine guards). Compliance with the Signs and signals regs is to the extent that it is reasonably practicable.
Sorry Chris but theres all the difference in the world.
Take Chatsworth House for example. You wont see any exit signs in the key tourist routes.  They would destroy the ambience. But you will see wardens on every escape route and in every significant room. I believe this gives a level of safety in excess of the benchmark of the signs and signals regs. The fire risk assessment should record this as a significant factor and indicate the outcome as an acceptable residual risk level. If the enforcement authority do not agree  they have the ultimate sanction of an enforcement notice and the court can decide.
But Phil cant get away with just liking the old type of sign. He needs to show that it is not reasonably practicable to change it to comply with the the regulations. He can take into account the cost ( financial or heritage) ,  difficulty  or inconvenience. If he justifies this to his own satisfaction he is free to stand or fall by his decision. But if he cannot present his evidence for making the decision (verbally would do in the circumstances he describes) he is on very thin ice.

[PhilB]

At last the voice of reason!!! Happy Easter one and all!!!

[Fishy]

Surely, both the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation and The RR(FS)O state, "minimise the burden on business" as most often quoted but the part that matters, not often quoted is "to maintain and where possible improve"  existing standards.  Whilst I would agree that it is currently the employers burden and soon to be the Responsible Persons burden, the onus of responsibility for death or serious injury rets with those persons.  Perhaps we should bring all details to their attention and tell them the possible outcomes and then when they decide, the judiciary will do the rest.  I know it doesn't sound or appear rght but that is what this legislation ties us all into.

Jokar - I really like the sound of your "to maintain and where possible improve" quotation, but cannot find it anywhere in the RR(FS)O.  Can you point us in the right direction and reference the relevant Section?

Thanks

Fishy