FSO and residential landlords

[Rachel]

Hi

I'm looking for guidance on whether all block of flats in the UK will have to have a fire risk assessment done of the common areas - hallways and lobbies etc.  I.e. purpose built self contained flats with their own front doors leading off a common area in a residential block.  The sleeping guidance notes talk about HMOs and common areas, but a lot of landlords are phoning our company up and asking, and I should know this, and don't.


Thanks

[wee brian]

All blocks of flats are covered but you only need a written FRA for 5 employees so most blocks will not need any paperwork.

[Ashley Wood]

Wee Brian,

I was under the impression that it is if your company employed five or more persons any where. For example a shop keeper who has 5 shops and five shop managers would technically have to do FRA. So if the Landlord has 5 tower blocks and employs 5 people, one to look after each block would they not fall into the FRA route?

Best regards

Ashley

[jokar]

Ashley, that is correct.  
Rachel, all blocks will need an FRA but will it will only need to be recorded if 5 or more employees are employed by the Company no matter where they are employed.  For safety sake it is probably best to record it as if there is an incident, how do you prove that the FRA has been done and what the outcomes were.  This is exactly the same as in H&S legislation.  For common parts please read shared accommodation, anywhere that the people are allowed to go will need to be covered by the FRA.

[messy]

It was my understanding that the 'five persons employed anywhere' rule was as a result of poorly worded legislation, which whe tested in court, ended up with this ridiculous rule which wasn't the aim of the regs when drafted.

However, the writing of FSO gave the Govt/FS Industry an opportunity to correct that error but they haven't done so. This suggests that my understanding is flawed and this rule is intended as it is currently being applied

Therefore, can anyone give the rationale of why a FRA needs recording if a RP employs > 5 people anywhere?

[Ashley Wood]

Messy,

Take a mobile phone company as an example. Lets say they have loads of remote mast sites and a roving team of engineers and each mast may be visited by one engineer every 2 weeks. If the 5 employees in a building rule applied then these remote locations may never be assessed. however, the company has the responsibility to its staff to make sure that each site is safe. In this situation then the new FSO works as the company would have to carry out an assessment for every location remote or otherwise.

[kurnal]

Ashley
I think the new FSO doesn't work in this respect.

I refer to most textbooks and guides for guidance on evaluating the level of risk. As you know most guidance follows the line of evaluating liklihood against consequences, and the consequences are considered much more severe if multiple persons are at risk compared to a single person.
In all of your phone mast premises there will only ever be 1 person at work so the consequences of a fire can only ever be a single life lost.
Therefore the effect is as though only one person is employed, the level of risk will always be limited and to require the recording off the risk assessment in such places I think goes against the spirit of the legislation. Sometimes the law can make an ass of things.

[Ashley Wood]

I agree with you Kurnal. But if you follow the spirit of the FSO this is the situation that one can come across. Perhaps the mast was not a very good example. heres one that I have done myself recently. It is a 2 storey 'back bone' site. These are primarily unmanned sites. On the day I visited there was 2 engineers on the premises, believe it or not they did not know each other were there! This came about due to one engineer being employed by the telecoms company and he was working on the first floor in the battery room. The second engineer was a contractor who gained access via a key pad code at the rear of the building and was working on the ground floor in an IT area.

with the system as it was, if a fire broke out there was no record or way of knowing if the building was empty.

[wee brian]

This is news to me - what a nightmare. All this paper work - its a fire hazard.

No doubt the enforcement guide will help us with this?

[messy]

Ashley

With regards to the remote ocassionally used sites: Surely they would still need to have a FRA conducted, but there's no requirement for it to be recorded. My view is similar to Kurnal's that the 5 person 'rule' gives a benchmark of where sufficient persons are present to warrant extra measures such as recording the FRA findings.

In practice, life's more complicated. I was involved with a job concerning an independant internet cafe. There were 3/4 staff and approx  120 terminals on 3 floors. Some were doubled crewed as it were (2 persons using a monitor) so it was possible that 150+ persons may be present, and some PCs were used by transient punters who tended to block escape routes with huge backpacks/luggage.

Under WP Regs and FSO, there's no requirement for a recorded FRA, but for your example of a remote communication station, there is. It's mad

I hoped that the FSO would sort this out: sadly it hasn't

[John Webb]

The FSO Guides all say 'It is good practice to record your significant findings in any case'. They also say 'You must provide the employer of any person from any outside organisation who is working in your building....with clear and relevant information on the risks to those employees and the preventative and protective measures taken'. So the case Ashley cites in post #8 would seem to require a written note of the FRA and its communication to the employers of the engineers.
I personally think that if there are to be five or more people in a building, regardless of being employees, workers from other firms or members of the public, write down the significant findings of the FRA. At least if someone sues you for having a fire on the premises you can show what you had done as a defence! And if's more than the law requires, all to the better. So for the internet cafe in post #10 I'd certainly write down my findings.
This latter does seem to be a problem - how do you ensure all visitors are aware of what they need to do or not do while in the building or if they are asked to leave? A short display on their screens when they start up? Plenty of notices on display? And if the fire alarm sounds will you get the "Woolworth's" effect - ie as with eating a meal in a cafe will customers be reluctant to leave their computer screens without first completing a down-load or logging off?
(Hope this isn't getting off the topic too much.)

[Mr. P]

Sorry if I now go around in circles on this but...

If an employer has more than 5 employees a written record etc. must be made.  So, if those people are carrying out work (albeit on their own) even remotely, risks and safegaurds i.e. the significant findings, must be identified and informed upon.  This could then include some method of checking in/out (by phone or other means) and of checking on that person if a report time is missed?

As for posts 10 & 11, I understood that he responsible person must take into account person visiting or nearby their building, so identifying your problems of getting public to leavehas to be dealt with.  

Excuse the pun, but, even in places of religious meeting a service is being supplied to a customer.

[Mike Buckley]

This may be moving from the original question but I think it follows the general drift.

So if the employer is a guarding company supplying security guards, the guarding company must have a written record etc. Does this mean that the guarding company must carry out the RA or can it rely upon the RA carried out by the client?

[Martin Burford]

A word of caution
All these opinions posted are conjecture....the Act isn't even IN yet.......so treat all postinfs as opinions nothing more, nothing less.....and there is NO CASE LAW YET!
Conqueror.
ps Use the FP ACT its still in force!!!

[jokar]

Mr P,  not a written record but a recorded one.  The word written is not included in RR(FS)O.
Mike, As is the case under the WFPL, staff who work for one company but work in another company's premises are subject to the legislation.  Cleaners for instant should be risk assessed for their role in their own company but should be aware of the FRA in the premises especially the evacuation pal etc.
Conqueror, you are right but the conjecture is based on legal opinion from CFOA and other legal specialists in the field of fire safety.