Upgrading Hotel Alarm Systems

[PhilB]

Under the FP Act 71 once a certficate was issued the FA could not require an alarm system to be upgraded. As you know there are many hotels out there that have systems that do not comply with modern standards.

A common problem is AFD in corridors only and not in rooms. Following the work by B.K Gosh we have known since the 80s that detection is necessary in rooms off corridors.

Many brigades, although unable to require hotels to upgrade did offer goodwill advice and strongly recommend upgrading. Many others did not. Many brigades made further attempts to upgrade using 97 Regs....many did absolutely nothing....except reinspect and say that all was well.

Consider this...an inspecting officer notices such a deficiency and serves a notice under Fire Safety Order.....responsible person appeals on the grounds that the FA had inspected his premises for the past 20 years, every year and never once mentioned such a deficiency before.

Has a FA demonstrated incompetence by not recommending upgrades?

[fred]

Can't wait for the result of the first appeal - at least then both FRS's and hoteliers will may have some idea where we are with this hot potato.

[messy]

This is something I have been asking my bossess about, but have not yet received guidance (nothing new there)

Also consider a similar once certificated building:
A WP regs FRA was completed prior to October 06 (and RRO)
Amongst the FRA findings was that the AFD was adequate as it was to be maintained in accordance with  Fire Cert (which was written by the FRS)
The local FRA have visited under FPA and WP Regs with no problems noted
No changes have occured which may trigger a FRA review
The FRS arrive with the FS(RR)O and demand detection in all 100 bedrooms

It seems to me that  the WP regs FRA is still valid as it hasn't needed reviewing and the AFD standard was imposed by the FRS who are now threatening enforcement

It's happening and it's a mess

[stevew]

My local FA made a decision in the 80's to insist that all inspecting officers issued such advice on a goodwill basis.
If my memory serves me right they also worded standard re-inspection letters in such a way as to indicate that the existing certificate standards were being maintained, nothing more.  

The problem extends beyond the fire alarm system.

While we are discussing hotels and fire alarm systems I recently heard that a FA has 'opened discussions' with a hotel group who have carried out their own RA and decided to eliminate detection on the basis that the noise would disturb the guests.   Spooky or not.

[AM]

But the focus of the RRO is different. A risk assessment for a premises with members of the public sleeping there would have a different set of 'relevant persons' to consider than the WP regs did, and therefore a WP RA may not be valid and enforcement action could be taken. 'adequate' under the old regs does not mean 'adequate' now.

[Davo]

Messy
Of course things have changed- the fire certificate no longer exists (indeed my local area FRS have destroyed them from their files!!)
Also new duties eg to mitigate effects of fire require all FRAs to be reviewed

Davo

[jokar]

In addition, none of the old Risk Assessments, the ones which came under the MHSWR now meet the new standard incorporated within the DCLG Guidance documents and as discussed in this forum on many occasions the significant findings are entirely different.  Therefore, under
RR(FS)O the RP has to undertake a proper FIRE Risk Assessment.  That is in part why PAS 79 is up for review as it can no longer be used, from the 1/1/2006, as it is not a vaild FRA process under RR(FS)O.  Look at the guides and determine what the Government are asking for an FRA.  (around Page 11)

[Pip]

I would hope that a judge would direct the hotel to the (newly re named again?!) CLG guide for existing hotels that suggests L2 standard, no matter what a F.A. had/had not said before, as they would have been constrained in what they could comment on.

[PhilB]

I agree with you all when you say a new risk assessment should be carried out because new duties are imposed by the Fire Safety Order..BUT......

I think many fire authorities will be in a very embarassing situation. They have inspected these places every year and not once recommended an upgrade.

They were hopefully competent to carry out the inspection and should have realised that the fire warning system was inadequate, surely they should have said something.

Or was it that they were incompetent???......a strong possibility!

[Pip]

I can only speak for my F.A., but after each inspection there was a policy for a recommendation to upgrade.I suspect it was not done sometimes, and there may be some embarresment to some, but I doubt whether the beak will see that as an excuse for a RP not to upgrade.Maybe one day we might find out in court.

[Richard Earl]

I can only speak for my F.A., but after each inspection there was a policy for a recommendation to upgrade.I suspect it was not done sometimes, and there may be some embarresment to some, but I doubt whether the beak will see that as an excuse for a RP not to upgrade.Maybe one day we might find out in court.

lets hope for all hotel owners they come to the same point as all of us and upgrade, i am dealing with a hotel chain now who have had their 1st notice to upgade my mid 08, interesting to see what happens after nearly 18mnths notice ( i think the fa wont be happy)

[val]

I agree with you all when you say a new risk assessment should be carried out because new duties are imposed by the Fire Safety Order..BUT......

I think many fire authorities will be in a very embarassing situation. They have inspected these places every year and not once recommended an upgrade.

They were hopefully competent to carry out the inspection and should have realised that the fire warning system was inadequate, surely they should have said something.

Or was it that they were incompetent???......a strong possibility!

Phil, as ususal you're being deliberately provocative.

THe competence of a FRS, or any advice or lack of it in the past has absolutely no bearing on the current responsibilities of the RP to carry out a 'suitable and sufficient' FRA. (Something you keep telling us).

The Fire Safety Order is dynamic, just because something was unenforceable before and, in line with their legal duty, the FRS did not take action, doesn't mean it is never enforceable at some time in the future. (Blow me down, you'll be wanting fire certificates back next)!

As for FRS being embarrassed...well possibly, but I know of many occasions when they have had to admit past mistakes and have then gone on to enforce or even prosecute.

[PhilB]

Val, provocative moi!!!

Perhaps we should let the Courts decide if the lack of advice from an enforcing authority who inspected annually and failed to offer advice when they should have noticed deficiencies has absolutely no bearing.

Please note I have never said it was impossible to enforce necessary requirements using criminal law. However the responsible person may seek compensation under civil law. I was merely asking a question....not trying to upset anyone...as if I would!!!

I certainly have no desire to blow you down!!!...and I definately don't want to see any more fire certificates, they are partially the cause of the current problem!!!.

[kurnal]

Didnt Justice Popplewell clarify this after the Bradford City Football disaster?
I recollect that he found fault with the advice given by the Local Fire Authority because they  had tolerated an ongoing  hazardous situation rather than giving best advice?

Or have I got this wrong?

I think there may be very little  opportunity for RPs to make a claim though- Whilst on the one hand many substandard premises exist and it is hard to understand why a fire authority should not have at least sent out a letter of recommendation (Mine did) but  after all most Employers  should have been carrying out their own risk assessment for the last 7 years cince the WP regs were modified in 99 so what is their excuse for not asking the question before now?

[PhilB]

Yes Popplewell found fault because the FRS had not used a discretionary power to prohibit the use.

I totally agree that this problem of inadequate detection should have beed identified and acted on by the responsible person since 97........FRS knew of the problem since  long before that.

Many FRS did recommend...but believe me...many did not. I know Val will accuse me of being provacative but those FRS who did not offer goodwill advice when they noticed deficiencies or indeed failed to recognise those deficiencies have certainly demonstrated their incompetence if not negligence.

The problem gets even scarier...from my recent experience many hotels are now being assessed by incompetent hotel owners/managers and some incompetent consultants who are unable to correctly assess the building and provide adequate measures.

I recently came across an hotel with no detection in corridors or bedrooms and no fire resisting construction protecting the escape routes.

The hotelier had recently purchased the property and did not know there was a problem, why should he??. The FRS had inspected the premises every year since the certificate had been issued in the 70s and said nothing.

The hotelier had appointed a "fire consultant" who the week before had spent four hours assessing his building. A risk assesssment was produced which totally missed the problems I have mentioned. It identified lots of ignition sources and fuels and contained lots of waffle and cost the hotelier £500.

Another hotel had detection in the corridors but not in the rooms, the hotel manager had carried out a fire risk assessment but failed to notice any problem. When I pointed out that the system was inadequate the director showed me copies of letters from FRS who had inspected every year and said that all was well. She asked me why this problem and not been raised before now....fair question I thought.