Upgrading Hotel Alarm Systems

[kurnal]

I came across a similar situation recently.
To make things worse although FR doors were fitted to storerooms in dead end  bedroom corridors the walls were completely unprotected - a mx of hardboard or chipboard and papered over.

A lift shaft ran from the basement nightclub and bars through to the 5th floor bedroom dead end corridors with no smoke protection to the shaft at any level.
Escape lighting throughout the building not configured to sub circuit failure..................- oh and a nice fire certificate(no longer current of course) that had been fairly recently updated to show some new en suite rooms in which been provided with smoke detection. Some of the connections to new detectors were twisted together above the false ceiling.

On this occasion because my client was hostile to my report and was looking for another assessor who would be less picky  I made a quiet phone call. (The first and hopefully the last I will ever need to make. Persuasion usually works).

The fire officer (the one who updated the certificate) visited the site and agreed with the owner that my report was over the top.

[PhilB]

Nice to hear it's not just me Kurnal.

I know we have touched on this subject before.

Which is the cheapest option???........ upgrade fire alarm or pay a"consultant" who will justify why an upgrade is unecessary. You're client  seems to have gone one better and found an inspecting officer who is prepared to support dangerous conditions!

[wee brian]

There are a few about. I sometimes find that recently qualified FSOs, especially those with degrees in FSE, can be a bit too keen to relax things. I wonder if they are trying to look smart.

[Tom Sutton]

I fully agree with what you are saying PhilB but I understand why FSO`s considered submitting recommendations like urinating in the wind.
 
As you said there was no legal requirement for hoteliers to upgrade and all we had was recommendations and the bluff & persuasion act. I could not quote a single situation were a hotelier agreed to upgrade an alarm system, if the costs were likely to be high, which it would be in most cases.

If you had repeated those recommendation every year for the last 30 years and it did land in court the beak is likely to say “You knew about this problem for the last thirty years why did you not serve a section ten”. (Bradford Fire) Then could you justify a section ten considering nothing has happened for the past thirty years.

I think you were a loser no matter which way you jumped however I do agree there was a chance to resolve the problem in 97 and a much better chance now.

[Redone]

Stayed at a hotel recently on the east coast, panel indicated a system fault, apparently only the sounder over the panel worked... Owner stuck a baby alarm on the panel so he says he can wake every one up in an emergency.  
Is this an upgrade?

[afterburner]

twsutton has it right from my memory.

Trying to get 'recommendations' through senior supervisory officers and out to occupiers normally foundered on the rocks of "this is not a requirement therefore not enforceable. They won't do it unless forced so stick to requirements". This was common FB policy. Where were senior officers getting their 'steer' on what 'policy' should be from?

The observation from twsutton about being damned if you do and damned if you don't feels right too.

[Martin Burford]

Redone
Sounds like it..............it works for Mum & Dad's!
Conqueror

[ian gough]

I fully agree with what you are saying PhilB but I understand why FSO`s considered submitting recommendations like urinating in the wind.
 
As you said there was no legal requirement for hoteliers to upgrade and all we had was recommendations and the bluff & persuasion act. I could not quote a single situation were a hotelier agreed to upgrade an alarm system, if the costs were likely to be high, which it would be in most cases.

If you had repeated those recommendation every year for the last 30 years and it did land in court the beak is likely to say “You knew about this problem for the last thirty years why did you not serve a section ten”. (Bradford Fire) Then could you justify a section ten considering nothing has happened for the past thirty years.

I think you were a loser no matter which way you jumped however I do agree there was a chance to resolve the problem in 97 and a much better chance now.

Just a point to remember: Section 10 was a discretionary power - the Bradford City judgement did not alter this. The real issue was that the fire authority (officer) involved in Bradford City FC, did nothing. It was filing the 'critical report' and not following up that caused the problem.

[Tom Sutton]

If that is how it read Ian it is not the point I was trying to make. The club ignored the recommendations of fire authority (officer) if he had followed it up how could he have resolved the problem. At that time I could not see him getting his SFPO to accept a section ten, considering the advice from the Home Office, what would be his next move.

I can remember having problems getting owners and occupiers to accept legal requirements quite a few ended up in court.

[Ken Taylor]

You remind us about different decisions taken by different FRSs but we have also had differences between I/Os from the same FRS. Hasn't there always been the criticism of different requirements by FRSs?

On this particular question, we need to take the view that time and legislation have moved on and, in the light of experience, higher standards are needed. I still remember the days when those in control of HMOs were told to install asbestos and others advised to purchase CTC, BCF and BTM portable extinguishers.

[Jim Creak]

By virtue of contract the contractor responsible for the maintenance of the alarm system has a duty to ensure that the system is risk appropriate. The responsible person has every right to expect competence from a supplier in this respect and seek adequate assurance of conforming to standard to satisfy legislation. If by virtue of acceptance by the enforcing authority by inspection or by consultation it would be a very brave court that would blame its own officers???

It would obviously depend when the inspection had taken place prior to October 2006 but from 1999  the risk assessment regime was required under the workplace regulations and therefore the FRS must have taken the view that the system satisfied legislation and was risk appropriate, Any RP must be able to rely on a positive local authority inspection as conformance to legislation.

[kurnal]

and therefore the FRS must have taken the view that the system satisfied legislation and was risk appropriate,

I think that is taking it too far Jim. If I drive at 33mph in a 30 limit the policeman, in not prosecuting me, is not saying I am complying with the Law, but is using discretion in not taking procedures against me. Then because through his discretion he didnt stop me he didnt discover the bald tyres either.

If I carry out a poor risk assessment for a client, overlook some significant issue, I really dont think I could expect a court to absolve me from responsibility just because the fire officer had susequently visited and not taken any further action.  It is always the duty of the RP to comply and the FRS has discretion in how they enforce. But then if they do choose to give advice then Popplewell said it must be best advice.

Going back to the thread the FRS could perhaps argue that between 1999 and 2006 there was an additional risk control measure in place- the fire certificate - and this additional level of supervision- with its conditions  in respect of tests, maintenance, housekeeping, training, reinspections  etc could be used as a balance  against weaknesses elsewhere?

[Tom Sutton]

Absolutely Ken we were accused of inconsistence also belt, braces and a piece of string by business and Colin’s cohorts. This was in the days of prescription with little flexibility, consider the situation today.

I also agree with your second statement I can remember those days, but what you say was an acceptable practice then. It is only in the light of experience that we now hold our hands up in horror. It should have been corrected, if possible, my point was how?

[ian gough]

If that is how it read Ian it is not the point I was trying to make. The club ignored the recommendations of fire authority (officer) if he had followed it up how could he have resolved the problem. At that time I could not see him getting his SFPO to accept a section ten, considering the advice from the Home Office, what would be his next move.

I can remember having problems getting owners and occupiers to accept legal requirements quite a few ended up in court.

I think you misunderstood me - although this is a complex matter. (And sorry to having to keep quoting like this)

The point I make is that NOT serving a s10 notice is not a problem. Not doing anything is!

In the Bradford City case no letter was sent by the fire authority to anyone. The structural engineer's letter was simply filed.

I agree, none of us would have served a prohibition notice. However, I think I would have passed on a critical letter from another Council Dep't. A simple 'goodwill' letter may have got the fire authority off the hook in that case as it did in the Oban Hotel Fire case (now we are going back a long time!).

[fred]

If I can be forgiven for getting this back on the original thread - in hotels where there is no AFD in bedrooms and the provision of such (particularly in the bigger ones) is going to cost an arm and a leg and take many months, (because of both cost and the availability of installers) are any FRS's requiring the provision of (as an immediate interim measure of course) single point battery operated detectors in bedrooms ?  If you are - are you requiring it in the same Enforcement Notice used to upgrade the fire alarm system ?