Fire Risk Assessment Audits

[val]

I know that at this level case law is not made...even by a district judge. But the case, in Lancashire actually, (god knows why we thought it was in Devon [doesn't even exist having been swallowed by Somerset!!!]), but the onus of proving something is sufficient now lies with the RP.

I have read the judgement and the appeal was indeed thrown out on virtually every point, the judge said past standards/enforcement activity had no bearing on what was a duty now to comply. He did cite the 'sleeping guide' and the appellant didn't appear to put up much of a fight.
Big chain hotels might be planning rather more of a struggle as the cost implications are rather large.

I also know that there are many experienced professionals who argue that AFD in bedrooms are unnecessary/cause false alarms/reduce overall safety. Now there is an opportunity for them to earn money/reputation in arguing that case in Court.

[stevew]

Ref your last comment jokar.

The FA did not have the same powers under the FPWKP Regs  as these regs were for the protection of employees only.   It is therefore not a change of attitude by the FA but a change of  emphasis through the introduction of the Fire Safety Order that now requires the responsible person to set standards for the protection of ALL persons on the premises.  

The new broom is not the FA but the Fire Safety Order.

[jokar]

Ahh, in that case the employees were all safe then from a fire in the premises as although they were there, Lancs were not bothered\as the existing Fire Certificate gave them and the clients sufficient protection.  It is not only guests that are protected by the provision of AFD in bedrooms but staff as well who work in all the premises.  As a by the by, the last people who died in a fire in a hotel were guests who obeyed the fire instructions and died in the protected corridor where the fire was.

The point of the post is to bring news to all and express an opinion, most FRS left hotels well alone as they were certified and it was thought that it was sufficient cover to protect.  Most IO's would love to go back to the cert process but as you quite rightly point out there is a new brave world out there and the government made it quite clear that this Order would minimise the burden on business which this case quite clearly does not as it involves an owner carrying out improvements at considerable expense that could have been done under the WFPL but the FRs did not bother then.  Perhaps some of us feel that double standards are being used.

[Jim Creak]

I honestly do not understand the debate here have I missed something?
Does hotel, guest house or refuge for the homeless require AFD to cover sleeping risk? YES or NO

In our professional judgement is the risk significant enough for us to consider seriously the use of very effective technology to give us early warning of fire and to alert intervention from management and fire fighter.. YES or NO

Why do we have to look at guidance document to decide?

Under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 the RP has a legal obligation to consider all techniques necessary for collective protection. How strongly would you recommend he consider this technique?

I don't understand the debate?

[PhilB]

Under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 the RP has a legal obligation to consider all techniques necessary for collective protection. How strongly would you recommend he consider this technique?

I don't understand the debate?

Jim

The legislation you quote is out of date , has been amended and the HSAW Act is also dissapplied if you can deal with the matter using the fire safety order.

The arguement as I see it is whether the new guidance can have any legal status and whether there may be case law resulting from the "Not Devon" case.

I don't think there can be such case law in the world of risk based solutions but there will be benchmarks that enforcers and magistrates will consider when deciding what is or is not appropriate.

I think Jokar raises a valid point regarding premises that were inspected for years under the 71 Act, the FPWP Regs and found to be "satisfactory".

[kurnal]

The Management of Health and Safety at work Regs 1999  do not apply in respect of the duty to provide basic fire precautions under the RRO. Article 48 if I recall disapplies them (and HASAWA 1974). The fire safety order stands on its own- it is self sufficient.

The issue is this - that the hotel, guest house or refuge does need afd to cover a sleeping risk and yes L2 is the appropriate standard. But if it is  the appropriate standard post October because the guides say so what was the appropriate standard Pre October? The risk was the same, yet many hotels with fire certificates under the FP Act with fire certificates have coverage to what is now an L4 standard- and some- a few-  have no AFD at all.

So the point is why did the fire authorities not  require these premises to upgrade their alarms before now? Many of us feel they had the power to do so despite the limitations of the Fire Precautions Act / Workplace Regs. But all of a sudden responsible persons are being taken to court to achieve  improvement, under the fire safety Order 2005.

[PhilB]

So the point is why did the fire authorities not  require these premises to upgrade their alarms before now?

Contentious point that I raised on a previous post Kurnal but I honestly beleive the answer is incompetent inspectors.

I have dealt with many hotels that have been inspected for years under FP Act and WP Regs by both fire officers and so called consultants and the inadequate fire warning system has not previously been mentioned.

If not incomptence please someone explain why this has happened.

[Tom Sutton]

PhilB Could you enlighten me what section of the FPA allowed an IO to require an upgrade of warnings systems were no material alteration had taken place. If then you suggest a goodwill letter, how many years later would accept it was urinating into the wind.

There may have been a chance under the WP regs but that is outside my experience and it did appear to be a very confused period.

[PhilB]

You are correct TW that FRS could not require upgrades under FP Act unless material alterations had been made. Also they were on dodgy groung using WP Regs because as you know, they were only concerned with the safety of employees, no-one else.

But surely goodwill advice should have been given. If the advice was ignored at least you would of acted professionally and done all that you could do.

I have come across several recently that have been regularly inspected and letters were sent ouy saying that all was well. I can understand why some RPs are asking why it was never menyioned before.

Please don't think I am personally attacking inspecting officers I am not. The fact that they may not have given best advice is most probably due to lack of understanding due to lack of training.

[CivvyFSO]

Inspecting under the WP regs I think it would have been hard to warrant AFD in most hotels. You could say that to protect employees all you need is MCP's, as cleaners will be spread out through the floors, and would be capable of raising the alarm manually to protect each other.

Maybe go to single staircase hotels and you would maybe have a good chance of warranting AFD in a workplace on a risk based approach under the WP regs.

Now, as someone mentioned, the whole "relevant persons" makes it a clear cut case. Don't forget that some hotels got a certificate before AFD existed and, due to limitations set by the FP act, we COULDN'T ask them for an upgrade unless material alterations had taken place. (AS twsutton said)

Maybe some IO's were confused and missed chances to get AFD in some hotels, thinking too much about the FP act and not concentrating on the WP regs? If this is the case then I have to almost agree with "the others" regarding "why change now if they didn't require it then?".

The main answer I think is in the legislation. "Relevant persons". I know alot of it is almost cut and paste from previous legislation, but regardless of that it is NEW legislation. No point making reference to what went on before. Times have changed. (Hopefully.)

[CivvyFSO]

Good timing PhilB. Must have been typing at the same time as me.

Where I am based it was standard practice to issue a letter and advice explaining current standards etc, but also to include in that advice the fact that we can not 'require' an upgrade.

[messy]

I reckon it's a little harsh slagging off IOs as being incompetent for not acting under the FPA and WP Regs to upgrade outdated AFD.

As a FRS IO, I have to work not only within the law of the land, but I am also restricted by my FRS policies. My particular FRS's Policy was that we couldn't ask for AFD to be upgraded cert premises where no material change was made. In addition, we only used FPA for cert premises and WP Regs for non cert premises.

So it's all very easy for some here (perhaps without the constraints of the policies of large organisation) to criticise IOs, but as they say in all the best war films, " vee vere only obeying orders"!

[CivvyFSO]

I think that is where some of the issues seem to lie messy. Our policy here was really to inspect under WP regs regardless of there being a certificate issued. (while still taking into account contents of certificate and looking for contraventions there etc.) Policy is policy. No getting away from it, but like you say, don't blame the IO. There's many things at the moment the IO's here disagree with, but policy from up top is what we have to follow.

[PhilB]

I reckon it's a little harsh slagging off IOs as being incompetent for not acting under the FPA and WP Regs to upgrade outdated AFD.

As a FRS IO, I have to work not only within the law of the land, but I am also restricted by my FRS policies. My particular FRS's Policy was that we couldn't ask for AFD to be upgraded cert premises where no material change was made. In addition, we only used FPA for cert premises and WP Regs for non cert premises.

So it's all very easy for some here (perhaps without the constraints of the policies of large organisation) to criticise IOs, but as they say in all the best war films, " vee vere only obeying orders"!

So did your brigade policy prevent you from giving goodwill advice when you noticed inadequate provisions?

[kurnal]

Hey Im hoppin mad. Been at a handover of a new warehouse today. My risk assessment had pointed out unacceptable gaps between the door leaves and gaps round the frames.

The approved inspector (no vested interest of course) sided with the builders that the doors were satisfactory because there was only a 3mm gap between the SMOKE SEAL and the frame.  grrr.