Fire Risk Assessment Audits

[Chris Houston]

It has not been that long since it recommended quarterly testing!

Again, good risk management is not just about complying with the law.  I hope they all warn their insurers that they have decided they are better at judging this than the authors of the British Standard.......I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......

[CivvyFSO]

At risk of being called pedantic.......It should be inspected every day, activated every week and the subject of inspection and testing by contractors 6 monthly (or as per the fire safety risk assessment, but 6 months is the timescale suggested by BS 5839).

Yes, I was talking about the main test that would generally involve full testing of the whole system. (45.4 of BS5839 Pt 1.)

[CivvyFSO]

I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......

We can't win. One minute we are being insulted for sticking to guides, the next we are being insulted for not sticking to guides....

[jokar]

But it is not your decision, you are an enforcer.  The RP has an absolute duty, the must to comply with Part 2 the Fire safety Duties not the FRS.  The RP has to go down the route of ALARP as in Article 34 the Onus is solely on them.

[Chris Houston]

At risk of being called pedantic.......It should be inspected every day, activated every week and the subject of inspection and testing by contractors 6 monthly (or as per the fire safety risk assessment, but 6 months is the timescale suggested by BS 5839).

Yes, I was talking about the main test that would generally involve full testing of the whole system. (45.4 of BS5839 Pt 1.)

45.4 is in addition to 45.3 which recommends 6 monthly.

[Chris Houston]

I sometimes wonder why we have British Standard if even the fire service disregard them......

We can't win. One minute we are being insulted for sticking to guides, the next we are being insulted for not sticking to guides....

It's a difficult job, but I think things would be clearer for people if we all stuck to the British Standards...........

[fred]

It's a difficult job, but I think things would be clearer for people if we all stuck to the British Standards...........

I don't see how you can do that - it flies in the face of assessing risk.

I grant that by meeting a British Standard you are likely to achieve compliance with the RRO, but it doesn't work the other way round.  You can achieve compliance with the RRO without necessarily meeting a British Standard.

[Chris Houston]

We clearly have a difference of opinion.  Mine is that when you consider how often your fire detection and alarm system requires contractor's servicing, the starting point is the relevant British Standard.  It states that 6 monthly inspections are the recommended maximum period between inspections.  So I would consider it wise for higher risk premises to consider inspections more frequently, but lower ones to stick to the maximim interval.  But I can't see how the enforcing authority would endorse something more lax than the British Standard.  Risk Assessments should take account of British Standards.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I will advise any responsible person to have the fire alarm, emergency lighting and extinguishers tested and maintained in accordance with the British standard.

While it is not enforceable as such, they do set a benchmark.

I also appreciate that it is down to the responsible preson to manage risk and the genaral fire precautions, but part of the risk assessment should address the control, monitoring and review and I would be reluctant to accept that someone only has the fire alarm tested once per year for example. I would question if this is acceptable, particularly if the system conforms to the British Standard.

[Mike Buckley]

Surely the whole thing is a benchmark. If the RP has a system which conforms to the British Standard then that should be enough, everyone can go home and relax. If the RP has a system that does not conform to the British Standard then the onus must be on the RP to prove that the system is suitable and adequate, particularly if things go pearshaped.

At the end of the day if a fire spreads through a building and the RP is prosecuted, the defense can be that the fire doors were to British Standard and the RP had taken reasonably practical measures to prevent the spread of fire. If the doors were not to British Standard then the onus would have to be on the RP to prove that the alternative measures that had been taken were adequate which would be a much more difficult job.

[Chris Houston]

We should probably try and get things right before the fire.  

I know most of the people on here are mostly worried about what is legal and what is illegal, but some of us are paid to establish what is necessary to protect property and life and can make additional recommendations that are either less stringent or more stringent than the law requires.

[CivvyFSO]

I have explained to someone before now that they can choose to use different test procedures etc, but should something happen and someone comes to harm due to the failure of the system being tested, they will probably have to stand in court and explain why they think their system is better that the one designed by a certain Mr Todd and pals, who tend to have more letters after their name than the actual letters in their names.

Those people tend to happily adopt the BS test procedures.

Would another fair way of looking at it be: If you have had to install a part 1 alarm system, that includes the part 1 test procedure. As soon as you alter the test procedure it is technically not a part 1 system? (though you still probably meet the legislation by having a 'means of giving warning'?) How would you think someone stood on that if for instance a Part 1 L1 system was installed as a trade off for other deficiencies?

[jokar]

British Standarsd are recommendation only and cynics would say written by the industry for further advancement of the industry.  Also, the wording of Article 17 is quite clear, no records needed just "subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair".  The BS says very little on thes elines.

[Chris Houston]

Cynics might say such things.  Those who have a balanced view would say that British Standards are written by BSi, not by individuals or business.  British Standards are respected throughout the world.  

Perhaps a little more credit is due to those people who help draft and produce these standards.

[jokar]

Is that why PAS 79 isavailable on payment only?  Those of us who have sat on or sit on BSi committees have listened very carefully to carefully constructed arguments about how or why certain items are good for business.  The arguments for and against are guaranteed to sow doubts in the minds of the sane as to why in certain cases they should be included or excluded.  But, you are right numbers of us have given our time freely to ensure that their is a consistent standrad out there for people to consider and that is the appropriate word.  Balance is a term rightly left to the court in their definition of ALARP and that, in the eyes of the fire legislation in place at this moment in time, is solely with the RP, not enforcers, not British Standards and not consultants.  We all have our opinions and we all like to contribute but sometimes people attempt to direct others with their choice of words.