Fixed penalties for fire safety contraventions!?

[wee brian]

Its horses for courses.

If everything is in order, the procedures and paperwork are all there. But on the day you visit some bright spark has blocked an exit with a delivery, then hit him with a FPN.

If you find that the whole place is in a right old 2&8 then something more abrasive may be appropriate.

[nearlythere]

Well you can only have one bite at the cherry and issue one penalty ticket at a time, but if there is no risk assessment thats the first and obvious point at the top of the hierarchy of issuing FPNs.

If there is one even if its crap the RP has a risk assessment so we will go down the hierarchy. FPNs are not the tool to question the adequacy of the risk assessment for the reasons you point out.

Eventually you will come to lack of signs. If you find a wedged fire door without an S1 or a fire exit door say with a PB it is not in common use  so the need for a sign is balck and white.

The risk assessment will record the arrangements for escape lighting. So if its mentioned in the risk assessment and it doesnt work its a clear breach of article 17. Isnt it?

How would it be mentioned in a risk assessment? By each and every unit? Where it is? Why it is there? Does it have to be there? Is it there as a safety light, an emergency escape light or a security light?

Or would it be adequate for the RA to state that an emergency lighting system to BS5266 Pt1 2005 is installed?.

[kurnal]

It would have to be escape lighting  for a FPN  I reckon.

 I would have thought the minimum description of a system in any  competent risk assessment is a statement to decribe the system ie BS5266 part 1 2004, maintained or non maintained, self contained, invertor or central battery system, the duration of the system, any significant variations, the  areas covered if part of the building, whether it is correctly wired to work on sub circuit failure, the system for maintenance and testing,and the date of the last inspection and test.

[nearlythere]

It would have to be escape lighting  for a FPN  I reckon.

 I would have thought the minimum description of a system in any  competent risk assessment is a statement to decribe the system ie BS5266 part 1 2004, maintained or non maintained, self contained, invertor or central battery system, the duration of the system, any significant variations, the  areas covered if part of the building, whether it is correctly wired to work on sub circuit failure, the system for maintenance and testing,and the date of the last inspection and test.

The BS gives cognisance to the borrowed light principle and as such if a light in a particular area is defective, but borrowed light is present, it does not mean that the system fails to meet the code.

[Tom Sutton]

Bear in mind how most fixed penalties work:

You have been caught, here are your options:

a) Pay £x
b) See you in court for a prosecution.

If you have to see them in court then the FPN has not worked. My understanding of a FPN is they are very difficult to appeal against which reduces the courts time. If they are easily appealled then they are of no use.

[nearlythere]

Bear in mind how most fixed penalties work:

You have been caught, here are your options:

a) Pay £x
b) See you in court for a prosecution.

If you have to see them in court then the FPN has not worked. My understanding of a FPN is they are very difficult to appeal against which reduces the courts time. If they are easily appealled then they are of no use.

Don't agree with your view on this one at all TW. What with the level of competancy of some IOs it would be tantamount to a breach of a person's human rights to be placed in such a position. To make a system difficult to appeal just to reduce court's time is itself criminal. I certainly believe that an appeal system must be available but through a body that would known what it is talking about.

[kurnal]

The BS gives cognisance to the borrowed light principle and as such if a light in a particular area is defective, but borrowed light is present, it does not mean that the system fails to meet the code.

There will always be situations where there is doubt as to whether an offence has been committed or not and these are the ones where the FPN would not be suitable. But should we dismiss the idea just because in some cases it could be inappropriate? I do think there are many situations in which it would be an invaluable tool which would quickly spread the message and drive down risk.  Take christmas shop inspections for example- weve all seen it so many times - blocked exits, stock in staircases. Issue an FPN, watch them make it safe and come back tomorrow to see if the lessons been learned.

Theres lots of similar FPNs in use- litter dropping, dog fouling, riding a bike on a footpath, drinking in the street, speeding, parking - all have some grey areas and where there is doubt they let the court decide. Its all about the application of common sense by the enforcer.

[Tom Sutton]

nearlythere I am not for a moment suggesting that appeals should be made more difficult were FPN are concerned they are extremely easy to appeal, you simple do not pay and fight your case in the courts. What I am trying to say is if you are going to use FPN's the offence has to be clear cut if there is reasonable doubt you should not use them.

Kurnal's last paragraph on submission 22 all the offences he mentioned are in my opinion clear cut, you are committing an offence or not, the only defence you have is on technical grounds or the lack of evidence.

Mind you I believe this discussion is only an academic exercise, if you read the GUIDE TO THE REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS BILL at http://bre.berr.gov.uk/regulation/documents/enforce_sanct/res_bill_guide_3.5_071122.pdf there is no way the LBRO will sanction the RBS the facility to issue FPN's.

[Mike Buckley]

FPNs are fine but I heard a tale from Glasgow where the traffic wardens were putting parking notices on a car that was parked on double yellows every day. At the end of each month the fines were paid. It wasn't until thi had been going on for several months that the wardens realised that the fines were less than the cost of parking all day in the local car parks!

The FPN idea is OK but the costs must be relative.

As an aside all people on this topic are getting hot under the collar about the FPNs. Have a good look at part 1 of this bill it is a bomb.