Unstaffed Sleeping Accommodation

[Dragonmaster]

I've just come across an interesting topic that i'm sure you guys can assist with.

When dealing with sleeping accommodation where there are no staff present overnight e.g. bail hostels, travel Lodge type hotels, YHA's and so forth, how do you deal with RR(FS)O compliance with Article 15 (1) (b) 'nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from the premises' and Article 4 (1) (a) and (f) (ii) (and as a consequence Article - i.e. reducing the risk of fire and its spread and mitigating the effects of a fire.

The discussion has arisen following an application to open a bail hostel, for which we have yet to receive a suitable and sufficient FRA and emergency plan. It would be helpful if both FRS and fire risk assessors could contribute based upon other similar premises in their areas or those for which you have carried out the FRA.

Not wishing to use the old 6" tar brush, but the type of people using bail hostels may not be the most reliable when a fire occurs.

In particular we have concerns over identifying whether the premises have been evacuated at 0200 in the morning and identifying how many people are currently in residence.

[kurnal]

Lodge type hotels - for hotel style buildings- ie 30mins fire separation between rooms and corridors and none between rooms,  I cant come to terms with the idea of no competent person present and would not try to justify it- would rather walk away from the job.

Some of these places use modular bathrooms that have naff all fire separation between rooms and even use the same construction of the bathroom pod to create a "protected" shaft running through all floors. And they get passed by building inspectors.

I would only feel easy about any of these situations if the building was constructed to allow a stay put policy.

[nearlythere]

Lodge type hotels - for hotel style buildings- ie 30mins fire separation between rooms and corridors and none between rooms,  I cant come to terms with the idea of no competent person present and would not try to justify it- would rather walk away from the job.

Some of these places use modular bathrooms that have naff all fire separation between rooms and even use the same construction of the bathroom pod to create a "protected" shaft running through all floors. And they get passed by building inspectors.

I would only feel easy about any of these situations if the building was constructed to allow a stay put policy.

Thought I would develope your comment Kurnal when you said that you "would rather walk away from it".
Surely when you carry out a risk asessment you will offer your client the best advise in order to ensure that the means of escape and general fire precautions are brought up a standard, if neccessary, acceptable to the Enforcement Authority. I would not have expected a Risk Assessor to try to justify a RPs reluctance to spend money to provide this.
A risk assessment will contain the control measures neccessary and it is up to the RP to impliment it. If he does not then that is between him/her and the EA. As long as the RA identified the significant findings and offers a resolution then you can walk away happy in the knowledge that you did your bit properly.
If you offer advice that there should be a competant person in the premises during the time it is occupied by the public then it is up to the RP to impliment that.  If he/she doesn't thats their problem.

[wee brian]

If only we were all like you NT - what a beutiful world it would be! Like Kurnal I've come across clients who's money I don't want.

As for no staf - It's OK for a block of flats - If the building is right then what's the problem???

[nearlythere]

If only we were all like you NT - what a beutiful world it would be! Like Kurnal I've come across clients who's money I don't want.

As for no staf - It's OK for a block of flats - If the building is right then what's the problem???

Can I ask, in your cases, did the client ask you to provide a risk assessment in general or one based on his idea of how things should be?
The only reason I can see a need to walk away is because of the latter.

On your second point I would have thought that a fire action strategy in a public building would involve an element of situation management by trained staff.

[wee brian]

Clients want lots of things - what they dont want is a hefty bill for additional staff/kit.

Trained staff are only necessary if they are - necessary.

[Midland Retty]

Couple of things to consider here.

Firstly bail hostels now come under Crown Premises again, so find out if you can enforce before doing anything else (we started inspecting a bail hostel before xmas before we were told to back well off by the Crown Premises Inspection Group) Not sure how new applications work.

Secondly it may not be suitable to allow residents to be left unsupervised. The residents should firstly be risk assessed (if they have a history of commiting arson then the bail organisation needs to think about sending them to a 24 hour staffed hostel.

I'd want an L1 system in place, residents should be told what to do in the event of fire on induction to the hostel.There should be fire resisting bedding and curtains, all furniture crib source 5,  monitored access, possibly cctv in common parts to act as a deterrent.