Prosecution / Notice served for non-action of UWFs action plan ??

[Harry11]

anyone have any experience of the above ?

TIA

[Midland Retty]

Never known this before although I understand an organisation can be preosecuted under the Fire and Rescue Services Act for various failings...

Perhaps its on the along the lines of "Wasting fire service resources" maybe (or something similar along those lines - woukld need to look at the act and see if there is any provision for that)

[messy]

Harry

All notices must refer to the Article to which the 'offence' relates. Any idea in this case as it may determine the rationale behind the decision??

Plus, is it definately an Enforcement Notice? (does it use that term?) as some fire services use another informal notice which looks similar but is not enforceable as it's a glorified memo

I am aware of a notice some years back (Workplace Regs) being issued to a massive serial UwFS culprit (a healthcare trust). It was deemed that, as the UwFS level was way above the limit/ratio as described in BS 5839 and Fire Code FPN 11 (as it was then), it was seen that the AFD system was not suitable + sufficient.

I argued the toss with that decision as I felt that the nature of the occupancy (mental health) was always likely to result in a higher level of UwFS than an average NHS premise, and the NHS trust had done much to improve the situation, but I was overruled by a particularly arrogant boss.

[Steven N]

I'd be interested to hear if any one has succesfully managed this. I would suggest that you need to be "creative" with some of the articles, 17 etc

[jokar]

The thing that annoys me most is that FSO's seem to want AFD everywhere nowadays, not just for life risk and I do accept that sometimes it is a good recommendation.  The other side is of course that this provision then brings about the system working properly.  If a dvice picks up smoke then it will actuate the system, whether that is burbt toast, poor cooking or any other reason.  Then the FRS say they will no longer attend because they do not want to attend false alarms.  The circle seems to be continual and whilst all efforts should be made to reduce false alarms, unwanted signals are often the system working correctly.

Can a FRS have it both ways?

[Dragonmaster]

The thing that annoys me most is that FSO's seem to want AFD everywhere nowadays, not just for life risk and I do accept that sometimes it is a good recommendation.  The other side is of course that this provision then brings about the system working properly.  If a dvice picks up smoke then it will actuate the system, whether that is burbt toast, poor cooking or any other reason.  Then the FRS say they will no longer attend because they do not want to attend false alarms.  The circle seems to be continual and whilst all efforts should be made to reduce false alarms, unwanted signals are often the system working correctly.

Can a FRS have it both ways?

The problem with UwFS is not so much that the system activates on detecting something that it recognises as a fire e.g. particles, but more often that the type and location of the heads is inappropriate. I've also lost count the number of times I've have to deal with a lack of control of contractors causing dust etc in an area ccovered by SD's or a failure to isolate for testing (both the user and 'competent' fire alarm engineers).

We have no problem in approapirate measures to detect a fire being installed, but the lack of awareness of how they work and what they detect is the problem. Surely it is down to the engineer and the RP to talk to each other (Article 22 perhaps?) and for the RP to control what is and isn't done on his/her premises.

It isn't that we have a problem per-se with AFD, but it causes risk to both public and our crews in emergency responses, loss of business continuity for the RP, and not least the cost comes out of our Council Tax, particularly where Retained crews are involved.

[Redone]

As an add on to this... forgeting the cause of the alarm for the moment, is it acceptable for staff in a care home to call the fire service when the alarm actuates before investigating?

[jokar]

BS 5839 is quite clear on this that an actuation of a device should be followed by a call to the FRS whether by ARC or 999/112.  Even when the ARC is installed the call shouldbe made.  However, managing the problem is the key and the training of staff is a must.  They must understand the FA system and what is expected from them.

[Ricardo]

As an add on to this... forgeting the cause of the alarm for the moment, is it acceptable for staff in a care home to call the fire service when the alarm actuates before investigating?

I agree with Jokar here, in such situations as res care, where the reliable and early summoning of the fire and rescue service is critical to the safety of life, especially at such times of the night when staffing levels may be low, automatic transmission of the fire alarm signal to an ARC is recommended and the need as part of the FRA for fire procedures to require manual summoning of the emergency services by a person on the premises without delay.

[AFD]

The main reasons for UWfs ( and why a FRS would issue a notice ) is because the system has not been designed, maintained or is not mananged correctly.   With all of these in place UWfs would be at an acceptable level. BS5839 pt 1 and the new HTM ( forgotten the number !) Both give advice and solutions to stop UWfs and they work.

On the subject of enforcement notices, I have seen many 'notices' from all around the country which state ;  the following 'requirements' and 'must be completed by the following date' when pushed the officers will state they are 'notices of deficiencies' or ''educate and inform ' letters .  It may be because of my age and FP act beginnings but as I understand it,  if it states 'requirements' and 'must be completed by the following date' that is an enforcement notice.

I have seen enforcement notices telling a person to carry out a suitable and suffcient FRA and then telling them on the same notice to provide additional passive protection and it is a requirement and must be done, when questioning this with the inspector concerned he insisted it must be done and would not accept that if the 'suitable and suuficient FRA' was carried out it may have the option of  suppression and another 25 staff,  so the additional passive protection might not be needed, he did not agree, so from that we don't actually need the FRA then do we ? (flippant comment don't reply)

With regards to UWFS policies, the CFOA guidance always stated that life risks such as resi care would have attendances made to them. Now many brigades are sending after 1 false alarm ( not UWFS ) and it may be the first in 3 years, letters to resi care telling them to investigate first before calling the FRS.  

So at a time when we are supposed to evacuate a sub compartment in 2.5 mins. (which some FRS are stating on their varied notices) we must at 3. O'clock in the morning when staffing is at minimum, send a 55 years old care assistant into a roof void to see if the remote indicator or panel is telling fibs.    

My advice to staff is unless it is 100% obvious that it is n UWfs ( i.e. you saw the detector show after someone propped a kitchen door open and the toaster was on) you should always err on the side of safety and call the FRS, let them make the decision not to attend, and if a disaster happens let them justify it.  As I stated at the beginning of my little rant, with correct systems and managemnt there will not be a problem so we should have them, but do not ignore all automatic signals because it suits the chief fire officers statistics.

[Ricardo]

On the subject of enforcement notices, I have seen many 'notices' from all around the country which state ;  the following 'requirements' and 'must be completed by the following date' when pushed the officers will state they are 'notices of deficiencies' or ''educate and inform ' letters .  It may be because of my age and FP act beginnings but as I understand it,  if it states 'requirements' and 'must be completed by the following date' that is an enforcement notice.

I have seen enforcement notices telling a person to carry out a suitable and suffcient FRA and then telling them on the same notice to provide additional passive protection and it is a requirement and must be done, when questioning this with the inspector concerned he insisted it must be done and would not accept that if the 'suitable and suuficient FRA' was carried out it may have the option of  suppression and another 25 staff,  so the additional passive protection might not be needed, he did not agree, so from that we don't actually need the FRA then do we ? (flippant comment don't reply)

.

sorry to come off the subject for a tick, but I concur with your comments AFD, I too have recently seen a letter that someone has shown me following their receipt of it from the enforcing FA, not an enforcement notice but a deficiencies notice requesting an action plan to be followed,which actually says in one sentence " It is a requirement of the guide" to implement a particular improvement, now what on earth does that mean to any sane person, they haven't even been given an opportunity to carry out a FRA, the person who showed it to me got advice from a recently retired FSO, who said the letter has just been worded like the old notice of requirements under section 8(4) of the 71 Act. Concensus re this is that some fire safety officers can't grasp this risk assesment business.

[Redone]

BS 5839 is quite clear on this that an actuation of a device should be followed by a call to the FRS whether by ARC or 999/112.  Even when the ARC is installed the call shouldbe made.  However, managing the problem is the key and the training of staff is a must.  They must understand the FA system and what is expected from them.

My old brigade have removed the ARC facility, after a number of UWFS (caused by ill resident), told them to investigate first, guess what, the home had a fire during the night.  Thankfully, no one was hurt.  All MCP's covered now, still won't accept ARC link.

[jokar]

Perhaps the next fire will kill someone and then as in the Newquay fire the Brigade will have fault found with them..  I still struggle with uwfs as many Brigades apply a system of 2 strikes and out but the guidnace in BS5839 is far higher.

[lambie]

In Res Care at night if the alarm sounds and the night staff have been told the FRS do not like being called out because it might be a false alarm believe me the hesitation could be fatal. Just as too, the training of staff must have an element of strengthening the belief that if they (the staff) react positively the professionals will also respond to the call positively. It is always the negative stories that get believed and there is a myth that a couple of strkes and your out prevails.

[Steven N]

As an add on to this... forgeting the cause of the alarm for the moment, is it acceptable for staff in a care home to call the fire service when the alarm actuates before investigating?

Yes it would be definitely acceptable. My Brigade have exempted certian premises including resi care from any form of call challenge & still attend every call from these premises.
Away from resi care many of the false alarms are down to poor management:
Builders not managed correctly when working
Forgetting to tell the arc when carrying out a weekly test
Alarm engineers not putting the system offline whilst working on it
Get the management right & loads more UWFs will disapear.