Stay Put Policy

[fuzzy]

Is it normal for a multistorey block of privately owned apartments to have a stay put policy? If so, are sounders required in the flats/common areas?

The reason I ask is that recently I've come across an 8 storey block of flats with a stay put policy. The basement, ground and 1st floor is a multi storey car park and has sounders in all the common areas, yet no sounders above that on the residential floors.

If it is normal not to have sounders in those areas, how does everyone know to stay put?

Thanks

[kurnal]

If they are safe  and can stay put then they dont need to hear the alarm that they are not going to respond to. Or something like that!

It is common to have a stay put policy and there will be a great deal of fire separation to ensure that a fire in the car park cannot affect the flats, and that the common areas are sterile and a fire will not occur there.

[CivvyFSO]

If it is normal not to have sounders in those areas, how does everyone know to stay put?

The answer is in there somewhere...

Imagine you are sat in your flat....
Now imagine that you don't hear a fire alarm...

Do you:

a) Stay where you are?
b) Go to investigate as to why you have not heard an alarm?
c) Evacuate?

[nearlythere]

If it is normal not to have sounders in those areas, how does everyone know to stay put?

The answer is in there somewhere...

Imagine you are sat in your flat....
Now imagine that you don't hear a fire alarm...

Do you:

a) Stay where you are?
b) Go to investigate as to why you have not heard an alarm?
c) Evacuate?

You would probably carry on as normal because you would not be aware that anything is going on.

[redbadge]

As a matter of interest, if you lived in one of these places how would you know whether there was a stay put policy or not? Should it be stated on the notices in the building?
What would you make of a notice which states that the assembly point is "as far away from the building as possible"?
Also, in residential blocks how often should the alarm be tested and should residents be made aware as to what it sounds like?

[CivvyFSO]

You would probably carry on as normal because you would not be aware that anything is going on.

Exactly. Just as intended.

[CivvyFSO]

As a matter of interest, if you lived in one of these places how would you know whether there was a stay put policy or not? Should it be stated on the notices in the building?
What would you make of a notice which states that the assembly point is "as far away from the building as possible"?
Also, in residential blocks how often should the alarm be tested and should residents be made aware as to what it sounds like?

You shouldn't need to know, as you should not need to take any action, even if the fire is next door to you.

There's nothing wrong with that assembly point in this circumstance. There is only a need for an assembly point when you are getting everyone together so you can account for everyone being out of the building. All you really need to know is that if you have a fire in your own flat, shut the door on your way out, and phone the fire service.

The fire alarm in the car park should be subject to a weekly test. Further testing at 3 monthly intervals, a detailed annual test. Departures from this can be made subject to a risk assessment.

If in a residential block you have a fire alarm in the common areas then that will probably be a part 1 system and as such should be subject to the same testing as the car park system. If you have detection in your flat it is likely to ba a part 6 system, for which the maintenance is really up to you. It is really there for your benefit, nobody elses.

[kurnal]

The fire alarm in the car park should be subject to a weekly test. Further testing at 3 monthly intervals, a detailed annual test. Departures from this can be made subject to a risk assessment.

The BS5839 part 1 2002 makes six monthly alarm tests the norm, to be increased to 3 monthly if  thought to be necessary by risk assessment

[fuzzy]

The answer is in there somewhere...

Imagine you are sat in your flat....
Now imagine that you don't hear a fire alarm...

Do you:

a) Stay where you are?
b) Go to investigate as to why you have not heard an alarm?
c) Evacuate?

The biggest concern of mine would be those in communal areas, ie: cleaners, maintenance, delivery people, etc. Imo, it is very possible that those people could be walking down a corridor towards a fire without any knowledge of it.

[Clevelandfire]

Fuzzy, unless the fire was in the common areas then it shouldn't affect them. Imagine each flat as a fire resisting box. The fire should be contained within each box and not affect the common areas.
In the real world poor fire stopping and the like means smoke may get out onto corridors etc, and if you were to audit a premises where you suspected that thet fire stopping wasn't very good then you may want AFD in the common areas for the reasons you suggest (protecting cleaners anyone else in common areas etc) .

[kurnal]

interesting news storey from London yesterday where 200 residents had tobe evacuated from a block of flats when fire started in the shop below- the BBC reported seriois daage to top floor and roof- anyone have any more details?

[alfi]

Hi all,

I'm a newbe on here and found this posting very interesting. I find the whole area of residentail confusing, what with HMO's etc, and not much guidance from RRO,

if you assessd a propetry as described, surely you wouldn't recommend something that wasn't neede under the od fire certificates,surely the car park areas would have come under a fire certificate, but the  residential wouldn't?, the common p-ars also come under HASAWA 1974, so there is a need to protect contractors, cleaners etc. But the flats don't.

Appreciate some commenst to expand this issue because its always a grey area.

sorry if i sound a bit thick

[AnthonyB]

I would recommend lots of things in lots of places that wasn't needed in fire certificates because they didn't always cover premises where good fire safety was essential because the FP Act didn't cover them & even with they did they often enshrined in stone inadequate or later to be proven flawed precautions.

Just because something has been regarded as OK for decades doesn't means it's right - lots of practice considered acceptable for many years has been proven flawed.

By covering almost all non domestic premises sometimes regardless of whether there are employees the RRO gives all relevant persons a fair level of safety, not just the chosen few.

However, it can present a challenge in situations where domestic & non domestic combine. You should require anything reasonably practicable in areas & situations that the law covers and recommend useful reasonable precautions where it doesn't (e.g. goodwill safety advice to flat dwellers)

[wee brian]

The biggest concern of mine would be those in communal areas, ie: cleaners, maintenance, delivery people, etc. Imo, it is very possible that those people could be walking down a corridor towards a fire without any knowledge of it.

The clue would be the hot orangey thing with smoke coming out of it.  Those of us in the trade call them fires!

When walking down a corridor towards a fire I may think "oh a fire!" and perhaps decide to leave.

I'm getting worried about the way this risk asessment lark is panning out.

[Midland Retty]

The biggest concern of mine would be those in communal areas, ie: cleaners, maintenance, delivery people, etc. Imo, it is very possible that those people could be walking down a corridor towards a fire without any knowledge of it.

The clue would be the hot orangey thing with smoke coming out of it.  Those of us in the trade call them fires!

When walking down a corridor towards a fire I may think "oh a fire!" and perhaps decide to leave.

I'm getting worried about the way this risk asessment lark is panning out.

Yeah tends to be a bit of a give a way doesnt it that orange stuff.