New take on an Old story. Fire extinguishers in flats.

[Davo]

nearly there
Trying to interpret this

a) 5(2) duties under this order
where the premises are not a workplace, the RP must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regs made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements rlate to matters within his control

b) RP 3(b)
the owner or person in control of the premises in connection with the carrying on by him of a trade, business or other undertaking -is being a landlord an 'undertaking'?

c) relevant persons -any person lawfully on the premises

d) Application 6 (2) includes domestic premises other than a single private dwelling


Discus


Davo

As the prof says, training is not a requirement.

[nearlythere]

"Duties under this order

(2) Where the premises are not a workplace, the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control"

"Training

21. -(1) The responsible person must ensure that his employees are provided with adequate safety training

(a) at the time when they are first employed......"

Regulatory Reform Order 2005(6)

My apologies nearly there that wasn't so much aimed at yourself it was a reasonable request it was more for the flippant Clevelandfire.
We can all be flippant, takes but a second.

As i went on to mention i think the writer has mis interpreted this section of the article however and i think it is safe to disregard it.

The insruance arguement, however,  in my opinion would still seem to hold and does present an interesting conflict between insurers and risk assessors.

Article 21 Training refers to employees and not residents.

Article 13 - Fire-fighting and fire detection uses phrases like "where neccessary" and "to the extent that it is appropriate". This does not mean a requirement. It even allows for the disregarding of fire-fighting completely where it is not neccessary.
It could even be argued that the measures for firefighting in paragraph 3 is a telephone and suitable instructions or procedure for calling the Fire & Rescue Service. Again this is "where neccessary".

Might I suggest that if the legislation required fire-fighting to be provided they would specifically say so like "The premises shall be equipped with Fire-fighting equipment appropriate for the risk."

The insurance aspect, according to your opinion, suggests that the insurance companies may find it more economical to compensate a widow or widower than replace a building.

[davidandrewsuk]

Article 21 Training refers to employees and not residents.

The insurance aspect, according to your opinion, suggests that the insurance companies may find it more economical to compensate a widow or widower than replace a building.

I assume you mean that it may cost less to pay off a widow(er) than pay off the cost of the building. Maybe? I wouldn't know. And knowing insurance companies I wouldn't put it past them if that was the case and they thought they could get away with it. However I dont suggest that and believe that to be a cynical line of reasoning my quandry deals mainly with the below.

This is how I see it.

   An insurance company, quite rightly, has a vested interest in the building remaining standing and is lawfully aloud to make provisions in  
   there contract with the insuree that they take "reasonable" precautions to prevent this.

   We are putting forward that should the tinyiest fire of ANY kind start, leave it, sound the alarm, get out.
   That fire will cause damage. That is a fact.

   Now i would ask that with the statistic that 4 in 5 fires are put out in the first instance by a fire extinguisher is it reasonable for the Insurance  
  Company to require their presecence should anyone WANT to attempt extinguishing the flame.

   By insisting on there provision would that perhap make them liable?

I think i'll leave you with this thought,  I think this is an interesting topic to continue but not for me anymore im moving on!

Thank you for all your comments I did find them very interesting and certainly illuminated more about the topic.

Until the next one

[kurnal]

Aw cmon David this was just starting to get interesting.

You need more staying power than this old chap!

I think that the insurance company is probably wrong in this case and should justify the logic.

Yes all fires start small and 80% of small fires are dealt with using extinguishers without calling the brigade.

But fires grow rapidly and can soon grow beyond the capability of first aid fire fighting equipment.

You have to catch them in their earliest stages to tackle them safely.

But in most blocks of flats the common areas do not have smoke detectors or fire alarms. So in this case if a fire occurred in the common areas it is unlikely to be discovered in its early stages.

The Insurance companies best intersts- and those of the residents- would be best met by focussing their efforts on keeping the common areas sterile and free of fire risk. Prevention is much better than cure.

[Psuedonym]

Surley if the correct kit - i.e. fit for purpose, is installed within the flats, then assuming most fires are within the kitchen, the resident would be present within the flat and able (if they feel confident enough) to tackle it or too exit and raise the alarm. That being said, how many OAPs know how to use an MCP?
(They could use the fire extinguisher to break the glass - not being aware of non glass MCPs!!)
Then would they go back in there flat to collect Tiddles and the Pension Book or not go back to their flat and evacuate as is the best practice nor panic other residents with the alarm screaming?
We go off on tangents with these posts yet ignore the basics at times.

[Big T]

Flats and maisonettes are statistically less likely to catch fire than any other type of dwelling, fact, so why is everybody so worried about the extinguishers? No-one has them in their house (apart from a sensible few). And houses are more likely to catch fire

If the building you are descibing Psuedonym is sheltered, then there is a requirement to have AFD and extinguishers, but the post is about Flats where there is no requirement.

[Midland Retty]

Surley if the correct kit - i.e. fit for purpose, is installed within the flats, then assuming most fires are within the kitchen, the resident would be present within the flat and able (if they feel confident enough) to tackle it or too exit and raise the alarm. That being said, how many OAPs know how to use an MCP?
(They could use the fire extinguisher to break the glass - not being aware of non glass MCPs!!)
Then would they go back in there flat to collect Tiddles and the Pension Book or not go back to their flat and evacuate as is the best practice nor panic other residents with the alarm screaming?
We go off on tangents with these posts yet ignore the basics at times.

Ahhh yes but we are talking about extinguishers in common areas not actually in individual flats themselves.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread a resident is perfectly within their rights to buy a fire extinguisher for their won flat if they so wish, rather like if I went and bought one for my own home.

But if the landlord provided them in the common areas and a resident were to use one and was injured or worse who would be blamed? The landlord.

Alot can happen from the time it takes for a resident to realise their kitchen is on fire, leaving their flat to search for an extinguisher and then returning to the flat to tackle the fire.

Anyone recall the infamous "flashover video" where it took just two and half minutes from the fire starting for flashover to occur.

You can say what you like, you can argue that buildings should be saved wherever possible, but for my money buildings can be replaced, human beings can not.

[davidandrewsuk]

I almost hesitate to bump this up but I couldnt see that any new info had been posted on it.

I thought people would be interested to see the outcome?

http://www.means-of-escape.com/press-releases/press59.aspx

If the links not allowed (not sure?) then basically they repealed the decision and Kidde so nicely im sure gave extinguishers to all the private apartments.

Dunno about training though !!!

[terry martin]

All this issue was recently talked about here,

http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=3205

you may find the comments useful

[AnthonyB]

Kidde may have done a PR stunt by giving the residents freebies, but from the photo it looks like UK Fire supplied the ones for the common areas from their economy range by Eversafe of Malaysia

[Big T]

I still think this was a huge climb down from the CFOA to almost force a repeal of the requirements of a FRA, especially a FRA that had full support from the Local fire and rescue authority. Just a load of political hoopla if you ask me. BS5588 pt 1 fully supports the decision to remove the extinguishers.

I think it is a shame that the assessor based the removal of the extinguishers by citing a H and S requirement to have the residents trained.

The real reason they should have been removed is that the communal areas are sterile with no risk (aside from imported arson risk) and that BS5588pt 1 states that they are not required where vandalism is likely. In my opinion it would be reasoble to remove them for this reason after 1 insident of malicious missuse of any extinguisher in the block. In addition to this (statistically, not through prejudism) blocks with any form of social element are more likely to have vandalism than a normal usage.