Fire Behaviour

[Midland Retty]

I have read this thread with intrest and admitedly have had to bite my lip on occassion.

Let me first of all explain a few things to you.

Firstly Im happy to accept their are still code hugging dinosaurs out there. No argument whatsoever.

Its rather like what I always say - there are good and bad FSOs just as much as there are good and bad Fire Risk Assessors and consultants.

To suggest however Novascot the lack of training an FSO receives is poor is a bit of a sweeping statement. How many FSOs have you dealt with ? and from how many brigades?

We have to be careful here and recognise a few things:-

a) At the nicey nicey stage of enforcement the FSO will offer a proposed or preferrred solution to any deficiences found during an audit- we do work to the guides and British standards a lot because its a benchmark ( a line in the sand), however offer a suitable alternative and we will look at it. If it achieves the same goal then great. But it is not for us as FSOs to offer you page after page of possible solutions

b) A FSO can become prescriptive at the enforcment notice stage if the RP has failed to agree a suitable action plan or suggested a suitable alternative. Again if the RP doesnt want to talk to us or contest it we have to draw the line somewhere - we cant just leave a deficiency  as it is. SO there is a mechanism whereby a FSO can "call time and "say either take us on for an interpretation or address your failings"

c) RPs, FR Assessors and consultants are all entitled to contest anything at anytime and even go above the FSO's head to the FSO's line manager should they be concerned about the competence or proffesionalism of that officer.

d) Just out of intrest and I mean this with no mallice and promise it is not a barbed question - could I ask Novascot and Kurnal to tell me what they would recommend in terms of a new fire alarm installation for a client who owns a three storey hotel with 50 bedrooms ? Could CivvyFSO please do the same as well.

Novascot and co it appears you have had bad experiences with certain FSOs and thats fair enough. What I would ask you to do is keep an open mind about we inspectors, just as you want inspectors to keep an open mind about accepting different standards.

Standards and benchmarks are there for a reason - Im always happy to deviate, or come well away from those standards so long as you can justify the reasoning for doing so.

As Kurnal points out its you who will be standing in front of a jUdge having to explain yourselves - that is not a pleasant experience and evokes the most sobering thoughts!

[kurnal]

Hi Midland

The benchmark for your hotel ( is it one I look after perchance) would be BS5839 part 1 2002 system category L2. This may go up  to L1 or down a little depending on other factors- character, nature, methods of construction, undesirable/ desirable  structural features, nature of clients, travel distances, sprinklers, engineered solutions etc. Standards of management may influence an upgrade but never a downgrade. The key advice is to employ a competent designer and installer. One who is familar with the BS. They are few and far between in some areas.

[novascot]

Midland Retty

Why do you feel you had to bite your lip? This is a discussion forum. No lips need be bitten.

I agree with most of what you say but you are not grasping the thorn in the arguement. It isn't so much about people like you. It is about FSO's who are not like you. You ask how many I have dealt with? Too many and each discussion (not all) becomes a training session. I shouldn't be having to give insights into The Principles of Fire Safety, you would expect FSO's to be well grounded in that.

Regards the Hotel. Without seeing it or plans I would suggest L1/M although the Guide says L2. So you see Retty it isn't all about "lowering" standards. I would be expected to justify the upgrade no doubt.

It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.

[Clevelandfire]

It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.

I dont think so. Ownership and responsibility of fire safety is down to the RP not the fire authority. The fire officer will answer questions in a courtroom but it wont be him or her on trial. It will be more about his or her professional judgement.He or she isnt going to be justifying your fire precautions unless they came across a sunstandard property and did nothing about it. Even then its still down to the RP to have ensured suitable and sufficient fire precautions were installed. If youre the person who did the risk assessment for the RP you too will be in the dock answering some very frank questions.And make no mistake you will be picked to bits.It will be looked at in infiticimal detail. Not to say you were wrong you may have a good defence and done everything right, in which case fine. But it won't be the fire officer up infront of the judge other than to give evidence against the defence and possibly to talk about any requirements they made which according to you would be over the top anyway. So the fire officer could not be seen in any bad light according to your argument because s/he has actually gone over the above the accepted standard. Have you ever been in a court room situation? To me you are trying to have your cake and eat it you say fire officers are all bad then say its down to them if it all goes wrong.  Arent you taking this a bit too personal novascott. As you say its a discussion forum and everyone can contribute

Retty you didnt ask me but I would require probably an L2 but without seeing it obviously may change my mind a little though unless sprinklers are involved i dont see how anything less than L2 would do.

[novascot]

Cleveland,
I suggest you re-read my previous comments. I at no time said all FSOs were bad. Why do you think I am taking this personally?
What could have prompted that statement? I think you are taking the general critisism to heart. Possibly your professional pride and feel aggrieved for your fellow FSOs? I am stating facts as I have expereinced these situations. I can give loads of examples but won't bore you with them.

Yes, I have been in Court. If you think you will not be asked searching questions by the RP's solicitor you are mistaken. Fire Safety is not an exact science and it will come down to the Courts interpretation of the Law. Professional judgement and experience will of course be taken into consideration.
 Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.

The definition of suitable and sufficient is different in each case and the Court will decide what is or is not suitable and sufficient after hearing the evidence and opinions of all concerned. I suggest you read the Strategic Enforcement Guidance document.

In any case shouldn't disagreements go to arbitration long before going to Court? They do in Scotland with The HMI the third party. Good luck and best wishes to all FSOs.

[CivvyFSO]

I have read this thread with intrest and admitedly have had to bite my lip on occassion.

As Novascot said, don't bite your tongue Mr Retty. I often feel we are outnumbered here, but "lively discussion" is what makes this forum interesting. It also raises issues that are important, and often overlooked. I am sure that even though some of the consultants here do not agree with our take on things, and our principles, they still like to know them. After all, they are often classed as the mediator between us and the RP. They want to keep us off the RP's back, and to do that efficiently they need to know how we work.

d) Just out of intrest and I mean this with no mallice and promise it is not a barbed question - could I ask Novascot and Kurnal to tell me what they would recommend in terms of a new fire alarm installation for a client who owns a three storey hotel with 50 bedrooms ? Could CivvyFSO please do the same as well.

A fairly simple one, with staircases and rooms/floors protected as they should be, an L2 as available guidance would suggest. Anything less than the standards suggested in ADB/CLG guides would have to be assessed on its own merit. If it takes sprinklers or smoke control to make the premises safe, then sprinklers/smoke control it is. I am here to ensure it is safe for your granny/parents/kids/anyone to stay in. I am NOT paid to make excuses and to save the client money. I would also consider any solutions offerred, and try to assess if it meets the requirements of the legislation.

It won't just be the Fire Safety Consultant in Court explaining his thought process it will be you and people like you who will be asked to justify your requirements.

Are we talking about court here as in an appeal, or court as in coroners court? I will happily go to court to defend a decision I have made that was appealed. If I ever have to justify my requirements to the coroner I hope I have a better excuse than "I thought it would be ok".

[Tom Sutton]

Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.

You sound like Colin Todd in the seventies of course there will be some Fire Safety Consultants better then some FSO's, likewise there will be some FSO's better than Fire Safety Consultants. In fact there is a large number of Fire Safety Consultants who were FSO's in a former life.

[novascot]

Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.

You sound like Colin Todd in the seventies of course there will be some Fire Safety Consultants better then some FSO's, likewise there will be some FSO's better than Fire Safety Consultants. In fact there is a large number of Fire Safety Consultants who were FSO's in a former life.

Only a similarity in accent would make me sound like Colin.
All your points are correct and everything is subjective. As you say there are good and bad Cosultants and FSO's. Yes I did wear the uniform for many years so I know all about bluff and persuasion.

The original point made was that there are too many FSO's and F&RS who cling to the Guides as a pancea for their lack of judgement. After all, Fire Risk Assessment is all about judgement. We have all sat in a room full of FSO's and given the same premises to discuss and you will have innumerable ideas as to, how to make this a safe/safer building. It does not mean that some are right and some are wrong. Only different ways of going aboput it.

The respondents to this are from FSO's who assure us that this does not happen when in reality it happens too often. Consultants meet more FSO's in a month than FSO's do so I think we are in a position to know what is generally happening.

For those FSO's who are not like that, power to you and I hope you all get promoted to greater things within the Fire Safety Department and make sure this prescriptive attitude changes.

[Tom Sutton]

Sorry it just seems like open season on FSO's. But if as you say this does happens far too often, then do you progress it to their line managers and do they have the same attitude, also is this common thorough the UK. If this is the situation then some FRS's need to address how they run and train their fire safety departments.

[Clevelandfire]

Cleveland,
I suggest you re-read my previous comments. I at no time said all FSOs were bad. Why do you think I am taking this personally?
What could have prompted that statement? I think you are taking the general critisism to heart. Possibly your professional pride and feel aggrieved for your fellow FSOs? I am stating facts as I have expereinced these situations. I can give loads of examples but won't bore you with them.

Yes, I have been in Court. If you think you will not be asked searching questions by the RP's solicitor you are mistaken. Fire Safety is not an exact science and it will come down to the Courts interpretation of the Law. Professional judgement and experience will of course be taken into consideration.
 Remember this. Many Fire Safety Consultants will have more experience and background knowledge than a good few FSO's. Remember that the wearing of a uniform does not automatically make you right.

The definition of suitable and sufficient is different in each case and the Court will decide what is or is not suitable and sufficient after hearing the evidence and opinions of all concerned. I suggest you read the Strategic Enforcement Guidance document.

In any case shouldn't disagreements go to arbitration long before going to Court? They do in Scotland with The HMI the third party. Good luck and best wishes to all FSOs.

Firstly as Tw Sutton said it just seem like open season of FSOs and I just felt you seemed to be very irritated when anyone challenged you about your comments. Then again I suppose it is hard to determine the tone that things are meant in when you arent speaking to them face to face. I have to disagree with you on the court issue. Who do you think is going to be under the spotlight following a fire where fatalities occured? It wont be the fire officer, and I say again (and admitedly im not familiar with scottish law) but in england and wales the RP would have to make sure he or she had his answers ready. Even if a fire officer had recently inspected those premises a week prior to the fire and said all was satisfactory makes no difference because the fire service normally tells the RP theyre coming to do an inspection. They normally give fair warning, so our friend the RP could go round making sure everything was fine, could write in all of his testing documents to say they were testing the alarm, could unprop all their fire doors, jump online download a fire risk assessment template with lots of lovely tick boxes and fill them out without any real understanding what they were doing. The fire officer might not be able to find evidence of the fire alarm being tested annually. How do we know that alarm wont fail? thats all the wiring is in good nick? what if the fact it hasnt been maintained causes a failure which contributed to a fatal fire. The fire officer wouldnt close the place down for that because its unreasonable .  So an audit is just a snap shot of those premises on the day. Magistrates know that, crown court judges dont necessarily know that but dont you worry the prosecution will make that crystal clear.Suprise suprise our brigade are picking up on a lot more now unannounced inspections take place. So yes ive been to court, ive been asked questions by defence solicitors, who normally know little about fire safety and get made to look a bit silly. The fire officer is not the responsible person. So i have to take issue with your point because you are talking more about determinations. If the guides can be strayed from whats the point of having them? You either provide something which is of a similar standard or you dont. Its that black and white. One last point is that now brigades are taking more prosecutions they are all undertaking alot of further professional training, both legal and fire safety. So i think you will see a big transformation eventually in your part of the world. Thing is will you have the training to match i wonder? Will you be able to keep as up to date? Must be hard being a consultant particularly self employed ones, time is money, courses cost money? do they take investigative training? do they do evidence gathering? do they have as much experience in court?. Dont ever be mistaken if you think the fire officers might have to answer some frank questions then you just watch an RP being questioned! Judges are throwing books at unsafe so and

[kurnal]

If the guides can be strayed from whats the point of having them? You either provide something which is of a similar standard or you dont. Its that black and white.

No I disagree. The guides are a benchmark to work from and point us towards the standard to aim for. ALARP may be something way outside that standard, especially in historic buildings.

[novascot]

Cleveland,
so many questions. This is getting a bit tedious now. All I have done in these posts is to highlight problems faced on a daily basis when talking to FSO's. Your comment highlighted by kurnel is an example. Regarding Court appearances. I was not talking about fatal enquiries I was talking about the disputes procedure where you will be asked to give reasons for your requirements if they are challenged on the grounds of not being "reasonably practical. For a definition of that phrase, see Edwards V NCB (1949) 1 ALL ER 743.
Here are some passages from The Strategic Enforcement Guidance. This will maybe explain better than I  what is expected of FSO's:

21. Fire and Rescue Authorities should minimise the cost of compliance for business and other dutyholders by ensuring that any action taken, or advice offered, is proportionate to the risk.  As far as the law allows, account should be taken of the circumstances of the case and attitude of the people involved when considering action.  Authorities should work with all dutyholders so that they can meet their legal obligations without unnecessary expense and clearly distinguish between statutory requirements and guidance about what may be desirable as good practice but not compulsory to meet the legal requirements.

26. The guides include benchmarks and enforcement officers should take these into account when making decisions about compliance issues, but these benchmarks are neither minimum nor recommended standards and should not be considered as such.

27.  It is not appropriate for an enforcement officer to provide a prescriptive solution as the sole means of addressing deficiencies.

I hope this has helped your understanding of your requirements.

I know you were being generic when asking what training Consultants take and any good consultant will keep up to speed by attending courses and showing professional integrity regarding all things FS.
If they are registered by a third party, they have to show progress of Professional Developement.

I suggest the comments made have been taken as critisism of every FSO in the land. This was never intended. They were actual experiences and I wanted to highlight the lack of knowledge in some FSO's. A lack of knowledge sometimes means a lack of training. I didn't mean to stir the hornets nest.

If critisism is deserved it will continue to be made.

[Clevelandfire]

Novascot I am most familiar about the S/E/G and I did mention that fire officers would be under the spotlight  when going for a determination. I was talking about serious case risk to persons where judge and jury need to hear that any deviances could be justified, thats when the mess hits the fan and things are looked at in infiticimal detail. I accept you werent talking about all FSOs but it did seem that way and you need to be aware that public see these forums, and youre painting all FSOs in  bad light in the way you spoke. That makes our job harder and simply isn't true. As for the FSO's you have had problems with then I would stongly suggest speaking to their supervisory officers or higher level still and voicing you concerns to get something done about it.  

Kurnal to challenge you there I still take issue that standards are black and white - else why have them?. Why for instance did you suggest an L2 to BS 5839 in the hotel ? Of course straying from the guides and standards is acceptable but you still have to prove they do not make the scenario any worse than if you employed an accepted standard. And this is the point Im making. If you installed an non BS 5839 compliant system what would it be?

[kurnal]

Kurnal to challenge you there I still take issue that standards are black and white - else why have them?. Why for instance did you suggest an L2 to BS 5839 in the hotel ? Of course straying from the guides and standards is acceptable but you still have to prove they do not make the scenario any worse than if you employed an accepted standard. And this is the point Im making. If you installed an non BS 5839 compliant system what would it be?

No Cleveland of course I would recommend an L2 for the hotel as the benchmark and I was then clear in my response to that posting  to qualify that by indicating  when I may increase the standard to L1 or maybe back it down to L3 in some cases. That is the risk assessment bit.
Hey i thought you were retired from the brigade? You are starting to sound a bit like one of those code huggers that Novascot is talking about. Sometimes black and white just cannot be achieved - take a 50 year old towerblock if 17 floors as an example with a single staircase and no ventilation. Theres no way you can install ventilation shafts or ducts or another staircase. So you have to do other things that make it as safe as you can.

[novascot]

Cleveland,
after all that has been said on this thread I cannot beleive you are still saying "Standards are black and white". I take it you mean BENCHMARK standards?

Enough said.

Unsubscribing. Bye.