Bites at the cherry

[kurnal]

True story.

Hotel in West Midlands. Had a prohibition served on part of it last year (quite right too), owner called me in to resolve matters, action plan and risk assessment carried out.

Prohibition lifted, general action plan to improve premises completed, including total refurbishment, new fire doors right through and L1.

Risk assessment identified some remaining design weaknesses but some compensatory features - risk level not ideal but tenable.

Lift rises from main entrance foyer into bedroom corridors. No smoke seals on lift and lift doors not the best of fit but FD30. there is two way travel on bedroom corridor,  corridor is only 15m long between storey exits and nobody has to pass lift to reach alternative. 24 hour night porter on duty in foyer except when doing 2 hourly patrols or sorting out problems. TV and two sofas in foyer.

September 2007 local Fire Safety Officer signed off the prohibition and we  met on site, risk assessment and risk control measures agreed and he went away satisfied. Job signed off.

June 2008 another Fire Safety Officer from same office carries out inspection. No reason given. Is unhappy with lift arrangement and furnishings in foyer, percieves risk of smoke from a fire in foyer affecting bedroom corridors, he serves a letter of non compliance asking for additional fire doors and screens at all floor levels to enclose lift shaft.

Owner now totally peeved and view of fire service a little tarnished. Thinks that it is unreasonable to come back so soon for another bite at the cherry and require something so fundamentally different.

Existing staircase and lift configuration was installed 9 years ago as a result of an enforcement notice and the screens were put exactly where the statutory notice said they should be.

Any comments or advice please?

[Izan FSO]

is it possible that if the premises had a prohibition notice served there were some serious deficiencies and the lift configuration may have been overlooked in the big scheme of things (nobody's perfect even FSO's).

Is the lift configuration part of the significant findings or is it not mentioned? are any compensatory features offered to mitigate the lift issue?

I would probably be looking at the fire load in the foyer and how that can be managed adequately to reduce the risk. but with L1 maybe not a major issue a lot depends on the type of premises and the sort of occupants that frequent the premises.....if you understand what i mean!!!

[kurnal]

No I identified and pointed out the lift issue in the original risk assessment as presented to the first officer. Mitigating features are alternative means of escape, no bedrooms have to  pass the lift to reach the alternative, the total travel distance from furthest bedroom to alternative staircase is under 15 m, 24 hour reception staff in foyer 3m from foot of lift shaft, smoke detection everywhere.

It aint the greatest but far from the worst. I know of many care homes with similar arrangements- but that doesnt make it right of course.

[messy]

In these days of non precriptive FS solutions, this double standard is happening every day. Is was bad enough using the more rigid FPA, but now it's a nightmare.

In my team we have many of the old boys hugging their FPA guides and hardly changing their approach to inspections since the FSO (which leads to numerous loud debates in the ofice) and younger inexperienced IOs being mentored by those experienced IOs resulting with them working with little (if any) flexibility.

Contacting their line manager for a second opinion might be an option, but there's no certainty s/he will have any more knowledge or they may just loyally back up their IO. Or wait and take a gamble the IO won't be back and if they do and turn it to a enforcement notice, there's always the appeal process

[jokar]

Perhaps the FSO should be made to understand that the RR(FS)O and FRAis about life safety.  The L1 system will enable all guests and satff to leave, I assume that it is simultaneous evacuation, and they can leave by the alternative arrangements without passing the lift.  I can not perceive of a problem, it is not a new build and existing buildings have strange arrangements that bhave to be rosk assessed.  I just think that FSO's do not read files, treat each job as a new one and have no real love of the risk assessed process and love code hugging.

What about a challenge to the FRS first or an appeal if allowed onder the notice?

[Ashley Wood]

I come across this as well. In this case I think I would look at the load in the reception area and see if it can be reduced in any way.

[xan]

Perhaps the FSO should be made to understand that the RR(FS)O and FRAis about life safety.  The L1 system will enable all guests and satff to leave, I assume that it is simultaneous evacuation, and they can leave by the alternative arrangements without passing the lift.  I can not perceive of a problem, it is not a new build and existing buildings have strange arrangements that bhave to be rosk assessed.  I just think that FSO's do not read files, treat each job as a new one and have no real love of the risk assessed process and love code hugging.

What about a challenge to the FRS first or an appeal if allowed onder the notice?

'I just think that FSO's do not read files'
we get told we don't need files-deal as you see on the day,what was acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today!

[FSO]

Perhaps the FSO should be made to understand that the RR(FS)O and FRAis about life safety.  The L1 system will enable all guests and satff to leave, I assume that it is simultaneous evacuation, and they can leave by the alternative arrangements without passing the lift.  I can not perceive of a problem, it is not a new build and existing buildings have strange arrangements that bhave to be rosk assessed.  I just think that FSO's do not read files, treat each job as a new one and have no real love of the risk assessed process and love code hugging.

What about a challenge to the FRS first or an appeal if allowed onder the notice?

Not all of us Jokar ;-)

Some of us are 'new school' :-)

[jokar]

My apologies, I like 'new school' but it seems to be a constant theme, not assisted by the heav handed attitude from lancs applying the guides as a prescriptive standard and having the magistrates onside with them.

I have heard that CFOA are after prescription back.

[Big T]

Let it go as far as an enforcement notice and appeal.

Let it go to court and have the dude in the wig make the decision for you.

Would the brigade honestly stand in the dock and suggest that this current configuration will kill somebody?

[lingmoor]

xan

"what was acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today!"

We are talking nine months after a fire safety officer along with a fire risk assessor met on site and signed this off as acceptable...not years

Just look at the additions that have been put in place

A prohibition has been lifted...so deemed satisfactory...L1 system installed...new fire doors...action plan in place...which has increased the safety since the lift was first accepted 9 years ago

I can fully understand how peed off the occupier would be.

With an L1 in place and 24 hour occupation of the foyer...I honestly can't see a problem here...also the lift is 30 minutes FR...and I would presume it was modern furniture in the foyer

As been mentioned this is not ideal because it isn't 'belt ad braces'...however that is what a FRA is for...to assess the risk....we are no longer prescriptive

I would firmly hold my ground on this one...if it goes to court sobeit

[FSO]

My apologies, I like 'new school' but it seems to be a constant theme, not assisted by the heav handed attitude from lancs applying the guides as a prescriptive standard and having the magistrates onside with them.

I have heard that CFOA are after prescription back.

To a point, it would make life easier but I am a fan of risk assessing everything on its own merits...

However, i do not like the idea of self regulation. A risk based fire certificate perhaps, oh thats called a risk assessment.

Bugger im going round in circles!!!

[Brian Downes]

This issue has been one I have had to deal with on a few occasions in a previous life as an FPO, mainly in rescare homes.

It was usually precipitated by a BCO's blind compliance with Building Regulations ADB, only requiring FD30 protection for lift-shafts, even if opening into protected corridors! Sliding lift doors of course cannot achieve FD30S.

 L1 AFD is installed.  I seem to recall that BS5839 part 1 requires sensors to be provided on floors in close proximity to openings to lift shafts, no doubt to give early warning of smoke  entering or leaving the shaft!

I usually took the view that this arrangement was only a problem where escape was in one direction, or possibly where escape was in two directions if it were assisted and or delayed. It seems neither apply here in the Hotel.

Working on the assumption that a lot of local authority FPO's these days are half trained box-tickers, who do not read files, I would request a meet with what probably passes for the Brigade's SFPO, if your client is happy with that route.

I would make a complaint against the Brigade on  the basis of the  Officers procedural and technical handling of the job. I understand the letter they have sent is not an Enforcement Notice so they are not prepared to get formal.

I still view these 'informal notification of defects' etc, issued under the HSE enforcement management protocols as the Brigades attempting to use the old 'Bluff and Persuasion Act'. If the 'new' issues had scored high enough on their tick boxes they would have served an enforcement notice.

The issue needs bottoming out so that your client can rest easy.

[xan]

xan

"what was acceptable in the past may not be acceptable today!"

We are talking nine months after a fire safety officer along with a fire risk assessor met on site and signed this off as acceptable...not years

Just look at the additions that have been put in place

A prohibition has been lifted...so deemed satisfactory...L1 system installed...new fire doors...action plan in place...which has increased the safety since the lift was first accepted 9 years ago

I can fully understand how peed off the occupier would be.

With an L1 in place and 24 hour occupation of the foyer...I honestly can't see a problem here...also the lift is 30 minutes FR...and I would presume it was modern furniture in the foyer

As been mentioned this is not ideal because it isn't 'belt ad braces'...however that is what a FRA is for...to assess the risk....we are no longer prescriptive

I would firmly hold my ground on this one...if it goes to court sobeit

I agree with you-but what I quoted is our brigades official line.This is what we have been told when we complained that we had no access to our hard copy files, as they made us bin them,and promised  (but did not do) to scan the last 3 years of a file onto an electronic database.
As for the case being discussed,I think there is room for negotiation.

[Davo]

Gents

Has the I/Os methods changed with the advent of RRO?
About 4 years ago, I invited our local I/O to a large premise we had taken over on the grounds of major in my opinion defects eg 30m x 15m x 8m high voild above false ceiling, numerous cables, no detection etc etc.
(The premises has a cert from 10 years previous when new and was used by a major national company on what was then a new industrial estate)
He had a look round, agreed with most of my points and when asked about paperwork said no chance, he couldn't criticise a fellow I/O

davo