CFOA guidance on extinguishers for auditors

[terry martin]

i dimly remember reading an email sent to me recently regarding CFOA guidance on extinguishers

 the guidance was in relation to the recent culture of employers and landlords not providing extinguishers and training of them, because they had deemed in their risk assessment that it was an unnecessary risk to their staff/occupants

some Auditors where accepting this, some were'nt

CFOA have now said this should not be accepted, and that Fire extinguishers should be made available and staff trained on them.

their reasons in a nutshell, if i remember, where that having extinguishers would prevent a small fire developing into a larger fire thus reducing the risk to life and property. not having them would put life and property at unnecessary risk

the thing is, i can't find this guidance anywhere now, and am starting to wonder if i dreamed it all.  can anyone point me in the right direction

[jokar]

It is from GMC, you can contact there FS dept and they will send you the details.  What it has to do with an FRA is beyond me though.  Thje case was a Sheltered Housing project where no staff were available and it is now expected that the residents some of whom are quite old have to use extinguishers.  The owners only wanted tp provide the extinguisher in the wradens office and have that person trained.  Now they have loads of extinguishers that are to be maintained and no one will ever use them.

[Chris Houston]

Sounds like a legal minefield if the presence of fire extinguishers is linked to the occupants age.  Might be quite difficult if you look at it from the angle "So you didn't put in fire extinguishers because the occupants were a certain age?"

[Ricardo]

There is a similar story in the latest FIA Focus newsletter Issue 7, where a decision by a  risk assessment company was made to remove the fire extinguishers from 2 blocks of flats.

The decision was revoked following a strong response from the fire protection community and the flats residents.
Quote:
The FRA identified them as a "health & safety hazard, the RA company employed by the buildings managers concluded that the extinguishers located in the hallways and landings posed more of a risk than a safety feature, unless occupants were properly trained to use them. The risk assessment was endoresd by the fire & rescue service.

It was recognised the importance of training is to be applauded, but the lack of it should not be used as a reason to take out the means to tackle a fire, and the decision elicited strong comments from many working in fire protection. From FIA's CEO, CFOA's chair of the National Fire Safety Committee, and MD of FPA.

[CivvyFSO]

Terry this is from Regulatory Reform Order Guidance Note No. 1:

---
Article 13 – Fire-fighting and fire detection
73. Fire-fighting equipment should be considered as a means of both prevention and
protection. For example, preventing a small fi re growing out of control and spreading
beyond the area of origin, affecting the means of escape and posing a risk to relevant
persons. It is likely therefore that some form of fire fi ghting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.

---

[Tom Sutton]

Do you think it is more about litigation than fire safety are assessors more concerned if a non trained person was to use an extinguisher and was injured they could sue the assessor, auditor or the RP.

If they do not provide extinguishers and a fire was to develop and people were injured by the fire. Then they could sue because extinguishers were not provided.  

It looks like that rock and a hard place. Also a cynic my think it’s all about cost.

[Chris Houston]

I find the argument a bit weird.  You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them.  Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?

[terry martin]

There is a similar story in the latest FIA Focus newsletter Issue 7, where a decision by a  risk assessment company was made to remove the fire extinguishers from 2 blocks of flats.

could you point me in the right direction to find this newsletter please

[Midland Retty]

I find the argument a bit weird.  You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them.  Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?

You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.

My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.

I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.

[Chris Houston]

I find the argument a bit weird.  You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them.  Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?

You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.

My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.

I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.

Rather soon it might be illegal to say (age discrimination legislation).  Before you assume I'm going a bit crazy, have a read through:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm

[Midland Retty]

I find the argument a bit weird.  You don't hear of people not providing seatbelts in case they are wrongly used, or not providing fall-arrest systems, or not providing sprinklers in case someone injures themselves using them.  Why is it only with fire extinguishers that we ever discuss this?

You may recall we discussed this issue recently on another thread regarding extinguishers in common areas of blocks of flats.

My personal view is that in sheltered housing schemes for example extinguishers should only be provided in staff areas such as the wardens office plus in risk areas such as plant rooms, boiler rooms and perhaps the day room.

I wouldnt want the residents to tackle a fire, and whilst it may not be the most politically correct thing to say residents in some cases may be too old and frail to carry, lift or operate an extinguisher, and may thus endanger themselves if they tried to do so.

Rather soon it might be illegal to say (age discrimination legislation).  Before you assume I'm going a bit crazy, have a read through:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm

Would never accuse you of being crazy Mr Houston!

You're of course correct - we shouldnt discriminate due to age, but I think we should consider someone's physical condition to perform certain tasks and this would apply to people of all ages.  

As with the vast majority of discrimination law such as Age discrimination, the DDA etc safety always overrides them. I personally would be happy to argue the case for not wanting residents to fight fires in sheltered homes, I would much prefer to see them evacuate to place of safety.

So to me that isn't discrimination it is simply considering someone's wellbeing and safety.

I will always maintain that training to use fire extinguishers is required. Fire can be such a dynamic thing, and even small fires can catch people out.

Furthermore a fire in a sheltered flat shouldn't break out and effect the other flats or the common parts in the scheme if all the right fire precautions are in place. Containment / FR factors built into the scheme should allow the resident enough time be able to evacuate , call the fire service and let them deal with the blaze it before it spreads.

[CivvyFSO]

For anyone who was not aware of the original news story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7290003.stm

If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.

[Chris Houston]

If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.

So I'm sitting in my living room.  If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives.  But you think I should just let it grow and spread?

Where would such logic end?  Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?

[Midland Retty]

If 61 year old resident Mike Edwards' flat was on fire I am sure his time would be better spent walking down the staircase while on the phone to the fire service, rather than walking back into his burning flat. This would be the same regardless of anyones age.

So I'm sitting in my living room.  If my toaster/bin/hifi ignites I'll be putting it out with the dry powder in the kitchen, rather than let is grow to engulf my house and risk my neighbours lives.  But you think I should just let it grow and spread?

Where would such logic end?  Do you think we should just do away with all fire extinguishers, let all fires grow rather than put 90% of them out without fire service intervention as happens currently?

Few points there Chris if I may - firstly if you were aware of a fire in your home, but didnt have an extinguisher to hand you would have hopefully called the fire service who would have intervened before it began to threaten your neighbours.

I don't disagree with the figures you quote about fires being dealt with without the brigade being called, but i would be intrested to find out in what premises those fires occured and indeed the type of person who extinguished the fire.

You as a young , fit, healthy guy would be more than capable of using an extinguisher. Plus let's assume its your our own flat, all bought and paid for, and in which case you are more than entitled to provide your own fire extinguisher to use at your own risk!

On the other hand Mrs Bloggs the retired post mistress living in her sheltered flat with parkinsons disease would struggle I would suggest to use an extinguisher.

Now would you prefer her to try and use the extinguisher and struggle; putting herself in more danger, or would you prefer her to be able to evacuate safely away unharmed.

Fires can develop quickly and compromise a room, but to compromise neighbours property or even other rooms in the same building would take some time unless you have something really nasty in there or poor building construction.

This is clearly why we have building regs to ensure that fire can be contained for a certain time to allow the intervention of the fire service.

Yes you may loose valuable possessions if you dont tackle a fire and it then spreads and grows - but is it not better to loose those possessions rather than your life?

[Chris Houston]

Actually I rent my little house and my contents are all insured, but would still find it perverse to allow it to burn when it would be so easy to put a fire out (in the early stages).

The "walk away and call the brigade" idea is a great theory, but it just isn't the reality of what happens.  People will try and put it out.  I say give them the tools to try and put it out properly if they want to try.

While I don't work for the fire service, I do visit the victims of domestic fires on behalf of the Red Cross and I consistently see that garden hoses or dishes of water that have been used by occupants trying to put out fires.  A lack of an extinguisher doesn't stop them trying.