LACORS Guidance

[Midland Retty]

I have read the LACORS document three time through, cover to cover now, and each time get slightly more frustrated by it.

Poor old Val has had to field some flack about it on this thread but the fact in my opinion remains that this is a poorly written document, and one which I'd be very wary of adopting as best practice.

I appreciate that some buildings are very hard to adapt and that the aim of Lacors was to try and give guidance to fix most issues we find.

I also appreciate landlords should be subjected to balanced and fair enforcement, but Im afraid alot of the logic in this document makes my jaw drop.

Our own brigade's guidance document is much clearer, much better, and much easier for punters to understand so that and the sleeping guide would be my preferred option to follow.

Consultation did take place on this document but as we all know consultation can be flawed, often the biggest group with the biggest voice gets heard.

Im kust very skeptical about how the guide was produced.

[jokar]

I have spoken to a couple of people today who were involved in this publication.  As in all things committee wise everyone had a say and some bits are from a consensus point of view.  The document is a vandalisation of a number of documents used by a variety of housing and FRS staff and reflects this in its wording.  The theory of the no smoke alarm?removal of strips and seals is that a fire in a risk room would allow the smoke to actuate an alarm in a non risk area thus giving detection and warning and allowing occupants to escape and the door still having enough integrity to hold back the fire.

[Tom Sutton]

jokar this theory has been tried before and it doesn’t work. Read Colin Todd’s posting at http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=786 item 4.

[jokar]

TW, I am aware of that and Colin's post.  Just trying to assist others understand the supposed theory.

[Tom Sutton]

Fair enough jokar but don't you agree, considering Colin's posting the theory dosen't work.

[wee brian]

The reason it's bad, in places, is because its a consensus guide. Consensus amongst HAs and FRAs was always going to be daft.

I dont blame the author for that.

[jokar]

TW,  I agree but I haven't had a detailed look at the whole guide in its new format as I am waiting for a printed copy.

[Big T]

Jokar.

Take a look at the online guide available at the lacors site.

I think we all understand the theory of why the new guide suggests no strips and seals. Our point is that it is flawed theory that doesn't work (proven to not work). And is worded in a way that some landlords could use the guide to justify not upgrading systems within a building.

I understand fully why the guide has been written, and why in places laurel and hardy music plays in my head whilst I am reading it, but, and i know i'm not alone, I am quite dissappointed and in places shocked with it.

[jokar]

Where possible I try to read the book rather than on screen, it is easier to refer back when they say look at para 9.7 when you are at para 21.

Interesting comment on electronic locks in para 16.3 which goes against BS 7273 part 4.  Again why?  If BS are a recommended standard why give advice to lower the standard and to what effect?

[Big T]

That paragraph has a post it note with "what about earth frame faults" written on it

[Clevelandfire]

Where possible I try to read the book rather than on screen, it is easier to refer back when they say look at para 9.7 when you are at para 21.

Interesting comment on electronic locks in para 16.3 which goes against BS 7273 part 4.  Again why?  If BS are a recommended standard why give advice to lower the standard and to what effect?

I was reading that today as well and Im in disbelief as you say why they would do this

We are a forum and thus a voice can we not collectively send a concerned communication to Lacors about the guide?

[val]

Jokar,

16.3 Electrically operated locks must fail to safety (open) or
have a manual over-ride in the event of power failure.

Why is this short paragraph contrary to BS 7273 Part 4? I accept it is a slight abbreviation of the 80-odd page BS but is it wrong in this type of premises?

[johnny99]

As a small landlord, who has had immense frustrations with my local housing authority and rigid standards, a friend directed me to this site and to be honest, I am slightly amused by what I'm reading.  Surely this new guide is just that.  A guide.  It is all about risk assessment and not about prescription.

This issue of whether or not to have smoke seals.  

Having read earlier posts and the post by Colin Todd in the other thread, surely the answer is:

If the HMO is big enough to have smoke detectors approaching 15m apart (and that is some considerable shared house) then perhaps LD3 and no smoke seals won't work and therefore isn't appropriate.  If as in the case of my house the detectors are no further than 1.5m from any bedroom door and the time to leave the building is about 30 seconds, then LD3 and no smoke seals might be appropriate.  I happen to have detectors in all rooms in my properties.  That makes me comfortable.

In any case, the types of properties that the guide considers this to be appropriate for are generally low risk.  Let's ask some questions:

Who generally live in shared houses?  Students.

How old are they usually?  About 18 - 22.

How many 18 - 22 year olds die in fires in buildings?  (Any buildings, not just HMOs.)  In 2006, according to the Office for National Statistics that would be about 3 in England and Wales.

So, as the population of England and Wales is about 60 million the odds of an individual 18 - 22yr old person dying in a fire in England or Wales in any building would be about 20 million to one.  This is the same odds that William Hill offered on a bet that Elvis Presley would ride into London on Shergar and play Lord Lucan in the Wimbledon Tennis final.  (That's true. Google it!)

I know I'm being flippant and stretching statistics, but the point is that it's about risk.  I see the expression 'code huggers' dotted about the forum and a lot of the posts in this thread seem to suggest that some of the posters, would be more comfortable with a set of rigid standards than guidance (however well or poorly written) which allows them to use their professional judgement on a case-by-case basis.

Please, let's look at guidance as just that.  Guidance.  If what's in the guidance results in adequate safety for the occupiers, then great.  If it doesn't, then increase what is required.  If the risk is already low, then perhaps you don't need everything mentioned in the guidance.

[CivvyFSO]

So, as the population of England and Wales is about 60 million the odds of an individual 18 - 22yr old person dying in a fire in England or Wales in any building would be about 20 million to one.

To work out the odds like that you need to know the number of 18-22 year olds in the country. Working from www.statistics.gov.uk I estimate the number to be in the region of 400,000 in the whole of the uk. Lets imagine that nobody lives in Scotland or Ireland, and use that number of 3 deaths from England and Wales. 1 in 133,333 18-22 year olds died in a fire. That is 105 times more likely than any set of 6 numbers winning the national lottery, and many of use are happy to continually waste money on that hoping our numbers come up.

[nearlythere]

As a small landlord, who has had immense frustrations with my local housing authority and rigid standards, a friend directed me to this site and to be honest, I am slightly amused by what I'm reading.  Surely this new guide is just that.  A guide.  It is all about risk assessment and not about prescription.

This issue of whether or not to have smoke seals.  

Having read earlier posts and the post by Colin Todd in the other thread, surely the answer is:

If the HMO is big enough to have smoke detectors approaching 15m apart (and that is some considerable shared house) then perhaps LD3 and no smoke seals won't work and therefore isn't appropriate.  If as in the case of my house the detectors are no further than 1.5m from any bedroom door and the time to leave the building is about 30 seconds, then LD3 and no smoke seals might be appropriate.  I happen to have detectors in all rooms in my properties.  That makes me comfortable.

In any case, the types of properties that the guide considers this to be appropriate for are generally low risk.  Let's ask some questions:

Who generally live in shared houses?  Students.

How old are they usually?  About 18 - 22.

How many 18 - 22 year olds die in fires in buildings?  (Any buildings, not just HMOs.)  In 2006, according to the Office for National Statistics that would be about 3 in England and Wales.

So, as the population of England and Wales is about 60 million the odds of an individual 18 - 22yr old person dying in a fire in England or Wales in any building would be about 20 million to one.  This is the same odds that William Hill offered on a bet that Elvis Presley would ride into London on Shergar and play Lord Lucan in the Wimbledon Tennis final.  (That's true. Google it!)

I know I'm being flippant and stretching statistics, but the point is that it's about risk.  I see the expression 'code huggers' dotted about the forum and a lot of the posts in this thread seem to suggest that some of the posters, would be more comfortable with a set of rigid standards than guidance (however well or poorly written) which allows them to use their professional judgement on a case-by-case basis.

Please, let's look at guidance as just that.  Guidance.  If what's in the guidance results in adequate safety for the occupiers, then great.  If it doesn't, then increase what is required.  If the risk is already low, then perhaps you don't need everything mentioned in the guidance.

The problem is not the code huggers johnny99, it's the code writers. In regards to professional judgement over code hugging isn't it comforting to know that most drivers hug the highway code. Professional judgement can be dangerous.