B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation

[Ricardo]

Goodness me Kurnal, you've gone into more detail than the Governments own set of fire related stats.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/firestats2006.pdf

Of course is it not true that fire stats can only be as accurate as the opinion of the OIC at each fire,  although some fires will be subject to investigation by more specialist fire officers, and stats give no insight into fires where the F&RS are not summoned to.

[Izan FSO]

Let's try to focus on the practicalities and how we can together achieve what I think we all want, and what the RRFSO intended: a proportionate, risk-based fire safety regime where the very smallest "domestic premises" businesses instal domestic-type fire precautions to ensure appropriate levels of fire safety for their guests,

In other words B&B you dont want to put anything else in because you think you have enough....as a lot of posts have said you dont want to pay for any additional precautions.

As my previous post has suggested full complinace for 3K (i Belive) is not a reason to close down. I'll wager its about the same price as putting in ensuite accommodation to get that extra star from the tourism inspector.

Maybe groups like Visit Britain or the like could start to give stars for fire precautions instead of how many types  of shampoo and co ordinated towels there are?

[Alan Keith]

This discussion is becoming more worthwhile.   (To "nearlythere"  No,  I wasn't implying that I'd been asked to remove bedside lamps.)   Many of the references to fire causes relate to defective, misused or worn out equipment.   None of these would be applicable to a well-run B&B.   A few other items are mentioned.  TVs on stand-by.   Can anyone advise how frequently this is a cause of fire in actual statistics? i.e. Number of fires caused a year?   Plug-ins are mentioned.  This is one where a viral email campaign suggested them as a cause.   It was apparent that this originated in the US.   It is said that there is "little proof".  Is there any statistical evidence or is it simply conjecture that these could be a cause.  (I wouldn't have these in my B&B anyway.)

What I'm seeking here is a basis on which to be able to assess premises as very low risk for a start.   Much of the previous discussion implied that B&Bs were guilty of using badly maintained equipment etc. and having no smoke alarms at all etc.   Yes, some may be like that , but no professional operator would condone such practice, so we're totally with you on that score.

More detail on actual cases of fire involving electrical equipment would be of interest.

[kurnal]

Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.

We did a county wide survey  of fires caused by bathroom fans a few years ago and in one mixed urban/rural county they were found to cause over 30 fires in a year.

There have been some studies by makes of TV and fires - but again some years ago.

If you take reasonable steps to avoid the hazards I outlined above then you will greatly reduce the risk of electrical fires. Ban smoking and candles , dont use economy 7,  get rid of portable heaters and open fires, ban the chip pan, keep immersion heaters clear of clutter and well maintained, use a 30milliamp RCD and have both wiring checks and PAT tests done  - that just about deals with most of it. Cooking and human error are the hardest combination  to crack.

But even when you have done al this you will still need a safe escape route and alarms just in case.

[Clevelandfire]

I feel sorry for the direction that this discussion has followed and I feel we have missed an opportunity to explore, investigate and inform a new member who clearly misunderstands the basics of fire safety principles, legislation and enforcement and where we are all coming from. And to try and identify the threshold  above which the burden of compliance for one individual stakeholder became untenable. Lets not lose sight of the fact that many of these small enterprises are paying our wages- and they deserve the opportunity to join a forum such as this as a sounding board without being insulted or belittled.
 
I also regret that swaapc has thrown a firecracker into the ring and run away- thus reinforcing the views of those amongst us who have a very robust and forthright style of argument.  
Swaapc I hope you can be persuaded to come back and explore these issues further.  

.

Don't think anyone has been rude, just simply treating people with the contempt they deserve when several people tried to be reasonable and explain why certain requirements are made and then one particular person over dramatising the whole thing when they don't like what they hear.
Im afraid Swaapc lost alot of people on this forum which is quite evident with a nonsenical argument. There is simply no point in talking to people who aren't willing to listen to the  different sides of the argument Kurnal and all of us will go round in circles until sensible discussion ensues. Im not going to sit here and suffer fools who ask for advice then come up with a thousand and one arguments despite everyone telling him the same thing nicely over and over again. What is the point. By all means lets have dialogue but lets make sure its sensible and balanced. Most people here tried to offer kind and sensible advice but doom and gloom ensued, the woe is me furrowed brow response came out.

[Alan Keith]

Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.

Kurnal, your posts have always been courteous and measured and I would not wish to offend in return, but most of the examples you give relate to, shall we say, the less careful sectors of the public.  B&B operators in general have a better standard of housekeeping and equipment maintenance these days, non-smoking is virtually universal and owners usually vigilant on this.  Unsavoury guests will not be accommodated.  Candles etc. would not be allowed and incompetent cooking incidents are extremely unlikely.   Maintenance standards are high.   So the risk of a fire starting in such premises is extremely slight, probably much lower than either the average dwelling or a larger hotel etc.   Now I accept that, however small, some risk of a fire starting may exist, so we come to the means of warning and escape.   Even a battery operated smoke detector in a hallway will give an early warning of the onset of a fire (as I know from personal experience - I had a house fire caused by a faulty freezer).   In the typical small B&B escape distances are short, so the chances of anyone being trapped are also very low.   The combination of a very low risk of fire coupled with even basic smoke detection and short escape distances can be assessed by a duty-holder as adequate under empirical FRA guidelines.  So why is the demand for smoke detection and half-hour fire doors to all rooms leading on to an escape route being made in so many such cases, as I am given to understand?

Further to this, would it not have been good practice for the fire service to analyse their reporting of causes etc. of fire so as to identify as far as possible the actual causes in more detail, so that issues like whether plug-ins are a risk could be determined?  Or whether modern TVs actually do spontaneously combust occasionally while on stand-by, or whether this refers to older models?  If this had been done and the information made available, then people could avoid the risks.  The service is quick to criticise, but has not, with respect, put its own house in order in all areas.

I am looking through the statistics that Ricardo has provided, however, to see what picture they give and may venture a comment on that later.

[Thomas Brookes]

Airds, I agree with you that small B&Bs usually have very small travel distances to exit, how ever if no one is woken up because there is not any smoke detectors, it does not matter how short the distance.
As for the electrical fires the last two fires some of our clients have informed us of  started in tumble dryers, all three were quickly detected by the fire alarm system and then extinguished by isolating the power source and then using a fire extinguisher. Had these places not had smoke detection and fire extinguishers it may have been a totally different story. ( and before anyone jumps in, these are not massive commercial buildings) both were homes for young adults with physical and mental problems and they only have five clients in each building and two staff at any time.
Neither of these two buildings have ever had a fire before (both open for 10yrs plus), both buildings are converted houses and both were classed as low risk buildings. Anyone spot the simular circumstances.

I personally can not see why any B&B would resist installing a few mains smoke detectors (all new houses have to install them now as part of building control). These do not cost fortunes and most sparkys will be able to install them.

[kurnal]

My personal view is that the best run B&Bs are very low risk and that the physical fire precautions- smoke alarms and means of escape - may reflect this. As you say travel distances, height, management, supervision, a responsible owner on site to make sure that guests obey the rules and respond immediately in a fire alarm, all guests personally vetted before being offered accommodation, the owner last to go to bed and following a shut down routine including closing doors, , no access by guests to cooking equipment - all these factors make domestic standards appropriate in the circumstances.

But what domestic standards? I suggest that if all the safeguards above are satisfied,  the approved document B benchmark of an enclosed stairway and mains powered detectors and domestic style doors  that are a good fit in their frames are ok. I usually go over this minimum and recommend detection in all rooms leading onto the escape route.

But many of my fire service colleagues disagree that this is suitable and sufficient and are asking for self closing doors- in many cases fire doors as the minimum for all premises.

[nearlythere]

Sorry airds but theres no reliable information on this. To be honest much of the data is very broad and most small fires are not investigated thoroughly to give a definitive response. See Ricardos post above- thats as good as it gets.

Kurnal, your posts have always been courteous and measured and I would not wish to offend in return, but most of the examples you give relate to, shall we say, the less careful sectors of the public.  B&B operators in general have a better standard of housekeeping and equipment maintenance these days, non-smoking is virtually universal and owners usually vigilant on this.  Unsavoury guests will not be accommodated.  Candles etc. would not be allowed and incompetent cooking incidents are extremely unlikely.   Maintenance standards are high.   So the risk of a fire starting in such premises is extremely slight, probably much lower than either the average dwelling or a larger hotel etc.   Now I accept that, however small, some risk of a fire starting may exist, so we come to the means of warning and escape.   Even a battery operated smoke detector in a hallway will give an early warning of the onset of a fire (as I know from personal experience - I had a house fire caused by a faulty freezer).   In the typical small B&B escape distances are short, so the chances of anyone being trapped are also very low.   The combination of a very low risk of fire coupled with even basic smoke detection and short escape distances can be assessed by a duty-holder as adequate under empirical FRA guidelines.  So why is the demand for smoke detection and half-hour fire doors to all rooms leading on to an escape route being made in so many such cases, as I am given to understand?

Further to this, would it not have been good practice for the fire service to analyse their reporting of causes etc. of fire so as to identify as far as possible the actual causes in more detail, so that issues like whether plug-ins are a risk could be determined?  Or whether modern TVs actually do spontaneously combust occasionally while on stand-by, or whether this refers to older models?  If this had been done and the information made available, then people could avoid the risks.  The service is quick to criticise, but has not, with respect, put its own house in order in all areas.

I am looking through the statistics that Ricardo has provided, however, to see what picture they give and may venture a comment on that later.

Very difficult to give proper statistics really as usually how the electrical equipment is used that causes the problems.
However, from my experience and recollection electrical fires which are caused by the equipment itself are, and close to the order of greatest hazard, as follows:-

Main electrical intake and associated components and wiring,
General house wiring including multiple adapters and ex leads,
TVs,
Dishwashers (I recall a colleague telling me he had 3 in a month),
Washing machines,
Tumble dryers.

[John Dragon]

As a fire alarm engineer I see many B&Bs where the biggest problem is the dislike of the owner on spending money on anything safety related.
e.g. a very nice B&B where the owner himself had installed his own fire alarm, he had made a very good job in all honesty, but when I asked him why he had used unreliable cheap equipment, he replied "it was the cheapest I could find on the internet". The alarm kit cost him about £700.00 and when he said this he was standing next to a TV that he proudly said cost £4500.00.
Priorities wrong somewhere?

Most small B&Bs in which we install alarms and emergency lighting pay about £1800.00 to install both, using high quality equipment.

Cleveland, if you treat forum members with "the contempt they deserve" they will leave and we will have missed an opportunity to educate them. Also it reinforces their argument that the fire service is bullying them.

[Davo]

Ladies and Gents

Getting away from detection, lets look at fire doors.
I have a problem when people say "half hour fire door". Look at the tests involved. The doors never see flame, its all heat. A fire officer once told me in reality half hour means about 11 minutes in a real fire.
Does this mean a cheap door is only a few minutes, if so one can see the I/Os point?
Add the time getting orientated, getting dressed, gathering your wallet and your missus etc.........
Fit recessed/low profile SDs

davo

[CivvyFSO]

The BS476 test is actually quite a rigorous test involving a furnace.

However, as you say, it is possible for a 30 minute door to fail in 10-15 minutes, but the conditions may need to be a well ventilated fire that has flashed over rapidly and has plenty of fuel to maintain the temperature. People do wrongly assume that a 30 minute door acheives 30 minutes of protection in situ, the 30 minutes is reference to how long it survives the test, not how long it will survive once fitted in place. It may even survive longer, in a small hotel room/apartment it may last until the fire has burnt out.

[Chris Houston]

Gents, here is a good benchmark for suitable syntax on FireNet:

Before you post something, ask yourself if you would write the same words in a letter that had your company/employers name and address on the letter head.  I would suggest that a couple of posts have been just on the wrong side of polite.

[Wiz]

......
 
I also regret that swaapc has thrown a firecracker into the ring and run away- thus reinforcing the views of those amongst us who have a very robust and forthright style of argument.  
Swaapc I hope you can be persuaded to come back and explore these issues further.

I missed all the 'fun' yesterday because I was out on-site. But once again we have someone who is not impressed with the phrases used by a 'Senior Member' of this forum in an 'argument'

Well I for one can understand why swaapc is not impressed.

Do you think the following sort of sarcastic/irritating comments made by a 'Senior Member' of this forum are acceptable:

Don't think anyone has been rude, just simply treating people with the contempt they deserve..

... Work 365 days a year do you? if its that bad why not do something else?...

 ..Im afraid there is no talking to people like you...

....Im not going to sit here and suffer fools...

 ....Would you give us your address to confirm you area genuine B&B owner because im having my doubts from some of the things you have said....

I notice that swaapc has had his reply to the above removed. How unfair.

I no longer bother replying directly to the member I am talking about, because if I do, my own replies to his comments are deleted by admin. So I'm also not even given the opportunity to 'look after myself' by being able to respond in kind.

I don't know how he gets away with it or why no other long term members have anything to say about it.

I am only left to wonder if this is this a forum for everybody or is it really only for those employed by or previously employed by the fire service? Are the rest of us only allowed on to the forum to be used as targets of sarcasm and rudeness by the member in question if we don't agree with him?

[Chris Houston]

Wiz,

I the only thing that has been removed is the unacceptable post and a quotation of it.

I'm the only moderator and have never worked for the fire service.  I would suggest that most of my personal opinions in debates tend to result in me arguing against the fire service way of doing things.  My background is in fire alarm system design and sales and now risk management consultancy.

This forum is for everybody and it so happens that 2 of the B&B camp above have received emails from me thanking them for joining the site.

The most difficult moderation decisions are the ones where I have to balance "freedom of speach" against moderating language.  If in doubt I tend to avoid taking any action, it is my belief that this is what forum users would prefer.  When a post is removed after someone has replied to it, the whole thread can look confusing.  If I removed all bad mannered posts then people would feel freer to post what they wanted without having to live with the shame of us reading their rude posts.  People should take personal responsibility for their words.

Please note that I am giving serious thought to simply closing this thread, so I would encourage anyone else to get back to the topic, to maintain the moral high ground and stay polite.

Many thanks,

Chris.