Author Topic: B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation  (Read 88540 times)

Offline Steven N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2008, 02:03:01 PM »
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
These are my views and not the views of my employer

Offline David Weston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • http://www.BandBassociation.org
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2008, 08:12:59 PM »
Quote from: Stevo
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
Stevo,  the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business.  Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.  They simply state what the owner "must" do.  The owners HAVE complied with the RRFSO but the fire officers are giving them prescriptive instructions.

I see the various comments here that owners should "have the courage of their convictions" and "challenge" fire officers - that fire officers are human beings and often wrong etc. - but this is highly unrealistic and unfair on the property owners, who know that the fire officers have onerous powers, can close them down instantly, and as far as the public is concerned what a fire officer tells them is the law.   It is rather like expecting the public to challenge and disagree with/defy a police officer who gives them an instruction.

This situation is unsustainable and unsatisfactory.

Clevelandfire

  • Guest
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2008, 08:40:07 PM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
Quote from: Stevo
Of course if places actually carried out a R/A then acted on its findings as they are meant to then we wouldn't be turning up to find out that things are wrong! Or have i missed something along the way?
Stevo,  the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business.  Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.  They simply state what the owner "must" do.  The owners HAVE complied with the RRFSO but the fire officers are giving them prescriptive instructions.

I see the various comments here that owners should "have the courage of their convictions" and "challenge" fire officers - that fire officers are human beings and often wrong etc. - but this is highly unrealistic and unfair on the property owners, who know that the fire officers have onerous powers, can close them down instantly, and as far as the public is concerned what a fire officer tells them is the law.   It is rather like expecting the public to challenge and disagree with/defy a police officer who gives them an instruction.

This situation is unsustainable and unsatisfactory.
whoa whoa whoa

Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings  down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down  - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2008, 09:28:56 PM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
Stevo,  the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business.  Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.
To be fair, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order requires much more than just to assess the risk.

For example, section 13 requires suitable fire extinguishers and alarm systems, section 14 requires escape routes to be suitable etc etc.  So you might comply with section 9 to do a risk assessment, but still fail in the other duties even if the risk assessment considers them to be acceptable.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2008, 10:23:31 PM »
I feel a bit of a piggy in the middle. I know that most fire officers are super people who have devoted their career to helping people out, carry their powers and responsibilities easily on their shoulders and are usually open to discussion. At the same time they have strong convictions and powerful arguments and very often are convinced that their way is the right and best way. Often it is - but often it doesnt take things like business viability into account. When you dont have to win a sale to earn your crust and pander to so many similar departments and authorities each of whom seems to think their agenda is the most important thing in the world it does put a different light on it.

Then from the small business point of view, people who really do have to focus on selling their product else there isnt any business or premises to argue about, simply dont have time to be as clued up as they would like on every aspect, they are under extreme pressure from the tax man, customs and excise, tourist board, environmental health , trading standards, have to worry about risk assessments access statements and the like.

Not being as clued up as they would like to be puts them on the back foot- makes them feel defensive and scared of the final nail that the fire officer may put in their business coffin. You will say thats their problem - and it is- they chose their career- but it makes them feel too insecure to argue and even less to appeal.  B&B summarises it so well when he points out that you dont argue with the policeman who has just pulled you up to criticise your driving do you.

And as for the letters associated with the RRO they are a total nightmare and impossible to decipher. How they passed the plain english test I will never know. Even I with over 30 years experience in the service find it hard to decide whether its a letter of goodwill advice or an enforcement notice- both talk about prosecution, both have umpteen pages and legal "explanation" - honest its worst than the taxman.

Chris Houston

  • Guest
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2008, 10:34:36 PM »
A fair and balanced argument Kurnal, but should a B&B's ability to afford something be a factor?  Should a rich B&B owner have a higher level of safety than one owned by a poor person?

Offline Steven N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2008, 08:36:15 AM »
Quote from: Chris Houston
Quote from: BandBAssociation
Stevo,  the RRFSO requires them to do a "suitable and sufficient" risk assessment and then put in place "appropriate" precautions bearing in mind the size and nature of the business.  Many owners have done this and then found that fire officers simply don't agree that what they have done is right - or have no interest in their fire risk assessment at all.
To be fair, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order requires much more than just to assess the risk.

For example, section 13 requires suitable fire extinguishers and alarm systems, section 14 requires escape routes to be suitable etc etc.  So you might comply with section 9 to do a risk assessment, but still fail in the other duties even if the risk assessment considers them to be acceptable.
Chris didnt explain myself fully there, but i find normally if a premises carries out a suitable & sufficient R/A then that flags up the other issues & they deal with them.
These are my views and not the views of my employer

Offline David Weston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • http://www.BandBassociation.org
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2008, 10:04:08 AM »
Quote from: Clevelandfire
Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings  down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down  - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.
Cleveland Fire, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood my point.  I never said that ANY fire oficers behave in an intimidatory and onerous way - let alone accusing "every" officer of this as you say I am.  My point is that property owners KNOW that fire officers have onerous powers - like VAT officers, tax inspectors or police officers.  That is simply a fact.  
I am sure that the vast majority of fire officers would be open to reasoned discussion - but my point is that their official position and their powers mean that it is unrealistic to expect a member of the public to "challenge" a fire officer about fire precautions and argue against what the fire officer says.   A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I have spent much of the last three years talking to B&B owners, fire officers, and DCLG officials about this and have always approached it on a fair and reasonable basis.  I am NOT saying that all B&B owners are right and fire officers wrong - of course not.  Some B&B owners have not taken appropriate fire precautions and it is absolutely right that fire officers put such instances right to protect us all.  What we at the B&B Association are simply trying to do is to achieve a fair, reasonable and proportionate system - as the RRFSO intended.
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO.  That is very clearly not the case.  Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected?   Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #38 on: August 07, 2008, 10:43:13 AM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
Quote from: Clevelandfire
Hang on just a minute. Fire Officers dont have "onerous" powers. We can't close buildings  down instantly either. You obviously dont know or understand the process we have to go through to close a building down  - believe me if we get it wrong the brigade can be sued so we have procedures to ensure what we are doing is proportionate and isnt going to put us in that position. If you for one minute think we close down premises willy nilly then Im sorry you are sadly mistaken. I genuinely think you have a hidden agenda if you are saying things like this. Every last bit of literature we send out and the enforcement concordat means we as the fire authority do everything possible to send out the message that we are open to communication and negotiation and that we use enforcement as a last measure. It seems to me you are letting your emotions and own agenda cloud whats going on here. Be fair with us and you will find we will be fair back we have stated what to do if you feel an officer is being too onerous. You have absolutely no idea of how the fire authority works because you dont want to listen or find out you just want to accuse every inspecting officer of being intimidatory and onerous.
Cleveland Fire, I'm sorry but you have misunderstood my point.  I never said that ANY fire oficers behave in an intimidatory and onerous way - let alone accusing "every" officer of this as you say I am.  My point is that property owners KNOW that fire officers have onerous powers - like VAT officers, tax inspectors or police officers.  That is simply a fact.  
I am sure that the vast majority of fire officers would be open to reasoned discussion - but my point is that their official position and their powers mean that it is unrealistic to expect a member of the public to "challenge" a fire officer about fire precautions and argue against what the fire officer says.   A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I have spent much of the last three years talking to B&B owners, fire officers, and DCLG officials about this and have always approached it on a fair and reasonable basis.  I am NOT saying that all B&B owners are right and fire officers wrong - of course not.  Some B&B owners have not taken appropriate fire precautions and it is absolutely right that fire officers put such instances right to protect us all.  What we at the B&B Association are simply trying to do is to achieve a fair, reasonable and proportionate system - as the RRFSO intended.
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO.  That is very clearly not the case.  Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected?   Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
What you have B&Bassociation is two opposing forces. On one hand you have an Inspecting Officer who has no personal interest in the premises other than he/she wants to ensure that they have their ass covered should something go wrong and then the owner who is running a business and wants to ensure that money spent provides a return.

Fortunately and unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, people are generally not dying in fires in B&Bs and owners cannot see what the whole fuss about fire safety is about. However from the F&R Services point of view because people are not dying in B&Bs does not mean that safety standards should be relaxed until such time that a sufficient number of tragedies occur when fire standards would start to be robustly enforced.
When it comes to sleeping risks I have a quite prescriptive approach for Fire Risk Assessments. Unfortunately, I would be of no use to many owners in that respect but that is something I am more than comfortable with.
I think that in order to ensure fairness for owners and enforcers realistic and rational prescriptive national guidelines would be very beneficial so that B&Bs in some F&R Service areas are not overburdened with expensive measures, which result in higher tarrifs when others can get away with a much lesser standard enabling tarrifs to be kept lower.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline Shand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2008, 12:25:04 PM »
Just a few points:

1. I think B&B makes a very persuasive point when he says that many B&B owners don't feel able to challenge fire officers. My experience is that many also do feel able and do so quite forcefully. It takes all sorts. What fire officers should learn from this is that we need to be proportionate and follow the ethos of the concordat. We can't expect people to talk to us if we project ourselves as being unapproachable. Whilst I'm certain that many inspectors are approachable, I reckon a few who maybe don't have the confidence to enter into a reasoned debate with a risk assessor or RP may possibly hide behind the guides using them as a smoke screen. That's a problem for FRA's in terms of training, support, management and the like. Don't forget, the RRFSO has been as much of a culture change for FRA's as it has been for everyone else.

2. Inspectors are employed and authorised by FRA's to enforce the requirements of the RRFSO, no more no less. They should be making sure the RP is taking reasonable steps to protect occupants from harm by fire. Sure, we can make recommendations to improve safety further but any who are 'covering their backs' or working to personal agendas are frankly operating outside the requirements of the law and should be challenged. You don't need to appeal or complain to do this, you can ring the FRA concerned and ask to talk to the inspector's boss or another senior officer. Fire officers are at the end of the day public servants and complaints are taken extremely seriously, my FRA goes to great lengths to publish complaints procedures widely.

3. And yes, I agree that the letters are long and wordy. I know it doesn't help the lay person but unfortunately that's the nature of the beast. When FRA's do have to take the ultimate sanction and take on a prosecution, the court needs to see that the RP has been kept fully informed of the requirements and their rights throughout the whole process. I suppose it's a bit like the small print at the bottom of contracts and the like, tricky to read, unpopular, but sadly necessary. They could be clearer mind you.

4. FRA's are enforcing the law based on guidance from the CLG. That's what they have to go on. Re-reading my previous post I would like to withdraw the comment about 'why are ministers involved'. It's becoming obvious that this situation has to some extent been left to sort itself out - find its own level as it were. Ministers should be aware of both the difficulties being experienced by B&B owners and also (importantly) the problems being experienced by FRA's in enforcing the legislation. As I said before, perhaps we need to raise the profile of fire safety enforcement issues. Having said that, maybe the reason the profile isn't so high is the relatively low number of fire deaths in B&B's as compared with, say, certain demographic groups of the housing sector. Like I said earlier, it makes sense to put in most effort where it will have best effect.

5. I think one important point hasn't been raised yet - why are FRA's seemingly targetting B&B's? I can only speak from personal experience and say that we are finding problems. FRA's are following the recommendations of the Hampton report and the Better Regulation Office and targetting their activities. They look at premises which have a higher than average potential risk (as identified by the CLG, such as sleeping accomodation) then sample some premises. What we have found is a significant number of problems.

Food for thought?

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2008, 02:19:20 PM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO.  That is very clearly not the case.  Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected?   Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
That is because the govt. assumed wrongly that the majority of B&B owners had carried out suitable and sufficient health and safety risk assessments and fire risk assessments under previous legislation that had been in place since 1992.

Therefore, according to them, all that should have been needed was a slight tweak of the existing fire risk assessment and the fire safety provisions that were already in place.

The reality is however that some, indeed it appears many had done nothing. Little surprise therefore that now, when they are looked at for the first time they are found to be wanting.

Offline David Weston

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • http://www.BandBassociation.org
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2008, 02:46:51 PM »
Quote from: PhilB
Quote from: BandBAssociation
VisitBritain were assured before the RRFSO came in by ODPM (as it was - now DCLG) that the small accommodation providers not covered by the 1971 Act would not be greatly affected by the RRFSO.  That is very clearly not the case.  Why did the Government believe that these very small businesses would be largely unaffected?   Whatever the reasons, what is actually happening now is not what the Government intended.
That is because the govt. assumed wrongly that the majority of B&B owners had carried out suitable and sufficient health and safety risk assessments and fire risk assessments under previous legislation that had been in place since 1992.

Therefore, according to them, all that should have been needed was a slight tweak of the existing fire risk assessment and the fire safety provisions that were already in place.

The reality is however that some, indeed it appears many had done nothing. Little surprise therefore that now, when they are looked at for the first time they are found to be wanting.
If the Government made that assumption - which I agree it seems to have done - they completely misunderstood the sector and did no adequate research.   The existing legislation related to WORKPLACES and to businesses with EMPLOYEES.  The small B&Bs we are discussing here are family homes, with no employees.  (Most are not businesses for planning, local taxation or inland revenue purposes, but are sole traders working from what is primarly their private dwelling; most of the smallest B&Bs are not businesses either in the sense of providing a sole income to a household - they are second incomes subsidised by other jobs, farms etc.).

So it is quite wrong to generalise that B&Bs should have been doing fire risk assessments since 1992.   This requirement came in in October 2006.

Incidentally I think the Government placed far too high a burden on fire & rescue authorities - when we asked ODPM in 2005 who would inform B&Bs and visit them, we were told that fire & rescue authorities would be given this responsibility, including of compiling a new database of all B&Bs.   Have they been given enough manpower and budget to do this?    (I doubt it.)  

But it is worse even than that - the DCLG position (in holding that the "domestic premises exclusion" in the RRFSO does not actually mean what it says) is that the RRFSO applies to ANY case where anyone is staying on a paying basis in premises not their own home, even for one night.  This covers many hundreds of thousands of premises, and will of course be absolutely impossible to enforce in practice.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2008, 03:39:31 PM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
If the Government made that assumption - which I agree it seems to have done - they completely misunderstood the sector and did no adequate research.   The existing legislation related to WORKPLACES and to businesses with EMPLOYEES.  The small B&Bs we are discussing here are family homes, with no employees.  (Most are not businesses for planning, local taxation or inland revenue purposes, but are sole traders working from what is primarly their private dwelling; most of the smallest B&Bs are not businesses either in the sense of providing a sole income to a household - they are second incomes subsidised by other jobs, farms etc.).

So it is quite wrong to generalise that B&Bs should have been doing fire risk assessments since 1992.   This requirement came in in October 2006.
The management regulations did apply to B&Bs because it placed duties on self-employed persons as well as employers.

โ€œ (2)  Every self-employed person shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment ofโ€”
 (a) the risks to his own health and safety to which he is exposed whilst he is at work; and
 (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,
for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.โ€

So they should have been doing risk assessments since 1992 . Although there was no explicit requirement for fire safety to be assessed any suitable and sufficient risk assessment should have identified glaring omissions like no fire alarm etc.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2008, 03:55:18 PM »
Quote from: BandBAssociation
A fire officer on this forum talks about householders quietly accepting what he said and then complaining vigorously to others: that surprised him - but it does not surprise me.
I accept what you are saying and I can see how alot of people feel unable to challenge us.

However most fire officers I know go to great lengths (and rightly so) to explain to punters their rights and perogatives to challenge the requirements we make. And there are several good reason for this - due process has to be demonstrated if anything goes to court for one, proportionality is another.

I try to go one step further than that, I try to speak to the person in language they understand, I try to tell them that I am a flexible person, who is willing to listen to their point of view and that if they feel my requirements are unworkeable then to tell me so that another agreed course of action can take place and things can be kept on a friendly level.

When they nod and say "no everything is fine" then run away and gossip about you and thats where I get annoyed after explaining all that.

You are presenting your point of view which I accept and can sympathise with, what Im trying to say to you in return is that communication is the key here.

If your members feel an officer has been onerous or unprofessional they can apprioach the officer senior officer or in worst cases the Cheif Fire Officer.

As the chairman of the B&B association it would be good if you could spread the word about this, perhaps at your next national conference fire service personnel could be invited as guest speakers to come along to try and dispell some of the myths, break down a few barriers with regards to fire safety legislation and how it is enforced etc.

I agree with Kurnal the RRO letters are ridiculously bad. Most fire officers on the ground don't like them, and neither do the punters.

Good opportunity exists for your members to write and voice concerns if they feel the letters are poorly written and push for more clairty, infact I'll start a new thread on that.

Offline Eggcustard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2008, 08:41:07 PM »
Not so long back every B and B association website widely advertised the "6 bed rule" as a way of avoiding compliance with the Fire Precautions Act. Whilst inspecting section 5a exempted premises, you would commonly discover more than 6 beds. Unfortunately for them, legislation has caught up and they don't like it. Compliance can be achieved quite reasonably if they cough up and employ a good fire risk assessor (which are thin on the ground unfortunately). Again though, they try to do it themselves, on the cheap, and find that when the Fire Officer visits, their risk assessments are not suitable and sufficient. As Corporal Jones would say, they don't like it up 'em...:lol: