B & B's in Uproar over new fire legislation

[Izan FSO]

CivvyFSO,
Consistency: of course there will never be perfect consistency, but is is the substantial inconsistency between areas in the treatment of similar properties that we are trying to help the fire safety community reduce.
Proportionality: the RRFSO is very clear - fire precautions should be proportionate to the size of the undertaking and to the risk.  
You are right, but your notional "old station officer" would be totally wrong in enforcing the guide or in imposing prescriptive standards regardless of the actual risk.  This does matter, because very small businesses are closing because of such actions (I have just spoken to a B&B owner this morning who is closing his award-winning B&B).

B&B
in my experiance the B&B owners are closing because they dont want to pay out for the minimum standards of fire precautions that we are suggesting and we belive are prportinate to the size of their undertaking.

It would be intersting to know how much it was going to cost your award winning B&B to upgrade the fire precautions.

One 4 bedroomed farmhouse B&B i inspected put in a wirless L2 fire alrm system (£2700) 2 SafeT lights (£20 each) and fitted self closing devices to the existing doors (7 of them at about  £12 each) full compliance for under 3K. plus she can now use the 4th room which she could not do before because she would have required a fire certificate and therfeore full AFD EM lights and new fire doors.

would you say this was over onerous or proportinate to the size and risk in the premises.

[Chris]

Izan,

I am sure some B&Bs are closing because “they don’t want to pay out for the minimum standards of fire precautions that we are suggesting”.  That is very true but I would guess more are closing because of the hassle of implementing the changes to their home.  The cost is one thing, the disturbance to your home and the hassle with contractors etc is another.  Why should an old lady with a couple of rooms making a bit of pin money and having a bit of company have the hassle of getting quotes, managing a contractor to get the work done, getting her house invaded for a few hours during installation, clean up the mess they have left and then be expected to fill in a fire safety log etc for then rest of her days.  The answer is she isn’t.  She will close and we (the general public) loose another quaint little B&B.

We are not closing our B&B because of the money.  I am sure I could spin a grant from somewhere and although the cost is out of all proportion to the gain it isn’t a show stopper.  The implementation and the future impact on our HOME is the main reason.

£12 for self closing doors sounds fine except we don’t want self closing doors (we would have fitted them if we did).  And let’s be realistic all that is going to happen is that they will be propped open until the next fire inspection.

Sorry that I sound very resentful of the fire services and the general health and safety stupidity we are currently living under but we are about to loose nearly 20% of our income and about to disappoint all our regular guests. It doesn’t put you in a very good frame of mind.

[jokar]

IZAN FSO, interesting that you use the terms we suggest.  The RR(FS)O is about what the RP requires under ALARP through their own FRA.  The problem is that a number of FRS do not like risk assessment and are using their enforcement regime to be prescriptive on owners regrdless of what an FRA states.  In a lot of cases they blatantly ignore the FRA and put people under pressure because they are an FRS.

[Clevelandfire]

Thats a sweeping statement of mass proportion Jokar. OK I can accept the ladlord doesnt want self closing doors. I can just about accept that the old lady Swaapc talked about may not want the hassle for what essentially is small works that may last a week or so. I had to put up with contractors in my house for two weeks while my new windows were installed big deal. But to suggest ALL FRS in the UK dont like RA and are ignoring it I think is a bitter statement, and just plain misinformed. Sorry you have been given reasons how we can be challenged you have been given reasons why we cant and wont intimidate people but you dont want to listen. Thats fine.
Based on the attitudes of people like you I will be voting for prescription when the CFOA decides to get feedback on hopw the RRO has bedded in. Legislation comes along that people don't like. Well Im sorry tough. 3K is fine but they dont want the hassle? then theyre obviously not really that commited to the business are they? So dont blame people like me and Izanfso for half ar*sed attempts. Tell me Jokar what you want in a B&B - wjhats standards do you propose? Cos i bet theyre no different from what I'd ask for. But do put your money where your mouth is and tell us. Do lets see how you intend to demonstrate how the Nazi jack booted inspectors amongst us are going OTT forcing poor little B&Bs out of business. Give me all the examples you know about. As our friend Swaapc admits is because they just dont want the hassle, yet they want your money and people stopping in their B&Bs.Talk about losing the argument its just been summed up here! Finally admission about what this is really all about. Boo Hoo

[Clevelandfire]

Our fire inspection although cordial and amicable was intimidating.  Two uniformed officials on your door step can not be anything else.  There was no sense of proportionality. They could have been assessing a 10 story Hotel.  The same rules seemed to apply. Yes I smiled and agree with them.  Why?  

The same fire service had threatened to close down one of our neighbours B&B rooms on the day of their visit (with people in).  The only reason they didn’t was that they couldn’t get the paper work raised in time and the farmer and his son built a fire escape (from scaffolding) that night.  The neighbour has been doing B&B for 21 years yet all of a sudden her guests are in mortal danger? A fire escape for a 3 room two storey (ground floor and 1st floor) B&B with 1 room upstairs – hardly proportional!

I see .

Ok thats fine. We wont have a police force then. We wont have the health and safety incase people say its intimidating. Yet in the same breath you admit it was cordial and amicable. Strange. So would you have prefered a fire officer reading the riot act in your face?. The fact two officers visit is actually there for your protection and ours.You dont understand fire safety and therefore can not understand why the fire officer may have decided to prohibit that building. You are letting your personal judgement and prejudice decide for you because thats the easy option. And thats what makes me angry. You are crying out for a level playing field and yet seem to not listen to eitherside of the story and this is what niggles me. You are essentially a domestic premise. Most people die in domestic premises in this country. So you get guests into your premises. Theyre smokers go out get drunk and fall asleep with a ciggie in their hands and set their room on fire. You cant control that. How could you unless you decided to enter their room every five minutes Dont give me the how many times has a fire occured in a B&B argument . Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong. The likelyhood may be low but if something goes wrong the consequences will be severe. Tell you what dont install any fire precautioins but do me a deal instead you be the one that thells a family theyve loast a friend or member of the family in a firein your B&B you tell them, then you will understand our concerns.

[Graeme]

I can honestly say some of the worst installed and maintained fire alarm systems i see are in B+B's. They are never tested and the owners don't think it's worth having a contract because their pal down the road thinks it's a waste of money beacuse they have never had one.

Then you go and do a test because they think it's been a few years since the last one.
One site i found 4 detectors in bedrooms not working and yet they still hummed over wether to replace them.

They had a battery back up that would not light an led but still grumble over having to replace them.

I was at one today who now feels that the responsibilty is more on him so he is going to upgrade his fire alarm that was installed (badly) by his mate on the cheap for a few pints. Wow.

B+B's i have looked at over the years are riding their luck ,penny pinching with sub standard alarm systems that even when all the failings are explained to them are still reluctant to do anything,even small bits at a time.

I don't like paying to get my gas boiler serviced but i do for the safety of my family in the house and if i was told a part needed replaced or the boiler was old and becoming unreliable i would not tell the engineer to leave it as "it still works at the moment".....

[Chris]

"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005.  Why don't we ban cars?  There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.

I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying.  I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch.  We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.

Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them.  Are they willing to pay for it?  I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in.  I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.

"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes).  We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.

[AnthonyB]

Ah the wonder of statistics. More people die on the roads true - which is why over the years the laws are being increasingly tightened - seat belts, drinking limits, speed bumps, speed cameras, mobile phone restrictions and higher maximum possible penalties.

If you look just at fire then of all types of premises it's domestic ones where people die, due to minimal legislation. Workplaces, once equally hazardous, are now not so because of legislation.

Remember the fire service strike - some elements of the press suggested people should stay at home, but if heeded more would die.If the fire brigade were on strike I'd put a bed in my employers offices as it has better fire precautions than in the typical home.

People are blase about fire until it hits them personally or seen it. The fortunate majority (not the right phrase I know) who die do so quickly from smoke and gases, an unfortunate few die over the next month from burns related complications & having seen this personally will never take the subject trivially.

OK, let's exempt small premises because that's what the public wants - until the first deaths (a matter of time) which will result in a tabloid led crusade demanding punitive legislation.

I'm all for proportionate precautions and not over the top prescription (unless the RP wants the extra protection) but not for no precautions at all or laughingly inadequate ones.

Not about the money - pull the other one - in which case don't charge at all! As for inconvenience to your home, that's your choice - keep it as your home and restrict the risk to yourselves, but the moment you introduce (by choice) commerce, its not your home any more and you should provide  the appropriate precautions.

Unsightly emergency lighting- that's a con, the days of the only EL being 8W bricklites is long gone, there are dozens of aesthetic normal light fittings that can have conversion packs fitted to cover a dual role (which makes my life difficult doing an FRA in a building without a schedule of EL as it hurts my neck and eyes trying to spot if they are fitted)

[Clevelandfire]

"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005.  Why don't we ban cars?  There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.

I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying.  I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch.  We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.

Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them.  Are they willing to pay for it?  I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in.  I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.

"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes).  We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.

Thank you for that. For me you have summed up and exposed the holes in your argument. Its your home as you keep saying.I totally appreciate that and thankfully that is the one thing has really exposed the problem with your argument. Do you not want your family to be safe? do you not have smoke detection? No? Then you are very silly. If the answer is yes you do have smoke detection then why? Because you want to be warned of a fire occuring.,  A Single domestioc premise is totally different to a business such as a B&B. WHy? SImple you as a family unit know what each other are doing. As a family yuou control what goes on ther. Introduce guests and you loose some of that control. You want people to accept a risk if they stay at your B&B. You are running a business and whats more you can install fire precautions which are discrete which wouldnt be detectable to joe public. You ask your customers if they know the diference between a fire door and a standard door. Your own conventional  lighting can be converted to emergency lighting and no one would ever know the difference. So a fire occurs would you not want it to be contained? would you not want YOUR FAMILY AND GUESTS to warned of it and escape. would you NOT want the fire to be conatined so that it doesnt damage the rest of your HOME?

Your argument holds no water Im afraid. You run a business. Live with it. And if you cant afford it then Im sorry. I love B&Bs I genuinely do, but when I take my family on holiday I expect cleanliness, a comfortable nice environment and a good english breakfast which Im sure you provide to the highest standards.But above all  I expect safety and dont you try and tell me any other family would be different. If you dont understand that then you shouldnt be in the trade. I will ask again do you expect my 80 year old mother in law to stop at your B&B and escape through a window if there was a fire possibly breaking her plevis from the fall? Or would you expect that she should be able to evacuate unharmed via a conventional route out of the building to spend another holiday in a good english B&B the year after. End of argument. End of argument full stop. Get with it the fire precutions we expect arent to hotel standards at all. Even the government guidance doesnt ask for that. Be honest and stop playing games instead of coming up with silly arguments. Like it or like it not this government expects businesses (which is exactly what you are and dont deny it ) to ensure the safety of people who use them. You just admitted you dont want a level playing field - you said you dont even want to be on it... so you want eemptions or for it not apply just because you are a B&B? Ok great argument that. Sorry you dont do yourself any favours you have to meet us half way, You clearly arent doing so and only paint a sad picture for your fellow colleagues who run B&Bs and I notice you did not mention anything about taking me up on my offer to tell the family or friends of a person who dies in your B&B. Game set match. What a shame this has been made into a point scoring excercise. I wouldnt tell you how to run a B&B dont tell me how to be a fire safety officer.

[kurnal]

Welcome to the forum swaapc. Thankfully not all new members have such a baptism of fire.

It seems to me that the use of statistics onthe number of deaths in house fires is not helpful without further analysis. As Cleveland and Anthony say, the huge majority of fire deaths are in domestic premises. But ithats not surprising because its where everybody spends most of their time and where most most people sleep. If we all took up Anthony's suggestion of sleeping at work ( I know Davo has tried that already) we would see multiple fire deaths soar. You have to be careful with statistics.

Look at the statistics for fire deaths in domestic premises. Look at the socio economic and age groups into which victims of fire fall, and look at the housing standards in which the fires occur. It isnt chocolate box cottages in rural villages or detached houses in the suburbs- the sort of domestic premises that might have a chance of being attractive enough to attract B&B guests.

The crux of the issue is this. There are two elements to fire safety- prevention of fire and precautions in the event of fire.  
The majority of B&Bs are very nice well run attractive places (they have to be)  where the owner through care and attention to detail has effectively reduced the risk of fire occurring to the minimum.  And very successfully.

What most B&B owners I meet have not done effectively is to consider whether, if a fire does occur, people will be alerted in sufficient time to make their safe escape and questioning whether the available escape routes would remain tenable for long enough to allow safe escape.

Most owners are finding this second step a bit of a culture shock and are unfamiliar with the benchmark standards against which to compare their property such as the Building Regulations safety standards for dwellings- set out in Approved document B. If a B&B would not conform even to accepted safe design for a dwelling house then we have a problem and there are a number of very nice places that fall into this category- open plan staircases being fairly common.

Naturally explaining this sort of  problem to the owner who has been trading for years is very dififcult. For two officers to attend (Cant see how that can be for the clients protection to be outnumbered 2 to 1 Cleveland- even more likely to intimidate)   to deliver bad news can be seen as over bearing.

Having identified the problem we have to suggest solutions. The sleeping accommodation guidance is supposed to be the benchmark standard  that we should aim for- taking into account the need for  proportionality and risk. However the benchmark guidance is flawed- especially for example its unique and incorrect definition of BS5839 part 6- LD3 in the tables.  

If the diagrams in the sleeping accommodation guide are  then enforced as the minimum solution  without regard to other measures and management and proportionality thats when the problems arise with enforcement officers.

But many owners also have a difficulty in recognising the two aspects of fire prevention and fire precautions, and think that because they have taken steps to reduce the chance of a fire starting they need do no more.
On the other hand some enforcers may be failing to take account of the management, fire prevention measures and proportionality in determining the level of fire precautions needed.

[nearlythere]

"Most people die in domestic premises in this country." - I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005.  Why don't we ban cars?  There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.

I am not against improving safety all I am trying to say is that by forcing small B&Bs to comply with the current rules you are not making any difference to the probability of someone dying.  I am not asking to be on a “level playing field”. I don’t want to even get on to the pitch.  We use to offer people what they wanted - A homely environment with beautiful views over rolling countryside but I am not prepared to do that at the expense of our Home. It is nothing to do with the money – IT IS OUR HOME. The public looses, our cleaner and handyman loose out, the local trade looses out etc - we go on to make up the shortfall in income some other way.

Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them.  Are they willing to pay for it?  I am a B&B customer and am happy with the fire safety in every small B&B I have ever stayed in.  I am not an expert but I am over 21 and can make my own judgment on risk without a government telling me.

"Its not the point its about assessing a risk and deciding what might happen if something did go wrong." - If we use this argument then we should walk around with a faraday cage on (in case of lightening strikes).  We don't because we accept the risk because it is so small.

Swaapc. When people contact you to book in do you read them a list of the fire safety measures which are not provided and advise them that by staying in the premises they are exposed to a higher risk for fire than if they stayed in a B&B with all the neccessary fire safety measures provided.
I would give you some support if this was the case but I have a feeling you would be out of business very shortly.

I have to however support the B&B industry by saying that a lesser standard of detection than found in hotels would be appropriate in many cases and even egg box doors have a degree of fire resistance. It raises the old chestnut about 2.5 minute evacuation times and 1/2 fr doors.

[CivvyFSO]

I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005.  Why don't we ban cars?  There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.

Welcome to the forum swaapc

It is nice to have another opinion on the matter from the actual opposite end of the problem from myself and the other FSO's here.

You made a comment about not wanting self closers on your doors. So, if a guest has a fire in their room, they gather up their belongings and run out of the room, the door doesn't close behind them and then smoke/fire follows them out... What about the people in the other rooms who haven't had such a rude awakening, and are wondering if the alarm going off (If there is an alarm) is the burglar alarm or the fire alarm, and whether it will turn off if they wait another minute? For something that is relatively cheap, and also relatively unobtrusive considering that most people will want their room door closed anyway, you have just potentially put everyones life at risk in your premises by omitting a very small part of fire safety. (And not because you couldn't afford it, because you "don't want it")

Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005"

That is 376 people with families they have left behind. I would place a safe bet that good fire safety (Good warning and a good means of escape) could have prevented a majority of those deaths.

There were plenty more comments I could rant on about but I think other people have covered them.

[Midland Retty]

I thought the highest death rate in the country was on the roads (3200 in 2005). Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005.  Why don't we ban cars?  There are a lot of other ways to be killed than in a B&B fire.

Welcome to the forum swaapc

It is nice to have another opinion on the matter from the actual opposite end of the problem from myself and the other FSO's here.

You made a comment about not wanting self closers on your doors. So, if a guest has a fire in their room, they gather up their belongings and run out of the room, the door doesn't close behind them and then smoke/fire follows them out... What about the people in the other rooms who haven't had such a rude awakening, and are wondering if the alarm going off (If there is an alarm) is the burglar alarm or the fire alarm, and whether it will turn off if they wait another minute? For something that is relatively cheap, and also relatively unobtrusive considering that most people will want their room door closed anyway, you have just potentially put everyones life at risk in your premises by omitting a very small part of fire safety. (And not because you couldn't afford it, because you "don't want it")

Domestic fire deaths 376 in 2005"

That is 376 people with families they have left behind. I would place a safe bet that good fire safety (Good warning and a good means of escape) could have prevented a majority of those deaths.

There were plenty more comments I could rant on about but I think other people have covered them.

Totally agree with that CivvyFSO.

One thing that emerges from this thread is that Landlords, I think, have been poorly informed on how to comply with the RRO, what products and methods are out there to aid compliance and why certain bench marks and standards are required.

Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed to move this forward for the benefit of everyone involved.

[CivvyFSO]

Has anyone asked the customer if they want the level of safety the fire service is trying to obtain for them.  Are they willing to pay for it?

Sorry but I couldn't resist this one.

Punter: "Can I have a room please?"

Swaapc: "Certainly sir. I just need to inform you that we do not believe in making the premises safe in the event of a fire. In the event of a fire in our lounge, the antique sofa will go like the clappers, trapping you in your room behind a door that is unlikely to survive more than 5 minutes of fire. But no matter because the smoke will have killed you by then, and you won't even be stressed about it because we have no smoke alarms to wake you from your slumber.... That will be £50 per person with breakfast included. We also do not bother with much in the way of food hygiene, as you were more likely do die in the car on the way here than die of botulism."

[FSO]

haha

so true!