Fires in B&Bs

[Alan Keith]

I have been researching fire statistics for 2006 as detailed in the report by Communities & Local Government.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/firestats2006.pdf

 
On page 85 is a breakdown by region (inc. Scotland) giving casualties for different building types.
 
The breakdown for dwellings gives 3 options.
a.  Single occupancy dwellings
b.  Multiple occupancy dwellings
c.  Other or unspecified dwellings

The only other category that might be applicable I think is hotels, but as that is under Industrial Premises I think it unlikely.
 
I'd like to know on which line a fire in a B&B would have been logged under the earlier (pre IRS) system.  I refer to a small B&B, i.e. one which did not have a fire certificate under the previous regime, having not more than 6 bed-spaces  (I think that is the correct situation - it was in Scotland until 2005 - but corect me if I'm wrong regarding England).   From local contact I believe that any such fire would have been logged under a. above, but would like confirmation that this would be the case nationally, or otherwise.

Can anyone help to clarify this?

[Ricardo]

I From local contact I believe that any such fire would have been logged under a. above, but would like confirmation that this would be the case nationally, or otherwise.
Can anyone help to clarify this?

I have tried fishing around for you in Scotland, but havent got a definitive answer, I note that on looking at a  current FDR1 form, section 3 asks for "details of the type of property"

and the supporting guidance mentions the term, "single occupier" which says it can range from "only 1 company to family occupation, under this heading,
in the term "other" it mentions hotels. I wonder if its a case of the OIC choosing the one that they believe best fits the occupancy of their fire.
But of course your question is asking which line from the CLG stats this would be logged under? so not sure if the above is any use to you at all airds.

[Alan Keith]

Thanks, Ricardo, for trying to help.  No-one else has done so, yet surely there must have been some policy when recording incidences of fire.   The bottom line, I think, is that there is no worthwhile data at all to assess the relative level of risk of the average B&B compared to other premises, hotels, for instance, from historic sources.   I'm puzzled why there seems to be an opinion that B&Bs are in some way more of a risk to their users that for instance their own homes, or am I misinterpreting the situation here?

[nearlythere]

Thanks, Ricardo, for trying to help.  No-one else has done so, yet surely there must have been some policy when recording incidences of fire.   The bottom line, I think, is that there is no worthwhile data at all to assess the relative level of risk of the average B&B compared to other premises, hotels, for instance, from historic sources.   I'm puzzled why there seems to be an opinion that B&Bs are in some way more of a risk to their users that for instance their own homes, or am I misinterpreting the situation here?

Why don't you ask your Fire & Rescue Service if they have any statistics on this and if it doesn't have any ask it where you can source it?

By the way I can confirm that you are more likely to die in a fire in your own home than in any other type of building.
Why? Because the authorities have little control over what you do there. But I can tell you that since the very successful domestic smoke detector campaign the number of deaths in the home has dropped dramatically.
Was the campaign a subtle move by the authorities for getting some control over domestic properties? Who cares, it worked.

[Alan Keith]

The local FRS was my first port of call, but they were unable to provide any information.   I am aware that risk of fires in dwellings is higher than other premises, but the statistics cover the whole spectrum of domestic housing.  Clearly some people are much less responsible than others.   One factor never included in fire statistics is the influence of alcohol, though if one talks to firefighters you will be told that it features regularly in incidents, e.g. go to pub, get drunk then retrurn home to fall asleep with a cigarrette, or put the chip pan on.  The point I'm making is that the risk for responsible people, who would have a smoke alarm fitted anyway, is much lower than the average, even though there is no way to quantify the fact.

[Ricardo]

The point I'm making is that the risk for responsible people, who would have a smoke alarm fitted anyway, is much lower than the average, even though there is no way to quantify the fact.

I wouldnt automatically say that by having a smoke alarm fitted that makes the risk "much lower than the average" as you suggest airds, ( average what?)

Would you not agree that by virtue of someone running a B & B, no matter how small, you are increasing the risks by introducing people who are not family members or familiar with your family routines into your home, and you are placing your trust in them to abide and obey to your house rules at all times.

Likewise,when you’re not in your own home, you are at risk from other peoples activities, you’re not in total control of your entire environment,( like you are at home) people are relaxed and unfamiliar with the surroundings, equipment and escape routes, so it is vital that in case of fire, early warning and safe escape is provided.
Its what we would all surely expect.

I have just visited a guest house today where the lady said she only takes regulars, however, she has recently noticed 2 dvd's missing and a book on hill walking has disappeared from her bookshelf, she can only put it down to her guests, which she told me she is surprised about, as they have all been going to her house for years now, and she trusted them all.

We say time and again, its a matter of risk assessment for deciding the level of protection in case of fire that is needed, we are trying very hard to get away from the prescriptive approach where the fire brigades stipulated what you must have in terms of fire precautions, and allowing the persons with responsibilities to make their own decisions on what they need to provide.

But by carrying out a fire risk assessment the need for automatic fire warning should only be one component to be looked at in your approach to fire safety, it would be expected that you take account of other possible fire precaution measures for the reduction of risk.

One of the British Standards provides details on frequencies of fire within rooms in dwellings and concludes that the highest proportion of fires is in kitchens 54%, followed by bedrooms,living rooms and dining rooms at 12%

Would it not be fair to say that in any dwelling ( including a B & B) it is unlikely ever that the risk of fire is so low as to obviate the need for some form of automatic fire warning? and depending on the layout some fire protection for the escape routes to the dwelling? along with some portable means of takling a small outbreak of fire.

Anyway, sorry airds that is still not answering your initial question.

[Alan Keith]

Ricardo, I appreciate your comments and I absolutely agree that every house should have a properly installed and maintained smoke detector as a minimum.    As a B&B owner, however I can tell you that any increase in risk due to introducing strangers into your home is likely to be more than offset by the additional care that is taken in running the operation.   Unlike the average house, for instance, ours is totally non-smoking, we don't possess a chip pan and potential sources of ignition are reduced greatly, so the actual risk of fire is very small.   I am generalising of course, but no risk can ever be reduced to zero whatever precautions are taken and the main issue here is to do with proportionality.   If the risk of harm can be assessed as being below a certain level there is no justification in expending excessive resources to reduce it a tiny amount.   HSE, for instance, put a statistical value on the reduction of risk amounting to one life at £1 million or thereabouts. That is a basis from which one can assess the merit of a change intended to reduce fatalities.

[CivvyFSO]

The point I'm making is that the risk for responsible people, who would have a smoke alarm fitted anyway, is much lower than the average, even though there is no way to quantify the fact.

It can be assumed that a house with no detection is a much greater risk than a B&B with some detection, and statistics will show that it is generally the places with no detection where the deaths are.

However, my house with single point domestic detectors is far safer for my family than any B&B with domestic detectors ever will be.

[jokar]

I can only add ALARP to this debate.  No detection system has ever made a property safe, it might alert occupants, if they are in the property at the time, to a perceieved danger from fire but it is a danger to absolutely rely on technology.

[Midland Retty]

I can only add ALARP to this debate.  No detection system has ever made a property safe, it might alert occupants, if they are in the property at the time, to a perceieved danger from fire but it is a danger to absolutely rely on technology.

Very true Jokar.

Airds I understand your viewpoint and, alot has been discussed about B&Bs recently, and rightly so.

I realise alot of landlords have been asking how many actual deaths / fires have occured in B&Bs and want to use that as some form of measure to base their arguments upon.

Thats understandable, but to me that really isn't the point

You can never totally predict or have total control over what your guests get up to.

So while the chances of a fire in your B&B occuring are pretty low the consequences if it did happen could be severe.

For example Im aware of several Inner city B&Bs and guest houses which seem to attract clients out on Stag Dos and hen nights etc - alcohol is a huge factor when it comes to humans behaving badly and doing silly things they wouldnt do otherwise.

There are other examples, not just alcohol related which demonstrate how we human beings can be 24 carrat plonkers and put others unintentionally risk!

Last week I stopped in Dover to go to a wedding. We lodged at a splendid guest house.  After coming back from the evening do a member of the family decided it would be ok to have a crafty ciggie in his room (he only did this because he had consumed alot of alcohol, when sober he wouldn't dream of doing that)! I did stop him, but it just goes to show people don't always act as responsibly as we would all hope.

It could only take one person to destroy your business, and more worringly injur or kill one of your family or you guests!

[Alan Keith]

"I realise alot of landlords have been asking how many actual deaths / fires have occured in B&Bs and want to use that as some form of measure to base their arguments upon. "

Thats understandable, but to me that really isn't the point.

But it is the point actually, because in all risk situations there is such a thing as risk cost/benefit analysis.  Read the HSE document "Reducing Risks Protecting People" at  http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/r2p2.pdf
When levels of risk are measured and found to be sufficiently low there is no justification in expending resources to achieve a disproportionately small improvement.   Fire is no more (or less) fatal to its victims than electric shock or falling down stairs.   All safety measures need to be applied in a proportionate way, as the guidance information states.   Remember the word "reasonably" is included in ALARP

Examples such as B&Bs in city centres may well assess their situation as higher risk justifying more stringent measures, but country B&Bs don't tend to suffer the sort of problems mentioned.   Guest houses in Scotland would be classed as "residential buildings" and previously held a fire certificate, so will already have the measures such as fire doors & room smoke detectors that are the main subject of discussion.

I do much appreciate the fact that the discussion here has been "reasonable" and considerate and am happy to continue it with the hope of mutual enlightenment, and I thank all the contributors to date for their time and trouble.

[Izan FSO]

hi airds
your argument is one that i have heard on many occasions from this sector of the business community and you say that the risk of a fire occuring in your B&B is so minimal that the fire precautions that you put should be proportinate to that small risk of a fire occuring......you never have had and i'm sure you never will have a fire.

However the legislation states that adequate general fire precautions (GFP) should be provided in case of fire......the legislation assumes you will have a fire and in which case you WILL have adequate GFP in place ready for that time. it then depends on the size of your premises as to the level GFP but a pre-requisite for ANY firsk assessment must start with adequate means for detection and warning.

[Alan Keith]

Izan.  I am not aware where this is stated in the legislation.  Can you point me to it?   In any case, "adequate means for detection and warning" is a quite vague specification.  I could arguably be satisfied with smoke detection in central areas only such as is appropriate to a new built dwelling, could it not?

[Izan FSO]

Duty to take general fire precautions
     8. —(1) The responsible person must—
(a) take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of any of his employees; and
(b) in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the premises are safe.

Risk assessment
     9. —(1) The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order.

Article 8 says the RP MUST take GFP to make the premises safe......i would assume safe from fire as this is the fire safety order

Article 9 a suitable and sufficient FRA will identify the GFP required...you have to be able to justify in your FRA why you think detction on an escape route only is acceptable.....my view if your detection on your escape route is sounding that route is already compromised by smoke and is probably not useable if you are not sure look at what guidance docments say they are there to help you decide what is appropriate.

[Ricardo]

the main issue here is to do with proportionality.   If the risk of harm can be assessed as being below a certain level there is no justification in expending excessive resources to reduce it a tiny amount.

I agree with your comments above airds, I dont think anyone will disagree with them, but alas I on my travels dont find ALL B & B owners as careful as you in running their businesses with regards to fire safety matters. And when I try my best to inform and educate them, as many dont have much idea of current fire safety best practices, apart from keeping their fire extinguishers servived annually, I try and help them out by following the good enforcement concordat principles, I try to be fair, helpful, open, proportionate, but I can at times get some verbal in return if it means them spending some cash.

I would never expect anyone in a small B & B to need to spend thousands of pounds on fire safety improvements, if that was the case, then should they be operating at all? due to risk of death or serious injury to guests.

With regards to your comment "Guest houses in Scotland would be classed as "residential buildings" and previously held a fire certificate, so will already have the measures such as fire doors & room smoke detectors that are the main subject of discussion"
Is also not quite accurate, not all guest houses would have held a fire certificate if they didnt come into the criteria of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 for requiring one, ( so no fire safety control would have been possible at the time over such places by the fire authorities) also depending upon when such a certificate was issued, for example pre 1988, it would have been unlikely that such a premises would have had automatic fire detection installed at that time, all that would have been installed in the guest house was a manual fire alarm system.

As for fire doors, many doors in older guest houses/B & B's I have come across were never up to a  standard of 30 minutes fire resistance anyway, they were known as fire check doors, achieving a 20 minutes fire resistance, many I see now are really past their best, by being warped, shrunk or damaged in some way, but proprietors I see just dont want to spend anything in dealing with them.

In circumstances such as these I wouldnt class spending "some" cash on repairing/ replacing some past their best fire doors or even some adequate fire detection ( if necessary) as being disproportionate when conducting the risk cost/benefit analysis you mention.