Fire Hazard and Fire Risk

[jokar]

Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O.  It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA.  The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back.  The guset house scenario in a recent thread is an example of this and so is this.

An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine.  This for not having a secondary moe, a fire alarm system and other passive fire safety measures.  Why not, well the FRA decided that as this was a high street shop of 3 floors where the top 2 floors were pine furniture showrooms, they were not necessary.  No one was allowed up without the shop owner to show them around and the small shop was just that, again with furniture on show.  Now if someone can explain to me the ignition source for solid wood that would require urgent escape or that a fire would grow to such unbelieveable proportions ina short time scale, arson aside, then I will be pleased  to read about it.  To get a solid piece of furniture alight you need some real heat, perhaps a customer carries a oxy acetylene torch around with them.  Fire hazard is low, fire risk is low, yet the control measures are high, why?  I believe that the owner is now going to close down.

[Allen Higginson]

Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O.  It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA.  The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back.  The guset house scenario in a recent thread is an example of this and so is this.

An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine.  This for not having a secondary moe, a fire alarm system and other passive fire safety measures.  Why not, well the FRA decided that as this was a high street shop of 3 floors where the top 2 floors were pine furniture showrooms, they were not necessary.  No one was allowed up without the shop owner to show them around and the small shop was just that, again with furniture on show.  Now if someone can explain to me the ignition source for solid wood that would require urgent escape or that a fire would grow to such unbelieveable proportions ina short time scale, arson aside, then I will be pleased  to read about it.  To get a solid piece of furniture alight you need some real heat, perhaps a customer carries a oxy acetylene torch around with them.  Fire hazard is low, fire risk is low, yet the control measures are high, why?  I believe that the owner is now going to close down.

A good example of a flawed system at work.

[BCO]

You are correct in that many seem to have lost the ability too risk assess. However, I increasingly think that for many doing the job that ability has not yet been developed. By this I mean that the ability to risk asses comes from many years of fire safety experience. Unfortunately the FRS appears to have lost a vast wealth of experience and there does not seem to be anywhere near the same level of expertise that there once was and its not being replaced. Of course there are many excellent fire safety officers that can risk asses the only problem is most of them only have a couple of years before they retire.   So the prescription of the book is here to stay. Without knowledge, depth of experience and years of training where else can we expect the FRS to obtain their answers?

[William 29]

Joker, I agree entirely with your comments in that many enforcing officers are using prescriptive methods instead of assessing risk, essentially in many cases the guides are being enforced with a “says so in the guides” approach.

On the specific case you mention why has this caution not been challenged?  Is someone not acting for the RP to ensure the correct fire safety enforcement procedures have been followed?  I have come across increasing evidence were the attitude by the fire safety officer could only be construed as bullying of the RP were sometimes the formal caution along with the Bluff and Persuasion Act 1932 is used as a threat so that the fire officer get his way.
 
I should mention I am ex fire service so I have experience of both sides.

[CivvyFSO]

So we have a 3 storey, single staircase, (probably unprotected) no alarm, public on the premises, premises filled with wood.

For some reason to top this all off I can just envisage the owner locking the front door as he takes the customers up to the second floor.

And a FRA decided that not even detection was needed?

Had the FRA actually considered fire growth and tenability etc to warrant the apparent lack of any fire protection whatsoever? (And by 'considered' I mean "put something reasonable forward in an argument") Is the only fire loading in that place solid pine? No wastepaper? No computers? No till equipment? No cardboard signs all over stating the prices? Does he always have a member of staff downstairs when he is upstairs? If yes, does that member of staff ever have a holiday/dinner hour? Is the only ignition source really arson? (And when you say "solid" pine, you mean the pine I am thinking of that is actually a lightweight wood, and one of the relatively easily ignited woods)

I might suggest that a flip-side to this coin is that it seem possible to me that a bad fire risk assessment may be the reason he got hit with a fine.

[afterburner]

Could this be clarified:- "An FRS has nailed a RP with a Formal Caution and a 4K fine",

( I am not picking flaws here but living and working in Scotland where all fines for failures in fire safety are a result of a prosecution by the Procurator Fiscal, this statement is puzzling. Does the fine automatically follow a 'formal caution' or is there actually a 'charge' which is brought to court? I am assuming that the Fire Authority would be the 'prosecutors' in this case, or would someone else actually prosecute?).

[nearlythere]

Without wishing to be rude to anyone or any organisation, I am becoming increasingly concerned with enforcers attitude to the RR(FS)O.  It would appear that a prescriptive approach is being utilised and that this is backed wholeheartedly by CFOA.  The concept of hazard and risk seems to have gone and prescriptive fire safety is back.

And it is going to get even worse. The level of fire safety knowledge is diminishing daily as experienced inspecting officers, those who actually inspected, leave. Their replacements will have little or no coalface experience of fire safety. Slowly but surely risk assessment audits using well grounded practical experience and sound judgement will disappear to be replaced by box tickers with the only fire safety knowledge being that as contained in the guides.

[Fishy]

The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises.  The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court).  So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.

Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?

Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.

[nearlythere]

The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises.  The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court).  So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.

Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?

Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.

Therein lies a problem Fishy. The auditor is reading out of the codes of practice which, to my knowledge, doesn't say anywhere that there is provision to dispense with structural protection of stairways if a detection system is installed. If that was the case there would be many happier employers around.

I can't see New FSO accepting a three storey unprotected single stairway situation. Single door protection to all escape stairways, other than small premises, would be the bench mark to increase with the level of risk.

[CivvyFSO]

Another thought:

To see if it just the FRS who are unreasonable; Try get that building through a Building Control submission.

[nearlythere]

Another thought:

To see if it just the FRS who are unreasonable; Try get that building through a Building Control submission.

Much easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than to get a 3 storey unprotected single stairway through Building Control.

[jokar]

William, at fist it was a prohibition and the FRA closed the premises and then went ahead with the prosecution.  The prosecutors then got into a problem with the description of fire, fire hazard and fire risk.  The clients barrister was taking on the FRS and was winning.  The Rp was put under tremendous pressure and then invited to HQ on his own and subjected to "our costs are already 20K" if you accept, this will all go away and he caved in.  Bullying perhaps, the rights and wrongs who knows but my question still stands,

are both IO's and RAers dealing with hazard and risk or are they being code huggers?

Civvy, it would not go through a BCO now, but it did when it was built and that is part of the point.  The RR(FS)O was part of the Government plan to minimise burden on business, it seems that putting people out of busness is part of that option.

[William 29]

I might suggest that a flip-side to this coin is that it seem possible to me that a bad fire risk assessment may be the reason he got hit with a fine.

I had assumed that the FRA done was completed by a competent person and had put reasoned statements forward for the justification in relaxing current fire safety guidance??  If not then the FRA is open to challenge... but why the caution perhaps we need to know the full details.

[William 29]

And it is going to get even worse. The level of fire safety knowledge is diminishing daily as experienced inspecting officers, those who actually inspected, leave. Their replacements will have little or no coalface experience of fire safety. Slowly but surely risk assessment audits using well grounded practical experience and sound judgement will disappear to be replaced by box tickers with the only fire safety knowledge being that as contained in the guides.

I think that sums up the current situation quite well in my view.  

We used to say “it’s the responsible person’s risk, they now manage it” So why do we need FSO’s with all that experience anymore when they are now essentially auditors.  A lot of FSO’s out there now have been fire safety for 2 years or less, having only really worked with the RRFSO with limited experience of the FP Act and WP Regs principles, where in my opinion is when you learnt your trade as an FSO.

The new FSO has a surface knowledge based on the new guides and lets not forget most of the principles in the new guides are based on the principles mentioned in the old FP Act, Blue, Purple, Lilac, Yellow etc guides (with some changes)

We are also now seeing a reduction in fire safety establishments in F and RS which just tells the story really that the whole emphasis has now changed the RP must manage their own risk.

[FSO]

I disagree that the RR(FS)O was introduced with the sole intention of reducing the burden on small businesses. In some circumstances it may do just that, however the idea was to ensure self regulation and fire protection measures are in place to match the risk presented.
I do get continually fed up with articles that refer to all FRA IOs as pesrcriptive guide huggers as I feel that I am certinally not that. ( i appreciate that some people have noted the fact that we are not all like that)

I agree with Civvy on alot of what he says, however to make a formal opinion I would need further information on the building, including any other risks and any control measures in place.
On face value, I would see difficulty in risk assessing away a need for a AFA system unless there were other similar control measures in place.
I do not know the size of the building, but maybe a simple part 6 system would be sufficient. It would not break the bank either.

I think the point is, people need to employ decent risk assessors who actually know what they are doing. I would say that I send more FRAs back as not suitable and sufficent than ones that are acceptable.

As an enforcing officer it would never be my intention to put somebody out of business because they pose a little risk to life.

There are always more than one way to skin a cat.