Sheltered housing again!

[lambie]

There are any number of problems in sheltered housing with regard to fire alarms, and wardens/managers/housing support whatever they are called. Firstly the days of staff being on the premises day and night are gone due to financial reasons. There is no one to keep order in the event of an alarm so that residents tend to wander around and any kind of procedure is ignored. Basically its the sound of the alarm that creates the chaos with individuals unable to stand in a common area under a sounder but reluctant to venture out in the cold and rain, result confusion. Frankly you dont have to be old,senile,less able to suffer the pain of a fire alarm blasting the eardrums.  False signals lead to some residents just knowing which toaster is the culprit and off  they go  perhaps walking toward the seat of the fire blithley unaware. Sheltered housing can be a recipe for disaster.

[Big T]

Absolutely, Hence the recommendation in 5588 pt 1 to have an alarm notify the central control / warden / fire service of a fire and to warn the flat of origin of a fire.

People seem to have lost a lot of faith in compartmentation and appear to be very scepticle of allowing a stay put / shelter in place evac strategy in sheltered housing for instance Hants fire and rescue advise against it. Which is absolutely ludicrous.

I have risk assessed 150 Sheltered schemes managed by my company and out of those have only advised one scheme to scrap the stay put policy in favour of an evac strategy until destructive surveys can be carried out to ensure this pre 21st century wing of the scheme is adequately fire rated to allow a stay put strategy.

Many of the schemes previously haven't carried out annual drills as they say that if they are stay put then they don't need to drill.

In my opinion they absolutely should and upon hearing the alarm residents are asked to stay in their flat and prepare to leave. The scheme manager will then walk around the scheme to ascertain if it was the real thing, if an evacuation was required by the fire service would the residents be ready to go or not. This is carried out 6 monthly.

The beauty of this is that if they hear the alarm sounding they are actually doing something rather than just sitting there or worst case scenario going to investigate themselves. The residents know that the alarm may sound for a while and are informed that the system will have notified the scheme manager/ out of hours centre/fire service and if they need to get out the fire service will tell them to if the fire is out of control. They are also told that if they are affected by heat/smoke etc in their flat they are to ring the fire service and evacuate.

This is why there is a recommendation for fire doors etc as it is there to prevent fire spread.

If sheltered block were evac strategy then you could ditch the whole compartmentation thing and just tell everyone to evac on hearing the alalrm.

Deidre and Flo would be impressed at 3am December 25th

[Ashley Wood]

Out of 2000 + sheltered schemes I have assessed only a handful have had fire doors with cold smoke seals, letter box's with smoke and intumescent seals, doors that close fully etc, not to mention the holes left above false ceilings in fire barriers above fire doors. I can understand why the fire services are against stay put policies when the fire compartmentation is not adequate. stay put is fine if everything works as it should including the fire action plan.

[Midland Retty]

Big T it's encouraging to hear that your organisation has well managed schemes where the compartmentation is all as it should be.

In my experience FR / compartmentation in many sheltered schemes / blocks is substandard or incomplete meaning that a stay put policy can not be considered.

BIG T mentions something above which I feel is often forgotten or overlooked. It is the issue of tennants making sure they are ready to be evacuated if required when the fire alarm sounds.

The other issue here is the current trend and indeed regulatory loophole where some organisations are alllowed to operate what are essentially residential care or nursing homes as sheltered schemes or "very sheltered schemes".

This is where one organisation provides the bricks and mortar of the scheme (the premises) and another company provides the care to the residents on an individual contract basis or similar. Often the company that provides the building also has a sister company that provides care workers. And because the staff arent directly employed the scheme is not called a residential care home.

I spoke to CSCI about this. They told me it was an issue of concern to them and that it was a grey area they wanted to address.

[nearlythere]

Out of 2000 + sheltered schemes I have assessed only a handful have had fire doors with cold smoke seals, letter box's with smoke and intumescent seals, doors that close fully etc, not to mention the holes left above false ceilings in fire barriers above fire doors. I can understand why the fire services are against stay put policies when the fire compartmentation is not adequate. stay put is fine if everything works as it should including the fire action plan.

Stay put is fine if people know that they can stay if they want to that is. Recent fire I know of in purpose built flats had multiple rescues because people did not know of stay put but most probably would not want to remain in a block anyway when one of the flats was on fire.
Stay put doesn't seem to take into account people behaviour.

[Big T]

I just wanted to ask about the requirement for the intumescent letter boxes. If they are located correctly in the door then there should b no requirement for an intumescent letter box. The fire service love asking for them to be upgraded. The BS covering non metallic door leaves suggests if it is within a certain height this is not required. I am sure Smokescreen can elaborate...

[JC100]

I just wanted to ask about the requirement for the intumescent letter boxes. If they are located correctly in the door then there should b no requirement for an intumescent letter box. The fire service love asking for them to be upgraded. The BS covering non metallic door leaves suggests if it is within a certain height this is not required. I am sure Smokescreen can elaborate...

BS 8214:1990 has no requirements for intumescent letter boxes. It does say that the height of the letter box in the door has an influence, along with the size and stating that they should have well fitted internal and external sprung or gravity flaps manufactured from steel, stainless steel and some brasses.

On another note

Why would the invention of the intumescent strip and smoke seal now require us to change policies from stay put to an evac in sheltered blocks (or any others)? The 'stay put' policy has worked fine in the years up to this point so why the need to change it now?

[Big A]

Stay put doesn't seem to take into account people behaviour.

At a fire recently where someone had set a mattress alight in a corridor several gallant but misguided elderly gentlemen put themselves and several elderly ladies, who they tried to 'rescue', in serious danger from smoke inhalation.

[Midland Retty]

On another note

Why would the invention of the intumescent strip and smoke seal now require us to change policies from stay put to an evac in sheltered blocks (or any others)? The 'stay put' policy has worked fine in the years up to this point so why the need to change it now?

Its an urban myth that the fire service is trying to change  stay put policies

As you correctly point out stay put policies were in existence before intumescent strips and cold smoke seals became available. What Inspecting Officers, Risk Assessors, RPs should be looking for is good unbreached compartmentation.

Without the correct level of FR / compartmentation a stay put policy can not be entertained. This encompasses several aspects of passive and active fire precautions, not just strips and seals on doors, but the integrity and condition of compartment walls / true lines of Fire Resistance for example.

So I dont think its fire service losing faith in stay put policies, instead I think its more a case that they are looking more closer at it.

Another consideration is the management or marshalling of fire evacuations. We are seeing many schemes now without any staff on site. That has to be factored in for several reasons too.

We could all drive cars without seatbelts some years ago, then it was enforced that we should wear them.Why? because they give occupants enhanced protection.

 Its the same with strips and seals; they are an additional safety measure which gives enhanced protection.

So if a door hasnt got them but needs them an inspecting officer will ask for them to be fitted.

[Big T]

On another note

Why would the invention of the intumescent strip and smoke seal now require us to change policies from stay put to an evac in sheltered blocks (or any others)? The 'stay put' policy has worked fine in the years up to this point so why the need to change it now?

Its an urban myth that the fire service is trying to change  stay put policies

As you correctly point out stay put policies were in existence before intumescent strips and cold smoke seals became available. What Inspecting Officers, Risk Assessors, RPs should be looking for is good unbreached compartmentation.

Without the correct level of FR / compartmentation a stay put policy can not be entertained. This encompasses several aspects of passive and active fire precautions, not just strips and seals on doors, but the integrity and condition of compartment walls / true lines of Fire Resistance for example.

So I dont think its fire service losing faith in stay put policies, instead I think its more a case that they are looking more closer at it.

Another consideration is the management or marshalling of fire evacuations. We are seeing many schemes now without any staff on site. That has to be factored in for several reasons too.

We could all drive cars without seatbelts some years ago, then it was enforced that we should wear them.Why? because they give occupants enhanced protection.

 Its the same with strips and seals; they are an additional safety measure which gives enhanced protection.

So if a door hasnt got them but needs them an inspecting officer will ask for them to be fitted.

Thts well and good but if a car wasn't fitted with them then they dont need upgrading. middle rear seatbelt for example.

I agree whole heartedly that buildings without strips and seals can still operate stay out policy but some brigades will not even entertain allowing the strategy. Not all brigades of course, just a few we deal with.

[Midland Retty]

Yes unfortunately there are regional differences. I can see the argument from both sides. And of course it depends on the doors in question - if they a poorly fitted doors then strips and seals are a must.

[Big T]

Absolutely.

Accepting that the majority of sheltered shemes are of older design no strips and seals are likely to be present. but generally the doors and door stops are sound.

Is when people find issues and do nothing I get annoyed

[jokar]

Same argument then, where does it state that S&S can be retrofitted or are we talking about a new door set in these instances.

[Big T]

In our case we change the door set competely as there is no evidence that retro fitting improves the doors capability in the event of fire.

[Ashley Wood]

In my part of this island the fire services would prefer a full evacuation scenario but are sensible enough to see that this may not be possible. They take the view that providing the compartmentation is sound then stay put is acceptable, but again, this is where the problem sits. Big T, you must have fantastic fire doors and flat entrance doors on your schemes for there not to be issues. Even new schemes I have assessed have had some door issues, these range from missing screws in hinges to poorly aligned doors and doors that contact the frame by as little as 2mm! I look at the letter box issue like this, if there was a fire within a flat, smoke could escape in to the corridor. The people within the scheme do not stay put but wander about (common complaint of scheme managers). So they could become overcome by smoke. The doors do not close properly so the smoke spreads into other corridors, and, due to more wanderings, more potential victims, etc., etc. Without a doubt, the age of residents in sheltered schemes is rising and their mobility and health are declining. With no staff on site this is going to become an issue at some stage. the comment about the stay put policy being around for a long time is ok but we have advanced technically since some of these schemes were built and I am sure that when they were built they would have had 24 hour warden control and lower age residents in mind.