Extinguishers. Are they a legal requirement?

[nim]

Is it a legal requirement for an employer/self employed to  have fire extinguishers?

If yes where does it say it?

[nim]

Just read Section 13 of the RR(FS)O.

[Thomas Brookes]

If you look in the guide books on the RRO and it goes deeper into whats required.

[Chris Houston]

In your own risk assessment.

[val]

It is a legal requirement only "where necessary". If is is "necessary" then you must have something.

Nearly all the guidance is now being lined up to say, effectively, that it will nearly always "be necessary"

Thank god we got rid of prescription.

[Thomas Brookes]

Any risk assessor would be a brave person to say no fire fighting equipment is needed at all

[jokar]

Just follow BS 5588 part 1 for extinguishers in common areas of flats.  The answer to the question posed is no, they are not a legal requirement, the law states where necessary and the guidance is just that.  Insurance Companies will ask for them for property protection which is subtly different to a life safety risk assessment under the RR(FS)O.  It all depends on the outcome of the FRA.  There is also no need to buy from a Company and have a maintenance contract.  You can buy from a shop or over the internet.

[AnthonyB]

Problem is that via the internet there is no initial service, you don't know the initial weight for correct servicing, you can't calculate when the first basic service is due or the date of the extended service. Worst of all a lot of the time they come unassembled (especially CO2) and are incorrectly assembled by the user (who is not a competent person) resulting in a safety hazard.

Unless it is a disposable a non initial service labelled extinguisher get flagged as a contravention & I'm going have to start carrying the washers, spanners and allen keys to assemble CO2s properly as standard at the rate I find poorly assembled ones (There's a lot of pressure in there!)

Internet sales in themselves are not a problem, but it should be mandatory to have them initial serviced prior to dispatch & be sent fully assembled.

It's brave but not impossible to assess out extinguishers & not just in flats - even I've done it despite being a walking 'extinguishers through the ages' library! 

[nim]

There is also no need to buy from a Company and have a maintenance contract.  You can buy from a shop or over the internet.

Are you saying that you should never have extinguishers maintained or are you saying just have them serviced when you feel like it?

Agree with Anthony B with regard to Internet sales. Apart from the obvious non competent person attempting to assemble any type of fire extinguisher.  If the cheap (low price) extinguisher you bought on the internet was faulty (because most internet companies don't examine the extinguishers prior to despatch, they just shift boxes) when would you find out that it wasn't going to work?

The user could either try it out after the assembly or wait for a fire and then try it out.

What about extinguishers damaged in transit? When will the user find out it's not going to work?

Do you give this advice free or do you charge for it or have you just had a really bad experience with an extinguisher maintenance company?

Also although I agree the guidance is just that, guidance, I would suggest that to deliberately ignore, contradict or say that items within the guidance aren't necessary because of your own personal experience may possibly be more hassle than it's worth.

Why would you tell anyone not to maintain fire extinguishers? What is the advantage for the user and you?

[Thomas Brookes]

No Initial Service, No maintneance!!!.

As all British Standards are recommendations or best practice the RR(FS)O is Law.

RR(FS)O states.
Maintenance
     17. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

Also I have yet to find a commercial fire extinguisher manufacture that  state their equipment does not require initial service or on going maintenance. In a court of Law manufactures requirements is a very strong bit of evidence .

I think its a even more brave person who states no maintenance of what is a pressurised vessel (fire extinguisher). I have heard in the new BS5306 standard they are looking at bringing in initial service as part of the standard.

Have a look at the story below, I know its in the USA but its the only one I could find quickly.


Apartment fire: Improper inspection of fire extinguishers: Fire code violations: Wrongful deaths: Burns: Settlement.

Edwards v. Dalcor Management, Ala., Mobile County Cir. Ct., No. 98-001595, Dec. 1, 1999. Edwards, 30, lived with her son, 6, and daughter, 4, in an apartment complex. Early one morning, Edwards's son set fire to a couch while his mother and sister were still asleep upstairs. He alerted Edwards, who tried unsuccessfully to extinguish the fire with water. She then brought a fire extinguisher into the apartment but was unable to remove the pin. The fire spread quickly, and Edwards was unable to rescue her children, who died in the fire. They are survived by their mother. Edwards suffered minor bums. Her medical expenses were about $8,000.

Edwards, individually and as mother of the children, sued the complex's management company, alleging state and federal fire code violations. Plaintiffs claimed that Edwards's inability to remove the pin from the fire extinguisher was due to lack of proper inspection and maintenance. Plaintiffs also claimed that the fire extinguishers in the building (1) were located at a greater distance from the apartment than required by the fire code and (2) were mounted higher than the fire code required. Plaintiffs claimed these factors increased the amount of time it took for Edwards to retrieve the fire extinguisher.

Defendant admitted to some fire code violations, but argued that Edwards's failure to remove the pin was due to her inexperience and panicked state.

The parties settled for about $2.13 million.

[kurnal]

Noted Thomas, but this was a civil claim. Most arguments so far have been around the Fire Safety Order- and the duty to provide general fire precautions, failure to do so being an offence under Criminal Law.
You can never predict what may happen when civil claims are made, the insurance companies decide which claims will be taken on and which may be defended, the plaintiff and defendent themselves have little or no say in the matter. Usually large organisations are easy meat because so often they cannot show that they have proper procedures and recording systems in place, or their employees are too idle to record them or follow instructions.   

[AnthonyB]

I will agree that bad practice (& there's a lot of it) by fire protection companies can be off-putting, but that is the companies fault and does not mean that the need for competent installation & maintenance is wrong.

I sympathise with those stung like the small shop that paid £69 + VAT to have a water extinguisher refilled (guess who by!) & despair at the corners cut by some (was inspecting a tenant when their extinguisher man was there & watched him with a cartridge water - he unscrewed the head, lifted it up 5", put it back & started screwing it back on. I waited until he'd spent ages carefully tightening the head before saying - "Aren't you going to weigh the cartridge?" - to which he looked round like a rabbit caught in headlights, made a poor esxcuse about checking the threads and grudgingly started again & did a proper basic service)

[Thomas Brookes]

Just for Kurnal, Ive removed the bottom part, the rest is totally to do with the RR(FS)O.

As all British Standards are recommendations or best practice the RR(FS)O is Law.

RR(FS)O states.
Maintenance
     17. —(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

Also I have yet to find a commercial fire extinguisher manufacture that  state their equipment does not require initial service or on going maintenance. In a court of Law manufactures requirements is a very strong bit of evidence .

I think its a even more brave person who states no maintenance of what is a pressurised vessel (fire extinguisher). I have heard in the new BS5306 standard they are looking at bringing in initial service as part of the standard.

[kurnal]

Cheers Thomas I cant knock that! 

Are there any statistics of accidents caused by extinguishers through improper maintenance or installation that would justify a review of the BS or is it the industry exerting its influence through the back door to make life more difficult for the "rogue" suppliers?  ( I dont sell, supply or maintain by the way.) But whilst some accredited comanies are charging £140 for a 2Kg CO2  plus £5 for the bracket (that comes in the box free)  and £4.75 for the usage sign (as I found in the South of England last week) then there needs to be a bit of balance in the market.

[Thomas Brookes]

I think a big problem with most of the British Standards, is that the big manufactures seem to have to much power.
Often through pressure from these manufactures standards seem to get changed.

In the days when EN3 came in It was strongly hinted, in fact bragged  by the higher management of a company I used to work for that they were a major force in getting EN3 into the UK because they new it would be a massive marketing opertunity. The company began with a C.