Fire safety enforcement in england

[Tom Sutton]

The only thing the wheel has fallen off is fire safety enforcement in england.

The above statement is from another thread. http://forum.fire.org.uk/index.php?topic=3852.0

Why! I assume every thing is fine in the rest of the UK so what’s the problem in England and please don’t give us the throw away statement "many things" give us specifics.

[Princess]

I can't wait to hear your reply Colin lol

[jokar]

It would seem that many FRS FSO's are still living in the prescriptive world and not prepared to lok at hazard and risk.  There is also a difficulty with the legislation in that the FRS Act wants FRS to be the givers of advice on fire prevention and means of escape but they have no fire safety duty in the RR(FS)O.  FRS then have a problem of what to do with their FSO's and how they train them.  To enable them to give advice on means of escape they need to know codes and guides as well as the law but the solutions are not always correct under the RR(FS)O for the differing premises types.  Add that to the fact that new builds are the sole remit for the functional requirements of BCO's and AI's and the FSO's have little to do.  They have consultation on the Building Regs under Articles 45 and 46 but have no fire safety duty in the Order, therefore they just give advice under FRS 2004 in accordance with the Procedural Guidance.

That leads to confusion about what they are there for, some are trying to enforce prescription in guidance under RR(FS)O, some give prescriptive solutions under Articles 45 and 46 in order to comply with the Buidling Regs and some what to enforce but have no idea what thta means.

The other side of the coin is that there are many RAers out there plying a trade who have no idea either about hazrad and risk and what they are in theory doing.  Those are the code hugger types who love passive fire safety but have no idea why.  FRA's range from comprehensive stuff to tick box stuff with some very good assessments of risk thrown in and good solution based action plans for the RP to deal with.

All in all it is a bit of a mess, created by 2 separate pieces of legislation.  When it all goes wron at a fire the FRS will probably be asked lots of questions about why, when maybe it was not ther responsibility in the first place, think Bradford, that makes CFO's think prescription to make sure that a premises meets guidnace cover ebven if that does not consider the risk.  They also want a safe built environment and want FSO's to be involved in that process although that does not folow the Procedural Guidance.

The added problem is the National Framework document that instructs CFO's to have a risk based inspection programme in accordance with IRMP circular 4 to evaluate risk of buildings and areas wheras the RR(FS)O is about premises.

Another thing is that the guidance documents vary the content of British Standards, the Sleeping Guide as an example with the Part 6 recommendations of 5839 with adds to the confusion.  And going with this is an attitude of I do not like what it states so I will do something else, the HD/SD debate.

Therefore until someone say this is what you do and this is what you do and neither get involved with each other confusion will reign.

Anyone know how the DTI pilot is going?

[colin todd]

Yes it is actually better elsewhere. NI do not have the badly written FSO, nor will they have as they are copying the Scottish legislation. Also, NI has only one F&RS (and a fine bunch of chaps they are too, who believe in reason and persuasion, rather than heavy enforcement). Scotland has better written legislation, continuity on the part of the civil servants and advisory unit, so they actually know what they meant, a single CFOA forum to hammer things out. Oh and of course they are ....um....well.... Scottish (in the main). Oh and the new fire safety officers are awfully well trained at Gullane, where all 8 F&RS train together.

Now, since you did express an interest, to England ( which, as Paul Simon said, where my heart lies):

1. Lots of misunderstanding about the stupid term responsible person and what it means. Its not a good start to enforcement, TW, if one does not know against whom one is enforcing.

2. Massive prescription, with no thought about risk, using the guides like a set of rules. Wonder where we had that before??

3. Huge inconsistency, with some F&RS using powers of enforcement to require smoke detectors to be changed to heat detectors, while others tell the same bloody chain NOT to do that, as they PREFER heat detectors.

4. Officers making it up as they go along. The Bluff and Persuasion Act was not repealed by the FSO, nor were the Do As I Fancy Regulations revoked.

5. Misconception that relevant persons are some new group who were never protected by the FP Act.

6. Some F&RS refusing to use action plans on the basis that the punter will always let you down so might as well cut out the middle step and issue enforcement ntoices all the time, while on the opposite coast the F&RS take the view (very commendably) that every enforcement notice is a failure on the part of the F&RS to persuade and reason with people. Check the numbers of notices issued by different F&RS. It is enlight

Will that do for starters TW, as I have been working on an expert witness report all day, and I fancy going for some chicken and chips, which will probably be wrapped in some of the notices one sees nowadays, as they are worth less than yesterdays newspaper. I am sure others can add to the list.

With love and best wishes.

Frustrated and despondent of Surrey

[colin todd]

Jokar, I thought he was asking me!!!!!!! I hate you for getting in first. Sadly, much of what you say is correct, and I did not read it before writing mine-honest guv. We were typing at the same time.

[Chris Houston]

4. Officers making it up as they go along. The Bluff and Persuasion Act was not repealed by the FSO, nor were the Do As I Fancy Regulations revoked.

Agreed!

[jokar]

Ah, Colin your good mind and my average one coming to a similar conclsion, I feel good indeed.

[colin todd]

Princess. You know me so well, but only in the Biblical sense.  Hope TW is listening to all this.

[Tom Sutton]

Colin and joker from your postings it appears the problem is partly the FSO and the training of FSI’s or at least the lack of national training.

I didn’t realise there were major differences between the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and the FSO also is the guidance documents part of the problem? Also is the DCLG fit for purpose as compared with the Scottish Government’s Police and Community Safety Directorate, it appears so.

I have been out the loop for ten years so I do not know what is happening in the FRS now, but from threads on this forum it appears each FRS fire safety departments do their own training and there appears to be no national training. Colin before you continue, take a chill pill, what about using Moreton, after all it’s a collection of lecture rooms and the same format used at Gullane could be used there. If this cannot be considered is this about budgets?

The Princess joke 

[bungle]

Tw, the problem is mainly budget but also the pride of some FRS is such that sending an FSO on a Moreton course is seen as a failure of that particular FRS. I am also led to believe that people with childcare responsibilities don't like residential courses and that some FRS are afraid of being accused of discrimination!

[colin todd]

TW, Training is a huge problem. Partly government fault for bringing in such radical changes without better guidance and support ofr the Fire and Rescue Service, and partly their view of fire safety enforcement.  When the matter was out for consultation, a question asked was who should enforce fire safety legislation and should it be the F&RS. I confess to having said in my consultation response that it matters less about who did it than that they were well trained and consistent. I have to admit to saying that the F&RS would be fine. I now admit to wondering. There are not major differences between the two regimes, but the devil is in the detail. While the thrust is the same, as Professor Everton puts it so eloquently, the two regimes are cousins, not sisters. Forget Moreton. Do not even think about it TW. The idea of national training there will never happen and the concept brings me out in a cold sweat. I need to go take that pill and lie down.

[nearlythere]

As time goes on and the level of safety experience in the F&R Services decreases to floor height I wonder about the quality of audits of FRAs. Without coal face experience IOs are going to be relying on the codes for an interpretation of their rules. The financial implications of appealing a notice for the provision of a fire door which a FRA has  considered unnecessary would be cost prohibitive and the door will be provided, as maybe a code recommends.
We will be going back to the future.

[Thomas Brookes]

IMHO,

Training, Training, Training!!!!!!!!.

The recent out come of a formal complaint I put to the Chief Fire Officer was this.

"Sorry about what was said by our officer, he was not aware any other body can test fire alarms but the NIC electricians. Unfortunately hes old school, and doesnt keep as up to date as the other officers"
I then said he should have extra training then.
I was then told " He has only got another year to go before he retires so hes unlikely to change now".

Another one recently told a big (400) people meeting/ conference rooms (with full kitchens,bars, basements and upstairs) that they needed a BS5839-6 system to LD3.

[jokar]

Interestingly, I think that you can train personnel all you like and where you like.  The problem lies with whether or not the the staff who are told, asked or volunteer for the training have or want to take in the information.  Numbers of individuals on this forum give information for free and still people question it even when the clause is pointed out.  It seems that if it does not fit their individual wants then regardless of what is actually written down or stated they will still do their own thing.

Perhaps it is a comfort blanket thing and being unsure of hazard and risk they stick to what they once new.  The other point is perhaps the policies that FRS write out are not read by FSO's and even some of the policies may be a little dubious.  There are of course all sorts of political with a small p reasons for some of them.

[Davidrh]

Ref Colin Todd Heat/Smoke Detectors
Where does that leave the poor hotelier

What do we do. Put them in or refuse to put them in.

and how would i, as the RP, stand legally