Fire safety enforcement in england

[jokar]

David, I think we have been here before.  The BS states HD and a system that is to the BS is satisfactory.  Your FRA should point this out and you have the right to appeal against any notice that the FRS issue.  The onus of responsibility in Article 34 is on you as the RP to prove you have done everything to ALARP.  The fire safety duties in Part 2 are all yours as the RP as well.  All FRS are enforcers, they have no fire safety duty at all.  Their function is one of policing the legislation and ensuring that your FRA is suitable and sufficient for the hazard and risk that the premises has.  Therefore, in any one bedroom there is more than one control measure for the inherent risk that is within the room.  For example, there is detection and warning, there is means of escape, there is testing of the electrical installation and the portable appliabnces that you provide.  Yoyur staff are trained, there are extinguishers available for use.  Therefore you have numbers of control measures already in place and to go to the cost of providing additional measures is against ALARP.

That is why this thread has been started and you can already see from the responses that the belief is that FRS are getting it wrong and do not understand hazard and risk.

[Rex]

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

[Tom Sutton]

Rex what’s your comment?   

Are there no positive comments, even though it would be very difficult I still think training is the answer with a syllabus from one source and if Scotland has got it right then let’s copy them?

[colin todd]

I think that Rex just likes what I said and wanted people to read it again. He is clearly a discerning man.

[Tom W]

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments already mentioned especially the lack of consistancy.

Training is a key issue but its common sense that seems to be lacking. They seem to want to hug the guidance and are either scared or just plain lazy. You can't train people in common sense unfortunately.

I wonder if we would have all of these problems if the F&RS no longer hired non uniformed officers

[wee brian]

Yeah. spot on piglet, getting rid of uniformed officers would be a lot better.

Driving big red lorries and fire engineering are not the same thing.

[afterburner]

This thread (an previous earlier similar threads) seem very quick to lay all the sins of the world at the door of the F&RS Enforcement Officer. Nobody seems prepared to consider that Enforcement Officers (whether uniformed or not) are frequently confronted with FRA's which are neither competent nor valid. The offering of guidance on how to overcome this lapse seems deeply resented and somehow also seems to seek the lowest comon denominator through comparison.
Perhaps, occasionally, those of us who are 'delivering' FRA's should first ensure our house is in order before lambasting F&RS officers.
Happily, I live and work in Scotland where all our houses are in order and we never have any Enforcement problems whatsoever ................ 

[Tom W]

It is not laying all blame at their feet it just becomes a joke when someone is deeming your work suitable or not when they have precious little experience in fire safety and law and you have plenty!!

Just because i can drive doesn't make me a mechanic

[Midland Retty]

Piglet you say you want to get rid of "NON UNIFORMED INSPECTING OFFICERS" and Wee Brian then agrees with you by saying ""YES LETS GET RID OF UNIFORMED OFFICERS"

Now come on what's it to be lads..do you want to get rid of uniformed or non uniformed officers hmm? and if so why ? Then tell me who you would like to replace them with to enforce the Order?

On the issue of Inspecting Officers and FRA's I'd simply say "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone" because as I have said many times before there are good and bad enforcers, and guess what, there are good and bad FRA's too.

Where risk assessment is concerned it can be difficult to achieve consistency

At the end of the day the RRO in England and Wales isn't perfect by any means. But thats not the IO's fault. They dont make the policy they simply enforce it. Its still bedding in. And there are learning curves for everyone involved.

Sir Colin Todddd may be right in saying the RRO is pants,but alas parts of the RRO have had to be written in the way they have to take into account English law and all of its associated little quirks shaped, no doubt, by inumberable test cases taken in the past.

And atleast it gets rid of prescription does it not?

Is it not difficult to stray from a standard or guidance because these benchmarks are normally tried and tested methods / ways of doing things formulated by some very learned experts (some of which darken these forums).

Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or  suoperseeds the benchmark standard.

Otherwise anyone could offer all kinds of weird and wonderful solutions which wouldn't achieve what we want.

So FRA's im going to lay down the gauntlet to you. If you disagree with what a fire officer has required - then challenge it - go for a determination - put your money where you rmouth is - if you firmly believe you are right and the fire officer is wrong then go for it. As far as Im aware it doesn't cost to appeal or go for a determination (unless anyone knows otherwise?)

[afterburner]

Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or  suoperseeds the benchmark standard.

well said Mr. Retty! and guess what the alternative solution usually relies on quoting this standard or that specification to prove the alterantive works. Alternative solution based on more code -hugging!

[Midland Retty]

Im all for ALARP, I'm all for viable alternatives which achieve the same thing as accepted benchmarks, but any alternative solutions offered should be capable of demonstrating that it is equal in standing or  suoperseeds the benchmark standard.

well said Mr. Retty! and guess what the alternative solution usually relies on quoting this standard or that specification to prove the alterantive works. Alternative solution based on more code -hugging!

Absolutely Mr Burner

The issue here is that we need something to measure alternative standards against.

Compare

"Sorry Mr Fire Officer this "such and such" hasn't been manufactured to BS3333. It was made in China and meets their  CS 2222 standard which seems to be an equivalent"

with

"Sorry guv this "such and such" doesn't comply with BS 3333 but I reckon it should work ok cos the bloke down the pub who sold it me said so"

How do you expect an I.O or FRAss to quantify something which is unknown, how would you know how something might perform in a given situation without some form of spec

I accept that some issues can be ratified using a bit of common sense rather than a piece of paper saying something accords to a standard but when you start getting into more complex issues then I would always want evidence of accreditation to a recognised standard, or would ask you to have it tested to see how it would perform.

So whether you like it or you dont you cant avoid code hugging or standards worshipping in one way shape of form... I think therefore the argument is really about how tightly you hug them.   

[jokar]

and there lies a difficulty.  ALARP does not mean that you have to comply with or have equivalence to a standard.  It means understanding that time trouble and inconvienience are balanced against cost.  Therefore Cost Benefit Analysis comes into play as does proportionality.  Whether you agree or not there is always more than one way to solve a difficulty and it is not always the most expensive solution and before you blame RAers, it is not their choice either.  A good FRA will offer the RP a range of solutions to the identified areas of need and the RP will have to make  decision on these based on information from the RAer.  The RP might decide to live with risk and maintain what they already have, that is there decision.  When an enforcers looks at these they will ask the relevant question and if they do not like the answer they can enforce something.  Then, it is up to the RP to take on board the things in a Notice or appeal the notice and argue their case under Article 34, after all it is there FRA.

Also, I know there are RAers out there who have insufficient knowledge of the same areas that are being discussed here.  Hopefully, one day all will all be singing fron the same sheet.

[SmokeyDokey]

Colin re your 04:27:11 PM posting above, and what Jokar has said, there is clearly some way to go - especially for training both inside and outside the FRS. It might amaze you but there are some in the FRS who really do want to sort the mess that the CLG left the FRS in when they scrapped national exams and let the college get into such a state.

There may be a few dinosaurs singing verses of auld lang syne for a wee bit yet - so it may take some time before we can all sing from the same hymn sheet - but I reckon we can get there so long as we don't all suddenly claim a proclivity for modern jazz. (You know that an optimist is what a pessamist calls a realist!

[Tom Sutton]

Are you saying joker if in a premises the travel distance/time in an area was double the standard as shown in the CLG guide with no compensatory factors. If the RP considered that time, trouble and inconvenience, balanced against cost he could live with risk and maintain what they already have and the enforcers should look at this situation and ask the relevant questions. If they do not like the answer enforce or something well isn’t this what happens?

[jokar]

Yes and No.  In certain instances as the guidnace may not be met it will be enforced anyway without any consideration of hzrad and risk plus proportionality.  There has to be an understanding of how a solution was reached and the reasons why not just a blanket it does not fit a standard so we will enforce.