Is Article 38 retrospective?

[jokar]

Kurnal, I am interested in the letter of non compliance.  Non complinace with what, sprinklers were specificall excluded from the Order because of the fears of the stakeholders that formed the legilsation that FRS would seek to make people put sprinklers into every premises.  Is this where this thread started?  What are they trying to protect in this instance and achieving at this moment. is they believe that it is that much of a risk surely they should prohibit the use of the premises until the sprinklers are up and running and quite obviously the life safety means of escape are inadequate without this added protection!

[kurnal]

Thanks Jokar.

The wording is as follows (extracts only)
Following an audit.....the following requirements of the order have not been adequately met and should be addressed in your fire risk assessment. A time specific corrective action plan should be produced to address the followingduties that are statutory requirements of the Order.

The Responsible Person must ensure equipment and devices for use by, or for the protection of Fire Fighters are maintained in an efficient state, in working order and in a good state of repair (specifically the Sprinkler System) (Article 38(i))

..........As a guide ....the work should be completed within 3 months........A further visit will be made on or after 1 March 2009 to ensure that the requirements of the schedule have been carried out.


I must stress that means of escape are appropriate and the sprinklers were only ever installed as a result of the local enactment in respect of storage buildings larger than 7000m3 which only apply  in a few areas of the UK. Under latest design codes- BS9999, ADB 2006 etc this warehouse would be deemed satisfactory without sprinklers if it were built 1/2 mile down the road in the neighbouring county.

[CivvyFSO]

Kurnal, look at guidance note No.1. To enforce article 38 is is still expected to be proven that relevant persons are protected. (Although it does say in the same paragraph that this will almost always be the case)

[jokar]

I think I may be tempted to utilise BS 9999 as a risk assessment methodology and see what it comes up with.  It may not be your normal approach but it can be used for existing premises and it is a British Standard.  I would then do a comparison with what I had before and ask the question of the FRS of what they actually are trying to achieve.

However, as I have stated earlier some local enactment provisions for maintenance are still there and I suppose you would have to risk assess away the sprinklers as unecessary under ADB or BS 9999.  Its strange isn't it as both documents include sprinklers for life safety only, not for fire fighter safety.  Bearing in mind that firefighters are not relevant people under the Order and the only offences in Art 32 are against relevant people I think that the FRS are blowing hot air.

[Davo]

Jokar/Prof

Forgive me if I am wrong as I am at home, but surely the BS is not yet in force as it were?

davo

[jokar]

BS 9999 was issued in October 2008, I think the 16th from memory.

[CivvyFSO]

Bearing in mind that firefighters are not relevant people under the Order and the only offences in Art 32 are against relevant people I think that the FRS are blowing hot air.

32. —(1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—

(d) fail to comply with any requirement imposed by an enforcement notice;

The 'relevant persons' argument is invalid regarding enforcement notices.