Suitable and sufficient.....?

[A J]

I thought I would run this one by you all,

This is a purpose built six storey block constructed of concrete walls, floors, and ceilings located in a less than desirable area , housing tenants from all walks of life.
It was constructed in the early 70's and has passed fire brigade inspections in it's past.
The FRA has stated that a fire alarm system is not required within the common areas as the on going vandalism of the block on a daily basis would include the vandalism of the fire alarm system rendering it useless if it were required in a emergency.
The FRA states that each individual flat requires mains wired detection and with a minimum of a 30 minute fire resisting door leading on to the escape route.

Looking at the RRFSO article 8 -duty to take general fire precautions (a) & (B) and Article 4 (1) (e) means of detecting fire on the premises and giving warning in case of fire to relevant persons is the block conplying or not complying?

Surely if a alarm system is installed and then vandalised its still not complying as it is no longer fit for purpose if it is not repaired. If the alarm was monitored the fire service would attend every day and i'm sure they would not want that.

In a nutshell, in a court of law would the FRA be deemed suitable and sufficient although technically the above articles do not seem to have been met?

I would welcome everyones views..

Many thanks

[kurnal]

The duty of care in Law is to reduce the risk of fire as low as reasonably practicable. In determining what is a reasonable benchmark standard we are helped by the publication of various national Standards documents. Whilst the fire Safety Order sleeping guidance is not much help in these circumstances the building design guides BS5588 part 1 and the Approved Document B set out what is thought to be best practice in the design of such buildings.

BS5588 part 1 is particularly helpful as its commentaries go some way explain the rationale behind the recommendations not to install alarms or fire fighting equipment in common areas, and the stay put evacuation policy.

If the building is designed and used in accordance with these documents, it is likely that the duty of care will be satisfied.

[A J]

Hi Kurnal,

With the building being used for general housing stock it would be difficult to insist on a stay put policy although this would be the best policy.
The building had an enforcement notice prior to the FRA and the inspecting officer stated quite clearly that if an alarm was fitted and was activated successfully, then the risk would increase because tenants would then be coming out of their flats and wandering around the building. On the enforcement notice itself there was no mention of installing a fire alarm system,but a requirement for signage and emergency lighting was raised.

Does this still satisfy the requirements of the Articles 4 & 8?

[JC100]

I thought I would run this one by you all,

This is a purpose built six storey block constructed of concrete walls, floors, and ceilings located in a less than desirable area , housing tenants from all walks of life.
It was constructed in the early 70's and has passed fire brigade inspections in it's past.
The FRA has stated that a fire alarm system is not required within the common areas as the on going vandalism of the block on a daily basis would include the vandalism of the fire alarm system rendering it useless if it were required in a emergency.
The FRA states that each individual flat requires mains wired detection and with a minimum of a 30 minute fire resisting door leading on to the escape route.

Looking at the RRFSO article 8 -duty to take general fire precautions (a) & (B) and Article 4 (1) (e) means of detecting fire on the premises and giving warning in case of fire to relevant persons is the block conplying or not complying?

Surely if a alarm system is installed and then vandalised its still not complying as it is no longer fit for purpose if it is not repaired. If the alarm was monitored the fire service would attend every day and i'm sure they would not want that.

In a nutshell, in a court of law would the FRA be deemed suitable and sufficient although technically the above articles do not seem to have been met?

I would welcome everyones views..

Many thanks

I work in social housing so deal will the same issue a lot. The vast majority of all our blocks are purpose built and typically of concrete construction. We do not have detection or alarms in the communal areas of these blocks. BS5588-1 and CP3 part 4 1971 specifically says that these are not required in flats and maisonettes as stay put is fine and recommended - like you said, an alarm panel would be vandalised.

We aim to ensure that all flats have 30 minute fire doors to protect the means of escape (this will take time to bring all doors up to this standard as many are not but we have an agreed timescale which the fire brigade are happy with). The inside of each flat is not covered by the RR(FS)O as it is a domestic dwelling so although it would be ideal, it is not our responsibility to provide hard wired smoke detection to each dwelling. This is the responsibility of the resident (the fire brigades can give out smoke detectors and install these for free). We also try and keep the communal areas free from combustibles and paint the walls/ ceilings with class 0 paint to avoid fires starting in the communal areas therefore not needing an alarm.

With your enforcment notice, if the building you describe has a lift or more than one staircase, it may be necessary to have directional signage to point to the stairs as most residents would normally use the lift or the usual stairs they use. If not, and only 1 staircase with 2 exits seen from bottom of stairs....is signage really needed?
Emergency lighting should be installed in buildings over 18m according to BS5588-1 so will be needed.

[CivvyFSO]

With the building being used for general housing stock it would be difficult to insist on a stay put policy although this would be the best policy.
The building had an enforcement notice prior to the FRA and the inspecting officer stated quite clearly that if an alarm was fitted and was activated successfully, then the risk would increase because tenants would then be coming out of their flats and wandering around the building. On the enforcement notice itself there was no mention of installing a fire alarm system,but a requirement for signage and emergency lighting was raised.

Does this still satisfy the requirements of the Articles 4 & 8?

If the building was built today then the only detector you would find in the common areas would be to operate vents, and possibly inform some sort of security/concierge if present.

The principle is that the tenants are, as you quite rightly point out, safer in their flats. They do not need to know that there is a fire elsewhere in the building, so due to the lack of an alarm system they stay-put by default.

It will probably be complying with the duties under the RRO because the detection is not actually necessary. (Remember that the RRO states that 'where necessary....') My only issue with this would be that the risk assessment has given the wrong reason for the fire alarm not being present. If a fire alarm is actually required but vandalism is an issue then a fire alarm is still required.

[kurnal]

I agree with smokescreen.

It should not be hard to enforce a stay put policy AJ- it enforces itself as if the flats have just stand alone smoke alarms nobody is aware of an alarm being raised in another flat. We have to asume that the fire will be in a flat and not in the common areas - it is absolutely essential that these be maintained a sterile area.
If the occupant of the flat calls the fire service they will review the operational situation and make any decisions of the need to alert and evacuate other residents, having ventilatied the escape routes first if necessary using the opening vents provided for this purpose.

[nearlythere]

I agree with smokescreen.

It should not be hard to enforce a stay put policy AJ- it enforces itself as if the flats have just stand alone smoke alarms nobody is aware of an alarm being raised in another flat. We have to asume that the fire will be in a flat and not in the common areas - it is absolutely essential that these be maintained a sterile area.
If the occupant of the flat calls the fire service they will review the operational situation and make any decisions of the need to alert and evacuate other residents, having ventilatied the escape routes first if necessary using the opening vents provided for this purpose.

K. Do you honestly believe that your average flat dweller will quite happily remain in front of the TV if he knows that the flat on either side of him is on fire? Do you not think he might be out on the landing, with his really important essentials, legging it down the stairs?
How do you force people to remain in their flats other than with a pitchfork?

[JPAH]

I agree that no alarm system is likely to be required.  I also agree that a 'stay put' policy isn't something that is enforced - it just happens - people have the choice whether to leave or stay, hence protecting escape routes so the options are available. 

Based on smokescreens comment:

The inside of each flat is not covered by the RR(FS)O as it is a domestic dwelling so although it would be ideal, it is not our responsibility to provide hard wired smoke detection to each dwelling. This is the responsibility of the resident (the fire brigades can give out smoke detectors and install these for free).

I agree completely that this is not covered under the RRO and should not have been included in the original FRA, however does the landlord have a duty of care here i.e. providing accommodation that is fit for purpose?  I understand that that would mean big bucks spending in social housing, but perhaps it might be based on a risk assessment of the premises or the occupant - outside the scope of the RRO.  Thinking purely in terms of properly advising the client [i.e. social housing provider].    

[kurnal]

K. Do you honestly believe that your average flat dweller will quite happily remain in front of the TV if he knows that the flat on either side of him is on fire? Do you not think he might be out on the landing, with his really important essentials, legging it down the stairs?
How do you force people to remain in their flats other than with a pitchfork?

You dont want to force them to do anything. If you told them to leave when the alarm sounded most would not. If some become aware of a fire and choose to leave thats up to them. The staircases should remain safe to use if the design is any good.  The important thing is to have a generic fire strategy for these buildings leading to standard procedures,  then its easy to deal with an emergency. When the Brigade arrive they will assume all but the flat involved are occupied. They will decide if further evacuation is needed and open vents etc to assist this in a prioritised way. If a few people choose to leave of their own volition then it wont be a problem. But if everybody tried to leave at once in an unco-ordinated way it would be.

[JC100]

I agree that no alarm system is likely to be required.  I also agree that a 'stay put' policy isn't something that is enforced - it just happens - people have the choice whether to leave or stay, hence protecting escape routes so the options are available. 

Based on smokescreens comment:

The inside of each flat is not covered by the RR(FS)O as it is a domestic dwelling so although it would be ideal, it is not our responsibility to provide hard wired smoke detection to each dwelling. This is the responsibility of the resident (the fire brigades can give out smoke detectors and install these for free).

I agree completely that this is not covered under the RRO and should not have been included in the original FRA, however does the landlord have a duty of care here i.e. providing accommodation that is fit for purpose?  I understand that that would mean big bucks spending in social housing, but perhaps it might be based on a risk assessment of the premises or the occupant - outside the scope of the RRO.  Thinking purely in terms of properly advising the client [i.e. social housing provider].    

If you had just bought a house (not a new build), do you think the previous occupier should have installed hard wired smoke detection just to sell you a 'fit for purpose' house?

I see where you are coming from, and i agree that it would be great if it happened. However, until it is made law, housing providers will rent and sell properties that comply with the guides they were built to and making any necessary changes to comply with the RRO. They simply do not have the money to bring older buildings up to the same standards of new ones.

This is why the local fire brigades carry out home fire safety visits to give people safety information and then provide battery smoke detectors to those who do not have one.

[CivvyFSO]

If you had just bought a house (not a new build), do you think the previous occupier should have installed hard wired smoke detection just to sell you a 'fit for purpose' house?

No. In the same way that if someone sold me a car they have no real duty to make sure it is safe, yet if I rent a car then the person renting it does have a duty to make sure it is safe. I am not saying that it necessarily means that hard wired smoke detection is required in a rented house, but there is the duty of care.

[JPAH]

I think there is a duty of care and its not just as simple as saying its not required under the RRO.  Agree with the financial aspect but more vulnerable residents need protection and it is the housing provider's responsibility.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Fire-death-was-39avoidable39.3663851.jp

Apologies for taking this off the theme of the original post

[JC100]

I agree that there is a duty of care towards residents, however, residents who deem themselves or are deemed as vunerable generally live in either sheltered or supported housing where these needs are met with increased fire safety provisions.

If it was a requirement for every person living in rented accomodation to have smoke detectors fitted by their landlord, what was the point of the large campaign by the fire authorities across the country to do the same thing???

I'm just trying to show the other side to the arguement here.

[CivvyFSO]

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/RentingAHome/DG_4001394

Fire safety
The 2004 Housing Act requires the landlord to do several things about fire safety:

there has to be an adequate means of escape
depending on the size of the property, there may have to be smoke alarms and fire extinguishing equipment

The Fire Service's drive to get smoke alarms in all homes, rented or not, was simply a measure intended to reduce the risk in the community (Where we don't have legislative powers), and to hit targets. (i.e. x% reduction in fire fatalities over x years) I don't doubt the IRMP is at the forefront of this.

i.e. If Government set us a target of a 5% reduction in fire deaths over the next year, we will do whatever it takes to hit that target, so the more detectors we get put up, in houses that didn't have them, the better.

It is your responsiblity to wear a seat belt and to not use your mobile phone while driving, and it is the Police's responsibilty to enforce it, but we still spend money on ad campaigns regarding this sort of thing because we are trying to reduce the number of incidents.

[JC100]

The key word in that sentance is that there MAY have to be smoke alarms and fire extinguishing equipment. It doesn't say that there has to be.
The Housing act also covers HMO's so this might be what they are refering to, who knows?

Let us not forget, blocks of flats were never issued fire certificates previously unlike other buisnesses so fire safety in a lot of blocks may have been overlooked over the years. The issuing of the RRO has created a fair bit of work, especially in housing associations and a number of issues including this topic (even though not covered by RRO) are being raised.

Ultimately, we, in this profession are all in agreement that smoke detectors in homes are the best possible fire safety measure out there, we just see different sides to the argument in how these should be provided.