Fire Risk Assessment

[BLEVE]

Cheer K

[Tom Sutton]

Bleve do you not think your exacting standards are OTT and  I believe you will rarely achieve the standard you seek, also you will, have to go some, to convince RP,s these standard are required. I do understand the standards of certain RA,s are below par and this needs to be addressed and a much higher level of theoretical knowledge is required these days. But an old maxim stating, Fire Safety is all about 20% knowledge and 80% common-sense still holds water today, play about with the percentages if you choose. I fully accept theory and calculations are very much needed in engineering solutions but much less in the day to day risk assessment.

[BLEVE]

Tom,
I don't consider my standards are OTT. The examples of a 1 mm gap at smoke seal and lack of insulative properties of the GWG systems were in a sleeping risk and remain in place strategy building.

I am not looking for perfection but would be merely pleased if some risk assessors had a grasp of the basics ps I don't believe fra is 80 % common sense.

[Meerkat]

It is interteresting to note the consideration by authorities on the application of articles 5 and 32 of the RR(FS)O and it is only a matter of time until a rogue/cowboy FRA finds themselves in a spot of bother.

Could you expand on what you mean by this Bleve?

[BLEVE]

Meerkat
at some point in time a less competant/diligent fire risk assessor may find themselves subject to legal proceedings for failing to discharge their duties as an RP under the articles referred to in my previous post

the rr fs o allows for more than 1 RP and in certain circumstance a FRA and the likes of fire alarm or suppression system engineers/technicians may be classed as RP

[Midland Retty]

Hi Bleve

I see what you are driving at.

Just as a point of order, and not trying to be pedantic,  be aware that a fire supression engineer /  or assesssor would not be classed as an RP

They would be classed a competent person, or a person having control and you can not have more than one RP, there is ultimately always only one RP, there could be several Person Having Control however.

Where the commission by any person of an offence is due to the act or default of some other person that other person may be guilty of the offence [Article 32 (10)]

[Tom Sutton]

ps I don't believe fra is 80 % common sense.

Fair enough but I did give the option to amend the percentages never the less I believe common sense and flexibility is a big part of a FRA to make it work sensibly.

[Meerkat]

Meerkat
at some point in time a less competant/diligent fire risk assessor may find themselves subject to legal proceedings for failing to discharge their duties as an RP under the articles referred to in my previous post

the rr fs o allows for more than 1 RP and in certain circumstance a FRA and the likes of fire alarm or suppression system engineers/technicians may be classed as RP

Sorry Bleve I didn't make myself clear.  I'm aware of what the RRFO says and the risk that a FRA could be prosecuted (though I agree with Midland on the strict legal interpretation of Article 5 in distinguishing Persons Having Control from RPs).  I meant this bit "It is interesting to note the consideration by authorities on the application of articles 5 and 32".  What consideration did you mean and by what authorities?

[BLEVE]

Midland,

Duties under this Order
5. —(1) Where the premises are a workplace, the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises.

(2) Where the premises are not a workplace, the responsible person must ensure that any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 is complied with in respect of those premises, so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.

(3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.

(4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to—

(a) the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or

(b) the safety of any premises,

that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends.

From the Communities & Local Government (RR(FSO) Guidance Note No. 1 “Enforcement”

Article 3 – Meaning of “responsible person”

33. Article 3 defines who is the responsible person for the premises. In order to meet the obligations under EC Directives, wherever there is an employer they will continue to be responsible for the safety of their employees. In order to achieve the necessary broader coverage of the legislation beyond workplaces, the definition has been extended.

Therefore, where there is no employer in any premises, the occupier or owner of the premises is the responsible person.


34. The responsible person will be responsible not only for the safety of employees, but for that of any person (a “relevant person”, as defined in article 2) lawfully on the premises, or in the immediate vicinity of the premises and at risk from a fire on the premises.

35. Article 3(a) provides that in a workplace the employer is the responsible person if the workplace is under the employer’s control. This reflects the Framework Directive (89/391/EEC), which imposes unconditional obligations on employers by having the ultimate responsibility for the safety of their employees in case of fire, even where others have obligations in respect of the premises.


36. If the premises are not a workplace, or are a workplace but are not under the employer’s control, the responsible person is determined by whether the person who has control over the premises does so in connection with the carrying on of a trade,
business or undertaking (whether or not for profit).


37. If so, article 3(b)(i) provides that the person with control is the responsible person.

38. If not, article 3(b)(ii) provides that the owner is the responsible person.

Article 5(3) extends the responsible person’s duties to include any other person to the extent that they have control of the premises.

Under Article 5(4) any person who by virtue of any contract or tenancy has obligations of any extent in respect of maintenance of
the premises (and anything in them) or the safety of the premises is to be treated to that extent as a person who has control for the purposes of Article 5(3).

Enforcing authorities should note that due to the reference to the term “any contract” is not intended to be limited to those in respect of the occupation of property, eg a lease or licence to occupy, but would include, for example, a contract for the installation and/or maintenance of a fire alarm system or a fire sprinkler system.

39. In many cases there will be more than one person subject to the obligations of a responsible person for premises.

The guidance seems to say that there can be more than one RP?

[Meerkat]

No it doesn't.  It says the RP's duties may be extended to cover Persons Having Control.

"In many cases there will be more than one person subject to the obligations of a responsible person for premises."

It doesn't say more than one RP.

Edit:

And I was making the same assumption as Midland that we were talking about a single occupancy premises.  Clearly if you have two employers in one premises then each is an RP.  His further explanation regarding RP and PHC is better than mine would be so I'll say no more!

[Midland Retty]

Hi Bleve

Apologies, you are quite correct there can be more than one RP in the case of a multi occupied premises. I assumed you were talking about a single occupancy scenario.

The point I was making is that a person having control is not the same as an responsible person, although as you correctly stated PHC have duties to comply with the same articles of the fire safety order.

So for example lets take Joe Bloggs Limited which operates 100s of toy shops across the country.

The RP is Joe Bloggs Ltd, but each store manager are arguably "Persons Having Control" because they have local responsibility for running their particular store. Thus if Joe Blogg's formally instructs its staff to ensure fire exits are kept clear at all times but despite that a store manager blocks a fire exit, the store manager can be held responsible rather than Joe Bloggs plc.

Next let's assume I employ you as a fire alarm engineer. I do all reasonable checks on your background and competency, and once happy with you  sign a maintenance contract for you to service and repair my alarms for the next twelve months.

You do so, make a total hash of it, dont pick up on some faulty smoke detectors and as a result someone gets injured (or worse)!

You, as the fire alarm engineer, could be considered to be someone who has to any extent control over my premises by virtue of Article  5(4)(a), and clearly because Im not competent to service the alarm myself I had appointed you as a competent person under article 18. Therefore you as the fire alarm engineer could be held liable as a PHC

 Hope that clears it up.

[Davo]

BLEVE

In real life a fire door with only 1mm gap will probably not shut properly!

I think Tom is right, too many books/BS/Guides etc tell different stories that the (respectfully) old timers here tend to apply a good dose of common.

By all means engineer away but after a few days someone or something will have screwed up. We want is to get the basics right first and adding 10% here and 10% there because 9999 says we can (at my humble level) doesn't sit right with me


davo

[Tom Sutton]

The RP is Joe Bloggs Ltd, but each store manager are arguably "Persons Having Control" because they have local responsibility for running their particular store. Thus if Joe Blogg's formally instructs its staff to ensure fire exits are kept clear at all times but despite that a store manager blocks a fire exit, the store manager can be held responsible rather than Joe Bloggs plc.

MR Can I be pedantic now in my opinion Joe cannot negate his responsibility because the manager his employee but he could use it as a defence of due diligence (art 33) in the case of a PHC. Whether the FRS would prosecute is another matter.

[kurnal]

Well I have a lot of sympathy for anyne confused by this. Over the last couple of years I have been browbeaten into accepting the interpretation of article 3  as explained by MR. I do this for a quiet life as some people get very heated up over this topic. I cannot for the life of me see why when setting out the definitions in the Order everything had to be in lower case rather than with intial capital letters which would have made it much easier for us to understand.

I think they even got confused themselves over this. Consider a multi occ industrial building with a landlord who may not be an employer and article 22. 2. Not so clear now is it?

"Co-operation and co-ordination
     22. —(1) Where two or more responsible persons share, or have duties in respect of, premises (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) each such person must—

(a) co-operate with the other responsible person concerned so far as is necessary to enable them to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or under this Order;

(b) (taking into account the nature of his activities) take all reasonable steps to co-ordinate the measures he takes to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order with the measures the other responsible persons are taking to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on them by or under this Order; and

(c) take all reasonable steps to inform the other responsible persons concerned of the risks to relevant persons arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

(2) Where two or more responsible persons share premises (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) where an explosive atmosphere may occur, the responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises must co-ordinate the implementation of all the measures required by this Part to be taken to protect relevant persons from any risk from the explosive atmosphere."


  

[Clevelandfire 3]

Kurnal Im a little confused as to why you are browbeaten over this

Take your multi occ. Assume three occupiers all of whom are employers , and a landlord who if you follow the pecking order correctly may actually only be responsible for the communal areas.

So the three occupiers are RPs of their respective workplaces and the landlord is the for the communal areas. Simples.

Occupier one manufactures fireworks. Occupier two has a an oxygen cyclinder distribution company , occupier three makes cigarette lighters. A great scenario for a nice big fire to occur.

Article 22 is designed to get all four RPs talking to one another about their respective risks, what control measures are in place to minimise risk, what they can do collectively for the benefit of each other to reduce or remove risk, and what restrictions may have been placed on each other.