Fire Risk Assessment

[Clevelandfire 3]

Bleve Im impressed by your technical knowledge. I genuinely wish I was as well versed in technical matters as you are. But the kind of stuff you have talked about lke the battery charging areas and 1 mm gaops and fire doors is all well and good but in some cases totally unecessary. You will accept that there are verying levels of technical expertise required for risk assessment. Competence and technical know how to undertake risk assessment in an oil refinery is totally different to whats required to assess a corner shop. And you are right there are a lot of cowboys out there and even qualfied assessors who dont get the principles of fire safety. You are also right that being competent is about recognising your limitations. But its also important not to be too anal about things or disapply common sense. We cant make all buildings fit current guidance even if we apply the adaption of technical progress. For me life safety always is paramount, building protection and business continuity a close second. You strike the balance wherever you can. I dont dispute what your saying is correct you are obviously passionate and learned about your subject matter. Risk assessment can provide several solutions, all of which may be right.

[BLEVE]

Good to see decent debate is alive and kicking. IMO the RR(FS)O is not very well written and until such time as "good" case law is established it is open to interpretation. It can only be a matter of time until proceedings are issued againsed a person in control i.e engineer/risk assessor "for the public good".

WRT door closure with a gap of 1mm being present between the door and cold smoke seal, this would not hinder the correct operation of the door. The 1mm gap, however, would result in a leakage rate of greater than 3m³ /hour/metre.

By the way I am not advocating engineering assessment for simple premises and in the case of the smoke seal and GWG may I remind you that I made reference to sleeping risk and remain in place in other words progressive horizontal evacuation of 100 plus non ambulant personnel. Dont see that as being anal myself.

In addition, after 23 years in this field I would also consider myself an "Old Hand" because I use a quantatitave approach to my work does not automatically mean some one is fresh out of University.

[kurnal]

Cleveland in the case suggested who is "the responsible person  who has overall responsibility for the premises " - I think its the landlord- and inthis case the landlord is a person having control rather than the responsible person.

I think they switch context all the time in the Order and the use of Capitals to denote the  "Responsible Person" as a noun would have been helpful.

[Tom Sutton]

Cleveland in the case suggested who is "the responsible person  who has overall responsibility for the premises " - I think its the landlord- and in this case the landlord is a person having control rather than the responsible person.

I would disagree Kurnal IMO the RP of each premises is the Responsible Person for the common areas his employees have access to. (Definition of workplace)

Consequently the landlord is not designated a Responsible Person for any part of the building but if he has total control of the the fire alarm for instance he would be classed as a Person Having Control and subject to the RR(FS)O.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tom

I never said that it would exonerate the landlord and agree that the landlord could to plead due dilligence.

Also Cleveland is correct in saying the landlord would only be the RP for the communal areas. The landlord would be a PHC in the areas that his tenants control.

Conversely The tenants would be the RPs for their individual work areas, but are PHCs when it comes to the communal areas. They are PHCs because they can influence what happens in the communal areas (they may start storing things there for example).

Take this a step further now... Imagine a multi occ with three three tenanted occupiers as per Cleveland's example. All three tenants employ people so are without any argument Responsible Persons.

Each RP identifies that their individual offices need additional fire exits. Can the tenants simply employ a builder to knock a hole in the wall and construct a new final exit?

I would suggest not, as the physical bricks and mortar of the building belong to the landlord and s/he would need to authorise the works. So is the landlord also an RP of the individual tenancies too?

The answer is no, even though the landlord has final say he still not the RP, he remains a PHC for the individual occupancies, if the landlord refuses to form new exits the onus is then back on the individual occupiers as RPs to come up with alternative measures for the safety of their employees and relevant persons.

Some tenancy agreements will allow individual occupiers verying levels of authorisation and freedoms. But you can see how it gets very very messy at times, hence why Article 22 tries to ringfence the RPs together and get them co-operating and co-ordinating.

Kurnal, I think I must be missing your point about the use of capital letters in the fire safety order, as I feel it is generally makes it clear how to identify the RP.

[kurnal]

MR

In your example, one of the employers uses flammables.
Under article 22-

2) Where two or more responsible persons share premises (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) where an explosive atmosphere may occur, [font=Verdana]the responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises [/font] 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."

In your example under article 22-2 who is the responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises?

The landlord is a person having control rather than the "Responsible Person" as per article 3. This is one example of where I get confused. In article 22-2 I think they are using the term "responsible person"" simply as a description and not as a definition. 

I hope this makes sense but somehow I doubt it will.

[Tom Sutton]

MR I agree it is messy but I disagree with your statement saying the landlord is the RP of the common areas. An employer’s workplace extends outside the building therefore includes the common area. (See definition below.)

Art 3(a) defines the employer as the RP of this area but only where the RP has control. The RP doesn’t have control of the workplaces on the other floors or for instance the fabric of the building. I agree the landlord has total control over the fabric of the building therefore is a PHC and subject the art 5(3). Consequently if a RP needs an exit to comply with art 14 and the landlord refuses, both may be guilty of an offence depending on circumstances. Providing the RP has done everything in his power to convince the landlord, the RP would use art 33 as a defence not so the landlord. This would apply to any of the articles, or part of, the landlord has control over, fire alarm, or sprinklers take your pick.


Art 2 Definitions

“workplace" means any premises or parts of premises, not being domestic premises, used for the purposes of an employer's undertaking and which are made available to an employee of the employer as a place of work and includes –

(a) Any place within the premises to which such employee has access while at work; and

(b) Any room, lobby, corridor, staircase, road, or other place

     (i) Used as a means of access to or egress from that place of work; or

     (ii) Where facilities are provided for use in connection with that place of work, other than a public road



Sorry to butt in Kurnal a terrible trait of mine but I do think the word premises refers to the individual workplace, what we called an occupancy under the FPA, and not the building. In this case the RP of the workplace (premises) who is creating the explosive atmosphere 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.

[kurnal]

Thomas there are no private discussions going on here anyone is welcome to make a contribution at any time and your comments are always welcome.

I agree that your interpretation would make a great deal of sense. He who creates the risk is best placed to control that risk.

However I am not convinced that is what article 22.2 acually says, again  IMO its down to poor use of language and use of the words "premises" "responsible"  "responsibility" repeatedly  in succession without defining the context.  

I would guess that in a multi occupied premises only the landlord would have the authority to co-ordinate the activities of all tenants. An individual tenant is unlikely to be able to do this.

[kurnal]

I checked out guidance note number 1 but this simply repeats the same words. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/guidance1enforcement2005.pdf

"103. In premises 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 to protect the relevant persons.

104. The intention of this article is to require the responsible persons and others with
analogous duties to take all reasonable steps to co-ordinate the measures they take to
comply with the requirements under the Order.

105. If there is a failure to co-operate or co-ordinate between responsible persons (or those
with analogous duties) the enforcing authority may need to consider enforcement
action to resolve any difficulties."

Who is the "responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises"?  

Does "premises"  in this case mean the whole building or  only the demise using the hazardous materials? I think it means the whole premises in a multi occupied building and so only the owner would have this degree of control. The guidance note  no 1 appears to support this view.

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

Here we go again. The official guidance note says that in a workplace that is not under the employers control the person with control IS the responsible person.  And then apears to elaborate on the meaning of the term employer. People wonder why there is such confusion over this?

[Davo]

Prof

103 IMHO assumes that all persons have co-operated as is required and therefore it must be the owner, as he is the person most likely to see the big picture, Surely as you say 36/7 supports thsi

Hope this didn't give you a restless night judging by the earliness of your post


davo

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal sorry about the pathetic attempt of humour I meant nothing by it, you can see why I stay well clear of the banter thread.

As MR said its messy and BLEVE commented its up to the courts which I agree with fully.

I also agree the main problem is the poor use of language and the order is badly drafted also the numbers of persons who have duties under the order. The RP's have a duty under art 22 and the landlord/owner, as a PHC, also has a duty under art 22 but I wouldn't class him as an RP despite how art 22 is drafted. However I do agree on reflection of what you have said it is up to the landlord/owner, as a PHC, who must co-ordinate the implementation of all the measures to protect the relevant persons.

As for "premises" there is a definition in art 2 but even that is not clear.

[BLEVE]

The Order is as clear as mud but hardly surprising. By way of comment, I would take this opportunity to say that I appreciate the wealth of experience and knowledge you guys have, hats off to you all.

Bleve

[Midland Retty]

MR

In your example, one of the employers uses flammables.
Under article 22-

2) Where two or more responsible persons share premises (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) where an explosive atmosphere may occur, [font=Verdana]the responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises [/font] 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."

In your example under article 22-2 who is the responsible person who has overall responsibility for the premises?

The landlord is a person having control rather than the "Responsible Person" as per article 3. This is one example of where I get confused. In article 22-2 I think they are using the term "responsible person"" simply as a description and not as a definition.  

I hope this makes sense but somehow I doubt it will.

Hi Prof

It does make sense and I now see where you are coming from. I must admit that I had forgotten about the explosives atmospheres scenario. As you quite rightly highlighted, there is an anomoly when it comes to defining the RP(s) in multi-occ ,ex-at situations . The way Article 22 is written in relation to that could be interpreted in several different ways. However I am of the opinion that there is still enough clout in article 22 to get RPs to talk to one another and decide on the best possible solutions in terms of fire safety, and should hopefully achieve the same result.

Hi TW
In my experience the RP for the communal areas is normally the landlord because the "tenant RPs" do not have full control over those areas within their tenancy agreements. They are PHCs in that they could affect the communal areas but responsibility for maintenance of those areas normally falls to the Landlord. Because the landlord will employ someone to look after those areas they are an employer and thus an RP by definition.

[CivvyFSO]

The thing is, does it matter whether they are RP or PHC? It is an offence for either not to comply with matters within their control. Even if you can prove to me 100% that you are not the RP, if the suitability of the fire alarm is within your control as the installing contractor, and your poor installation means that the RP is not complying with article 13 and is putting relevant persons at risk, you have caused the offence, and as someone mentioned in 5(3) can be held fully responsible without going anywhere near 32(10). (32(10) seems to be intended

[Midland Retty]

Yes quite right Civvy it doesn't really make any odds