Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[Allen Higginson]

I think though that if a detector is specified in a new build then a smoke should be installed (technology now facilitates this) but it shouldn't be retrospective and force existing premises to do likewise.

[wee brian]

Should or must? how do you deal with the unwanted alarms issue.

I think if you've got the space and can afford higher spec detectors then smokes are a good idea. But if we make it a blanket requirement we may cause more problems than we solve.

[Allen Higginson]

Hmmm,as part of the design remit only detectors suitable for the enviroment should be permitted to eliminate false alarms.
There is a choice of manufacturers equipment out there (closed or open protocol) that could achieve this,with standard detectors and configuration for the rest.
This is of course only an idea and I still appreciate that the determination is due to case study of actual incidents.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.

Isn't it the apporopriate process when both parties cannot reach an agreement?



 

[wee brian]

The underlying message is that FRSs shouldn't use the Order to rewrite recognised standards, theres a proper process for doing this that ensures all the stuff we are talking about now is properly thought through (well mostly err issh).

There will be times when there's something about a premises that means that the normal standards aren't apprpriate but we don't want people just making stuff up.

I can see the argument for puting smokes in but if the only way you can do it is by using more expensive detectors then I don't think the extra cost is justified.

[CivvyFSO]

I find it hard to believe that a FRS has taken it that far in the first place.

Isn't it the apporopriate process when both parties cannot reach an agreement?

Yes. My point being that I cannot believe that any FRS is willing to challenge a system that seems to be compliant with both BS5839 and the CLG guidance.

[FSO]

Why not, does not mean it is right.

Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.

[wee brian]

Yeah but why pick on some unsuspecting business?

[jokar]

Quite right, test it out the many fire brigade premises that fall under the radar and enforce against yourselves.

[CivvyFSO]

Why not, does not mean it is right.

Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.

Simply because it is akin to a Building Control Officer going for a determination on something that conforms to ADB.

[Midland Retty]

Yeah but why pick on some unsuspecting business?

Who is being picked on? Fire Officers dont sit around a coffee table takng it turns to stick a pin in the yellow pages at random to decide who they inspect next.

This issue probably came about from a routine inspection.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think the fire authority were correct in their requiring the heat detection to be changed to smoke detection, but don't shun the determination / court process or make on people have been picked on.

These mechanisms exist to benefit and protect the corporate sector as well as the fire authority, as has been proven by this case. The Fire Authority were found to be overburdensome fairly and squarely.

There are several people on this forum (tends to be the same people) who moan about jack booted fire safety inspectors, and overbearing fire authorities.

In this case we have a ruling in favour of the Hotel - surely thats a good thing. It shows that fire authorities can and do get things wrong and that their enforcement policies and audit activities can be successfully challenged. Don't know about anyone else , but I'm all for it.

[Wiz]

I have found the various replies to this post very interesting.

The questions I would now like to ask of those who know about these things is;

"who pays for the costs in bringing/defending this sort of action and of reaching the determination?"

[Clevelandfire 3]

Determination costs nothing.

Court costs are paid by the whomever lost the case.

[FSO]

Why not, does not mean it is right.

Things may need a challenge from time to time to provoke a rethink.

Simply because it is akin to a Building Control Officer going for a determination on something that conforms to ADB.

I disagree Civvy, it is quite clear that in this case 5839 part 1 does not take into account all relevant persons as it was written before the FSO came into force.

Im not saying that it is wrong as I totally see why it was written how it was. I think this is a perfect example for a challenge personally.

Personally, I think there are parts of ADB that should be revised also having seen abnormal fire spread in brand new buildings that are fully compliant but there were just some areas that were not fully considered.

If the building regs were to change next week that required further considerations but no alterations to ADB, would you not challenge it?

Even the experts need a challenge time to time and on this occasion the current standard is deemed to be acceptable.

At least the fire authority can sleep safe knowing it did all in its powers to raise its concerns.

[CivvyFSO]

OK then FSO, consider the following..........

From the RRFSO:

Guidance
     50. —(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that such guidance, as he considers appropriate, is available to assist responsible persons in the discharge of the duties imposed by articles 8 to 22 and by regulations made under article 24.

So the CLG guides were born...

The CLG guidance for hotels states that BS5839 Part 1 is a suitable standard...

BS5839 part 1 states that heat detection is OK. Which means quite simply that the secretary of state has said it is ok

Back to the RRFSO...

Enforcement of Order
     26. —(1) Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order and any regulations made under it in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority and for that purpose, except where a fire inspector or other person authorised by the Secretary of State is the enforcing authority, may appoint inspectors.

    (2) In performing the duty imposed by paragraph (1), the enforcing authority must have regard to such guidance as the Secretary of State may give it.

So basically some FRS has said "Oi, Secretary of State, get that Sir 'kinight bloke to see if smoke detection is required in hotel bedrooms" to which the Secretary of State should have simply replied "R.T.F.M!" ("Read The F******* Manual!" for you non-acronym-understanding types. ) But they did it the long drawn out way, considering both sides, but still ending in a resounding NO.

We enforce the articles of RRFSO that apply to any duty holders. We are appointed as inspectors under the RRFSO, and beyond the articles we enforce are the provisions that apply to us. We should adhere to them just as duty holders should adhere to the articles that apply to them.