Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[terry martin]

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.

I don't entirely agree. Where would we be now if people didn't stand up and challenge past standards? The environment we are in is fluid and constantly improving, standards are continually rewritten to take into account technical progress.

I think we all agree the correct determination was made. But I don't think the process should be dismissed because 'that’s what the guide says'.

Regardless what the guide says, the FRS has the right to dispute it, as should that right remain for the recipient of any enforcement notice.

What lacked here was an absence of technical data. In its absence the right decision was to revert back to the current standards.

but lets say in a hypothetical situation the FRS produced clear technical and statistical data to support their case, citing that current technical progress made it reasonable for the other party to have adopted there recommendations?

They could argue that they have not complied with

  8. —(1) The responsible person must—
(a) take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of any of his employees; and
(b) in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the premises are safe.

Sir Ken may have made a determination in this case that irrespective of the current standard the FRS where right to seek a determination and support their view. And, you never know, the FRS's data could possibly contribute toward the revision of that standard in the future.

Whether or not you argue it was a frivolous determination. I would say it is a fair process, and can only reinforce, or, improve our guides and our knowledge.

[Wiz]

Determination costs nothing.

Court costs are paid by the whomever lost the case.

So the Fire Service would use public money to fight their case and, if they lose just use public money to pay the costs.

I presume that the other party (the hotel owner?) would have to fund his own costs in fighting the case and so run the risk of paying the Fire Service costs, if he lost.

It seems a bit one-sided to me because it seems to give the Fire Service an unfair opportunity to fight any cause, no matter how useless, with no financial risk to themselves. Or am I missing something?

[Phoenix]

If you're looking at it from a financial point of view, the FRS have nothing to gain from taking an action, whether it be through the courts or any other route.  They don't get the fine.  The best they can hope for is to recover their costs if they take the court route.  And they only have a certain budget, they do not have access to unlimited public funds.  If they lose it can hit them heavily in their budget.
 
The gain the FRS gets is a safer environment.  At an individual level, members of an FRS may be driven by a desire for personal kudos (Brownie points).
 
On the other hand, the responsible person they are at odds with, virtually always stands to gain financially if they win the case.

So it is usually a conflict of morals against money. 

Stu

[Midland Retty]

Hi Wiz

As Stu said the Brigade will normally have a budget set aside for prosecutions. Losing a case can prove to be very expensive, and the pot of money allocated for prosecutions may not be large enough to cover it - thus funds would have to be sought from other areas of the brigade if it came to it.

Consequently Brigades do (normally) think very carefully before bringing forward prosecutions
in the knowledge that any cases lost could affect financial resources in other areas of the service.

In the case of the RP yes unfortunately they do have to fork out for intial costs. It is worth bearing in mind that they may qualify for legal aid in some circumstances.

Like it or lump that is the legal system and is no different from you taking me to court for instance Wiz. I'd have to fork out costs to defend any action you took against me whether I liked it or not -  or whether i had the funds to do so or not. You may be way richer than I and be able to afford a much better lawyer / barrister than I could. Thats life I guess!

[Allen Higginson]

Hi Wiz

As Stu said the Brigade will normally have a budget set aside for prosecutions. Losing a case can prove to be very expensive, and the pot of money allocated for prosecutions may not be large enough to cover it - thus funds would have to be sought from other areas of the brigade if it came to it.

Consequently Brigades do (normally) think very carefully before bringing forward prosecutions
in the knowledge that any cases lost could affect financial resources in other areas of the service.

In the case of the RP yes unfortunately they do have to fork out for intial costs. It is worth bearing in mind that they may qualify for legal aid in some circumstances.

Like it or lump that is the legal system and is no different from you taking me to court for instance Wiz. I'd have to fork out costs to defend any action you took against me whether I liked it or not -  or whether i had the funds to do so or not. You may be way richer than I and be able to afford a much better lawyer / barrister than I could. Thats life I guess!

Hi MR - are there stats on FRS prosecutions and the ones that have not been successful.
I have always been of the opinion that if a prosecution is raised by the FRS then it's a matter of how hard the accused are "hit",as opposed to the action being unsuccessful (for the very reasons of public funding that you have given)

[Midland Retty]

Hi Buzz

Not sure if there are any details of unsuccesful prosecutions widely available - however Im sure a fellow firenetter may know where such info can be found.

[Phoenix]

Hi Buzz

Not sure if there are any details of unsuccesful prosecutions widely available - however Im sure a fellow firenetter may know where such info can be found.

On this forum, successful prosecutions are posted.  I've always thought that it would be equally useful to have a thread devoted to unsuccessful prosecution attempts. Does anyone else agree that there's mileage in this?

Or are they already posted alongside the successful prosecutions - just more difficult to find?

Stu

[Mike Buckley]

Bear in mind we are talkng about two different processes here! The original post as about a determination made by the Secretary of State not about a prosecution in the courts. In the former arguements are put forward by both sides as to the interpretation of guides, legal prosecution does not come into the matter. The only costs in the determination are those involved with the experts. There is no need to get the courts involved.

If however the SoS had determined that smokes were needed and the RP refused to comply, then the FRS could take the RP to court and the costs would mount.

Incidentally all the determinations made by the SoS are available on the CLG website.

Incidentally when it comes to court prosecutions one of the overriding considerations is are we going to win this one? The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and most of the time it is up to the prosecutor first to prove that an offense has occured and then that the accused was the person who committed the offense and all the correct steps have been taken. Just look at the number of cases that have been thrown out of court not because the accused was proved innocent but because of a technicallity. Does the name Rosepark raise any memories?

[colin todd]

Wiz, On the matter of costs, both parties in such a dispute each meet their own costs.  So ratepayers and client pay to have somethng resolved that Civvy (God bless him) did not think needed resolved, based on his very clear analysis of the matter.
On the separate matter of prosecutions, what the successful prosecutions NEVER show is the charges that were dropped or that a not guilty plea was accepted. In my experience there are usually far more of these than the successful charges, largely because F&RS in E&W do not follow the code of practice for prosecutors.
Dare one mention that in Scotland, things are very different because the F&RS does not bring the prosecution but a very sensible and wise man called the PF does it. And he would have no hesitation in using the language civvy suggested if crap were laid as a complaint before him.

[Wiz]

I can understand the arguments of those who say that if the authorative guidance has been followed then the the F&RS should accept this.

I also understand those who say that the authorative guidance needs to be challenged sometimes to possibly improve matters.

I understand how an unsuspecting RP can be dragged into a situation, but feel it is unfair that they are. If they have done everything to 'the book' it is unfair that they have to pay (in terms of time and stress, at the very least) to be used as a 'test case'

Surely, we could have a more sensible system. Surely, respected organisations such as F&RS can negotiate with those who produce authorative guidance documents to propose amendments or argue serious deficiencies etc?

Why drag innocent parties into it?

And if, as I understand Mr C.T. is suggesting , there are many 'not guilty' pleas accepted or case dropped in prosecutions brought by the F&RS then it is verging on the scandalous. I want the F&RS to use my taxpayers money more wisely.

[Clevelandfire 3]

I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.

Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.

On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more

And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.

[mr angry]

I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.

Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.

On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more

And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.

My understanding is that this was a determination following a dispute and not a prosecution through the courts.

[colin todd]

You are correct Mr A.  But why let the facts get in the way of people having a good rant. It relieves their stress and so saves Wiz the taxpayer paying the NHS to sort out heart attacks. Personally, I find Talisker more effective, but each to their own remedy.
Clevey old chap, you will find that CFOA are not represented on technical matters by those who are not involved in the subject matter (usually).
Wizzy, it grieves me to inform you that this is precisely how your money is being spent, though Buzzydosh is kept safe in his coffers ready to buy me a drink in Belfast, cos the NI F&RS do not waste their time in frivolous prosecutions, because they are more interested in serving the good people of the Province than acting like the Sweeney (you're nicked son). And it is worse that you suspect, because if it turns out the F&RS charges are a crock of yon stuff, the defendant (regardless of means) can claim all their costs back from the public purse, namely the corporation tax of Wizzyco.

[Wiz]

I agree Wiz partly. By the same token the Fire Brigades stupidty was shown for all to see in the courts, so whilst the RP was dragged into a silly argument the RP was triumphant in the end and to be perfectly frank I see this as a unique case. I dont know the full ins and outs but I feel the Fire Service in question was looney to take forward this prosecution. I know if had been me when I was still in the brigade my ADO wouldnt have even entertained me trying to enforce that a hotel changed its heat to smoke detectors.

Lack of common sense happens in all walks of life , such as the very enthusiatic traffic warden that ticketted my dear mothers car despite it displaying a disabled badge and otherwise legally parked.

On the point though that brigades should have clearer dialogue with the those whom make standards then I agree. And supposedly they do, but are either not heard or perhaps are not sure what they are talking about. I seem to remember CFOA being the all and mighty who consult with those clever BS chappies. CFOA consists of senior principal officers whom may have done fire safety on their way up the promotion ladder but havent done it for years and are thus out of touch. Perhaps Im being unfair. But then you have the wizz kids at CLKG who produced that infamous guide featuring cattle and horses in inner rooms. Ill say no more

And finally Wiz with respect unless you have had experience of courts and the legal system in general you wont know about all the fun and games, cat and mouse tactics that get played out in both proceedings taking place before a case and the court room itself. Dont believe all you hear about plea bargaining and what that entails. Greater minds than ours play out in these theatres and sometimes just sometimes a prosecutor will take a plea bargain in favour of getting the guilty parties on other charges / offences or to ensure there is a case to answer.

My understanding is that this was a determination following a dispute and not a prosecution through the courts.

Whatever it was Mr Angry, it still meant the poor old 'responsible person' was forced to pay in time and/or stress and/or money just for following the authorative guidance but which the F&RS decided to inexplicably disagree with, and worse still they used my hard-earned tax money to do so! Shame on them!

[Wiz]

You are correct Mr A.  But why let the facts get in the way of people having a good rant. It relieves their stress and so saves Wiz the taxpayer paying the NHS to sort out heart attacks. Personally, I find Talisker more effective, but each to their own remedy.
Clevey old chap, you will find that CFOA are not represented on technical matters by those who are not involved in the subject matter (usually).
Wizzy, it grieves me to inform you that this is precisely how your money is being spent, though Buzzydosh is kept safe in his coffers ready to buy me a drink in Belfast, cos the NI F&RS do not waste their time in frivolous prosecutions, because they are more interested in serving the good people of the Province than acting like the Sweeney (you're nicked son). And it is worse that you suspect, because if it turns out the F&RS charges are a crock of yon stuff, the defendant (regardless of means) can claim all their costs back from the public purse, namely the corporation tax of Wizzyco.

Colin, Some may see it as a rant, others may hope that if enough people make their feelings known about this sort of waste of taxpayers money, then things might change.

I know. Pigs might also fly! Pass the Talisker!

Wizzyco has now decided not to pay any further Council Tax.