Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[mr angry]

I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob

In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?

Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.

[kurnal]

I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob

In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?

Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.

The determination has been very useful and informative and draws a line in the sand from which we can all move on but rather than criticising each other let us remember what I think was a ligitimate concern  of the fire and rescue service in this case and which needed examination.
At the time of review of BS5839 part 1 in 2002 the principal focus was on the early detection of fire to ensure that the alarm was raised long before the escape routes become affected by fire or smoke. The longer it takes for the occupants of the building to respond and evacuate, the more comprehensive the need for detection to ensure a sufficiently early warning.

When the Fire Safety Order came into force in 2006  there was a new focus- the relevant person - and many people felt that perhaps the old 2002 standard did not give adequate protection to relevant persons in hotel bedrooms.

There was no empirical evidence to show that there was a problem, but as the new Order is so clear in applying the principles of protection many of us in the industry and in the enforcement agencies took the view that perhaps a person may be better protected if they are sleeping in a room fitted with a smoke detector rather than a heat detector.
There has been no research to justify this stance but it seems a reasonable premise to me. After all the BS5839 recommends rooms designed for use by disabled persons should be fitted with smoke detection to give them earlier warning of fire, as they take longer to respond. I also note the possible detrimental effect of more unwanted signals.

In an ideal world the fire authority could rally its forces and campaign for meeting of the various  CFOA committees and this could lead to a call for a review by the BSI technical committee to review the standard but that would take forever.

The best way and quickest way forward is to use the determination process provided by the legislation, on condition that all parties are aware of the consequences and willing to see the process though to its conclusion. I believe this was the case in the recent determination and we all benefit from the clear guidance that resulted. We have a benchmark from which to work and I for one am grateful. It makes my job a lot easier, even if personally I disagree with the decision.

[CivvyFSO]

Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.

IIRC It is mentioned in the determination that there were no other factors put forward to be taken into account. It was just an average hotel.

[Wiz]

Mr Angry, the FRS represent me, the taxpayer, and whilst I am not anti FRS (far from it), I am anti wasting my money, and particularly where it is done by trying to force a business owner to spend money on something the authorative guidance hasn't asked for.

If the FRS think that smoke detectors in hotel bedroom (or whatever) is important, and even when the authorative guidance says differently, then they should spend the taxpayers money on getting the guidance changed and not tell people 'we know better than the guidance, do as we say or else'

[jokar]

I believe that the use of Article 36 is important and should be used more often to look at the areas where difficulties lie, the HD SD argument is one of these difficult areas.  I believe that Oxford FRS will not allow sleeping risk accommodation without SD in bedrooms but actively enforce the Uwfs policy as well.

The determination process is good much like the ACAS scheme but I would rather it be enforced by a neutral party rather than Home Office staff.

[colin todd]

But how many of the above named organizations can double declutch a red HGV.

[mr angry]

Wiz, I am at a complete loss as to where this wastage of tax payers (of which regretably I am one) money is coming from.
There was no prosecution it was a simple determination of dispute = no cost.

[mr angry]

Oh and Colin, they are mostly autos nowadays...get with it.

[TallyHo]

I seem to remember the old discussion of SD in hotel bedrooms from a few years back.  It still amazes me how the life of the occupant/s of the room of origin can be discounted when determining the level of detection.  What if this is a family room accommodating mum, dad, 2 kids and a baby.  With today’s technology it is relatively simple to confine an initial sounder to the room of origin and alert the duty hotel staff.  This should alleviate any concerns about unwanted alarms.

Incidentally I spent many years at military establishments attending hundreds of unwanted alarms and very few were caused by smoking in bedrooms.  Even though said bedrooms fitted with S/D were frequently occupied by numerous persons, all happily smoking away.

It’s about time we started to think about saving the lives of the persons in immediate danger of the fire and not concentrating solely on the wellbeing of the rest of the occupants, who are already in a place of relative safety.

[Phoenix]

I think most people would agree with you in principle, Davey, but what's good for new build is not necessarily good for retrospective application.  That's what this case is about - a number of brigades were trying to make existing buildings change their heat detectors to smoke (at considerable cost).

Stu

[terry martin]

I am amazed at some of the posts on here, especially from the "anti FRS" mob

In the absence of the fire risk assessment for the premises in question, how can we (royal) all have such vigorous opinions on how incompetent and wastefull of tax payers money?? etc..etc..etc the Fire & Rescue Service in question has been on this occassion?

Whilst conducting the fire safety audit there may have been other factors behind the decision to ask for S/D.

The determination has been very useful and informative and draws a line in the sand from which we can all move on but rather than criticising each other let us remember what I think was a ligitimate concern  of the fire and rescue service in this case and which needed examination.
At the time of review of BS5839 part 1 in 2002 the principal focus was on the early detection of fire to ensure that the alarm was raised long before the escape routes become affected by fire or smoke. The longer it takes for the occupants of the building to respond and evacuate, the more comprehensive the need for detection to ensure a sufficiently early warning.

When the Fire Safety Order came into force in 2006  there was a new focus- the relevant person - and many people felt that perhaps the old 2002 standard did not give adequate protection to relevant persons in hotel bedrooms.

There was no empirical evidence to show that there was a problem, but as the new Order is so clear in applying the principles of protection many of us in the industry and in the enforcement agencies took the view that perhaps a person may be better protected if they are sleeping in a room fitted with a smoke detector rather than a heat detector.
There has been no research to justify this stance but it seems a reasonable premise to me. After all the BS5839 recommends rooms designed for use by disabled persons should be fitted with smoke detection to give them earlier warning of fire, as they take longer to respond. I also note the possible detrimental effect of more unwanted signals.

In an ideal world the fire authority could rally its forces and campaign for meeting of the various  CFOA committees and this could lead to a call for a review by the BSI technical committee to review the standard but that would take forever.

The best way and quickest way forward is to use the determination process provided by the legislation, on condition that all parties are aware of the consequences and willing to see the process though to its conclusion. I believe this was the case in the recent determination and we all benefit from the clear guidance that resulted. We have a benchmark from which to work and I for one am grateful. It makes my job a lot easier, even if personally I disagree with the decision.

Kurnal, i totally agree.

[terry martin]

The determination process is good much like the ACAS scheme but I would rather it be enforced by a neutral party rather than Home Office staff.

They are a neutral party. F&RS's are funded by their respective Local Authorities and are run independently of each other. All of them have slightly differing views and stances, which is why we so often compare and refer to the differences of each authority.

CFRA, works as an advisor to the government as an independant entity (in respect of this discussion). They have no affiliation to any F&RS, company or financial organisation. Because of this they do not have a vested interest either way in a dispute.

[Wiz]

Wiz, I am at a complete loss as to where this wastage of tax payers (of which regretably I am one) money is coming from.
There was no prosecution it was a simple determination of dispute = no cost.

Mr Angry, I do not profess to fully understand the process of this 'determination' and I apologise for my ignorance. However, previous posts have indicated that the Responsible Person had to 'defend' his stance in refusing to use smoke detectors instead of heat detectors. Did he not have to pay for someone to defend his point of view? Did he not have sleepless nights worrying why he was being made an example of, just for following the 'authorative guidance'?

At the end of the day his losses were probably far lower than they could have been. But I bet he had losses that he shouldn't have had in the first place.

The rules should be the rules. We can't have the FRS (or anyone else) just making up new rules just because they think they might be valid. There has to be a process that enables them to lobby for 'rule changes' and which doesn't drag in an innocent party.

[wee brian]

The other advantage with determinations is that they go to the people who are responsible for the legislation and guidance.

This ensures that they have to deal with some of the problems that they have created. This could just motivate them to resolve some of them.

[jokar]

Terry,  Sir KK was the Commissioner of the LFB and still has numerous contacts within Fire Brigade circles, his staff are and were serving Fire Brigade Officers.

Can you explain how this is a neutral poistion?