Determination on type of detection in hotel bedrooms

[nearlythere]

This bit makes it totally different to an employee occupying a room in a hotel whilst in the employ of the hotel.

13. I am of the clear opinion that room 403, if let to Mr Collins under a tenancy, was let as a separate dwelling-house. For these short reasons, as well as those given by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Steyn and Lord Millett, I would allow this appeal.

[CivvyFSO]

Remember, we are not talking about a room put aside for staff who might stop over occasionally or as part of their duties.

I feel that if the case Smokey pasted is read properly it shows that there can be no doubt that in the instance Kurnal is talking about the rooms could be seen as a dwelling. It is quite simply where someone lives.

From para 58 of the case: the only question is whether, at the date when the proceedings were brought, it was the tenant's home. If so, it was his dwelling. (He must also occupy it as his only or principal home, but that is a separate requirement)

[stevew]

Re one of our hotel clients.
After considering all relevant information our risk assessment recommended heat detection in staff bedrooms

Just been advised by Hants F&RS that their policy is to insist upon smoke detection (extension to existing system) be provided in
staff bedrooms. 

The case was put to HFRS quoting ALL of the relevant information available however they would not budge or give a
reasoned argument other than to say that my client has a duty to protect ALL relevant persons. 
Dismissive of the CLG guidance and BS5839 we were advised that this was an HFRS policy.  We have asked for the FA to give, in writing  their reasons for the decision.
Watch this space!!!

Why will my client not take the matter any further?   Because the FA have been co-operative on other fire safety matters.

Perhaps the next audit will recommend that SD in staff accomodation be replaced with HD.

 

[jokar]

Write to nice John and detail your reasoning.  He may be accommodating if you quote stuff to him from the determination.  Mind you they are not the only FRS which insists on SD.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Right, the thing to do is write the brigade concerned a stongly worded letter. Ask them to reply within 7 days and explain WHY they will not accept current PROVEN guidance such as BS 5839 or CLG guidance. Threaten legal action if they don't rely in your time frame.

Address the letter straight to the Chief Officer, copy in the chair of the fire authority, and your client's MP. Watch how the brigade in question will trip up over itself to try and placate matters.

I hate non compliant organisations, but I also loath Fire Authorities that do stuff like this. It is totally unacceptable. Take it to the top, dont be fobbed of with an ADO or station commander, you want a reply directly from the Chief if you can get him off the golf course or out of the masonic lodge doing funny handshakes that is. That will ruffle a few feathers. Queue a hasty u turn from the brigade.

[terry martin]

Re one of our hotel clients.
After considering all relevant information our risk assessment recommended heat detection in staff bedrooms

Just been advised by Hants F&RS that their policy is to insist upon smoke detection (extension to existing system) be provided in
staff bedrooms. 

The case was put to HFRS quoting ALL of the relevant information available however they would not budge or give a
reasoned argument other than to say that my client has a duty to protect ALL relevant persons. 
Dismissive of the CLG guidance and BS5839 we were advised that this was an HFRS policy.  We have asked for the FA to give, in writing  their reasons for the decision.
Watch this space!!!

Why will my client not take the matter any further?   Because the FA have been co-operative on other fire safety matters.

Perhaps the next audit will recommend that SD in staff accomodation be replaced with HD.

 

It’s easy to make a snap judgement on SD or HD. but there may be more to why the FRS has asked for SD.

Are the guest's rooms covered by SD? If they are, then the FRS may argue what’s the difference.

Are the staff bedrooms on the same corridor as the guests?  This may relate to above and/or there may be a concern of the staff rooms affecting the MofE for Guests.

What are the staff bedrooms? Are they for 'on duty' night staff. Or living accommodation when off duty? This could make a difference. Living accommodation would have a higher fire-loading and could be occupied by inebriated people. Whereas on-duty accommodation would have less fire-loading and sober (you'd hope) staff.

Some, none or all of these could be relevant or not. My point is, it’s not always as simple as 'should it be SD or HD'?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Are staff not relevant persons?

The requirement of the Order is to safeguard the safety of all relevant persons. To me that means providing early warning of fire so that they can effect an escape.

[CivvyFSO]

Baldyman, it is more of an issue of whether they have complied with current guidance, and the CLG guidance says that BS5839-1 is a suitable standard, and BS5839-1 states that heat is ok for bedrooms in a sleeping risk. And further to that, the original thread subject is one of a determination whereby a FRS was overturned trying to enforce SD in hotel bedrooms.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that is how it is.

[Midland Retty]

Have to agree with CivvyFSO on this.

I think the Brigade concerned are on very dodgy ground, unless there are other factors we aren't aware of that have led them to take such action.

Even still, I can't think of any scenario where the brigade could enforce that smoke detection must be installed instead of heat detection.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I didn't say anything about enforcing smoke detection did I?

I acknowledge that BS5839 is an acceptable standard and heat detection is OK in rooms to reduce unwanted fire signals but surely with the advances in technology for detectors, the availability of multi criteria heads etc, it's time to progress.

The guidance is just that .... guidance.

On a point of the determination, my understanding is that it is not applicable to all, just the particuar premises over which it was brought so I will stand by my comment that the Order requires the responsible person to safeguard the safety of relevant persons being staff or guests so surely the suitability of the alarm should be determined through the risk assessment? 

[Clevelandfire 3]

So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?

[Big A]

So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?

Have you considered a career in the foreign office diplomatic corps?
 

[Steven N]

So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot? BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then? Why would you go against 5839? What should the hotel do? What should the fire authority do? WHy should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used. Whats the crack jack?

Have you considered a career in the foreign office diplomatic corps?
 
[/quote]
I Think we would be at war ten minutes after he started 

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

So baldyman, if you dont expect them to enforce what do you expect them to do, fiercly recommend and point their fingers alot?

Perhaps you need to read back a few posts to Civvy and Midland Retty's comments to my post. I know you can't enforce smoke detection, so yes, a recommendation for change could be considered appropriate, but that would also depend on the view of the responsible person to agree.

My response was that BS 5839 is just guidance, so are you saying it is wrong, what other standards states smoke detection is preferable to heat detection then?

I didn't say it was wrong and there isn't another standard.

Why would you go against 5839?

Did I say that?

What should the hotel do?

Review their policy?  Fit smoke detectors? What do you think they should do?

What should the fire authority do?

What do you think they should do? You're the one who seems to have all the answers.

Why should the hotel adapt to technical change when there isn't any reason to do so, current guidance says heat or smoke detectors can be used.

We've done that one previously.

Whats the crack jack?

I take it you had a bad day at the office Clevelandfire? 

[Clevelandfire 3]

Im a lover not a fighter Stevo and Big A the Diplomatic Corps couldn't afford my services.
Baldyman no one has had a bad day at the office. Infact I have had a great one. Your post appeared to kick itself up the backside. You are saying that the hotel should adapt to technical change. But why?

You said  "I didnt say anything about enforcing did I"  and you insinuate Im getting tetchy? It seems you were getting somewhat defensive of Civvy and Midland Rotweillers comments.
I asked what you think should happen, you implied that you would expect the hotel to spend some wedge on upgrading their detection when current guidance tells them there is no need to adapt to technical change in this way, so I find myself questioning you. The hotel says it wont adapt to technical change and that its happy with its heat detection what then? The fire authority cant enforce it, so whats the end result? Yes youre right you can recommend they change their detection but for what purpose? The thread started talking about the fire authority trying to enforce the hotel changes the detection. Perhaps you should read the thread again.