Hazards, Likelihoods & Risk

[Tom Sutton]

NT, Bleve can I join your group I also believe art 4 and art 8 requires the RP to reduce the risk of fire on the premises I cannot interprat any other way.

[nearlythere]

NT, Bleve can I join your group I also believe art 4 and art 8 requires the RP to reduce the risk of fire on the premises I cannot interprat any other way.

No prob Tom. To join please send full details of your bank accounts including pin numbers to my email asap.

[BLEVE]

MR
I would reckon that the fact that a fire had taken place when it was reasonable & practicable to have prevented the fire is enough of a failure or ommission to have placed one or more occupants at risk. I believe this to be the case regardless of other fie safety measures being in place.

You can have MOE, travel distance to these within requirements but that does not always mean that any particular individual or group will make it to a place of safety.

If this was the case, we would not have any fire deaths.

People will react in an unexpected fashion even on being made aware of a fire alarm, they may be disorientated, visibility reduced or due to irratation efect of smoke products unable to proceed even with an acceptable degree of visibility.

Pressurised MOE may also be rendered virtually useless as doors are held open by evacuating personnel etc.

 

[Midland Retty]

We will have to agree to disagree then, although I follow your logic the legislation isn't necessarily that clear cut.

Again I would ask what level of enforcement would you expect in a premises where there has been a small fire, but everyone was warned adequately and evacuated safely without encountering smoke or flame?

[BLEVE]

Would all depend on the cause of the fire and if it was foreseeable and readily preventable, the yes I would expect some form of enforcement

The key issue is life loss versus property loss and as I have said just because we have made provision for escape, it does not always work out as we intend.
For that reason fire prevention must also be a consideration imo

[BLEVE]

Then again what is a small fire ?
500 kW, 1MW?
 

[nearlythere]

As Civvy said earlier a fire hazard is where there is the potential for injury and/or damage from fire. So even the smallest of fires has that potential.

[CivvyFSO]

But the small fire doesn't pose much of a 'risk' does it, unless it is on your head or in your pocket. The need to stop the fire growing is covered by the duty to mitigate the spread of fire, and 'precautions' should be put in place regarding this. (Only so far as is needed to protect relevant persons though)

Thinking about enforcement and offences is muddying the waters a little. Someone does not have to be put at harm to enforce anything, an FRS can enforce anything that ensures compliance with the Order. i.e. The need to record the risk assessment is not something that will lead to a life threatening situation, but I can enforce it providing that the legislation requires it in those circumstances.

I think there are two main points;

1: No matter how far down you take your 'likelihood', unless the likelihood is zero then we will generally protect against the fire that "could" happen. Now "should" that fire happen, it presents just as much risk regardless of its likelihood, as its likelihood is irrelevant as it has already happened. It is like the chances of throwing two sixes on a dice when you have already thrown one of them.

2: The legislation and the guidance note to accompany the legislation never specifically mentions reducing the likelihood of a fire. Article 4 looks at reducing the 'risk', and fair enough you can impact the risk a little by dealing with the likelihood, (But '1' above clearly comes in to play) but that is not the same as legislation that specifically requires you to reduce the likelihood.

I would reckon that the fact that a fire had taken place when it was reasonable & practicable to have prevented the fire is enough of a failure or ommission to have placed one or more occupants at risk

At risk of death or serious injury? If a small fire can place people at risk of death or serious injury then there must be many other issues. You would have no chance in court.

[BLEVE]

Ah but risk is the product of likelihood and severity. I myself reckon the person responsible for drafting the legislation did not know the difference between hazard and risk.

[BLEVE]

Not forgetting that all fires start of as "small" ie summerland, stardust etc

[Clevelandfire 3]

BLEVE

We all want the chance of fire occurring to be to zero. But if we could achieve that we wouldnt need fire precautions. Now im quite good at my job but i dont have a crystal ball so could never guarantee a fire would never occur. The thing Midland and Civvy are pointing out is that the legislation isnt phrased to support even a small fire being considered a sure fire enforceable offence. Because all the legislation is able to cover is life safety and ensuring people can get out safely. If this achieved during a fire that says  by default the fire precautions worked.

Civvy enforcement doesn't muddy the waters because the level of enforcement has absolutely everything to do with it and stems from your original question doesnt it.The way the fire safety whatsit is written. Its the root of your original question.Try taking me to court for not recording my significant findings it would never happen. Ill pose the same question as Retty. What enforcement would you take against me if I failed to record the significant findings of my risk assessment. What enforcement action would be taken if i had a fire but everyone got out and the fire precautions behaved as they should. Same question to you Bleve. Read the question this time. THE PRECAUTIONS STOOD UP THE FIRE: EVERYONE GOT OUT; THE PRECAUTIONS WORKED BLEVE. THEY WORKED FOR THE VERY REASON THEY WERE INSTALLED are you going to prosecute me Bleve or Civvy? Ill answer for you. NO YOU FLIPPIN WELL AINT. YOu might take some sort of action but it wont be a straight prosecution, you know that as well as i do.

[Davo]

Boys, boys

Lots of good stuff and obviously risk assessment has to be about both strands. Ignoring the definitions, if I reduce the likelihood of fire the I reduce the likelihood of my staff and others suffering from the effects of fire. Lets not forget Part 3 of article 10, eh?


davo

[CivvyFSO]

Oi, calm down, calm down!

What enforcement would you take against me if I failed to record the significant findings of my risk assessment

Primarily I would be looking at issuing an action plan, where you agree to record the findings, set a timescale and ensure that it was done in that time. If it was not agreed, or not done in that time then I would issue an enforcement notice stating that you had failed in your duties under the RRFSO and that under article 9(6) you had to record the prescribed information detailed in 9(7)(a) & (b).... What would your next move be then? (This is not necessarily muddying the waters, but I could see this going off in another tangent.)

all fires start of as "small" ie summerland, stardust etc

All fires start small, but we have specific mention in the Order to help deal with the risk (again) that the growth/spread presents. So you will not be making your buildings from, or lining your walls with combustible materials.

I myself reckon the person responsible for drafting the legislation did not know the difference between hazard and risk.

Regardless of the capabilities of the person who drafted it, it is still the Order that has to be complied with, not well-meaning interpretations of it. The wording of it will be taken at face value by in a court room. So if it is written badly that is unlucky.

Consider Clevelands example. Everyone got out safely, the precautions worked. Article 8 says that fire precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of employees & relevant persons. He has quite clearly succeeded in that duty, so there is nothing for us to enforce under article 8.

[CivvyFSO]

if I reduce the likelihood of fire the I reduce the likelihood of my staff and others suffering from the effects of fire. Lets not forget Part 3 of article 10, eh?

But you are never going to reduce it to zero, so you have to still protect your staff from the fire that MIGHT start.

Article 10 states that WHERE preventive meaures are taken they must be in line with part 3 of schedule 1. If I don't take any 'preventive' measures, and just go to protect everyone from a fire that might start, do you think that still applies?

[BLEVE]

Oi, calm down, calm down!

Consider Clevelands example. Everyone got out safely, the precautions worked. Article 8 says that fire precautions must be taken to ensure the safety of employees & relevant persons. He has quite clearly succeeded in that duty, so there is nothing for us to enforce under article 8.

I disagree, an injury or fatality does not have to occurr. This is clearly the intent of article 32

Offences
     32. —(1) It is an offence for any responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) to—
(a) fail to comply with any requirement or prohibition imposed by articles 8 to 22 and 38 (fire safety duties) where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire;


As can be seen where the failure had placed one or more person at RISK of death or serious injury an offence has been committed, it is not the case that the fatality or injury had to have taken place.