Hazards, Likelihoods & Risk

[Midland Retty]

My goodness we are certainly a passionate lot on Firenet

Bleve.

You are quite correct that you have only have to place persons at risk of injury or death to commission an offence, an injury or death doesn't have to occurred before action be taken.

But consider cleveland fire's example again (WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MY EXAMPLE CIVVY!!!)   - s(Sorry I couldn't resist shouting like C3 there- it seems the done thing on this thread).

Why has someone been put at risk simply because there was fire? surely the control measures sufficiently coped and everyone was able to evacuate safely.

This is why I keep saying that the legislation is more about ensuring people are protected from a fire when it occurs rather than totally focusing on reducing fire completely.

[BLEVE]

Because precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended.
In addition, I or we are talking about the outbreak of fire when it was forseeable and readily preventable.

[nearlythere]

My goodness we are certainly a passionate lot on Firenet

Bleve.

You are quite correct that you have only have to place persons at risk of injury or death to commission an offence, an injury or death doesn't have to occurred before action be taken.

But consider cleveland fire's example again (WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MY EXAMPLE CIVVY!!!)   - s(Sorry I couldn't resist shouting like C3 there- it seems the done thing on this thread).

Why has someone been put at risk simply because there was fire? surely the control measures sufficiently coped and everyone was able to evacuate safely.

This is why I keep saying that the legislation is more about ensuring people are protected from a fire when it occurs rather than totally focusing on reducing fire completely.

OK. Not that I necessarily agree but am certainly open to persuasion, provided that my local FB are of the same line of thought. And in conjunction with my recent question to Bleve vis:-

 "Bleve. You say "Are we over complicating the matter? There would appear to be a finite number of "hazards" applicable to any premises, the risk for any hazard and premises is dependent on the control measures actually in place."

Your view please.

Situation:-
    Two storey office block, single stairway with exit direct to open air at ground floor. 10 office type persons above ground floor.

Existing Control Measures:-
    Protection of escape rouute - All doors enclosing starway 1/2 frscss in good condition. L3 auto detection and manual system, emergency lighting. Therefore, tolerable risk.

As the risk to the first floor occupiers has been addressed with existing adequate control measures, is your line of thought that there are no significant findings in regards to this and as such would not be recorded?"

Now, if my "existing control measures" are in place and there is an unmaintained electrical risk in one of the rooms off the starway, which is isolated by a fire door from the fleeing occupants, we need make no comment about the possibility of electrical fires nor the risk to people on the first floor, reducing the FRA by half a page?

I am running out of "s.

[BLEVE]

NT
Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs

(6) As soon as practicable after the assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where—


(a) he employs five or more employees;

(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; etc

    (7) The prescribed information is—

(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and

(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.

In the case of the situation presented:

If travel distances are acceptable in relation to a single direction of escape, plans in place if applicable for assisting disabled, typical fire loading for office type premises, then only the measures required by the order need be recorded.

However, you did not specify the type of door or glazing provided at the corridor/offices art the upper floor.

[BLEVE]

Taking the above into account, if there are no significant findings, then it would only be necessary to describe the premises, statement of compliance with ADB, Statement of provision and maintenance of PFE, Fire Detection, Emergency Lighting and Electrical appliances.

Final ststement that following the completion of risk assessment no significant findings were recorded.

Statement that risk assessment is to be reviewd on significant change or within x periosd of time.

[nearlythere]

Taking the above into account, if there are no significant findings, then it would only be necessary to describe the premises, statement of compliance with ADB, Statement of provision and maintenance of PFE, Fire Detection, Emergency Lighting and Electrical appliances.

Final ststement that following the completion of risk assessment no significant findings were recorded.

Statement that risk assessment is to be reviewd on significant change or within x periosd of time.

That's my view. The FRA is essentially to identify risks, to whom, control them and record.
If no risks are identified because there are sufficient fire control measures already in place, then no risks identified, no risk to persons, no control measures necessary and nothing to record. Job done.

Have we over complicated what should be a simple process, or have I over simplified what is a complicated process?

PS, Only my granny can suck eggs.

[BLEVE]

I think we often over complicate these things.

However, we cannot expect to have no findings on every job.

I had an interesting task where I was asked to review a fire risk assessment, the ra had not considered the effect of radiant heat from a bund (pool fire) intended to collect immiscible flammable liquid and sprinkler water run off. The external travel route required evacuating personnel to travel close to the bund

[nearlythere]

Of course there is always something to find on every job, from just a few management issues to a snagging list requiring the felling of three amazonian trees.

[CivvyFSO]

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.

I don't think I have said that an injury or fatality has to occur for there to be an offence. There is plenty of case law to show there doesn't have to be a fire.

Take Clevelands - SORRY... Retty's example, again. In order to lower the risk, fire resisting construction was used, along with a fire alarm system, management etc etc etc. A fire occurs in a non PAT tested toaster with knackered wiring and a dicky widget that only pops the toast up occasionally. Everyone gets out with plenty of time to spare. The spread of fire was minimised by minimal fire loading in the kitchen, the fire was dealt with by trained staff with serviced portable FFE. Jolly good show everyone. Which requirement of the Order are you going to use to justify a potential offence?

The words are there in Article 32 of the Order, "in case of fire" That, to me, shows that they are addressing it from the point of "if a fire were to occur then the risk to people should be low" which is different to saying that "the risk of having a fire should be low"

[Davo]

Chaps

Just read p11 onwards of the OS guide ('5 steps')


Simples


davo

[BLEVE]

The words are there in Article 32 of the Order, "in case of fire" That, to me, shows that they are addressing it from the point of "if a fire were to occur then the risk to people should be low" which is different to saying that "the risk of having a fire should be low"

If a fire were to occurr and there was at any time a risk of death or serious injury as a result, then that is an offence.

We must consider fire prevention in addition to fire precaution as there can be failures in both.

To suggest that we do not have to consider fire prevention because we have passive and active fire safty measures cannot be substatiated.

The order clearly states that a RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises.
This can only be acheived by fire prevention.

If we then have a fire that was clearly foreseeable and preventable then it is apparent that this duty was not met

 

[Midland Retty]

Yes Bleve agreed. A failing may have occurred. But a failing is something very different from an offence.

Now you mentioned in response to my earlier post that "precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended". Ok, I can go along with that.

But is it not then fair to say that lack of maintenance and testing may result in the fire precautions failing or not operating as originally intended? And if not then how far do we go with this?

Also as you say the RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire. Is installing AFD, Adequate MOE, Fire compartmentation, et al not reducing the risk, and if it is not then what is the point of them?

I agree a fire that is a "clearly forseeable" and "preventable" should be dealt with, but I still have to go back to my original question.

Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.

Thankfully because of my passive and active fire precautions no one was put at serious or imminent risk of injury or death. What are you going to do to me?

Are you going to:-

a) prosecute me?
b) take other formal enforcement action ? (such as an issuing an enforcement notice)
c) will you take informal enforcement ? (send me a report asking me to x,y, and z to prevent a similar fire from occurring again)
d) check that indeed everyone safely evacuated, no offences were committed and once confirming that give advice as appropriate.

[Wiz]

Yes Bleve agreed. A failing may have occurred. But a failing is something very different from an offence.

Now you mentioned in response to my earlier post that "precautions can fail or not operate as originally intended". Ok, I can go along with that.

But is it not then fair to say that lack of maintenance and testing may result in the fire precautions failing or not operating as originally intended? And if not then how far do we go with this?

Also as you say the RP must take measures to reduce the risk of fire. Is installing AFD, Adequate MOE, Fire compartmentation, et al not reducing the risk, and if it is not then what is the point of them?

I agree a fire that is a "clearly forseeable" and "preventable" should be dealt with, but I still have to go back to my original question.

Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.

Thankfully because of my passive and active fire precautions no one was put at serious or imminent risk of injury or death. What are you going to do to me?

Are you going to:-

a) prosecute me?
b) take other formal enforcement action ? (such as an issuing an enforcement notice)
c) will you take informal enforcement ? (send me a report asking me to x,y, and z to prevent a similar fire from occurring again)
d) check that indeed everyone safely evacuated, no offences were committed and once confirming that give advice as appropriate.

Great post M.R.

But your scenario descibes what I would call an accident. I believe accidents are no longer acceptable in this country. Someone must be held blameworthy. Therefore, a) Prosecute. There must be something we can get you on!

[Midland Retty]

Sorry Wiz our survery said "nerrrr nerrrr"

[nearlythere]

Lets imagine you are an enforcer, I have an unforseen fire in my office block, caused by a faulty electrical heater, a heater which was uncovered, PAT tested, cables were all fine, no combustibles around the heater, but just unluckily a fire occurred due to a fault.

If this happened then it would be, as you say, an unforseen fire and you had taken reasonable steps to reduce the chances of a fire happening to your electrical equipment by PAT testing et al.
However, if the fire had broken out because you had not taken reasonable fire precautions by doing PAT et al you could maybe be slapped in some way.
Prosecution? Maybe not, unless someone was hurt or worse.

But here, it's Friday. Time to prop the bar up. Monday's another battle and remember that when you think that life is going too fast, visit your local post office.