Hazards, Likelihoods & Risk

[BLEVE]

I would say (D)

but we were talking about forseeable and preventable fires in the context of atricle 4 and 32.

Am way ahead of you on the bar front and makes posting on phone difficult.

[Tom Sutton]

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 safety measures cannot be substantiated.

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

I agree, if you have not complied with the fire prevention aspect and passive and active fire safety measures then you are in breach of the order. Then the next step is enforcement action and if that fails then consider any possible offences also do you have adequate evidence to take it to court.

Using the above terminology makes it clearer and simpler to understand.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree, if you have not complied with the fire prevention aspect and passive and active fire safety measures then you are in breach of the order. Then the next step is enforcement action and if that fails then consider any possible offences also do you have adequate evidence to take it to court.

Using the above terminology makes it clearer and simpler to understand.

The above is slightly wrong. If there is an offence being committed then that is something that should be dealt with immediately, evidence collected, interviews done etc. Enforcement is used to rectify any faults found and would be a completely separate issue to any prosecution, if enforcement fails then we will simply prosecute for not complying with the notice. (This could be a secondary prosecution to any initial one initiated due to the faults found.)

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

How do you work that one out? I thought that it was quite clearly documented that risk is a product of likelihood and consequences? You seem to like maths BLEVE: R = L x C, Hold L constant, what happens when you lower C? I am reasonably sure that it would have the effect of lowering R.

[BLEVE]

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

How do you work that one out? I thought that it was quite clearly documented that risk is a product of likelihood and consequences? You seem to like maths BLEVE: R = L x C, Hold L constant, what happens when you lower C? I am reasonably sure that it would have the effect of lowering R.
[/quote]

The Order states that measures must be taken to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises.

It does not say reduce the risk from fire but of fire..................... meaning ignition and combustion not the products of combustion or pyrolysis.

To that end, how do you reduce the risk of fire occurring........you apply fire prevention measures............in other words keeping fuels segregated from ignition sources.

This is clearly supported by the guidance notes continual reference to the 5 steps of an assessment.

It is foolish to think that a building can have 100% reliance on passive and active protection measures, as previously satted these can have and do fail. It is only by taking into account fire prevention and precautions that the risk of and from fire can be reduces so far as is reasonably practicable.

I hope my universal translator is working because obvioulsy I have been writing in some other language thus far.

BTW I do not particularly like math it is one of my weaker subjects but I get by

[Tom Sutton]

Civvy

In my first statement I was trying to say, if an RP and others do not comply with any of the relevant articles they are in breach of the order but may not have committed an offence (placing relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury) but would be subject to enforcement action. If they failed to comply with the enforcement action they would then have committed an offence. But of course I accept there are times when you go straight for the juggler.

My second statement was never based on academic argument R, L and Cs I am a thick ex fire bobby I simple used what is in the order. Definition of “General Fire precautions (a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises”. Which I interpret if I am inspecting the meter cupboard and find a piece of silver paper being used as a fuse I would have it be removed and replaced with a standard fuse of the correct rating. If it continues to blow, I would have them sort out the problem with the wiring, even if all the wiring was protected to an half hour standard which obviously it would not be.

To me that is taking measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises.

[CivvyFSO]

Tom

I should have been clearer in my quoting, the second part was aimed at BLEVE. Message received and understood. It was the part where you said "consider any possible offences" that confused me, as a failure to comply with an enforcement notice is obviously one clearly defined offence.

BLEVE, we are going round and round in circles. You are still talking about the RISK of fire, not the likelihood. But something as simple as the word 'of' in the context you give it could be the key, and I am sure appeals/defences and/or determinations have rested on such fine details. It could be that it is accidental that there is no real mention of likelihood in the order, but it strikes me as strange that it is mentioned quite specifically in the guidance note in relation to H&S requirements of lowering the likelihood in explosive atmospheres etc due to work processes etc.

The CLG guides use the word "prevent" often, and that is the closest I have come to finding any justification for saying that we should be lowering the likelihood.