Best practice when writing unsatisfactory notices and enforcement notices

[ando]

Surely the solution here is for the enforcer to communicate with the DH.

I`m sure i am going to get slaughtered by fellow enforcers but most punters just want to be told what they need to do to comply. Any notice I send will give one possible solution to the problem, but I always make it clear that it is only one solution there may be others - but talk to me before you choose a different one to see whether it is acceptable.

There is no point knowing the answer to a problem and not sharing the info and just hoping they guess the right one.   

Hi DD

I think you are spot on

Gents i pretty much agree with you, my offered solution will most likely be the minimum the DH has to do to comply. Therefore by my thinking if they choose to better this in any way they cannot go far wrong...

My boss seems to think that we should just tell them what the guide says or tell them "a suitable...AFD system" for instance, and leave the poor DH to guess what they need! By my reckoning that's not the least bit helpful.

It is ultimately the DH responsibility/ choice what they do to comply, but 95% of those i deal with have not the foggiest idea what they need to do (I am not being rude when i say this, its a fact) and for them to take their first steps on the road to self regulation and with 5 year gaps between audits I feel it is most important to take this opportunity to advise them as best as i can so they gain the confidence they need to move forward.

Call me old fashioned but i joined the fire service to help folk.  DD please come and be my boss

[FSO]

DD and Retty have it about right.

We really must provide direction in an enforcement notice although article 30 says we dont have to. There is case law that sets the standard. If you don't provide direction, be prepared to have the notice quashed by the courts and foot a hefty costs bill.

Of course communication is the key, I accept that. Just be VERY sure if you are going to step outside of the guidance.

There are some hungry barristers about

[Midland Retty]

My boss seems to think that we should just tell them what the guide says or tell them "a suitable...AFD system" for instance, and leave the poor DH to guess what they need! By my reckoning that's not the least bit helpful.

Hi Ando

As you correctly point out for a fire authority to say in a report something along the lines of:-

"Failing: inadequate fire warning and detection system
solution: install an adequate fire warning and detection system..."

... without giving the RP guidance on what type and category of alarm system to install, and what standard is required etc, is wholly unacceptable and totally unhelpful.

I would hazard a guess and say that if a Fire Authority were to do that, and the thing went to court because the RP failed to comply with say an E/Notice written that way, then it would be kicked out of court. I seriously doubt the Magistrate / Judge would be very impressed either.They take a very dim view of anyone wasting courts time.

[Cullenloon]

Ando

your original concern was your new boss and the direction they gave. If you have a weekly/fortnightly/monthly departmental meeting then I would discuss your concerns with your peers and agenda it as a discussion point. Perhaps the new boss also needs a wee bit of guidance. If you dont have a planned meeting, then as a new boss it might be "suggested" that he starts them!!!

Hope you get the matter resolved.

[Tom Sutton]

As you correctly point out for a fire authority to say in a report something along the lines of:-

"Failing: inadequate fire warning and detection system
solution: install an adequate fire warning and detection system..."

... without giving the RP guidance on what type and category of alarm system to install, and what standard is required etc, is wholly unacceptable and totally unhelpful.

MR if "in accordance with BS 5839-1:2002+A2:2008 and/or the DCLG guidance" was added to your proposed statement how do you think the courts would view it.

If the RP doesn't understand that, should the RP be doing the risk assessment without the aid of a competent person. I do agree the FRS should be giving advice but not on the enforcement notice

[Midland Retty]

As you correctly point out for a fire authority to say in a report something along the lines of:-

"Failing: inadequate fire warning and detection system
solution: install an adequate fire warning and detection system..."

... without giving the RP guidance on what type and category of alarm system to install, and what standard is required etc, is wholly unacceptable and totally unhelpful.

MR if "in accordance with BS 5839-1:2002+A2:2008 and/or the DCLG guidance" was added to your proposed statement how do you think the courts would view it.

If the RP doesn't understand that, should the RP be doing the risk assessment without the aid of a competent person. I do agree the FRS should be giving advice but not on the enforcement notice

That would be a start. But it still doesn't go far enough in my opinion. Not sure in that case how the courts would view it either.

There are many reasons why the majority of RPs are unaware of their responsibilities or can't afford to employ the services of a competent person to help them comply with legislation.

That is where the fire authority, in my opinion, has a duty to 'bridge the gap' and assist the RP wherever possible.

To me the basis of enforcement is to educate, and in my experience if you sit someone down, explain what they need to do, and why they need to do it, they are generally open and reasonable to any requirements placed on them. So educate and inform.

I also think most RPs want to comply, but they just don't know how to.

Enforcers can't hold the RP's hands for them, but they can point people in the right direction.

Pointing out failures and leaving the RP to try work out how to address them is absolutely disgraceful.
 

[Tom Sutton]

Very commendable MR but does the FRS have the resources, after all you are enforcers not fire consultants. However I fully agree with your penultimate statement " Enforcers can't hold the RP's hands for them, but they can point people in the right direction" and I believe that is about as far as you should go.

I also believe this advice should be delivered at the initial stages not the enforcement notice stage.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tom

I take your point that education should be delivered at the initial stages of contact because that should be part and parcel of avoiding formal enforcement further down the line.

Sometimes however enforcers do come across scenarios where immediate enforcement is required, perhaps in the form of an enforcement notice or prohibition notice for example. Even at that stage the enforcing authority should put forward preferred solutions to address any failings, otherwise the RP could be placed in a situation of perpetual non compliance, not knowing how to comply.

The FRS generally have got the resources to give help and guidance. I think most enforcers would agree that giving advice and discussing proposed solutions with the RP forms the largest part of an inspector's role.

The reason being is that most RPs need guidance and advice because they simply dont have a clue about their responsibilities under the legislation and dont know, or can't afford, to employ a competent person to assist them.

So it isn't until the inspectors pays a visit that the RP is informed of their duties.

[Steven N]

If the situation has gotten to an enforcement notice, then how much help should the fire service have to give?
Minor faults yes by all means recommend ways of rectifying them as I'd expect all good inspectors to do, but if the situation is serious enough to justify enforcement then surely there is so much wrong that prosecution may even be an option.
Be aware too that the clg guides are what the courts will look at as the standard to reach therefore how can they be deviated far away from? Please no talk about code hugging here either thats a different subject.

[Phoenix]

I'm not going to argue either way on this one - if Stevo (or to be extreme, Ando's boss) issue the notice then the RP has little choice but to use a consultant (such as me) to get advice - therefore I have a job.  If the fire service give detailed instructions then I'm out of a job but I get the day off to go cycling.

This discussion has been nicely rounded and illustrated the arguments on both sides leading a lot of people, I would imagine, to the common fire safety conclusion that each case must be judged on its individual merits.

I would just add this; that under older legislation I, as a typical fire safety officer, would not only tell them exactly what they had to do, I might even mark up plans for them!!  We used to do that. 

Of course, we're a million miles away from that situation now and resources don't allow this any more but I just want to make the point that, if you're confident in your fire safety knowledge, you need have no fear of taking responsibility for the precise nature of the fire safety measures that are installed. 

1) It's good practice for when you retire and move into the private sector and get paid for doing this, and
2) it will encourage you to be damn good at fire safety rather than damn good at administering it.

I don't know what official notices are like now but the old prohibition notices we used to issue had to specify the nature of the problem and then give solutions to address those problems.  The important thing for me was specifying the problem so that the person on the receiving end understood what the problem was.  Without understanding the precise nature of the problem how can the solution accurately address it? 

Mind you, no one used to read the old notices, probably any more than they read the notices they receive nowadays.  The real answer always was and still is to talk to people.

If necessary, under caution!

Stu