getting rid of extinguishers

[Davo]

My boss wants to get rid of our 3000 extinguishers in 140 premises to save our Estates dept money on servicing etc
We have a policy of not fighting fires.
Our training does not include actual demos or "hands on"
Our RAs identify the need ( )
Would we be committing an offence?

Nothing in Doc B
Nothing in BS9999
1 X Water per 200 sq m in the guides p 58 offices guide
BS5306 pt 8 is advisory
RRO Articles 8 and 13 seem to indicate so

davo

[CivvyFSO]

Davo, you might not be committing an actual offence by the action of removing them, but if you failed to comply with the enforcement notice telling you to replace them, then you would be. Obviously you can appeal the enforcement notice, as it is your right, but you should bear in mind the following...

In specific reference to article 13 Guidance note No. 1 states:

73. Fire-fighting equipment should be considered as a means of both prevention and
protection. For example, preventing a small fire growing out of control and spreading
beyond the area of origin, affecting the means of escape and posing a risk to relevant
persons. It is likely therefore that some form of fire fighting equipment will be necessary
in almost all cases.

[Davo]

CivvyFSO

How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence

davo

[Midland Retty]

Davo

In principal you would not be committing an offence. Unless as Civvy states the extinguishers are required by virtue of an enforcement notice. If the fire authority believes you need extingishers back in place it may issue an enforcement notice asking you to do so. If you dont successfully appeal the requirements of the notice or just ignore it, you would be commiting an offence.

A few things to be careful of here...

Firstly if your RA has determined they are required, then really they should be provided, thats the whole idea of the risk assessment process. That's not to say an assessment shouldn't be reviewed or questioned, but the danger is the organisation may decide the findings of the assessment are a little inconvenient, and choose to ignore the bits it doesn't like. Clearly that is bad practice, to put it mildly!

Here are a few things to I would consider:-

The first priority would be to establish if you have more fire extinguishers than you actually need. Can they be reduced? Are they over specced? Are they in the right locations?

Secondly consider the knock on effect of not having extinguishers. Could it be of detriment to operational resillience, or continuity, could it mean ultimately a fire could cause more damage to your assets? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.

Thirdly what about areas such as your custody suites? Many were designed with excessive dead end conditions, single direction of escape with perhaps secondary access to a secure outside yard from which there is no onward escape.

You need to consider if a fire started in the custody suite cell area, could the custody sergeant and their team be able to secure, and evacuate those in people in custody before the MOE is compromised? In my experience the cells are normally fire resisting boxes, smoking is not permitted any longer, and a fire in one cell should be contained.

But are those measures maintained in a effective state? Is that FR in place? Will a fire be contained?

Fourtly HMG is looking to make cuts in the fire service. They want less fire stations and fire crews, the idea is to push for business to mitigate the effects of fire so that we don't need so many big red fire engines whizzing around everywhere. So I get the impression that mitigating the effects of fire will become a very hot topic in future , and furthermore the penalties for not mitigating the effects of fire will become more and more severe.

[nearlythere]

My view is that fire fighting equipment is not legally required if they are considerd to be not necessary.
Not necessary would include a policy of non use.
I would not consider FAFFE as life saving equipment otherwise they would not be placed at final and storey exits.
If FAFFE is considered necessary for escape purposes then there is something seriously wrong with the means of escape. 
The legislation requires FAFFE where necessary, not the necessary FAFFE.

Head is now returned to below the parapet.

[CivvyFSO]

CivvyFSO

How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence

davo

No offence is required for the issue of an enforcement notice.

An offence is committed when a failure under the RRO puts people at risk of death/serious injury. For this we would go straight to prosecution, and probably issue a notice to put the failing right at the same time.

However, if you have a premises where everything was perfect, nobody at risk, everything provided and maintained as it should be, but you hadn't recorded the prescribed information detailed in article 9, we could issue a notice just for the recording of the prescribed information.  If you didn't do it within the allotted time you will have committed a very straight forward easily prosecutable offence of not complying with an enforcement notice. Did you comply with the notice? No? Guilty. (This is not taking into account such obstacles as the code for crown prosecutors, enforcement concordat, enforcement compliance code etc)

I can almost guarantee that the FRS involved, and CPIG where appropriate, will enforce extinguishers. FRS prosecuting the police? Realistically/politically I could not see it happening, but would this be due to the police backing down or the FRS backing down?

[CivvyFSO]

CivvyFSO

How can an enforcement order be issued if I am not committing an offence

davo

No offence is required for the issue of an enforcement notice.

An offence is committed when a failure under the RRO puts people at risk of death/serious injury. For this we would go straight to prosecution, and probably issue a notice to put the failing right at the same time.

However, if you have a premises where everything was perfect, nobody at risk, everything provided and maintained as it should be, but you hadn't recorded the prescribed information detailed in article 9, we could issue a notice just for the recording of the prescribed information.  If you didn't do it within the allotted time you will have committed a very straight forward easily prosecutable offence of not complying with an enforcement notice. Did you comply with the notice? No? Guilty. (This is not taking into account such obstacles as the code for crown prosecutors, enforcement concordat, enforcement compliance code, the enforcement management model etc)

I can almost guarantee that the FRS involved, and CPIG where appropriate, will enforce extinguishers. FRS prosecuting the police? Realistically/politically I could not see it happening, but would this be due to the police backing down or the FRS backing down?
[/quote]

[nearlythere]

The F&RS could and would certainly issue a notice for, in it's view, in short, failing to provide extinguishers. But that's it's interpretation of the legislation which may or may not be correct.
It is the over use of "where necessary" and "where appropriate" that fogs the issue and pays for flash cars and houses for the legal types.

Has this matter ever gone to appeal?

[Fishy]

Very difficult to justify that this is safe:
1.   It’s generally accepted good practice that the Responsible Person  provides portable fire extinguishers, & all the guidance suggests that you should.  The presumption (in law) is that one should strive to achieve a level of risk equivalent to that offered by complying with established good industry practice.  If your employers are not following that guidance, how are they proposing to justify the resulting discrepancy in risk?  Just by saying it’s company policy??
2.   They already have fire extinguishers there.  If they remove them, they are not maintaining them “in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair” – Fire Authorities may view this as a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Order;
3.   Remember the obligation is to reduce fire risk as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).  It has already been demonstrated to be reasonably practicable to have extinguishers installed (they are there), so how can it ever be ‘ALARP’ to remove them and thus increase fire risk beyond its current level?
4.   This would appear to be a straightforward example of ‘Reverse ALARP’ – an example of bad risk assessment practice quoted in HSE publication RR151 (http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr151.pdf) and the latest version of CIBSE Guide E.  Guide E also tells you what tests you should apply if considering this type of alteration – and highlights there is a much stricter test that you would apply than if you were considering whether to provide them in the first place.

[CivvyFSO]

From the ODPM in 2002 when the Fire Safety order was being discussed:

"We therefore propose that, in addition to the above requirements, the proposed
Order should make it clear that fire fighting equipment should be considered as a possible
means of reducing a risk of fire spreading, providing protection and for providing assistance
to others, and not merely as a means of safeguarding the means of escape. It should also be
considered as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire."

[nearlythere]

From the ODPM in 2002 when the Fire Safety order was being discussed:

"We therefore propose that, in addition to the above requirements, the proposed
Order should make it clear that fire fighting equipment should be considered as a possible
means of reducing a risk of fire spreading, providing protection and for providing assistance
to others, and not merely as a means of safeguarding the means of escape. It should also be
considered as a possible means of mitigating the detrimental effects of a fire."

Did the proposal come to anything?

[CivvyFSO]

Yes, The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005.

[wee brian]

Personannly, unless you can be sure there will never be a fire then I think removing the extinguishers would be an offence.

Art 13 asks for them "where necessary". 13(2) sets out what to consider.

If you havent got them, and there could be a fire, then you have put people at risk - ergo - an offence.

[Davo]

The RRO states in Article 13 FFE is a provision for the safety of relevant persons where necessary ie anyone lawfully on the premises

You could argue in relation to Article 4 that Compy, L1 detection already in place covers our duty to mitigate the spread of fire (yes, staff training also)

davo

[CivvyFSO]

Detection does not mitigate the effects of fire. It lets you know that if you haven't done anything to mitigate the effects of fire that you are about to be having a bad day.

There was much discussion surrounding the 'where necessary' at the inception of the RRO, and it should be looked at from the point of view that it is nearly always necessary, and article 13 is more of an issue of choice/placement of the FFE that IS required.

We can argue all day Davo, but the simple truth is that if you ask your local FRS they will tell you not to remove the FFE, and they will be willing to enforce the reinstatement if you do. You have the right to appeal, and you can fight your case then, but I would be quite confident that the appeal would get refused. For your Crown aspects, I would be quietly confident that CPIG will be singing from the same sheet as us.