Penhallow risk assessor in court.

[SandDancer]

Seconded Speyside;)

[firstforensic]

Just FYI - the cause of the fire was quite a bit more than suspected arson. However, all the investigators were asked the same question by the Coroner along the lines of "are you certain it was arson, are you reasonably sure or are you unsure". It was made clear that "certain beyond reasonable doubt" was not an option. Given the choice of only these 3 options; all the investigators (and I was one of them) were obliged to pick the middle ground.

[Meerkat]

Of course the coroner is only interested in fixing the cause of death not placing the blame, however I gather that the CPS decided some time ago that they didn't have enough evidence to charge anyone with murder / arson although the Police still consider this an unsolved murder case?

The current court case is more about why people didn't get out once the fire had started and is concentrating on those seen as having the duties under the RRO.

Reminds me a bit of all the times that the CPS has chickened out of taking a manslaughter (corporate or otherwise) case for deaths at work and instead left the HSE to prosecute for breaches of H&S. 

[Golden]

Quote from Jayjay:
I think this case may show that relying on older standards or Building Control approvals is no defence if a fire risk assessment identifys that somthing is not compliant with current standards. The use of the term "Legislation Not Retrospective" will not help once an issue has been identified. Not respective is a common reason given to me for not needing to consider some fire risk assessment recomendations.  
[/quote]

Jayjay; this is why this case has far reaching implications. I don't know the full story of the fire detection and alarm but the issue of compliance with current standards is the critical aspect of the prosecution. I can't accept that legislation in this case can be retrospective as it will cause an horrendous cost for businesses across the country, with respect to the AFD/alarm I can see that it would be prudent to give the advice that the system doesn't comply to the current standards and to back that up with reasoned argument why it should be upgraded. My main issue is where do you stop? Has every fire door, emergency light, sign, external escape, panic bar, etc. to be changed as well? I could also give a number of examples of buildings that have been built in the past year that don't comply but have been passed by various bodies.

If this is the role of the risk assessor then we may as well just give the RP a copy of the building regs. and tell them to start again. I am quite happy for a register of fire risk assessors as I can only see this as beneficial to my company but what I really would like to know from this case is how far reaching is the RRO - does it mean as seems to be inferred by some of the reports - that every building that it applies to has to comply with the latest set of British standards? Or maybe I am once again reading this wrong?

[kurnal]

Or maybe I am once again reading this wrong?

I think you may be reading too much into the current discussions but am confident that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment carried out by a competent person will identify the correct solutions to fire safety problems without seeking to retrospectively apply new standards. 
Look at the way the definition of an offence is worded in the Order, its a functional issue rather than a technical issue.

The Principles of Prevention require us to adapt to technical progress. What does that mean? Upgrade all safety systems to the latest standards? I say not.

I say it requires us to look at the underlying reasons WHY the standards have been changed and apply the new understanding of the issues in carrying out your fire risk assessment.  If your old fire doors remain in good condition and will still give sufficient protection in your particular circumstances then there is no need to upgrade them. Just record the background as to why you made that decision.

I still have sufficient faith in the system to believe that as long as you make an informed and diligent decision to evaluate what you have, ensure it is as good as it can reasonably be and will protect people from risk of injury or death in case of fire  using the old definition of Reasonably Practicable.

We earn our living by exercising our professional judgement to advise other people. But make no mistake if any of us makes such a judgement and someone later dies in a fire as a direct result of the decisions made then clearly it was wrong decision! And we will quite rightly have to answer for our actions.

Its no different really to any other aspect of H&S from the guy who MOTs your car and makes a judgement over what remains serviceable and what needs replacing or the Doctor trying to decide whether to give you a triple or quad bypass.

[Golden]

That is how I have always understood the legislation and professional judgement is the key to earning our living, if everywhere/everyone complied with the latest legislation we would be out of a job. In my opinion it is also why FRAs need an experienced - as well as 'qualified' - practitioner who can apply balance to the role and look at the principles behind the standards (post war building studies was my old 'mentor's' favourite) and the incidents that have led to the legislation.

I'm taking an interest in this discussion and the case as it may become one of those landmarks that will take the RRO legislation forwards another step. Thanks for your comments - there may be many more issues to come during the trial.

John.

[Davo]

Professional judgement comes with experience, and I am sure we all have made mistakes, I know I have but at least I wave the red flag when I am out of my depth and send for help.

In regard to standards, a hotel that size deserves modern standards, whereas, as K says, there are in other places where you might record the standard as a moderate.

He also makes an interesting comment re adapting to technical progress. Again, we realise that these straightened times we cannot in all conscience recommend multi sensors for every premise but only when there is clear justification.

I have had problems with private BCs for some years (and the odd tame I/O) and as one of you knows, passing shoddy plans and shoddy workmanship that has to be corrected after handover.

I wouldn't advise accepting guilt in those circumstances K, as we all know we can only deal with what we find and realise circumstances change- what was excellent managership when you do your RA can soon change if some slacker takes over and negates the strategy for escape, or some stupid contractor tears a door in the fire blanket just to pass a cable through (I have the photo )


regards, merry Xmas and keep it coming people


davo

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I for one will be watching this case, not for macabre reasons, but I was on holiday in Newquay at the time and in fact, had walked past the hotel some hours before the fire.

Cornwall Fire and Rescue service came under alot of crticism at the time about only one appliance being turned out on the initial call, the fact that everyone thought it should be wholetime crewed not day duty, the lack of aerial appliance cover and the nearest one coming from 50 miles away, but no attention was focussed on why things had gone so badly wrong.

This case should be welcomed. The responsible persons should be brought to account and, if matters have/were not addressed following advice, especially when some of it has come from the F&RS, then they should be held responsible for their actions, or lack of actions.

It is intersting to note that two people have refused or declined to answer questions. That alone speaks volumes to me. What are they hiding?

I'm sure the families of those lost want a definitive answer and the courts provide them.

 

[jayjay]

Latest press coverage

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Penhallow-case-committed-Crown-Court/article-3151617-detail/article.html

[AnthonyB]

Strangely the consultancy hasn't linked this story in their 'Industry News' section 

[John Webb]

Hotel Company fined £80k + £62k costs:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/halifax_firm_fined_80_000_fine_for_hotel_blaze_that_killed_three_1_3347181

(See also UK Prosecutions section.)

[wee brian]

"several major failings were found. These included a lack of an “L2” alarm system, which features loud smoke and fire alarms in every room"

Why L2? does anybody know the details?

[Golden]

Wee Brian I find this aspect very frustrating! Obviously some information will come out in the future following the court case but as far as I understand the FRA didn't recommend an upgrade to the existing system to bring it in line with current guidance. I haven't any idea what category of system was provided and how outdated and would like to know where the courts would draw the line with respect to upgrading existing fire protection measures however from what I can glean from the press coverage and the comments above the system provided was not fit for purpose.

This case does of course highlight the need for regular fire risk assessment in these type of premises and how this has developed from the FP act. and the vital role of the management in fire safety. It has crossed my mind about when the last FB inspection was carried out and/or a fire certificate was issued on the hotel?

[colin todd]

Brian, if not L2 then what would it be?

[Wiz]

Brian, if not L2 then what would it be?

How about L1? 

Table A.1 of BS5839-1 suggests a typical category of L1 or L2 for a hotel or hostel. Within the comments section we find the phrase '...In practice, few, if any areas are left unprotected and the system Category is effectively L1......'

I don't really know this building, but I understand it is not a modern building and contained sleeping persons who are unlikely to know where the escape routes are. Personally, I'd be surprised if it was assessed as requiring anything less than L1