Author Topic: Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice  (Read 9071 times)

Offline stevew

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • http://firesureuk.co.ok
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« on: July 16, 2005, 02:02:54 PM »
Client recently issued a deficiencies notice by fire authority under FPWkplace Regs and the Man of H & S At Work Regs.

Premises consist of public house with three first floor letting rooms (FP Act Cert not required).   Staff only employed in pub.

Notice included AFD and structural fire protection work specifically relating to the first floor.

I would welcome views on
a) whether such work can be required under the Man of H & S At Work Regs and
b) whether anyone ahas come across this approach by fire authorities

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2005, 02:11:33 PM »
It is a bit ''iffy''. The work could not be required under the Management Regs, although they could require to see the FRA carried out under these Regs. It would have to be required under the Workplace Regs. They would need to show the work was necessary to protect EMPLOYEES, as opposed to public. This is usually difficult under the circs you describe, and this is a well known chestnut, which we have come across many times. At least one fire authority has taken legal advice on exactly this situation and been advised that a notice cannot be issued. Having said that, there is a civil liability on the owner to secure safe conditions for guests, and the work specificed by the fire authority should almost certainly be carried out. Moreover, come the RRO, the anomaly will go away, and there will be a need to protect the guests, so they might as well just get on with it now, rather than hiding behind an imperfection in current legislation.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline stevew

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • http://firesureuk.co.ok
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2005, 02:57:42 PM »
Thanks Colin

You have confirmed my thoughts.  

I have no problem in recommending the work to my client however the FA should stick to the current imperfect legislation and perhaps spend more time on advising my client of the RRO.   This is a good time to sell the RRO.   I think the saying is 'forewarned is forarmed'   It would be a breath of fresh air to see a FA proactive in marketing the RRO or if not,  the principle of risk assessment

Interestingly enough this is the same fire inspector who recently issued a similar notice to client under the FP Act    The notice advised that existing upgraded fire doors in the hotel (current FP Cert) be fitted with combined int /cold smoke seals.   Good idea pehaps over the long term but certainly not a deficiency.  

Re-enforces my view that fire authorities have some way to go to convince me that as an enforcing authority the safety of the workforce and public is safe in their hands.  

Steve

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2005, 04:26:07 PM »
The safety of people is ok in their hands, but the safety of your client's pound notes is not. It is not the fault of the Inspector. It is the fault of his bosses, who let him out on the streets without adequate training. An I/o rejected a fire risk assessment of ours out of hand, telling the client it was not even a fire risk assessment, and alleging that thereby the client was in breach of legislation. The susequent contravention schedule quoted the wrong legislation and, as now admitted freely and openly by the fire authority, the risk asessment was fine, indeed thorough. When I asked the I/o what his training was in fire risk assessment, he told me that he had had none, but that he had been searching the web to try to find some training. What the heck was he doing on the streets without training? Was that his fault or that of his senior management. His ADO had four years experience in fire safety and was not, in my opinion, an awful lot more knowledgable than the I/o. And this is supposed to be the modern face of a professional organization??? However, in fairness, it is getting gradually better and will continue to do so once the RRO settles down. It is merely frustrating in the meantime.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline stevew

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • http://firesureuk.co.ok
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2005, 09:34:22 PM »
Colin

Yes it is the fault of the bosses.   Bosses who do not appear to have learnt a great deal in the last 20 years.   Two situations come to mind with my ex-employers during the late 1980's when I was in an FP Dept.

Firstly an ADO arrived after a secondment to the Ops Dept FS College.   Why into fire safety? Because he had just completed a Specialist FS Course compliments of the College and my bosses felt that was sufficient to lead a team of 25 inspectors.   The result was a total disaster for all concerned.

Seondly as one of two ADO.s I was consulted on the detachment of a Stn O to the College in the fire safety department.   The conversation went on the lines that he was so ineffective in the department that we should recommend him the the College.  He got the job.

The senior management have'nt learnt much over 20+ years.

Offline PhilB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2005, 12:26:24 PM »
I hate to agree with Mr Todd but on this occasion I have to.Come the RRO all will be well but at present the Fire Precautions Workplace Legislation(FPWL) only caters for the safety of employees...not all persons who resort to the premises.

As for SteveW's comments re the college.....what does that say about you as a manager??????...don't know when you recommended that individual...but there are some excellent instructors there now.

The FPWL is not a term most IOs really understand, unless they have attended a good training course.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2005, 06:49:20 PM »
1. Why do you hate to agree, Phillip.
2. I thought Steve's management decision was quite good. Worked for his FRS didnt it?
3. I am astonished that IOs understand the term FPWL when they attend a good training course. I must attend one myself, as I was labouring under what I now realise must be an  illusion if Moreton tell me there is such a term. Here was I thinking that the term was Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation, WFPL, just like it says in the legislation itself. Maybe, of course, the instructors on the said good training course are dyslexic.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline stevew

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • http://firesureuk.co.ok
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2005, 08:20:20 PM »
Better clear up a point raised by PhilB regarding my management skills.

I was one of two ADO's working to a SFPO.  I failed to explain that both myself and my collegue were astounded at the suggestion.  If fact we objected in the strongest terms.  In our view the individual would have been innefective wherever he was.   Something that perhaps the DO Head of Department and SDO Divisional Commander had already thought about, thus making our views irrelevant.  
provide appropriate training before letting  
 
Regarding the inspecting officer I have to agree with Colin that it is the responsibility of senior management to provide effective training prior to 'letting loose'.  On a positive note I must add that during a subsequent telephone conversation with the particular IO I  was impressed with his attitude and approach to the situation.  

As a closing note an FS Dept motto from my early years has just come to mind that used to upset our DO.
'ruthless until challenged'

Offline Brian Catton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2005, 09:45:58 PM »
I remember when I was a SFPO it used to put the fear of God into our Principal Officers at the mere mention of the word appeal. Over the years I have seen quite a few notices that were iffy. (perhaps even issued one or two) by agreement with the recipient of course. Poachers turned gamekeepers are in an excellent position to challenge such notices. One of my first jobs in the Health Service was to challenge a notice that had been issued under the FP Act requiring work to be done in treatment and care areas. The notice was subsequently withdrawn saving the NHS £485,000. It was not the fault of the IO though. I had just changed sides that was all.

Offline Slim Jim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2005, 04:28:53 PM »
I agree with most of the posts on this thread; in particular, Mr. Todd's comments about managers.  Many spent years dodging the fire safety department, but end up in a senior managerial post in that department!  The manager's job is to lead and support the Inspecting Officers - how can they do that if they don't have sufficient knowledge & understanding themselves?  Never mind - IPDS will solve that - NOT!  Another point:  if fire authorities are getting it so wrong with the WPFL (Colin, you must stop teasing our Phil), how on earth are things going to get better with the RRO?  HM Government should have made sure that all FAs were up to speed with the current law, but they are more interested in diversity and financial performance these days.  It will end in tears....

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Fire Auth Deficiencies Notice
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2005, 04:49:19 PM »
.......if it has not already.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates