Important determination on the provision of fire seals to hotel doors

[kurnal]

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firedoors

A very significant determination with excellent background and research information into this recurrent topic.

[Tom Sutton]

This forum discussed this very problem and IMO the consensus of opinion was very similar to this determination. Check out this very extensive thread http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4696.0

[colin todd]

Yup, a very WISE decision yet again, by that good ole boy Big Ken.  As you say Tam, a bit of a no brainer isnt it, but you do get these very prescriptive old geezers who cant understand risk and can do no more than blindly try to follow guidance as though it were rules, merrily throwing away the duty holders' money like confetti, or, in this case, throwing away the ratepayers money on a determination, with the use of lawyers and "experts" all to no avail.

You have to wonder what it cost the fire and rescue authority havent you.....................

JUST AS WELL THERE ARE GOOD CONSULTANTS OUT THERE TO KEEP THEM RIGHT ISNT IT, Tam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yours in total euphoria,

Colin S Todd  


ps YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[jokar]

Nothing like a little self gratification!

[nearlythere]

Nothing like a little self gratification!

Self gratification? Is that something that some people do on their own, somewhere that they can't be seen that when they're finished they have a sense of accomplishment?

[Fishy]

I wonder how much the fact that the bedrooms had smoke detection, rather than heat detection, influenced the decision?

[kurnal]

Theres another important  twist in this determination in my opinion.

A number of us have discussed the wording of article 36 and had interpreted this article as meaning that a determination cannot not take place unless the responsible person accepts the enforcing authorities view that he had failed to comply with the order and only disagrees over the technical solution. In previous postings we have assumed this is the case and was so written to avoid the Secretary of State becoming an alternative route for appeal bypassing the Article 35 route.

Does this case show that the RP does NOT have to accept that he has failed to comply in order to proceed to a determination- clearly in this case the RP was of the view that his technical solution in respect of the doors and the lack of seals  was satisfactory?

Has the outcome of the determination (that the RP has to review his fire risk assessment) something to do with this?

[William 29]

I also found this to be a bit odd.  If the FA did not agree then they could have just served Notice leaving the RP with the only option of an appeal which when heard by a magistrates court I suggest would have had a different outcome.  I experienced this with a FA a while ago where we wanted to go to determination but they didn't agree on the issue so served Notice.

[AnthonyB]

Theres another important  twist in this determination in my opinion.

A number of us have discussed the wording of article 36 and had interpreted this article as meaning that a determination cannot not take place unless the responsible person accepts the enforcing authorities view that he had failed to comply with the order and only disagrees over the technical solution. In previous postings we have assumed this is the case and was so written to avoid the Secretary of State becoming an alternative route for appeal bypassing the Article 35 route.

Does this case show that the RP does NOT have to accept that he has failed to comply in order to proceed to a determination- clearly in this case the RP was of the view that his technical solution in respect of the doors and the lack of seals  was satisfactory?

Has the outcome of the determination (that the RP has to review his fire risk assessment) something to do with this?

My reading is that both parties had agreed that there was a failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks from fire, namely not recording that some doors had not got seals and the argument was that the brigade thought that a suitable assessment would acknowledge this and require upgrading as a significant finding, but the RP disagreed and that although a suitable assessment should have noted they were missing, it should not have required replacement as a significant finding citing the other controls as successfully argued in the determination.

[colin todd]

Tony, Thank you for keeping Big Al's fire engine on the main highway and stopping him going off the road and through a ploughed field yet again.  I love the old boy to bits as he well knows, but the reason there are no red light districts in Matlock Bath is that every time he passed a red light outside a house of ill repute, he assumed that it was the glow of a fire and blasted it with a main jet.

[colin todd]

Willie, it begs the question as to why a FRS would not wish to use the determination route and should choose to block it.  In Scotland, the power of an FRS to block the use of determinations in this way will soon be taken away from them.

Having acted on two of the four determinations in E&W to date, and succesfully won each, I rather like the route.  It always seems to result in a WISE decision.

[jokar]

St Peter of course!

[William 29]

Willie, it begs the question as to why a FRS would not wish to use the determination route and should choose to block it.  In Scotland, the power of an FRS to block the use of determinations in this way will soon be taken away from them.

Having acted on two of the four determinations in E&W to date, and succesfully won each, I rather like the route.  It always seems to result in a WISE decision.

I agree determination is a great route but there is little that can be done if the FA say they don't agree.  As we know they have more chance of convincing a magistrate as they tend to go with the person in uniform as oppose to the guy in the suit.

The comment about Kurnal was a little unkind but very funny.

[kurnal]

I think you are all rotten taking the mickey (apart from Anthony). I shall go away and sulk for the next 100 nanoseconds.

The simple truth that comes out of this is that there must have been some (welcome) process of negotiation over the way this case was handled. I bet the first focus of the enforcement officer was not the adequacy of the fire risk assessment  but the absence of the doorseals and that by protracted discussion and negotiation they engineered their way back from potential enforcement action to a determination.

The crux of this for me as an interested bystander is at what stage in the enforcement process the RP took competent advice over the seals and the case was steered towards determination rather than enforcement. I bet it was not in the initial stages. The RP must have stood by their initial fire risk assessment right through to the end of the process. That is curious.

How would it have worked if the RP had two identical hotels in different parts of the UK both of which had been audited at the same time?  

[Midland Retty]

The RP must have stood by their initial fire risk assessment right through to the end of the process. That is curious.
How would it have worked if the RP had two identical hotels in different parts of the UK both of which had been audited at the same time?  

I guess either the Fire Authority mentioned that the determination process was a possible route to resolution (and I sincerley hope they did it out of fairness and proportionality) or the RP appointed a consultant who advised them to go down this route, or perhaps the RP simply did their homework and pushed for it.

Eitherway common sense prevailled (in terms of the judgement) and it is pleasing to hear that the determination process is being used.

In respect of your identical hotels in two seperate counties scenario. In my opinion if a determination stood in favour of the hotel in County A, for example, then it would also have to apply by default,to  the hotel in County B - if they were truly identical in design and management and I think the enforcing authority would be on a losing streak to contest otherwise.