Important determination on the provision of fire seals to hotel doors

[colin todd]

Brian, are you saying that private sector companies have to spend thousands to teach fire and rescue service officers the basic principles of enforcement? What do they pay their taxes for (apart from you to have a day off for the queen's jubilee?)

[Midland Retty]

thats what it is for

Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.

[Kelsall]

13.
The responsible person considers, on the basis of their risk assessment, that sufficient protection to allow occupants to make an escape in the event of a fire is in place and that it would be disproportionate to provide the bedroom doors opening into the escape corridors with intumescent strips and smoke seals. Those fire doors which directly protect the stairways are fitted with intumescent strips and smoke seals.

Why are the ones on the protected stairs needed? The corridors are certainly less likely to have a fire than a bedroom, there should be very limited combustible material in the corridors and the escape stairs will be sterile. So if they are fitted for life safety; what’s the risk? Fire from a hotel bedroom perhaps! Surely everyone will be out by the time the corridor becomes untenable. I am sure someone will enlighten me about FRS needing access to fight fires etc, but in that case why not fit seals and strips on a bedroom door to restrict the danger to FRS personnel. Possibly the bedroom doors met the requirement of the time but so does the door on to the stairs. Where does the line get drawn and why?

I stayed in a hotel last year with a plastic bag taped over the detector; a fire in that room would have been very developed before it got detected.

[Mike Buckley]

Just as a side line, there is an interesting paragraph in the determination. In Para 17 under the Responsible Persons' case the last section reads: "The Lead Authority Partnership arrangement in place with another fire and rescue authority, which agreed the risk assessment approach without reference to the absence of intumescent strips and smoke seals on bedroom doors."

This could explain the decision to go to determination rather than following the enforcement notice approach.

[wee brian]

Brian, are you saying that private sector companies have to spend thousands to teach fire and rescue service officers the basic principles of enforcement? What do they pay their taxes for (apart from you to have a day off for the queen's jubilee?)

No, I'm saying that the Determination procedure allows DCLG to put people (FRSs and Consultants) back in their box.

[wee brian]

thats what it is for

Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.

Why not?  Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.

[kurnal]

I tried to list the lessons learned from this interesting determination and am struggling to quantify them.

The outcome was that the fire risk assessment is to be reviewed and the Secretary of State says it will then be found to be satisfactory. I see that as one of the most interesting aspects of the case.

I would wager that had this been an appeal against an enforcement notice that the appeal would have been lost in a magistrates court.

As always the technical aspects were absolutely specific to the case and we cannot say, for example, whether the presence of smoke detection in the room was an important  factor taken into account or whether the outcome would have been different had for example the doors to the stairs not been fitted with seals. And rightly so, otherwise the determination would have undermined the technical standards- eg RRO guidance and BS we all use as benchmarks against which to make a judgement in our risk assessment.

Am I being thick (as usual) or is anyone else able to add to my list of the  lessons have been learned?

My list:

1-The Benchmark Guidance is exactly that and not intended to be applied in a prescriptive manner.
2-Fire and rescue services should have regard to 1 above when carrying out their enforcement duties.
3-?

[Golden]

Kurnal,

I would add that this case underpins the basic risk assessment principles given that the risk should be considered with respect to the best guidance available balanced with other factors in the equation such as existing compensatory measures and fire safety management exercised by the RP, plus the cost of putting right any deficiencies. Some of these issues are a matter of fine judgement, sometimes personal opinions and sometimes blatant prejudice - fortunately it is in this grey and fuzzy world that fire engineers/officers/risk assessors ply their trade and what makes us think sometimes rather than merely ticking a few boxes on the pro-forma.

For me it also clarifies something that I have always done on my risk assessments and that is to clearly describe any deficiencies/compensatory features as significant findings and write down why I consider them to be acceptable - or not. Clearly in this case the lack of IS/SS had not been noted and therefore any inspecting officer would quite rightly consider the FRA not to be sufficient.

A further point is that Lead Authority Partnership agreements are, in my opinion, very dangerous and set precedents that are generally used and abused around the country without the specific details being available to all of the interested parties and comparisons are made for premises where the conditions are not 'like for like'. A bit like this determination is being touted as a reason for not providing IS/SS by some 'risk assessors' in other forums!!

[jokar]

It would assist everyone if RA's would explain the decisions they make in the assessment.  In this case if the absence of S&S had been explained, and I do not know whether this was the case or not, and a justifiable logic given in writing then perhaps the FRS staff would have a clearer picture of why a particular stance has been taken.  That said a number of FRS use the guidance as "Tablets of Stone" to beat everyone to death and get the courts to agree that the words are correct.

[Midland Retty]

thats what it is for

Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.

Why not?  Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.

Both the RP and the fire authority agreed that the fire risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient as it did not highlight the fact that the strips and seals were missing from fire doors in the hotel.

So to me there should have been a very clear way forward in resolving the issue. Determination was not it.

Would any of you here ask a hotel (with an appropriate alarm system fitted) to upgrade x amount of doors if strips and seals weren't fitted within a fairly immediate time frame?

Or would you recommend that the hotel  address the issue during it's next major refurb? Is anyone going to die because strips and seals aren't fitted?, or because the fire doors don't conform to current guidance?

The answer to me is that the Fire Authority should have asked the RP to review the assessment to acknowledge lack of strips and seals and to justify why they weren't going to immediately upgrade the doors. It is a no branier, and to me the fire authority were completely in the wrong.

Thankfully Sir Ken agreed. And thats my point, any decent fire safety professional will have due regard to current guidance and standards, and apply them where appropriate and where practicable, but they won't guide hug, for guide hugging sake. They assess the risk in a balanced and measured way. To me the fire authority did not do this, and that frankly is rather poor.If they can't get the bread and butter things into perspective and be proportionate then what does that say about their level of competence? .

[nearlythere]

thats what it is for

Not for bread and butter issues like strips and seals its not.

Why not?  Theres a lot of this bread and butter about. Maybe giving a clear steer will help everybody focus on what's important.

Or would you recommend that the hotel  address the issue during it's next major refurb? Is anyone going to die because strips and seals aren't fitted?, or because the fire doors don't conform to current guidance?

The determination would suggest not MR so from the point of view of the risk if it can wait until the next refurb, which could be 10,20,30 years is it really that important to have the strips and seals fitted at all? To wait that long is not a control measure but a box ticking exercise.
To my mind if their is a risk it should be sorted within a reasonable time frame otherwise it isn't needed at all.
 

[Midland Retty]

But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!

[nearlythere]

But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!

That's my point. If the doors without Int and SS are ok for 30 years then they pose no significant risk.

[Tom Sutton]

But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!

What is the evacuation strategy stay put or full evacuation?

[William 29]

But I regularly visit blocks of flats which have original front doors still on them some 30 years since they were built. Theyre not fitted with strips and seals they won't get replaced until which time the blocks are refurbished. Would I make them change them sooner? Nope!

That's my point. If the doors without Int and SS are ok for 30 years then they pose no significant risk.

Agreed with you both but picking up on the point the lack of strips and seals is either a risk or it isn't.  If it is then upgrade within a reasonable time frame, if the doors are sound why upgrade at all unless they are damaged or cease to be effective due to wear and tear?  The FRA just needs to clearly state this and why the risk if any, is acceptable or not.