Enforcement review

[Golden]

Mike,

one of the major problems with operational crews inspecting under the RRO is that they have no in depth knowledge of what is required, at least with the fire certificates there was a plan to follow - minor items can of course be picked up but how many major items are missed? I was never too comfortable with crews inspecting anyway and have dealt with a number of issues where following a FSO visit soon after a crew inspection there have been major issues found and its impossible to explain to a building owner why there is a difference - the fire brigade inspect a premises and to an owner it doesn't matter if its a fully qualified fire engineer from the fire safety office or a probationer from the local station. Now there doesn't have to be a plan (although I know some would like to see this) and the responsibilities are a lot less clear from a fire fighter perspective e.g. multi-occ buildings, etc. and an emphasis on management as well as fire protection measures.

With respect to fire safety officers the RRO was always going to be the end of them - unless fire deaths start rising in commercial premises and HMG realises that it takes more than a 3 day course before people are competent in carrying out FRA on anything other than the common parts of a (well managed) 3 storey block of flats. On the other hand the risk of fire occurring is dwindling and with technological and societal changes with respect to electrical equipment, soft furnishings, heating systems, etc. the incidence of fire will continue to fall therefore the likelihood of a multi-fatality fire will also fall - fire is quite a random unpredictable occurrence and to be cost effective and 'safe' is a fine line.

Edit: took a rather long phone call before posting this and would like to say am in agreement with Wiz's post above - define the level of risk first as its never going to be zero and then when the level is defined we have to agree how much money we're going to spend on attaining that level of risk. Can the money be better used elsewhere?

[Kelsall]

Given that he argues emotively about the death of loved ones and so on, will the rt honourable member for the wirral please answer when he is going to start a certifrication scheme for stairs and garden sheds, which I hope he promotes as aggressively as he does his certification scheme for fire risk assessors. According to his arguements a death is a death, so why is he so willing to right off the occupants of garden sheds.

Colin! Genuine question for you. Do you have a drink problem? I really don't understand you!

 

[Kelsall]

.................Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.

Kelsall, I believe we already have a robust culture and legislation in respect of fire precautions in this country. I believe it is already at the level where the cost of achieving it is already affecting the financial stability of the country. Since business pays for absolutely everything we must ensure that it can flourish.

I read Mr Todd's comments to mean that the current level of deaths due to fires is small in comparision with deaths caused by so many 'innocent sounding' activities and daily occurrences. Can we afford to try and reduce fire deaths further, and why are these more important than deaths by other causes? And I say this as a person who makes his living by providing fire precaution equipment and services.

The cost to business is in complying with the minimum requirements. I don’t think you are suggesting that these minimum requirements can be ignored because they cost money or that if things are tight the fire safety part of your budget can be diverted to help your business grow. But I am not sure what you are saying. Is the minimum too much?

just seen this, is it apathy or lack of spending on training, or what?

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/ipswich_suffolk_patient_almost_died_as_fire_alarm_was_ignored_eight_times_1_1748189

[Wiz]

.................Basics Wiz, Basics! I have never advocated ‘no’ risk, just get the basics right. I don’t want my family or friends to be put at risk when it is avoidable and in most cases of fatal fires in non dwelling houses, it turns out that the basics were not done right.

Kelsall, I believe we already have a robust culture and legislation in respect of fire precautions in this country. I believe it is already at the level where the cost of achieving it is already affecting the financial stability of the country. Since business pays for absolutely everything we must ensure that it can flourish.

I read Mr Todd's comments to mean that the current level of deaths due to fires is small in comparision with deaths caused by so many 'innocent sounding' activities and daily occurrences. Can we afford to try and reduce fire deaths further, and why are these more important than deaths by other causes? And I say this as a person who makes his living by providing fire precaution equipment and services.

The cost to business is in complying with the minimum requirements. I don’t think you are suggesting that these minimum requirements can be ignored because they cost money or that if things are tight the fire safety part of your budget can be diverted to help your business grow. But I am not sure what you are saying. Is the minimum too much? ..............

Kelsall, your earlier posts suggest that we are currently not doing enough. You asked for more regulation and enforcement.

You are now saying the cost to business is only in complying with the minimum requirements and you ask is the minimum too much? Who says what is the minimum? I would suggest that the term 'minimum' is not a definitive term in itself and means nothing. A level acceptable to the majority is what we should be striving for.

I have previously confirmed that in my opinion we have probably got it just about right now. Deaths from fires are low and, as Mr Todd, points out far lower than those caused by some other regular circumstances.

Of course, I don't believe funds should be diverted from fire safety to enable businesses to grow. But I would if the financial climate gets much worse, cuts would have to be made to enable business to survive. Without business the whole economy is dead. Everything depends on business flourishing.

It is pointless demanding more and more in trying to achieve an impossible target especially when it bankrupts the economy.

If we were in the bottom 10% of countries for fire safety I would suggest that we might not be doing enough. But that is not the case. Let's not waste any money that we might have available in the future when there is so much else that needs improving. I would suggest that we have currently got fire safety and precautions just about right for the amount we can afford to spend on it.

[Kelsall]

Wiz things are tight at Kelsall’s house at the moment too, I think I’ll stop paying mine and the wife’s car insurance and spend the money on some new gardening tools so I can set myself up as a part time gardener and make a few extra quid.

I do think that the governments thirst for removing red tape is going to go too far. They will be basically saying don’t bother spending money where you think its not needed and spend it on getting the nation back on its feet. Didn’t New Look get done for making a big profit and not spending money on fire safety?

42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.

I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.   

[Dinnertime Dave]

42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.

Unfortunately FRS have not been filling in their returns correctly, or more to the truth most officers (myself included) have been putting unsatisfactory when the correct response based on the CLG guidance should be satisfactory. Where officers issue action plans or enforcement notices then clearly the result is unsatisfactory. Where informal action is taken apparently the correct response is satisfactory!

It all sounds like an episode of Yes Prime Minister to me

I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.

 

Sorry, totally disagree, still too many jack booted fire safety officers out there. I would like to think that I am fair and have reasonable judgement but I make mistakes. Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.

[AnthonyB]

 Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.

Well a lot of parking control is operated by private companies on behalf on Councils and they make a profit.....


.....which creates a whole new discussion on outsourcing enforcement (I hope no Government Ministers are reading or we will see this in the next set of proposed Bills!)

[colin todd]

Kelsall, you dont understand me because you dont understand risk. That is presumably because of lack of background in the subject. I know it must be frustrating for you that no one wants your certification scheme because of lack of demand for certificated fire risk assessors, but telling everyone that we are all doomed Mr Mannering is totally out of context. Fire deaths are at their lowest since records began. It sounds a bit hollow to bang on about how awful it all is.

If you really want to save lives (as opposed to sell certification schemes) get a job as a carpet fitter and go round sorting out all these carpets on which people are tripping to their deaths.

[longjohn]

42% of all buildings inspected by the English FRSs are unsatisfactory. I can’t see how that is a stat that suggests things are fine. Inspection is going to reduce, that’s inevitable, and money is tight so people won’t spend on health and safety. But just like my car insurance it doesn’t matter unless I have a crash or I get caught by the police.

Unfortunately FRS have not been filling in their returns correctly, or more to the truth most officers (myself included) have been putting unsatisfactory when the correct response based on the CLG guidance should be satisfactory. Where officers issue action plans or enforcement notices then clearly the result is unsatisfactory. Where informal action is taken apparently the correct response is satisfactory!

It all sounds like an episode of Yes Prime Minister to me

I think that the FRS should be given greater powers to issue on the spot fines. That will cut out a ton of red tape. Only for certain things and with the right of appeal; but it would help them to hit those with total disregard for fire safety.

 

Sorry, totally disagree, still too many jack booted fire safety officers out there. I would like to think that I am fair and have reasonable judgement but I make mistakes. Also, assuming that we use a system similar to parking fines, I think it would cost more to administer than it generates in income.

Finally in this blog someone has mentioned Jack booted fire safety officers, taking on their over zealous, anti consultant 'I'm a fire policeman, do what I say' role.  I'm with CT's views on this one

[William 29]

Agreeing really with CT’s general comments….a big fuss over nothing in terms of how Government views fire safety regulation and enforcement.  The RRFSO as we all know places the responsibility for fire safety on the RP and the days are gone when the fire officer held your hand through the Fire Cert process and the period where we had the FP Act and the WP Regs.  There are not the resources, experience and perhaps desire in most fire safety departments now other than to be reactive to fire safety issues.

I spent a number of years in a large inner city fire safety dept. with 14 fire safety inspecting officers, 2 dedicated building regs officers, a dedicated licencing officer and 2 senior supervisory officers.  The city and buildings haven’t changed, (apart from several areas have been redeveloped!) nor have the workloads but that same office today has just 4 fire safety inspecting officers.

[Midland Retty]

Lets not go down the route of fire authorities issuing on-the-spot fines.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Well a lot of parking control is operated by private companies on behalf on Councils and they make a profit.....

We all known how popular they are.

http://cars.aol.co.uk/2013/01/21/traffic-warden-hands-out-ticket-to-van-that-was-overhanging-yell/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl13|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D147555

I think this comes to to expectation and the perception of risk. Colin rightly points out the data doesn`t support the over enforcement that some advocate.

[Kelsall]

Likelihood low consequence high. Shouldn't reasonable precautions be put in place so as to mitigate consequence? Colin I risked assessed daily for years in fact I micro risked assessed every working hour. I think there is still a difference to be made not at any cost but within the limits of the order and its nothing to do with sales.
Anyone who has lost someone in a fire will tell you it isn't something you would wish on your worst enemy and I don't wish it on you. Put your family in the Penhallow hotel and then say it doesn't matter.   

[Midland Retty]

Hi Kelsall, I don't think anyone would disagree that there needs to be regulation, but regulation has to be balanced.

The chances these days of dying in fire are actually very low compared with other "accidents" or incidents. We all know there are risky places out there that really do need bringing up to scratch (HMOs spring to mind) But overall how big is the problem of fire deaths? I'd have to argue that compared to other accidents (motorway maintenance contractors get killed regularly for example) death from fire, in non domestic dwellings is minimal. Im not saying that is acceptable or insignificant, Im simply saying we need to view it in context.

[colin todd]

I always feel when an arguement deteriorates to the emotive stuff about fire deaths, Kelsall, the arguement is lost. I am afraid is is a "must try harder D minus for you".

By the way, could the member for the Wirral please advise us as to whether the Penhallow hotel had a fire certificate? And is he aware that the 3 deaths, all of which were tragic, were the greatest number of fire deaths in a UK hotel since 1969, when the rt honourable member was almost certainly not even born.