Are we confronting more these days?

[longjohn]

Assistance  please? It seems that carrying out a fire risk assessment is becoming more and more confrontational with the local authority especially if the client has asked for the fire risk assessment following a fire service audit. I have just dealt with a small hotel with a single staircase. In the RRO sleeping accommodation guidance reference is made to a single staircase premises with ground and up to 3 floors. This one has ground and four floors, there is lobby protection at all levels including the top floor. There is an L1 fire alarm system. The premises are staffed 24 hours and have recently had fire safety training, they have a facilities manager and are keen to comply with necessary requirements. However, until an AOV system has been installed the local Fire authority officer has instructed the client not to use the top floor. Personally I think this is a little excessive (remember the ethos of the RRO not to be a burden on business’!) Back in 2000 under the old fire certificate conditions they were inspected, and regarding the fourth floor were given a ‘conditions relaxed’ stamp on the fire certificate providing the lobby protection had been upgraded, which it was. I spoke to the fire officer concerned, and his view was that since the RRO things have changed and they've had a good run and the AOV should have been done since 1 October 2006, those of you who have had the pleasure of attending any of a certain well-known provider of fire risk assessment courses (and regular and entertaining contributer to this site) may have noticed a brilliant slide on their presentation it reads: ‘The behaviour of fire in buildings did not change on first of October 2006’ and ‘ the behaviour of people in fire did not change on 1 October 2006’ I have recommended in the FRA that a simple ventilation system is provided but not as an immediate action plan item, there are means of venting the top of the staircase in an operational sense if push came to shove, but considering that the lobby protection should prevent smoke entering the staircase in the first place, early warning, trained staff and good management does anyone agree (or otherwise) that to deny the client the revenue of four rooms every day is over cautious?
And here is my main point: I thought a FRA was supposed to be a subjective approach? Remember ‘reasonable’ and ‘where necessary’ You could have another FO who agrees with me, another one who partly agrees, you could get six of us in a room say 3 serving fire safety officers and 3 fire risk assessors all looking at a floor plan and open warfare ensues!  This challenging routine seems to have picked up in the last couple of years, is it that fire safety officers don’t have the experience they used to have and play safe by code hugging? But at the end of the day it’s the auditing/enforcing officer who has the whip hand every time, the client doesn’t want to have any hassle with the local authority so unless you have the time (and energy) one is left having to concede defeat or taking them to task through the legal process, is that what we have to do nowadays?

[nearlythere]

The selling point of the new Order was that it would not be a burden on industry. But of course as is norm with any purchase the after sales service falls to an arse. I do not consider modern IOs have the experience or knowledge to be let loose with on the spot enforcement powers. Some IOs are quite good and use good judgement. Others are simply quite pathetic and have no place in an enforcement environment. Mind you the same could be said of fire safety consultants even those with accreditation badges and banners. Being a game keeper turned poacher I do sympathise with those who have become the victims of the 3 day trained fire safety officer. Hand I can only see it getting worse, very worse.

[William 29]

Firstly, when you say "instructed" the client to not use the top floor, is this a verbal instruction or has a formal Notice or Prohibition been issued?

Based on what you have said I think you would have grounds to challenge any Notice.

I also think from my experience in dealing with IO's the experience is fast disappearing from fire and rescue services.  In the good old FP Act and WP Regs days we used to have to provide solutions when serving Notices for the client and give alternatives! Now it seems its just a case of serving a generic Notice that merely states which Article of the RRO has been breached and in some cases doesn't even say why its breached, with the default position being "your fire risk assessment should address and make recommendations to satisfy the breaches of the Order"

In the case in question the hotel would not be "code compliant" ....so what. If in your FRA you have stated this and that in your risk assessed opinion the lobbies, L1 AFD and current ventilation method is acceptable then its up to the IO to state why they disagree. And more importantly what would be gained and how the risk would be reduced by installing an AOV over the existing conditions. It also depends on if your client has the balls to take the IO on?

[longjohn]

Well firstly re 'instructed' he said he would be send a notice of deficiencies, followed by an enforcement notice if the work wasn't done. I said I would advise the client to appeal if that was the case to which he replied 'I will issue an enforcement notice now if you like! This is what we are dealing with these days! I'm happy to stand by the FRA but it's the client (RP) who is reluctant to challenge it, so the jackboot fraternity win, regardless of the FRA regime I'm afraid.

You're absolutely right in the days of the FP Act, WP Regs, Licensing and so forth we were at the sharp end of it all, offering solutions, meeting with building control, architects etc. drawing up plans, working out occupancy figures.... I could go on. They do none of that now just quote articles but the power and control they can wield over the uneducated and ill informed RP is frightening.

[kurnal]

Did you try to discuss with the fire officer where any fire is likely to start and develop, and the protective and preventive measures in place? In short how he came to the conclusion in this existing building that people on the 4th floor are at intolerable risk whereas the people on the third floor can sleep soundly and safely in their beds? 

[Tom Sutton]

Sounds like the "Bluff and Persuasion Act" to me, call his bluff and act on the enforcement notice when it arrives and don't act on good will letters. (notice of deficiencies) The RP will be not be in any worse position and you can always Kow-tow later if necessary.

[Golden]

I would like to know how the AOV is meant to significantly contribute to the safety of persons anyway? Those escaping will still have to pass through the single staircase and in my opinion the risk should be assessed as acceptable or not in this case I can't see how an AOV will reduce that risk to below the 'acceptable' line. I'm assuming its simultaneous evacuation for the hotel and how has the IO come to the conclusion that providing AOV is necessary to ensure the conditions in the staircase remain tenable - I'd ask him for some calculations to support this!! Having said that a five storey with single staircase would get me a little twitchy - but I certainly wouldn't go down the AOV route!

With respect to his 'powers' it does appear he/she is getting a little out of control and I'd ask for a meeting with him on site so that he can explain his half-arsed plan to you with respect to AOV etc. - I'm sure it worth arguing as long as the remainder of the building is sound and compliant. Next step is to explain your position and wait for the notices as there aren't many who will stick their neck above the parapet unless they've got a good idea of what they're doing.

[Midland Retty]

If the fire authority consider part of the premises to be so unsafe that there is a risk to life and limb then they should have issued a prohibition / restriction notice, preventing it from being used.

In other words have the courage to stand by their judgement - issuing a verbal instruction not to use part of the premises as that is totally un-professional and un-enforceable.

Worst still if they did issue a verbal prohibition in a genuinely unsafe property and then walked away from it I would suggest they were being totally reckless.

I would contact the fire inspector in question, ask for the name of his or her boss. I'd demand a meeting with them both to talk about the premises in question sensibly. I would also be asking about why your client was threatened with immediate issue of an enforcement notice when you legitimately tried to reason with them / question their judgement.

I'd also be asking why a prohibition notice wasn't issued if, in their opinion, the top floor was so unsafe

Finally lets not bash inspectors. Most of us have experiences of poor professionals in all "sectors" of "the industry", but they are normally not representative of the industry as a whole. There are good and bad inspectors as there are good and bad assessors and consultants out there and its easy to make generalised comments. You have come across what sounds to be a bad inspector on this occassion and quite rightly their behaviour needs to be challenged. I sincereley hope you do challenge this inspector.

[Steven N]

I have to agree with the Midland etc, have they prohibited/restricted? If not then why not if the consider it to be that bad? If they have they have and you don't agree then appeal it? The same if its an enforcement notice, appeal it? Its so frustrating though to hear these type of draconian inspections when a discussion of the FRA and the rationale behind the decisions within it could solve most problems.

[longjohn]

Thanks for the above folks, the RP has now had a notice of deficiencies would you believe! with a 'may' return in October! and if and when he returns in October there will be no AOV system I imagine. The ball will be back in his jackboots.