Inconsistent enforcement officers

[RobertBrown5]

I am totally fed up with the inconsistency of enforcement officers! I am an accredited Fire Risk Assessor and am coming across enforcement officers in my area who are telling clients that it is ok to install domestic smoke alarms in commercial buildings, even after I have carried out an assessment that says they need to install a BS5839-1  commercial system.
I have a background in fire alarm design so know what I am talking about and would not recommend a system unnecessarily.

I have also had one particular instance where an officer has more or less told the client to ignore some of the significant findings of the assessment!

Anyone else come across this problem or is it just me?

Rob.

[colin todd]

Nope, there are a lot of crap officers out there in England.  Its all down to the training.  Remind them that BS 5839-6 does not apply to workplaces, as is made clear in the standard.  That does not stop you using domestic smoke alarms in very small workplaces, but their use would need to be justified as it is non- standard territory.

[AnthonyB]

It's not uncommon and it's not just where local crews have advised during a familiarisation/7(2)(d) inspection.

Firstly  - has the fire officer put it in writing or is it the usual 'verbal advice'. I warn clients that if it's not written down it didn't happen and a defence of 'Fire inspector Bloggs who moved on 2 years ago said so even though he denies it and I didn't obtain it as written guidance' won't cut it.

Secondly, if you can explain the reason you are saying what you are (ideally in practical terms as just saying 'because the BS says' can be seen as a cop out) and why the other option suggested has pitfalls I find that in many cases that can convince the client that you aren't going OTT.

Thirdly - If you are in the right and your paperwork is clear and covers it then if the client refuses to follow your advice and it all goes very wrong then you know you are safe (especially if they try and drag you down with them). Sadly it's life that even when your findings are appropriate & necessary, some clients will still do their own thing.

You say you have a background in Fire Alarm design - most fire officers don't and some will accept the sight of a few smoke alarms, or in larger premises a few call points and bells (even if 240V 3 wire with no zones) as suitable (to even things up so would some risk assessors!)

[Phoenix]

Rob,

Your title is "Inconsistent enforcement officers" and yet you give examples not of inconsistency but of differing opinions to your own.

Now, there is inconsistency here, that is between your opinion and the fire officers' opinion but that doesn't make them inconsistent any more than it makes you inconsistent.

There have been many times when my opinion has differed from those of other interested parties, but you just have to discuss these things and find a compromise that suits all parties.  If you're looking for harmony and unison in the fire safety world you're in the wrong profession.

Stu

[RobertBrown5]

Thanks for the comments guys, it's nice to know I am not alone in this. With regards to Stu, no it is not just my opinion it is my professional interpretation of the RRO taken in consideration of the guidelines and recent court rulings. Whilst I fully appreciate that to a large extent an assessment is subjective, as a Life Safety Assessor my primary and over riding concern is for the safety of relevant persons. Not the client's budget, although this is also considered and my recommendations are, generally I consider, not unreasonable.

I always respect the opinions of other people, but when supposed professionals say one thing at one premises and then something else at another to me that is inconsistency.

Finally Stu, I have been in this profession for 15 years and agree with you, there is no such thing as harmony and unison in this industry, that's what makes it so interesting!

Regards: Rob.

[colin todd]

I am with Rabbie, but it does depend on the circumstances. A couple of domestic smoke alarms is actually fine for our wee office, but Kurnal would actually need networked panels for his plush executive 23 storey tower in Bathmat Lock.

[wee brian]

Risk based, functional legislation will always generate a degree of inconsistency. Some things are a matter of opinion. We can strive to keep a lid on it and our profesional bodies have a job to do.

one of the issues with the FSO is that the enforcers shouldn't really be recomending anything other than - do a risk assessment. It for the RP, and any advisors they have, to decide what is appropriate.

You can have flexibility or consistency, you can't have both.

[Fishy]

This is a perennial problem.

Under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, Fire Authorities have a legal obligation to “make arrangements for... the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire”.

So... generally speaking Officers in the relevant Authority with the necessary competence are obliged to give fire safety advice, if asked to do so – we can’t expect them not to or berate them if they do.  This is always going to raise the possibility of conflict with the advice/opinion of other fire safety specialists – including those of us who make a career of offering such services.  Joe Public will have an (understandable) tendency to believe the opinion of uniformed fire-fighters over all others, so their opinion is sometimes given undeserved credibility (though they may, of course be perfectly correct).

The analogy I tend to draw is this; if you want definitive advice on Criminal law, do you speak to a lawyer or a policeman?  The Police are the enforcers, so they should have a working knowledge of the law, but if you’re facing prosecution it’ll be no good whatsoever claiming that “...but Constable Bloggs told me it was OK to punch him Your Honour...”!  No – if you want best advice about compliance with the law you go to a lawyer and you trust what they say, not your buddy in the Sweeney.

[Mike Buckley]

Ok I may sound like an old hasbeen but we had a visit to our building (multi occupied) from a couple of Fire Prevention Officers (on the shoulder flashes) as someone had put a complaint in. Although they were very pleasant, neither of them looked much older than 20.

Book knowledge yes, experience?

[colin todd]

Your getting old Michael that's all it is.  When you find the CFOs are looking young, it is time to retire!!!

[Mike Buckley]

Its not that that worries me its the ones I served with or over, and I wonder how did he get up there!

[colin todd]

Michael, you know the answer to that. Saying lots of words that mean nothing, as taught on the command courses, schmoozing with the right people, playing politics and NOT EVER doing fire safety, thats how.

[nearlythere]

Promotion to a level of incompetence was quite common. They didn't seem to have a demotion scheme.

[wee brian]

A job on the board of the IFE always helps. No experience of fire engineering required.

[Mike Buckley]

Sorry I forgot Gilbert and Sullivan "they have to leave their brains outside and vote just as their leaders tell them to" Iolanthe.