Is BS5306 statute?

[nim]

Is BS5306 statute?

As I understand it when statute refers to guidance notes which refer to a standard then that standard becomes part of statute.

Clause 50 of the RRFSO refers to guidance notes. The Guidance notes refer to BS5306-3 and 8. So indirectly BS5306 becomes part of statute?

Admittedly the recommendations of BS5306 are expressed in sentences in which the principal auxiliary verb is “should” so could they all be ignored anyway?

[kurnal]

As I understand it when statute refers to guidance notes which refer to a standard then that standard becomes part of statute.

I think that statement is incorrect and so all that follows it is too. Perhaps you are referring to Approved Codes of Practice or ACOPS some of which have legal status, but fire safety guidance is nothing other than guidance.

[AnthonyB]

If you believe some PFE suppliers BS5306-3 & -8  are so statutory they are actually etched on the back of the tablets of stone with the 10 Commandments on...

It's all guidance at the end of the day, otherwise there would be no need to risk assess....

[nim]

This is what Clause 50 of the RRFSO says:

Guidance

50.  (1)  The Secretary of State must ensure that such guidance, as he considers appropriate, is available to assist responsible persons in the discharge of the duties imposed by articles 8 to 22 and by regulations made under article 24.

(2) In relation to the duty in paragraph (1), the guidance may, from time to time, be revised.

(3) The Secretary of State shall be treated as having discharged his duty under paragraph (1) where—

(a)guidance has been made available before this article comes into force; and

(b)he considers that the guidance is appropriate for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (1).

As I understand it the guidance is the twelve Guidance: Fire safety risk assessment guides as well as the other associated guidance. They all mention BS5306 parts 3 and 8.

Agreed everything in BS5306 Parts 3 and 8 starts with "should" and everything in the RRFSO starts with "where necessary"

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fire-safety-law-and-guidance-documents-for-business.

If you believe some PFE suppliers BS5306-3 & -8  are so statutory they are actually etched on the back of the tablets of stone with the 10 Commandments on...

It's all guidance at the end of the day, otherwise there would be no need to risk assess....

Are extinguisher engineers in a position to risk assess? The problem with not following BS 5306 parts 3 and 8 is then you leave yourself open to litigation.

Follow BS5306 and some think its overkill.

[AnthonyB]

BS5306-8 is overkill now and as for litigation some of the clauses wouldn't stand up in court under expert witness scrutiny.

This isn't the days of the prescriptive FOC rules (which were criticised even as far back as '61 in the FBU practical guide for fire officers enforcing the 'new' Factories Act fire certificates) it's risk assessment.

Most of the time you would be following most of the contents anyway, it's some of the more questionable and inflexible clauses that, in specific cases, can be deviated from or interpreted more differently.

It's not in an extinguisher engineers interest to reduce the number of extinguishers on a site and as for risk assessment they need to be careful they are competent - some are (& can do full FRAs), some cannot (and end up in jail). And considering all the negative feedback I hear on some providers technician courses they can't even refill an extinguisher let alone start risk assessing.

[colin todd]

Tony, the FOC rules were intended for insurers to apply for property protection.  If fire officers chose to follow them or not it was up to them, so why the FBU should choose to comment on them is beyond my understanding. Perhaps they should have stuck to what they were good at, assuming that such a thing exists.

As for guidance, it is for the information of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

[Dinnertime Dave]

It comes down to to who you want to believe and how persuasive they are -

Recently gave some advice to a new company setting up in a small business unit,  I advised a M/L5 to cover inner room and 4 extinguishers including types and options. The guy emailed me back to say the they had put in an L2 system linked to a ARC and purchased 11 extinguishers.

Note to myself - must go on a persuasion course. 

[nearlythere]

It comes down to to who you want to believe and how persuasive they are -

Recently gave some advice to a new company setting up in a small business unit,  I advised a M/L5 to cover inner room and 4 extinguishers including types and options. The guy emailed me back to say the they had put in an L2 system linked to a ARC and purchased 11 extinguishers.

Note to myself - must go on a persuasion course. 

I think you need to go on an "over provision" course DD. They seem to be very popular.

[AnthonyB]

Tony, the FOC rules were intended for insurers to apply for property protection.  If fire officers chose to follow them or not it was up to them, so why the FBU should choose to comment on them is beyond my understanding. Perhaps they should have stuck to what they were good at, assuming that such a thing exists.

As for guidance, it is for the information of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

True, but they were the main guidance out there at the time it seems and the guide was pointing out that following them was not required for fire certification purposes and indeed that in some cases they were over the top or even inappropriate.

The book I refer to is quite interesting, it's like an early precursor to the Blue & Red books created for the FP Act, but rather than being published by the government the FBU provided it as apparently there was very little guidance for the 'new' role of the FP Officer being introduced as a result of the impending Factories Act 1961...