Fire risk assessments in vacant units

[hammer1]

What are your thoughts on the legal aspect of conducting FRA's in vacant units. We have FRA's t units if they become vacant to alter the fact change in use of building and reflect this in FRA as we need to cover visitors, contractors etc. Apart from a property safety aspect, what is the legal duties here in regards to review.

[nearlythere]

What are your thoughts on the legal aspect of conducting FRA's in vacant units. We have FRA's t units if they become vacant to alter the fact change in use of building and reflect this in FRA as we need to cover visitors, contractors etc. Apart from a property safety aspect, what is the legal duties here in regards to review.

Is the legal requirement to review so as to keep it up to date? Not annually or bi annually just to keep it up to date?

[Tom Sutton]

Legal aspect of conducting FRA's in vacant units, could be as follows,

Art 2. States "premises" includes any place and I believe vacant units falls within that definition. Art 6 "Application to premises" doesn?t exclude it. Art 3 as it is not a workplace so the managing agents or the owner is the RP. Art 5 (2) applies; consequently the RP is subject to art 8 and 9 for relevant persons (see art 7.6).

[Dinnertime Dave]

Isn't the FRA an assessment of risks which the "relevant person" is exposed to. Not many relevant persons in vacant units. Shouldn't be to hard then.

[nearlythere]

Isn't the FRA an assessment of risks which the "relevant person" is exposed to. Not many relevant persons in vacant units. Shouldn't be to hard then.

But there could be relevant persons not in the premises.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Isn't the FRA an assessment of risks which the "relevant person" is exposed to. Not many relevant persons in vacant units. Shouldn't be to hard then.

But there could be relevant persons not in the premises.

I agree, but realistically unless the building or its contents create an exceptional risk there still isn't much to be done. I rarely see any consideration for persons not in the premises in FRA.

[Fishy]

Isn't the FRA an assessment of risks which the "relevant person" is exposed to. Not many relevant persons in vacant units. Shouldn't be to hard then.

...unless people are employed in a way that means they visit them occasionally (security, maintenance etc...)

[Tom Sutton]

If the building has vacant premises and occupied premises couldn't the vacant ones pose a threat to the occupied ones, whose employees would be considered relevant person to them. I do agree it would be a simple FRA and would most likely, not need to be recorded.

[Phoenix]

Some good points made above.  I'd just like to add that there are not many vacant units that do not receive occasional but regular visits for either security or maintenance purposes.  These occasional visitors are likely to be employed, the vacant unit is their workplace (for the time being) and so the RR(FS)O is likely to apply. 

One important point with these units is that very often the occasional visitors will unlock the way they enter but leave locks, often padlocks, on all other possible exit routes.  That is, they often put themselves in long dead ends.  This is not likely to be a problem if the unit is empty and the electrics are off but it could be a problem if, for example, there is an accumulation of post by the entrance they used, i.e. the only one that's unlocked, or if fire loading remains in the premises generally. 

There are, of course, a number of solutions to this potential problem.

[Tom Sutton]

Some good points made above.  I'd just like to add that there are not many vacant units that do not receive occasional but regular visits for either security or maintenance purposes.  These occasional visitors are likely to be employed, the vacant unit is their workplace (for the time being) and so the RR(FS)O is likely to apply.

I agree a vacant premises is subject to the RR(FS)O because of art 6 (2) Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises. and art 6(1) doesn't exempt it.

But I disagree, considering it as a workplace because of the occasional employee, this would mean when a plumber works in your house or you turn on of the bedrooms into an office, you are then subject to the RR(FS)O. I believe you have to look at the principal use of the premises, if the principal use is a vacant unit then then it remains a vacant unit until the principal use changes to a workshop.

[Mike Buckley]

I have carried out FRAs in vacant areas within a large building. The client wanted 2 areas addressed, the first was what was needed to keep the area safe as it was i.e. the piles of letters etc. and then what general issues would need to be addressed if the area was brought back into use.

[kurnal]

The workplace argument is not relevant. The Fire Safety Order applies to all premises except those listed under article 6.

Domestic premises are not covered by the Order  and the fact that you have a plumber working in your house fixing your central heating makes no different, its still domestic premises and the Order does not apply.

An empty and derelict building (other than domestic premises) is still covered by the Order and the Responsible Person has duties as set out in article 5.

[Messy]

An empty unit with just neighbours either side, and with or without security visiting from time to time will surely not present too much of a risk, so complete a simple FRA and set the reviews to 2 or 3 yearly as not to be too much of a burden

[Owain]

provided it stays vacant and doesn't get turned into a cannabis factory or a dump with old tyres and gas cylinders etc.

[colin todd]

Is it the west midlands then?