FRAs for premsises with few that 5 members of staff - artical 17

[Fire Monkey]

Hello,

I would appreciate some clarification on the requirements for premises with few that 5 people working in them.

1). Do you need a written FRA for a building with fewer than 5 members of staff?
2). Do you need a record of tests and maintenance (done either by contractors of staff) with fewer than 5 members of staff?

If your have less than five members of staff how does that impact on the ability to justify actions (or lack of them) in court and how could this impact a corporate body or individual if they have other building that do have more tan 5 members of staff where FRA and maintenance are carried out

Thanks,

[Fishy]

Hello,

I would appreciate some clarification on the requirements for premises with few that 5 people working in them.

1). Do you need a written FRA for a building with fewer than 5 members of staff?
2). Do you need a record of tests and maintenance (done either by contractors of staff) with fewer than 5 members of staff?

If your have less than five members of staff how does that impact on the ability to justify actions (or lack of them) in court and how could this impact a corporate body or individual if they have other building that do have more tan 5 members of staff where FRA and maintenance are carried out

Thanks,

1) Only if it's a licenced premises or an alterations notice has been served or the employer employs more than 5 people (not necessarily on that site).
2) Yes - the need for records of maintenance (as covered by the Order) are not affected by number of employees.

A quick reminder to flesh out point 1 - the '5'  is the total number of people employed by the RP - which is not necessarily the same as the number of people employed at the premises.  For example, if an RP was a chain of 10 shops each of which only had two people in it at one time, you'd still need the FRA permanently recorded for every shop.

[Fire Monkey]

Hi,

So this is as I thought but where a FRA is not required but maintenance and testing is how would you know that it was being done - a FRA would high-light all deficiencies. Take the position of a corporate portfolio where a company has many buildings and in house risk assessors to carry out the work......

[Mike Buckley]

If your have less than five members of staff how does that impact on the ability to justify actions (or lack of them) in court and how could this impact a corporate body or individual if they have other building that do have more tan 5 members of staff where FRA and maintenance are carried out

It does not impact on the ability to justify actions at all. The Order only states that if there are less than 5 employees there is no need to record the signficant findings, it does not mean there is no need to carry out a FRA. The duty of the Responsible Person to carry out General Fire Precautions does not change. The only difference that less than  5 employees may make is in the area of what is Reasonably Practicable.

Bear in mind what Fishy says the duty to record the significant findings depends on the total number of employees within the organisation not the number of employees in any particular premises. If an organisation has 20 employees but only 1 works in a building that building will still need a formal FRA and the signficant findings recorded.

I would always recommend that the signficant findings for any premises are recorded (not matter what the Order says). To follow the famous quote 'A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on'. If something goes wrong and there are no records how can it be proven that the correct actions were taken.

[Messy]

[quote
2) Yes - the need for records of maintenance (as covered by the Order) are not affected by number of employees.
[/quote]


While I am not disagreeing with the idea of keeping such records as part of Article 11, where does it specifically say (aka "as covered by the Order") that such records need to be kept???

[Golden]

Messy - just to clarify that point I've cut and pasted this from the CFOA guidance; "Collected Perceived Insights Into and Application of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 For the Benefit of Enforcing Authorities" - its not necessary to keep records but is good practice.

The responsible person must have arrangements in place for the planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventive and protective measures and under specified conditions, must record those arrangements. This means that general fire precautions provided should be subject to ?planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review?. These processes should be recorded under prescribed conditions, but there is no express requirement to record the results of routine testing, although this would be good practice and allow the responsible person to evidence that testing has taken place, should the need arise.