RR(FSO) 2005 & Data Protection Act

[Tadees]

I fire risk assess HMOs and blocks of flats on behalf of local authority as does a 3rd party (an independent external company). 

Is the responsible person (local authority management) allowed to refuse to provide details of personal emergency evacuation plans to the local authority or 3rd party fire risk assessor on the basis that this may constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act, i.e. providing information to a 3rd party?

If no, where do I locate proof that this is not permissible

[Tom Sutton]

Who does the personal emergency evacuation plans involve, if is it the tenants or work people in the premises.

[Tadees]

Tenants

[Tom Sutton]

The RR(FS)O only apply to the common areas of block of flats therefore the flats themselves are exempt and consequently the residents, (except for article 32.2). As you can see from that, how do you create an evacuation plan if the tenants are free to decide to take part or not, all you can do is provide a general notices? However you still have to consider their safety as relevant persons and provide a competent  standard of fire safety with plenty information for the tenants on their actions in case of fire.

Examples of fire action notices and fire safety advice for residents can be found in the guide "Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats" ( http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1138bf70-2e50-400c-bf81-9a3c4dbd6575 )

[Tadees]

That might be the case Tom, but in HMOs they have to use the communal parts to escape.  In fact, even in a stay-put policy in a block of flats, they have the right to escape if they so wish.  If we are siting them on upper floors and we don't have details of their PEEPs because of data protection, then how can the FRA be suitable and suffcient?

[Fishy]

If whatever has been requested contains personal data from which the person concerned could reasonably be identified, then I think they might be right, though I'm no expert (had to do an NHS Data Protection Act training course once & that's what I recall from it).

[kurnal]

I wouldn't even go there Tadees. If you think the lack of a PEEP may put relevant persons at risk, and the RP will not help you by providing evidence that PEEPs are in place then that's an action for them in your risk assessment. Make them responsible for the action if they won't help you to help them.

Sounds like a jobsworth who doesnt know the answer, can't be bothered to find out so hides behind any excuse to avoid doing anything helpful.

Is that excuse a relevant one? I assume that in respect of data protection issues your company is registered with the Information Commissioner and you have a nominated Data Controller? This would give you the answer to the question which you initially asked- but I still would not go there. Don't let a jobsworth let their laziness and ignorance become your problem.  

[AnthonyB]

To counter the old 'Data Protection' excuse I suggest to clients when requesting other RP's PEEP's that the other RP can redact the personal details such as the name as it's the nature of the issue requiring assistance and the proposed solution that is of importance, not who they are.

[Jim Scott]

Out of interest, who will implement the findings of a PEEP in a block of flats?

So, the wheelchair user on the first floor, who uses a lift to access his flat, now identifies he needs to be taken down the stairs on an evac chair.  Who does this Tadees?

[kurnal]

If it's a purpose built block of flats with a stay put strategy the PEEPS might simply add to the general advice to the tenant for example pointing out that as the individual with mobility impairment  does not have the option to evacuate further on their own volition,  they may be reassured that there is an adequate degree of fire separation to protect them on the same floor eg within the protected staircase.

But in his second posting  Tadees points out he is  more concerned about the HMO.

It is a matter of concern that the current policy for care in the community can lead to persons with very significant special needs being housed in inappropriate premises where these needs cannot be met. Of course this may also occur for existing tenants as their health deteriorates. There are no easy answers, and it's all part of the much wider housing and social housing problems the country faces. 

My suggested solution is to have a chart for fire service use in the entrance foyer. The chart would  indicate  each flat or HMO dwelling showing a code for special needs in an emergency, the code understood by the emergency services to include the full range of needs. This could be a simple but insecure coded  series of numbers or letters, or a bar code read by a reader device that would be more secure.   

[Golden]

 It may also be prudent to point out any single mothers with two or more children under the age of five or any drink/drug dependency among the tenants as these are other risk factors - or is this now going beyond what may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case?

[Jim Scott]

This country is incredible.

[Golden]

Jim my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted that - but I have been asked!!

[Tom Sutton]

Out of interest, who will implement the findings of a PEEP in a block of flats?

So, the wheelchair user on the first floor, who uses a lift to access his flat, now identifies he needs to be taken down the stairs on an evac chair.  Who does this Tadees?

Thanks Jim this would have been my follow up question and the same would apply to HMO's. I am afraid it is every residential unit for themselves and if they want a fire plan, create it for themselves like those in single private dwellings.

[Jim Scott]

I don't doubt it Golden.

I visited Australia some years ago.  Although I know little about the health and safety laws of warmer climates, I recall there were signs everywhere that reminded people that "Your personal health and safety is your responsibility". 

On the basis of this attitude, I understand that employers etc are still duty bound to do similar to what they do here.  However, the big thing that struck me was the recognition of not becoming a nanny state.

I get frustrated with the overused and misunderstood concept of PEEPS.  Yes they have a very important place, in the right context and premises.

Just like the over zealous inspector I have recently met, who suggested that every visitor to a shop required a PEEP performed.  Apparently generic plans are not good enough.

Maybe I should conduct a PEEP to ensure I can get down my stairs without falling over after a night at the pub when the wife sets the smoke alarm off in the morning!