Record Keeping

[Tall Paul]

Within the RRFSO is there a requirement for record keeping?

The requirement of a suitable system of maintenance of premises, facilities, equipment and devices would tend to support a need for record keeping.

Similarly it would be difficult for a responsible person to make arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures without a system of records - particularly as the size and/or complexity of the undertaking increases.

The Secretary of State may impose requirements as to the keeping of records of instruction or training given, or other things done, in pursuance of the regulations.  This appears to be an empowering section of the regs for possible later inclusion.

It is an offence for any person to make in any register, book, notice or other document required to be kept by or under this order an entry which he knows to be false.

So whilst there would appear to be an implied need to keep records there is no actual requirement.

I'm just looking for confirmation or otherwise that I am reading the regs correctly.

[PhilB]

No there is no requirement. However the responsible person will , in certain circumstances, have to record the significant findings of his risk assessment and his arrangements for plannining, organising, control, monitoring and reveiw of the preventive & protective measures.

So therefore, in all but the simplest of premises, how can you demonstrate due dilligence without records?

[steve walker]

The FSO reads:

"PART 2 FIRE SAFETY DUTIES
6) As soon as practicable after the [fire risk] assessment is made or reviewed, the responsible person must record the information prescribed by paragraph (7) where—

(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
(c) an alterations notice requiring this is in force in relation to the premises.

(7) The prescribed information is—

(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order; and
(b) any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.

...

Fire safety arrangements
     11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.

    (2) The responsible person must record the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1) where—

(a) he employs five or more employees;
(b) a licence under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises; or
(c) an alterations notice requiring a record to be made of those arrangements is in force in relation to the premises."

My interpretation of this is that there is a requirement for records in the circumstances detailed above.

I think that this is one of those examples where it is not immediately an offence not to comply but it can be made part of an enforcement notice; and non-compliance with an enforcement notice is an offence.

Oh, to clarify; the reason I don’t think that it is "immediately an offence" is that it would be hard to prove that not keeping records would place "one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in case of fire." (Offences- 32.)

[colin todd]

Steve, This a record of the fire safety arrangements (ie the emergency plan) not necessarily a record of each weekly test.

[steve walker]

Interesting point Colin.

I think it is likely that recording the routine maintenance of protective measures will be included as part of their control and monitoring.

Or perhaps it would be included as part of the "suitable system of maintenance " required in article 17.

BS5839 states as part of Section 6. Maintenance, 44 Routine testing, 44.2 Recommendations for weekly testing by the user, "The result of the weekly test and the identity of the manual call point used should be recorded in the system log book"

[johndoe]

I think that this is one of those examples where it is not immediately an offence not to comply but it can be made part of an enforcement notice; and non-compliance with an enforcement notice is an offence.

If the FA start issuing Enforcement notices for no maintenance records then they have learnt nothing. Enforcement notices are for reducing a serious risk to relevant persons (almost a Article 31). The FA should spend more time educating the responsible person to comply.

[PhilB]

I have to agree with Colin!!! It is not a requirement to record all weekly tests...and don't forget smaller premises may not have to record anything.

I believe this is the correct approach otherwise you may have a jackbooted inspecting officer using the thumbscrews on Mrs Prendergast in her corner shop for not recording her fire drill that she carried out on her own!!!

Johndoe enforcement notices are not there soley to reduce the risk to relevant persons. If an inspector found minor deficiencies that the responsible person was unwilling to rectify an enforcement notice would be entirely appropriate.

[colin todd]

I have to agree with Colin!!!  I have to agree with Colin!!!  I have to agree with Colin!!!  
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[colin todd]

Now that I am over the shock, Steve, it is certainly good practice to keep records. It makes life easier for the I/O, gives confidence to whoever carries out the inspections and is a potential defence against liability, should that question arise. However, BS 5839-1 is only a code of good practice. No one would advocate that records are not kept, but it is not, strictly, a requirement. This is also a common misconception under the WFPL. FRSs even put it in enforcement notices. It is, however, such a trivial point that no one usually minds doing it anyway.

[steve walker]

I agree that having records of routine maintenance is not strictly a requirement; however having a "suitable system of maintenance" is a requirement. Is this another one that the courts will decide? It sounds a bit like the "do you need plans" argument - sorry to bring that up now Colin and Phil are getting on so well.

[PhilB]

Yes it is a requirement to maintain but not to record....not an explicit requirement...but as I have said before how can you show due dilligence without records???
Yes Steve similar to plans arguement...dont go there!!!!

[Tall Paul]

Gentlemen, thank you for the contributions to the debate. The question of whether records were necessary/useful to demonstrate a clear management approach was not an issue.  It would be hard to demonstrate compliance, particularly with the requirement for maintenance, without a logical audit trail.

However, as you have also noted, the records themselves are not, at this stage, a requirement.  As an enforcing officer who does not believe in jack boots I am simply wanting to iron out points that fellow officers may have an issue with and was looking for confirmation that I was on solid ground.

Paul

[steve walker]

Colin, I think that an enforcement notice could be written along the lines of " failure to have a suitable system of maintenance" and then "keep records of maintenance" as one way of complying with the regulations. In the end the FRS might have to convince a court that keeping records was an essential part of a system of maintenance in that case.

Edit - I can only see this happening if there is evidence of actual failures to maintain protective equipment leading to equipment not working.

[PhilB]

Yes Paul you're on solid ground...I think you will find that no previous Fire Safety or Health & Safety legislation requires records to be maintained.

Regulations made under Care Standards Act do!

SI 2001 No.3965
Social Care, England etc.
The Care Homes Regulations 2001................RECORDS TO BE KEPT IN A CARE HOME
…...14. A record of every fire practice, drill or test of fire equipment (including fire alarm equipment) conducted in the care home and of any action taken to remedy defects in the fire equipment.

[colin todd]

In terms of showing due dilligence in respect of fire alarm testing, you could bus every employee in the building up to the magistrates court, all of whom will swear on the Good Book that, every Monday moring when tehy came into work, there was a sign saying that the fire alarm would be tested at 10am, and that, sure enough, at 10am, it was sounded for 50 seconds.