Record Keeping

[PhilB]

Yes he could Colin but how about staff training, arrangements for planning, organising, controlling, monitoring, reviewing..and the emergency action plan. Surely all these would usually have to be recorded.

Lets face it we shouldn't be in court unless relevant persons had been placed at risk. Most competent counsels could demonstrate to a court that the accused could have done more...i.e. could have kept records. If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence.

[wee brian]

Due dilligence doesnt mean -  do all you can.

it means - do all that you could reasonably be expected to do.

[PhilB]

Yes of course...would it be reasonable to maintain records...usually yes...so no due dilligence.

[wee brian]

Thats up to the court to decide.

[PhilB]

So Wee Brian are you saying it's not reasonable..what is your point??
Yes it is up to the courts to decide and yes due dilligence is doing all that reasonably could be done.

But enforcing authorities will have to decide what in their opinion is reasonable in each particular case before going in front of the man with the funny wig.

We all know that ultimately only the courts can decide!

[wee brian]

PhilB I was just trying to clarify what you were saying.

You said "If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence." I don't think you meant it in such definate terms.

What is reasonable will probably vary between buildings. In most cases it would make sense to keep a log book.

[ian gough]

It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to achieve a prosecution because of poor record keeping - unless there was evidence that, what was supposed to be being maintained, did not work.

[PhilB]

Wee Brian what I said was:

"Most competent counsels could demonstrate to a court that the accused could have done more...i.e. could have kept records. If he could have done more he has not shown due dilligence."

I agree Ian and I would hope that an enforcing authority would not take a prosecution purely for that failure. But in a prosecution for failure to comply with a requirement of the order it may tend to knock out the defence of due dilligence if there were no records. In my humble opinion of course.

[colin todd]

Lets simplify this. I like digital things, being young and modern. There are two men in this world. There is the wee man who does all his testing and maintenance, but he keeps no records. He is no danger to anyone. He is a nuisance to those who inspect his premises. He might be a bit short on protection agaisnt liability if it all goes pear shaped. But, in terms of the fire safety in premises, he might be absolutely ace. Then there is wee man number 2. He has no records, because he never does any testing, maintenance or staff training. He is a disaster waiting to happen. One has to decide which wee man you are dealing with. (OK there is a third wee man who has the records but never did the tests that he records ). Why would anyone want to drag wee man number 1 before the courts?

[johndoe]

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.

I do not want to apear argumentative but you are correct but if the guidance for RRO is like FPA circular 28 then the fA should not be issuing Enforcement Notices for Minor offeces they should educate move on and target high risk as per FPA 29 or IRMP4. If afire occurs in the building with minor defects and people are injured/killed (god forbid then the Responsible person will be prosecuted and nothing would happen to the FA because it is not there law.

[val]

If there was no other breach, ie. the premises comply in every other way and there is no serious risk, who cares whether the keep records?
Hit them for maintenance, supply of info, not supplying sig findings to parents of wee bairns, not complying with schedule 1, 2 or 3.

It only becomes an issue if the failure to keep records causes some other breach...and lets face it, there are plenty to choose from.

[PhilB]

Have you been drinking Johndoe or has your spell checker failed???...only joking now please don't take offence!

I hate to come back to the point of significant findings but I must. How the hell can a responsible person be complying with the order or the WPFPL if the preventitive & protective measures are not adequately recorded. I believe they are significant findings and I think they should be recorded.
Have they got a fire alarm???...is it maintained???...Yes...then that is a significant finding that should be recorded.

If you choose to adopt another definition of SFs it is still a requirement of WPFPL and RRO that fire safety arrangements are recorded.

So back to Colins attempt to simplify..... if all the wee men can demonstrate compliance without records ok....but in reality not many will be able to satisfy an enforcing authority or a court without some proof that they are doing all that is reasonable...i.e. records. But as I said previously wee man No1 should be left alone. Wee man No.3 should be thrashed to within an inch of his life if he has placed relevant persons at serious risk.

Val...how can an enforcing authority tell if someone is complying if there are no records?

[AnthonyB]

Lets face it, there are a lot of people out there who when you ask if their fire systems, etc are maintained will say yes when it is not the case. I for one know better than to accept verbal assurance and insist on seeing evidence.
Obviously a failure of maintenace would come to light if a failure occured that lead to or contributed to death or injury, but by then it's too late for some poor s*d & makes the law and inspectors a waste of time.
It's not difficult, time consuming or expensive to keep records, so there should be no excuse for anyone at any level.

More and more it seems we are lowering & lowering safety standards, with it becoming easier and easier to ignore the law - do we need a Summerland, Woolworths or Valley Parade to see the error of our ways?

[johndoe]

I see your point and I have been drinking its the o nly way I can get through watching that team that at most are not fit to have 3 lions on their chest.
This might be a different thread but why then was a requirement to kept not put more robustly in the order? hic!

[PhilB]

Because Johndoe if it was explicit  or more robustly required.... every little premises would have to record every single test....risk approprriate ...that's the answer.....and at least we won tonight!