Mike Kane's newest comments

John,

as a component of a premises fire safety system, the Regulations require that emergency lighting (amongst other facilities equipment and devices provided) be subject to a suitable system of maintenance and be in efficient working order and in good repair.

British Standard 5266-8.2004 gives recommendations as to a suitable system of testing of emergency light systems and includes daily, monthly and annual test procedures.

Although not a Legal requirement to undertake a test regime in accordance with the recommendations of a British Standard, to do so demonstrates best practice and due diligence.

Good luck

Mike Kane

Hello All,

in respect of workplace Fire Safety, the employer has a duty to ensure provision of information to employees and MUST provide his employees with comprehensive and relevant information on the risks to them identified by the fire risk assessment, the preventive and protective measures in place, the procedures and measures implemented in case of serious and imminent danger, the identies of persons nominated to implement fire fighting measures in the premises, the identities of persons nominated to implement the procedures in case of serious and imminent danger and any risks notified by way of any other responsible person within the premises (in the case of a multi-occupied building).

In addition, the employer must make various other additional arrangements when employing children and provide employees with further relevant information where a dangerous substance is present within the workplace.

It is an offence to fail to comply with this duty.

I hope that this assists

MIke Kane

Alan, Shaun,

As I noted in my last post on this subject, this is not the forum to discuss the contents and implications of the Articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. It tends to confuse those whose experience and competency in the field of fire safety is limited

You have your own interpretation of the Regulations which does not necessarily concur with others in respect of ensuring the provision of a safe environment in accordance with the duties imposed upon the responsibe person and others

As such, you may give your advice and we will give ours

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Hello all,

for those wondering where our view is obtained, you need to understand the content and implication of the Articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order to fully appreciate what is required by Law.

Unfortunately, this is not the forum to debate those Regulations as it is beyond the detailed knowledge of most of the contributors.

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Philip,

Simply, all fire exits must remain clear and unobstructed at all times, or else an offence has been committed.

If the exits provided were required by previous legislation, (such as the Fire Precautions Act 1971) then they must be maintained under the current legislation.

It is not acceptable to suggest that a portion of a fire escape route can be obstructed and it would be folly to allow this to occur.

Good luck

Mike Kane

Hello,

fire safety regulations apply to premises.

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Hello there,

the last correspondent is obviously a retained fireman.

Check with your Fire Brigades Union representative as to the legality of your particular conditions of service, I think you will find that it is well covered and legal !

Regards

MIke Kane

We are all workers and taxpayers........... it's just that some of us do different jobs in different industries or sectors.

Part of the problem for the "private sector" workers is that they were sold the idea back in the 80's that being a member of a trades union was a bad thing and that standing alone on your own two feet was the way forward (Remember Thatcher and "No such thing as society anymore"?) ............ then everyone feels cheated when the bosses (both industrial and political) shaft the weakest workers, i.e. those with no collective representation.

The bosses know how to divide and rule the workers, don't they ?? Don't forget, the millionaires Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne (God Bless Them) told us that "we are all in this together" !!!

Regards

Mike Kane

Alan, are we talking stairwells in general here or protected designated fire exit stairs??

Regards

Mike Kane

Hello Paul,

the staircase you describe may be the "least used route", however, if it is a designated protected fire escape staircase it must be kept sterile, irrespective of other staircases and internal routes available.

To fail to do so may result in illegal or dangerous conditions prevailing which might, in turn, lead to adverse insurance and other considerations.

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Hello Paul,

if the stairwell is a designated fire escape then it must be maintained as a sterile area and nothing should be located within it.

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Karen,

I do not advocate battery operated devices of any kind.

You should consider the installation of "free swing" self closing devices and associated automatic fire detectors linked into the fire alarm system for your heavy fire doors.

A free swing device results in the fire doors being allowed to be open for normal traffic but will be positively closed upon actuation of the fire alarm system.

I believe "Briton", amongst others, manufacture and install such devices which are exactly what you require.

Check them and other manufacturers out, but stop wedging the doors in the meantime as this is both illegal and dangerous.

Mike Kane

Hello all,

We believe that in most circumstances there is not a problem with holding open a final exit door, unless this door is underneath an external fire escape staircase, in which case it is not permissible.

In the case of internal fire doors, these can be held open if required by way of a magnetic device linked in to the fire alarm system with each side of the open door protected with automatic fire detection, the magnets releasing upon actuation of the fire alarm system or by the provision of a free swing closing device which is, again, linked in to the fire alarm system and which energises to positively close the door upon actuation of the alarm.

Good luck

Mark,

I would seriously query the suggested replacement of a wet chemical extinguisher for a water extinguisher in the kitchen.

If any cooking is undertaken, especially with fat fryers, then wet chemical is the right medium in the kitchen and water is totally inappropriate and actually dangerous for use on fat fires.

The previous 2 comments have also properly covered a number of technical points and you may want to get more than 1 second opinion before proceeding any further with the suggested replacements. (In any case, there are smaller 3 litre foam based units now available which have the same extinguishing capability as the large heavy 9 litre water units. Much better for general workplace use as they are lighter and easier to handle)

Best wishes

Christine,

you should contact the Fire Authority regarding this matter. They are the arbiters in all of this and it would appear that they have noted that the landlord has already failed in complying with requirements, albeit from what you have written, of a now superceded Regulation. (The requirement is however the same under the current Regulation)

One point you will have to accept, however, is that irrespective of who pays, the onus for the safety of the employees within the workplace rests with the Employer in a single occupied building and as such you will need to ensure that a suitable system is in place at the earliest opportunity.

Good luck

Mike Kane

Wrong............

With regard to fire fighting equipment, The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 DOES NOT state any such thing, and I've never heard of the Regulatory Reform Act 2005 either..............

Mike Kane

Hello Darren,

The Regulations state that... "in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that-"

"the premises are, to the extent that it is appropriate, equipped with appropriate fire fighting equipment....."

and "The responsible person must, where necessary -"

"take measures for fighting fire in the premises..." and "nominate competent persons to implement those measures...."

So, if a fire risk assessment indicates that fire fighting equipment is required within a premises, it is clear that there is no grey area regarding this and it neccessarily follows that once a premises is equipped, provision must be made to nominate and train specific persons to use that equipment.

Best wishes

Mike Kane

Hello Mark,

Regus offer "serviced offices" and as such, fire protection should fall within the criteria defining "serviced". Check your leasing agreement.

Fire safety regulations apply to "employers" and others who have "to any extent, control" of a premises or the "owner".

You should ensure that a competent fire risk assessment of your workplace is undertaken and the significant findings of that assessment should indicate whether or not you or A.N. Other (as the "responsible person") needs to provide any further fire fighting equipment to adequately cover your workplace with regard to the risks identified there.

From experience of some of the premises that Regus operate out of, it is likely that the fire fighting provision already in place will be sufficient in most cases, however, the final analysis will be in your own fire risk assessment findings. You might also wish to ask Regus to supply you with a copy of their fire risk assessment findings for the building you are in and that may assist you in determining whether or not the existing provision of fire fighting equipment is adequate.

Good luck

Mike Kane

Alan,

With regard to the issue being identified prior to the fire, the one person with the responsibility to do so, the fire alarm engineer, failed in their duty.

As already mentioned by John above, many organisations call in experts to present findings to a Court after the event, and accordingly, the fire authority did the right thing here after identifying that there appeared to be fire alarm maintenance issues.

There was no failing of the enforcement regime here, rather the opposite.

Regards

Mike Kane

Hello Alan,

this is an interesting comment from you which appears quite contradictory as it was the fire service who actually identified the failings of the fire alarm engineer and initiated the subsequent prosecution........?

Far from highlighting any "failings" in the enforcement regime, I suggest that this proves that it is working.

I believe that the poor maintenance issue is nothing more than that and the fact that the individual responsible was a former retained firefighter is immaterial, in that being a retained firefighter confers no technical expertise upon any individual, save that expertise gleaned within the limits of their understanding and experience of part time fire fighting.

The same can be said of those who undertake a few days instruction, are given a piece of paper and then present themselves as "competent" fire risk assessors??

It makes me weep sometimes...................

Mike Kane