ANDY - FIRE SAFETY OFFICER ASSOCIATES's newest comments

Come on then Alan, answer this one for us

Gents,

many thanks for all the replies so far.

Martin, what are the DPA regs you indicate in your post?

If we were to advance the question and say the company was on an international scale for the sake of argument, the issue of document retention becomes more significant due to the scale and potentialy physical amount of files et al and saying that you should keep all files becomes problamatic (although I appreciate large scale electronic storage is becoming far more achieveable for all).

Barry and Martin, from what you have implied regarding litigation and insurnace claims are you referring to Tort Law? It is my understanding that litigation has a 6 year time limit under Tort? If 6 years go by there is then a bar on litigation under negligence under tort then surely there is no further reason to keep files.

I appreciate that it would be best practiced to keep everything but i am trying to narrow down "due dilligence" and "reasonable" under specific law regarding the reasons why we would need to keep files/RA's after a specific time period.

As you have also pointed out RA's are live documents and one carried out e.g. 5 years ago would surely have far less (if very little) bearings on legal procedings?

Can anyone advise on how long business records need to be kept e.g. carrying out a risk assessment; how long is required by law to keep the assessment by the company or is it best practice only? I am aware of the length of time records need to be kept regarding accounts and information on employees and only require clarification on records as in the example. If it is law what legislation or statute refers to it. What are the possible outcomes if a company did not keep the records for the specified length of time. Many thanks in advance

Sarah; a couple of good reference points are the CLG Coloured guides on risk assessments as there are several small sections on False Alarms. Download for free http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firesafetyrisk2

Also CFOA issues current guidance on reducing false alarms which many fire brigades use. http://www.cfoa.org.uk/10038#element0

As for a couple of specific solutions as indicated in other posts above, permits to work and the Fire Alarm installer/maintenance company to assess if the system is currently adequate (e.g. wrong type and location of detectors et al).

Email me if you require further help

Andy (Fire Safety Officer Associates)

We are now seeing prosecutions by Enforcing Authority Fire Brigades on a regular basis and with custodial sentences for the more serious offences and larger fines. According to the Governments interim report on the effectiveness of the new Fire Safety legislation a significant number of businesses are still unaware of their responsibilities. Employers beware…get professional advice if unsure

Andy (Fire Safety Officer Associates)

Competence cab be difficult to quantify if you rely on subjective opinion. Someone who has been doing the job for x number of years will believe they are competent by virtue of time served. However, this is only one part of the equation regardless of industry.

Both the HSE and British Standards have defined competence and provide guidance on the very subject. The key words are “…relevant knowledge, skills and experience…ability to apply these appropriately while recognising your limits…and necessary training to acquire and maintain….”

You should expect anyone with a specific reference for H&S to have some form of basic IOSH or NEBOSH certificate (or equivalent). Without basic training at the very minimum how can you expect to carry out a function? Continuous Professional Development is very much part and parcel of on going training. Because you undertook a course x number of years ago does not mean that you still have that skill set or knowledge. Regarding FIRE Health & Safety PAS79 written by Colin Todd (available through British Standards) provides a table for risk assessor competence which can equally be applied to most other types of risk assessor. It breaks it down into EDUCATION, TRAINING & EXPERIENCE.

3rd party certification and external auditing & assistance should be sought if doubt exits particularly for bigger organisations and more complex risks.

Andy (Fire Safety Officer Associates)

Mark,

As James says it not that simple and there are several factors. The legislation concerned is the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 and article 3 dictates the structure of who is the “responsible person”; the employer, the person who is in control of the premises or the owner. Specific responsibilities can fall to more than one of the above. Contractual agreements would normally indicate who has responsibility for what. There are also responsibilities under other articles when there is more than one occupier of the same premises and where there are shared communal areas.

Professional advice should be sought including undertaking a fire risk assessment.




Andy

Roger,

Regarding the Fire Safety measures such as the fire alarm and fire extinguishers et al the applicable legislation is the Fire Safety Order 2005. The duty falls to the RESPONSIBLE PERSON who is defined as the employer, the person in control of the premises or owner. In many instances there maybe a contractual agreement with one or more of these people so there can be dual responsibility for specific areas for example: the owner of the building may have responsibility for servicing the equipment such as PAT testing and fire extinguishers but the responsibility for the evacuation of building during a fire alarm may fall to the occupier at that time who could be a group who use the building. Ultimately the risk assessment and fire policy will identify who is at risk and who has the respective responsibilities.

In the first instance your wife should speak to who they hire the building from to identify what the risk assessment says and what responsibilities are delegated to occupiers. The fire brigade can also be consulted where there are concerns regarding fire safety issues

Hope this is of use

Anyd O
info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

Prosecutions by Fire Brigades are snow balling and becoming more common place since the introduction of The Fire Safety Order in 2006. We have also seen the first custodial sentences involving serious beaches of the legislation. One of the most common features of successful prosecutions is failure to undertake a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment; lack of fire training is also now becoming more of an identified deficiency where previously under The Fire Precautions Act 1971 lip service at best was paid to employee instruction. Fines are also on the increase notably the massive penalty imposed on Shell this year. In several cases ignorance has been pleaded as part of the defence and quite rightly thrown out. Once again a strong message sent out to ALL employers regarding their obligation for “due diligence” no matter what their industry and size. If you are fortunate enough to be advised of your deficiencies do not under any circumstance ignore the advice of the enforcing authority unless you are prepared to go to court and challenge…

Andy O
info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

Charles,

its on the ISO website; try here:
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=42887

James,

check this out from the Fire Protection Association's website and its free

"RISCAuthority is pleased to announce the launch of ROBUST (Resilient Business Software Toolkit) to help the SME market produce effective Business Continuity Plans quickly and efficiently."

http://www.thefpa.co.uk/News/Announcing+the+Launch+of+ROBUST++The+FREE+Business+Continuity+Toolkit.htm

What I would add to the above comments is also check the government Communities website for the relevant guide on carrying out a risk assessment in your workplace. It offers layperson practical advice and the guides are split between 12 different workplaces and are the initial benchmark. Anyone who has done a course on carrying out a risk assessment should be able to use at least the general parts of the guide for the more straightforward workplaces; it would depend on what the course covered, its duration and the quality of teaching; the background of the assessor is also significant e.g. have they done any form of H&S training previously et al

It is important as an assessor to know when you are out of your depth especially in bigger sites or where there are higher hazard processes or other significant risks.

You can download the guides free at:
www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/

Andy
info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

Terry,

Thanks for your reply and comments. As you have quite rightly pointed out the risk of arson and geographic location CAN be linked; however, these geographics can be isolated to “hot spot areas” in an otherwise relatively non offending area.

The “threat” of arson is not always directly proportional to function as you say but is ONE factor amongst many; there are many other factors such as turn over of staff, internal/external employee relationships, recruitment profile, construction of premises, level of security, level of fire protection e.g. sprinkler etc.

It might help you to read the article written in Workplace Law “Recession to blame for increase in fire damage” (19053) on 10th March 09. In it Nick Starling’s et al (ABI’s Director of General Insurance and Health) discussed the correlation between an economic downturn and increase in arson and fraud as contributing factors. This was also mentioned in the “Loss Reporting” article in Fire Risk Management Journal (Dec 2008) written by the Fire Protection Association.

Of course everything you assess and then act on should be proportionate with a cost benefit analysis; a fundamental of Health & Safety legislation requirement would you not agree?

Also be sure of your definitions as you maybe aware there is a clear difference between arson and deliberate fire setting.

Hope this helps you.

Andy

As the article indicates arson and deliberate fire setting is still a major issue and the single biggest cause of fire in the workplace in the UK today.

Having audited many Risk Assessments and significant findings we are still finding that arson reduction measures are at best token gestures added on without a full understanding of what can be done and what should be assessed. There is a wide range of measures available to combat arson and is even more critical where there has been a previous incident or fire setting behaviour is know in the area. Certain sites and businesses also lend themselves to being more vulnerable and a specific arson fire risk assessment should form part of the overall risk management of the premises and business.

The official industry figures seem to showcase the good; that the number of fires and fatalities are down but as indicated above, the size of fire losses have increased.

It has been recently reported that there is a link between deliberate fire setting and an economic downturn and insurers and enforcing authorities will be looking for a more proactive approach from businesses which could have a critical implication to your insurance cover and business.

Andy

There are a lot of valid points from people over this post as well as some ill informed ones.

The law is clear regarding the use of a refuge. They are there to allow you more time to evacuate building occupants. They are NOT holding areas for people with disabilties et al to await rescue by the Fire Service. ALL guidance documents such as BS9999, BS8300, BD 2441 as well as Fire Risk Assessment - Means of Escape for Disabled People produced by the government state this.

Evac chairs are just one solution for disabled and special needs evacuation. In some locations and businesses they are ideal; in others they are not. There are 30 officaly recognised methods and systems and they depend on the type of disability and need identified in the Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP).

If you are unsure or unclear on the system you are using or do not have a system in place you need to seek advice from a professional company who can advice you.

Andy
info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

Iain,

yes construction is one significant area of consideration. There has to be a balance between false alarms or difficult to evacuate premises and an effective general alarm signal that is acted on. There is a wide list of considerations and the Risk Assessment and Significant Findings should clearly indicate where the balance should lie. The implication of for example high incidents of false alarms is that no one will evacuate regardless of the construction of the building. Common in Halls of Residence new or old as an example.

Roger,

525mm is required per what is called unit width under the long established escape times. This will allow 100 people to escape in a traditional construction building in 2.5minutes. However, 750mm is required for the first unit width as this is the width of doors. The second unit width goes up to 1050mm and so on.

Under Building Regulations using Approved Document B the width is 800mm and uses a different count although it amounts to approximately the same measurements.

Fire Engineered solutions use a fundamentally different method of calculation calculation

Hope this is of use

info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

Sunil

different companies have different systems for raising the alarm. Some alarm signals are channelled to a specific point first such as security or front of house WITHOUT the main alarm sounding . This is so they can investigate it; this is called a pre-alarm. If no action is taken after a pre-determined time the alarm will go into full evac mode. This is done for several reasons at for example hospitals and halls of residence where premises are prone to false alarms or a full evac is not realistic or safe everytime the alarm sounds

hope this is of help

info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

I would agree with Mike Kane on all the points above. The older extinguishers are still allowed providing they are serviced and pass the test. However, like in any industry you will get varying levels of service and would advise from past experience that a significant number of companies would write the old extinguisher off.

It can be difficult to argue with their decision as they are the competent person (or should be) and they will always error on the side of caution especially in showing due dilligence. However, it would be naïve to think sales don't play apart in this.

Chosing the extinguisher and company needs very careful consideration and price can be a hurdle to over come.

Gnereally the Fire Service will except servicing records providing they are up to date

Andy O
info@firesafetyoa.co.uk

DOMINIC, Yes absolutely; under Article 13 of The Fire Safety Order the responsible person must ensure the premises is equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment. This should be identified in the risk assessment. Educational premises will fall under The Fire Safety Order