Comments by Alan Cox

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

I routinely ask contractors for their risk assessments and I'm usually very surprised if they are able to produce one, or if they do, they generally don't have any relevance to the job they are doing. Many say that they have left it in the office, a number indicate that they have been doing the job for that long now that they don't need one and some don't have a clue what you are talking about.
The only way that this will improve is if you keep asking them for their assessment and not letting them work if they don't have it. This usually has a very surprising effect.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Some people may be surprised by this case but unfortunately it comes as no surprise to me as I see this type of problem at many of the hotels that I stay in. It is not just the smaller hotels that don't respect their fire safety obligations as I also see these failings in many well known large hotel groups. Even when I raise the problems with the management, some do not even reply and so I have very little alternative but to inform the Fire Authority.

The recent BBC undercover investigation that I carried out revealed that about 90% of hotels that I visited had similar defects to those in this case.
The sad part about this case is that the failings were only identified after a serious fire and people were trapped and I feel that this will occur more often now that the new Fire Safety Order is with us and I personally think that the Penhallow, Athersone on Stour and Royal Marsden Fires should make us think very carefully about this new direction that in which we are heading.

I also don't believe that the levels of fines are high enough to deter owners from flouting the rules and here is a typical example:
Hotel ignored "endless" fire warnings
24.04.2008

A hotel that had faulty smoke alarms, blocked escape routes and an emergency exit sign pointing the wrong way has been fined after pleading guilty to 18 fire safety breaches.
On 22 April, Tynedale magistrates fined The Station Inn hotel in Hexham £3500 plus £2500 costs.
This case also highlights the different way that problems are dealt with around the UK as in a similar situation in one hotel that I identified during the BBC investigation the Fire Authority chose to take no enforcement action.
Perhaps we should now be moving towards an official Safety Rating System that would allow people to be aware of the standard of safety that an establishment has achieved before making a booking and not finding out later to their cost.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

One approach that I am encountering more often now is where companies provide fire extinguishers as required by the regulations but choose not to train staff because they have a policy of evacuation only and tell staff not to fight the fire due to the risk. They argue that because they have this policy they do not need to provide practical training and many present a very good case for this approach. Many have even argued that they do not need to provide extinguishers because of this policy and the recent case for the removal of extinguishers in a block of flats has given them even more support for their argument.
Whilst I think that many of these decisions are made on cost grounds rather that on the basis of risk many organisations are also removing fire hose reels and I wonder how long it will be before someone produces a risk assessment that indicates we don't need a fire alarm because we haven't had a fire. You may think that this is a little too far but I was speaking to a Safety Officer recently who was convinced they didn't need to service fire alarms and emergency lighting at intervals required by British Standards because he could show that they had not had a failure in over 15 years!!!!!

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Iain, I wasn't making the case for the provision of hose reels - I was stating the fact that I found them useful when attending fire incidents particularly in deep plan high rise buildings where it was not easy to get your own equipment to the fire quickly. I have also attended many fires where suitably trained staff have done an excellent job with the building fire hose reels. One that comes to mind was during the Fire Service Strike where hospital and RAF staff extinguished quite a major fire - obviously the experts were not there on this occasion.
I would also say the same for portable fire extinguishers as I have also used these on many occasions. The point that I was making was that if they are already in place it would be a pity to remove them on cost grounds, if they all wanted replacing then they may be a good reason to consider removal. I also stated that it was my own personal view and that times have changed.

Dean, As far as I am aware no one has caught legionnaires' disease from fire hose reels and if my memory serves me right Glasgow Royal Infirmary removed their hose reels because of the possible risk of the disease in the supply pipework that was in a very warm hospital basement - I think it started with some junior doctors spraying the hose reels on each other and someone jumping to this possible conclusion.
Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

I think that Phil is taking the right course and by seeking a wide selection of comments he is looking at all of the options available. You will note that in my reply I commented "This is always a difficult question to advise on and I always advise discussing the problem with the person concerned as a first move because he/she may have set thoughts on the matter" - whilst this is always my first action you have to remember that there are also the able bodied to consider and I remember one situation where we were trying to find a solution for someone in a high rise block with over 2000 occupants. The building was a modern building with protected areas, evacuation aids and a buddy system. The disabled person was on the 10th floor and it was not possible to relocate her and she felt that she should be evacuated first rather than towards the end. I spent considerable time with her explaining why it was not possible and explaining the arrangements that we were proposing but she could not accept the situation that she should be left to the last. Unfortunately, the word you have to remember in this situation is "reasonable" and clearly it was not reasonable to put the safety of a large number of occupants at risk for one person. This is exactly the same type of situation you face in hospital where you evacuate those in immediate danger first, then the ambulant and then those that are the most difficult to move.
Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Hi Dean,
Many companies are taking this option and a number of Fire Authorities are also concurring with this decision on the basis that it can put lives in danger. I personally feel that it's a bad decision to take purely on cost grounds as I can remember that during my fire service career I used them on more than one occasion very successfully. However, times and thinkings have changed and what you now have to look to is your Fire Risk Assessment and if this recommends the removal of the Fire Hose Reels, if it does, then I would take them out of use and remove them but not until this is confirmed. If they were installed on the advice of the Fire Authority or Insurer you may wish to check with them that they are happy about it. If they are in place and no one has made the decision they should be subject to routine maintenance.
I hope this helps.

Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Wesley, This type of arrangement is not technicaly a "multi occupied building" but a number of buildings in "single occupation" and as such what you are doing is ok and they can each have their own method of raising the alarm of fire. The tenants can do very much their own thing but I would suggest that you get the occupiers to keep you updated of any alterations that could change the risk eg start to store fireworks, flammables, compressed gases etc. You will obviously also need to be aware of access arrangements in an emergency, arrangements for calling the Fire Service, assembly areas, waste storage arrangements and arson/security protection etc.
Hope that helps.
Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Wesley,
Are these single storey units with fire seperation between each unit? Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Phil, This is always a difficult question to advise on and I always advise discussing the problem with the person concerned as a first move because he/she may have set thoughts on the matter. You will also need to look at what facilities the building has or may require eg evacuation lift, refuge areas, evacuation aids, available help, relocation, emergency communication etc.
Many organisations simply buy an Evacuation Chair and put it on the wall and think that this is all they have to do but unfortunately they are sadly mistaken because they have to look at all the possible outcomes and as you have found establish a Personal Evacuation Plan which is not as easy as you first think.
Obviously, there are many options that you can implement but you do need to look at all of the above aspects first and what you can't do is to ask people to enter a "potentially burning building" - that a job for the Fire Service.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

I note that Patrick has indicated that "Fortunately there has not been a major incident as yet to call into question the change s made to the Fire Precautions Act and subsequent legislation" - I think that the Penhallow and Atherstone on Stour Fires should make us think very deeply about these changes and if they were really for the better - only time will tell.
Iain has also indicated that there is also a problem with the number of B&B establishments which now come under the new legislation and my experience would support this statement - we should also remember that many of the larger hotels are far from perfect and here again my experience indicates that around 80% of these establishments have serious failings.
I also note that Joanne has referred to residential fires also and here again the loss of life is far too high but to look at her original question about fairground accidents these are some incidents from the BBC website:
August: 12-inch bolt came off a ride at Coney Beach in Porthcawl, fracturing a teenager's skull.

July: Woman and three children injured in fall from a Blackpool Pleasure Beach ride.

July: 11-year-old boy died after falling from a Blackpool ride.


A woman was killed at a London fairground


July: Fire destroyed two rides at Thorpe Park, Surrey; no one injured.

July: Serious head injuries for man who apparently got caught on carriage while leaving ride in Glasgow Green.

May: Australian tourist, 28, killed when a ride car fell to the ground, injuring its two other occupants in Shepherds Bush, London.

May: Girl, 12, killed when she fell from a swinging gondola ride in Cornwall.

May: Three teenage girls injured on a ride in Torrington, Devon.

May: Ten children and adults, injured when a waltzer car flew into a crowd at Flitwick, Bedfordshire.

April: Girl, 7, critically injured after slipping from a ride in Liverpool.

March: Teenage girl from Gosport, Hampshire, had emergency surgery after falling under a ride.

The above figures are from just one year - what do you think? Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Hi Anne, The organisation that placed the residents in the property should have risk assessed the needs of the residents and adapted the building accordingly and produced a Care Plan. The building may have also been adapted to meet individual needs eg level access, visible/audible fire alarms, wide doors etc and obviously your staff would need to be aware of these aspects which you should incorporate into your Fire Risk Assessment.
The question of evacuation of the residents is also one that the organisation that placed the residents there will need to have considered because presumably your staff will not be there 24/7 and so the plan will need to work at all times and obviously your staff may not be there. However, your staff will need to be aware of the details of the fire and evacuation procedure because they may be part of it and could provide valuable assistance. When it comes to assisting the residents this will very much depend on the training and skills of the individual concerned and the urgency of the situation. Let's take a hypothetical situation - you have a member of staff visiting a person that is not very well and is in bed and a fire occurs in the kitchen - what would you expect your member of staff to do - fight the fire, leave the person in bed and go and call the Fire Service or rescue the person? I obviously cannot answer this without knowing all the details but it's something that you will need to consider because it's unfair to expect your member of staff to do the right thing when it happens without having received instruction and guidance.
If you break the scenario down into individual components you may appreciate some of the problems eg Fight the fire - has your member of staff been trained, is there an extinguisher, do they know how to use it? Call the Fire Service - has this been done automatically, do your staff have mobile phones, do they know how to call the Fire Service? Rescue the Person - do they know how to lift safely, would they need assistance, are there any Evacuation Aids?
I think that by now you may be starting to understand the complexity of the situation and what you need to consider. Lets move to your last comment about advising staff to get out and stay out and leave rescue to the Fire Service. From a legal point of view that would be the safest action as you are protecting the best interests of your yourself and your staff - there is no law that indicates you have to fight fires or rescue people and that is clearly the role of the Fire Service but I think realisticlly that what is required is a reasonable approach and this amounts to being reasonable in the circumstances eg If your staff are already trained to fight fires then there is nothing wrong in them trying if its safe to do so, If your staff are trained in evacuation and lifting techniques - assist if safe to do so.
Remember you are not expecting staff to put their own safety at risk but just to be reasonable in the circumstances - I know that can be difficult when a situation arises but that's why the need for communication, training and guidance are so important.
Let me know if you want any additional help.
Regards Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Anne, If this is your employees place of work you will need to undertake a Risk Assessment to establish that it is safe for your staff to work there. From what you say they are Ground Floor Flats with a front and rear exit so there should not be a problem with escape - remember there will also probably be windows which could be used and if its safe for the residents it's probaly safe for your staff.
What you will need to impress on your staff is the requirement to report any problems with safety eg faulty fire equipment, fire doors, gas/electrical appliances, obstructed fire exits etc. You would need to set up a Reporting Procedure to the Housing Association/Organisation so that you have a written record of what was reported and when.
Hope that helps. Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Karen, Always a little difficult to comment without knowing all the facts but from what you say your employer is not complying with his/her fire safety responsibilities.
One of the first duties that any responsible and caring employer should do for new staff is to explain the fire procedure and what you are expected to do in a fire situation. I would have expected that within 17 months you should have taken part in a fire drill - have they carried one out and you were on holiday or have they just not carried one out? Have you heard the fire alarm and is it tested?
Obviously, from what you say you work in a single means of escape building and this type of layout can cause problems in a fire situation as you have obviously realised - it is important in this type of situation that fire doors are kept closed, rubbish is not stored in the staircase and the exit doors are easy to open and not obstructed. It is also important that staff know what to do.
Your employer should have carried out a Fire Risk Assessment which should have covered all of these aspects - if you feel that they haven't and you are uncomfortable with asking the question you can always go to the Fire Authority and discuss your concerns with them but ask to keep the matter confidential. If they feel your employer is not acting within the law they should make an insection and check the facts for themselves.
Hope this helps. Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

As Colin has stated you need to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment or update your existing policy. You have stated that you are not happy about this proposal for fire safety reasons - what are those reasons eg space, fire risk or evacuation. Why do you need to install a stairlift - do you have disabled residents or is this to allow disabled persons into the building?
At the end of the day you have to balance the fire risk with the needs of disabled persons and if you can show that you have considered the matter fully and have detailed written evidence to present to Social Servies as to why it is not possible then they should accept that. If however, you cannot show a valid reason then you have very little option but to installone if there is a genuine need.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

To my knowledge there is no upper limit but obviously if it was too loud you would fall foul of other health and safety legislation. The problem with fire alarm sounders is that if you don't have them in every room, and therefore some have to be very loud in order to hear them in the rooms which don't have them. This is very noticable when you leave a room without a sounder and go into one where one is operating - obviously in an ideal world you would have one in every room which was set at the required level but of course this would be very expensive.
The levels should have been measured by the installer but if you feel that they are not correct you should have them checked.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

This is a factor that you should have considered before you installed the new doors, but unfortunately, is something that most people forget. I assume that you did this to improve security and one thing that companies do when considering security is to install more secure doors which are invariebly heavier ans of course they want them to close quicker to stop tailgateing. This often causes access problems for some people as you have found out and to put it right can be expensive. One solution is to install automatic doors and if there are a lot of doors this can be very costly but you may wish to consider this solution first:
1. Is it possible to relocate the person to another part of the building which does not involve automatic doors, if not
2. Consider door closing devices that have a negative opening force.

But remember you still have to allow time for the slowest person using the door to pass through before it shuts.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

I'm not sure where your supplier got this information from, or what his motive was for giving you this information, but I have always felt that the use of break glass devices on escape routes could be dangerous and I usually recommend the ceramic type. I know that the guidance only usually recommends this type in food preperation areas or sleeping accomodaion areas but I have seen some nasty accidents when people have tried removing them for normal access reasons and that's why I usually recommned them.

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

Richard, You ask the question "what can go wrong?" - obviously with both the Penhallow Hotel and Warwickshire Warehouse Fires things went disastrously wrong and whilst it is a little early to speculate on the causes there can be very little doubt that the risk assessments for both premises did not see this coming.
One of the problems that I see is that people think that carrying out a Fire Risk Assessment is a simple task and much of the guidance that is issued gives this impression - many people are lead to believe that a Fire Safety Check List equals a Fire Risk Assessment - if only it were that simple. If you have seen the November Issue of Workplace Law you will see some very interesting articles on how the new law is working.
I sometimes give talks to the Fire Service about my experiences and what is very clear, and has changed considerably since my time in the Fire Service, is the way the legislation is enforced. When I inspected premises in the 60 and 70s it was made very clear to us that if we inspected a building and saw something that was not covered by legislation and was dangerous we had to write to the owner/occupier and draw their attention to it. When I mention this now it is made very clear to me that they are now enforcers and their role is to go into the building "hit them with the legislation and leave".
It is also very easy to assume that that only fire service people have the necessary experience and qualifications for carrying out this role - this is not always true and I know of very many professionals who are much more knowledgeable about fire safety than their colleagues in the Fire Service. Since I left the Fire Service I have learnt far more about fire engineering than ever I did in the brigade. Alan

Alan Cox
Member - 36 posts

I think that one of the problems that we are experiencing with employees sleeping on the premises is that this does happen abroad and some companies expect it to be ok in the UK.
I have recently been looking to purchase a UK Fire/Safety company for a client from the EC. My client wanted to bring 8 of his staff over for 12 months to give the company a fresh start - when I mentioned the cost of accomodation he replied "we can get some bunk beds and put them in the factory area" - obviously I advised him that this was not acceptable in the UK without the necessary permission.My client was very surprised at this answer and could not see any reason why this should be.
Whilst the requirement for sprinklers in this type of building is new in England if you were to have built it in Scotland you would have probably had to install sprinklers.
One of the major problems with this type of building is that whilst at first sight the structure appears to be fire resisting many of these panels have a combustible inner core which if involved in fire spreads at a very quick rate and this is something that needs to be factored in to the Fire Risk Assessment.
Obviously as this building was used as a packaging area there would have probably also been large quantities of combustible packaging materials present.
Alan