Update on Fire Safety Order Response to Fire Alarms Primary - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Update on Fire Safety Order Response to Fire Alarms Primary Authority Scheme Recent Cases

Tim Allison

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Response to AFA calls



95% of all calls to Automatic Fire Alarms were due to False Alarms



Evidence that Fire Alarm Monitoring Organisations (FAMO) were not following their own industry protocols



Consultation responses:



272 organisations contacted – 19 responded



Large insurer



No objection as they have no AFAs in their premises



Large Retailer



Mostly supportive, however feeling of putting good with bad



Suggested the three strikes used by Police



Legal Firm



Concern about sending persons to check a roof top plant room and IT server room protected by suppression system



Large public building



Unfair to penalise those who cause very few calls rather than those who cause a large number of calls – warn those premises and remove response if situation does not improve

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Response to AFA calls



Large food packaging factory

 Concern over extensive site and some of the hazardous processes they

carry out and asked to be considered ‘out of scope’



Timber yard

 Having had a fire they objected strongly to the proposal as the fire

appliance was on site before they were, after the FAMO called them

 If they had to attend and then call 999 they feel that the fire would

have spread to other buildings



Fire Industry Association

 Does not believe that non attendance is the preferred option  Inconsistency between Fire & Rescue Services causing businesses

training issues between sites

 Issue of FAMO not having up to date keyholder information

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Response to AFA calls

 First month (June 2013) figures for Unwanted Fire Signals

 2011-12 190 UwFS calls attended  2012-13 164 UwFS calls attended (14% reduction)  2013-14 117 UwFS calls attended (29% reduction)  35 calls were challenged as opposed to 9 in each of the

previous two years – these were from ‘in scope’ premises only

 One FAMO delivered incorrect address information

resulting in a delayed response to a sheltered housing premises – this was identified during the call

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Response to AFA calls

 Following three months figures are being

analyzed

 Indications are that UwFS still falling  There has been no increase in building fires that

have not been attended

 Businesses are reviewing:

 The need for FAMO intervention against building

insurance requirements

 Their detection provision and suitability  Their procedures and management of fire safety

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 Primary Authority Scheme (PAS) was introduced

under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008

 Designed to reduce the regulatory burden on

business

 Consultation about the extension of PAS closed in

2011 and government concluded that regulation can be ‘heavy handed, inefficient, overly prescriptive and culturally risk averse’

 Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO) to be absorbed by

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and renamed Better Regulation Delivery Office (BRDO)

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill 2013

extended the scheme starting from 1st October 2013

 Planned implementation for Fire Safety in April

2014

 Other Primary Authority Schemes began in 2009

 Scheme to be changed to improve ‘coherence,

accountability and transparency’ and introduction of ‘earned recognition’ to reduce,

• r remove, regulatory inspections

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 Government commissioned a number of pilot

schemes between January and June 2013

Statutory Scheme Non Statutory Scheme (FAPS)

FRS / Authority Business / es Hertfordshire (County) Tesco Nottinghamshire (CFA) Boots Tyne & Wear (Met) Sainsburys Leicestershire (CFA) Travelodge London (Met) SSP Ltd Enterprise Inns West Yorkshire (Met) ASDA Morrisons Cornwall (County) St Austell Brewery Merseyside (Met) Ladbrokes Superdrug PLC

FRS / Authority Business /es West Midlands (Met) Marks and Spencer Nationwide Hampshire (CFA) Home Retail Group B&Q Surrey (County) MRH (Development Co) Bedfordshire (CFA) Moto Hospitality Greater Manchester (Met) McDonalds Essex (CFA) Royal Mail Staffordshire (CFA) BT Bupa

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 RAFKAP – Retail and Fire Key Authority Partnership

 One of the forerunners to this along with Lead Authority Scheme

 Petroleum & Explosives already under PAS  Primary Authorities can

 Provide robust and reliable advice to its partners

 Primary Authority Advice to Business (PPAB)

 Produce a national inspection plan to avoid repeated checks and

better sharing of information

 Co-ordinate enforcement action to ensure consistency – local

authority will still take the action

 Primary Authority can block proposed enforcement action if it is

contrary to advice given to a partner business

 Consultation response from businesses was that this will allow them to

challenge unreasonable enforcement action more easily

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme



BRDO will issue guidance that a primary authority cannot direct the resources of another authority



Each authority will still manage its own inspection regime



Fire & Rescue Authorities (FRA) can refuse to enter into a partnership, due to capacity issues, but the BRDO can overrule this and enforce the partnership



There is the facility for ‘appropriate cost recovery’ which would lead to the Primary Authority ‘breaking even’



Pilot schemes showed this to be in the region of £12,000 to £25,000 per annum



Partnership is based on the premise that the business wants to improve, in this context the relationship becomes one that is based

• n openness and cooperation



This should lead to more efficient, quicker inspections, cost reductions on both sides and improvements in Fire Safety across the whole business

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 PAS extensions and how PAS may benefit small businesses

(BRDO information)

 Primary Authority has been significantly extended in two ways: the

scheme is now accessible to businesses that do not trade across local authority boundaries, but do share an approach to compliance with at least one other business that trades in a different local authority.

 These shared approaches to compliance will typically be co-

• rdinated by a business' trade association, or a franchisor where

the business is a franchisee, and the new types of local authority - business partnership will therefore be known as co-ordinated partnerships.

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 Strengthening inspection plans - The role of primary authority

inspection plans has been strengthened. Previously, enforcing authorities were obliged to 'have regard' to inspection plans, however, they will now have to ‘act in accordance’ with the requirements.

 There is a new mandatory duty to provide feedback to primary

authorities on inspection activity undertaken, where the primary authority requests such feedback.

 759 businesses in the scheme, 103 local authorities, 63000

premises (April 2013)

 More than 30,000 small businesses can now access Primary

Authority through their trade associations, franchisors and business groups, including major organisations such as KFC and the British Frozen Food Federation.

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Primary Authority Scheme

 Fire Safety areas that may become part of

inspection plans:

 Fire Safety Management procedures  Training processes and competency  Fire safety provision testing and servicing

 What about:

 Evacuation Procedures  Compartmentation standards  Fire Risk Assessment

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions

 DM Care Ltd, Blackpool

 Two Storey Care Home

 Fire (6th Jan 2012) triggered a full evacuation and

subsequent investigation and inspection

 Fire Safety had been neglected and deteriorated to a very

poor standard

 There was not a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk

assessment, insufficient procedures for evacuation, insufficient staff training, blocked and obstructed exit routes and an inadequate fire alarm system

 Case was heard on 19th March 2013

 Seven offences and a total fine of £40,375 (inc costs of £5375)

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions

 Hertfordshire Letting Agent

 13 offences at 5 rented homes  Inadequate smoke detection, fire doors to several

rooms found to be defective, a handrail to the stairs was not securely fixed to the wall and exit doors could be kept locked

 Fine of £16,200 and costs of £25,000 total of

£41,200

 Case brought by Welwyn Hatfield Council, it was

the first time they had prosecuted a managing agent and not the landlord

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions

 Tazy’s takeaway, Blackpool - 8th May 2013  Two members of staff lived in the flat above the business  They awoke to find their escape route smoke logged when

a fire started in the kitchen below

 No detection  No extinguishers  Flammable items on the stairs  Notice served preventing sleeping in the premises

 Judge said ‘You are guilty of gross negligence despite

having one fire you did nothing to make these premises safe’

 Total of nine fire safety breaches – including no fire risk assessment  Fined £900 and ordered to pay £2,607 costs and £120 victim surcharge,

a total of £3627

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions

 Jack Wills - 13th December 2012

 Inspection identified failings and a notice of deficiencies was issued  Follow up inspection resulted in an enforcement notice because failings

had not been addressed

 The main issue was failure of fire doors around the single staircase

escape route, and flammable items being stored in this staircase

 North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority made repeated attempts to

work with Jack Wills Head Office but to no avail and the enforcement notice compliance date was not met

 6 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005  Resulted in a £27,000 fine and £5,619.35 prosecution costs, total of

£32619.35

 Jack Wills Limited offered an unreserved apology to North Yorkshire

Fire and Rescue Authority, for the unnecessary time and effort they had to spend dealing with these contraventions and also for the company’s failure to comply with Fire Safety legislation

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions

 Martin McColls - 03 Dec 2012



Inspection following a fire at the premises in Southampton



Failure to review the fire risk assessment



Failure to ensure that the outstanding issues identified in the fire risk assessment were put into place



Failure to remove the padlock securing the rear fire exit door



Failure to maintain fire safety equipment



Failure to ensure that the manager of the premises had been adequately trained Chair of the Bench said “Whilst we have listened in detail to the mitigation offered by the defence and have given due credit for a timely guilty plea, we consider that the offences are serious in nature and that the company should be fined £3,500 for each of the five

• ffences plus a £15 victim surcharge making a total of £17,515. The Service’s costs of

£3,817.51 should also be paid in full.” Final total of £21332.51

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Recent prosecutions



Asda - 6 June 2012



Following an inspection at the Asda store, Slough on 24 June 2010, the company pleaded guilty to two charges under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 with other breaches of the fire regulations taken into account



Company found guilty and fined £40,000, costs of £15,647.33 total £55,647.33



The inspection found 2 fire exits were locked and chained shut with further fire exits either partially blocked or obstructed and internal fire doors wedged open



General Store Manager at the time, was also prosecuted for breaches of fire safety regulations, given her position, and responsibility for fire safety matters at the store



Manager pleaded not guilty to a total of eight charges and her case was committed to the Reading Crown Court for a hearing on 17 July 2013



Four counts under Article 23 – duties of employees at work, were heard with the

• ther four counts under Article 5 being severed but laid on file



Judge directed a fine of £2000 – Asda agreed to pay full costs of £62,179.27



This case gives a clear message that it is not only employers who may be held accountable but any employee who has a level of control and or fire safety duties

Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service

Discussion and Questions