Ignore fire risk and you could pay the penalty

When considering the real cost of fire risk, all responsible property managers should first think about the human cost of lives in their care. Because the penalty for failure to comply with the new fire regulations could be more than prosecution and a massive fine… it could be the price of a life.

Earlier this year the report of a massive £100,000 penalty incurred by a business brought into sharp focus the potentially huge cost for failure of compliance. But, thankfully, this latest case did not involve any loss of life or injury.

Endangered staff
The company was sentenced by a crown court and ordered to pay fines and penalties totalling £100,000 for seven breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) at one of its sites. The court heard that staff were not instructed in the findings of the fire risk assessment, and the company had no adequate system for implementing and reviewing fire safety arrangements on the premises, so placing their staff at increased risk.

The Fire and Rescue Service, commenting on the case, warned that although the Service works closely with businesses to help them with their compliance duties under the RRFSO, ‘the Service will absolutely consider prosecution’ particularly in cases where occupants of the premises ‘may be affected by a company’s shortfalls.’

The new regulatory regime for fire safety came into force on October 1, 2006. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Regulations 2005 (RRO) replaced most of the previous fire safety requirements and extends liability to both employers and controllers of property. In relation to controllers of property it will affect any organisation, which occupies premises as a freeholder, tenant or licensee, lets commercial premises as a landlord or lets residential premises where there are common parts.

Disproportionate response?
Tom Welland, Fire Services Manager at leading fire safety consultants Fireco Ltd comments: ‘In defence of most business owners and managers who are conscientious, there remains an underlying uncertainty in the business sector about the RRFSO’s implementation. And, because of this uncertainty, management often falls into the trap of over-prescription of fire safety measures, at prohibitive cost to the business budget.’

Mr Welland continues, ‘In cases where you have doubt or difficulties achieving what has been asked for, you should appeal when served with a Fire Safety Notice. A business has 21 days in which to do this. Lots of people don’t want to disagree with the Fire Officer so just spend the money. But the Fire Safety Order is about starting a debate. It is a process of dialogue for businesses to discuss options with the fire service.’

Deathtrap premises targeted by inspectors  
The failure of businesses to recognise law-breaking negligence is highlighted by an Awareness Survey carried out by Norwich Union Risk Services that reveals, astonishingly, that a third of businesses are unaware of the new regulations. The study also revealed that 36 percent of businesses had failed to carry out a Fire Safety Risk Assessment, a procedure crucial to compliance under the Order.

Fire risk assessors were again reminded of these concerns when, in one of the earliest cases brought under the RRFSO, the court was shown photographs of fire exits that had been tampered with and boxes piled dangerously high, restricting access to escape routes. Critically, this prosecution was brought despite fire safety inspectors having issued an Enforcement Notice. The defendant had taken ‘completely no notice’ of guidance from fire safety officials, being reluctant to comply with life saving fire safety regulations.

‘Potentially lethal’
Outside the court, the fire safety inspection officer in charge of the case said that he had never seen a more ‘flagrant breach’ of fire safety regulations, and warned company bosses to comply with the rules or face action.

He said: ‘It was a deathtrap, potentially lethal. The building was extremely dangerous. The means of escape were totally inadequate and the state of fire precautions was totally unacceptable. We need to get the message across that it’s the duty of every employer to carry out a full risk assessment. If they don’t, we will take action.’

This is timely advice and highlights a worrying trend identified by a UK survey of fire risk assessors, sponsored by Fireco Ltd, makers of Dorgard, which showed nearly 70 percent of business premises audited for fire risk were found to be illegally wedging open fire doors. In a real fire emergency a wedged open door will allow smoke and flames to spread rapidly with the risk of life-threatening injuries.

Tom Welland, commenting on the wedged door threat, has this reminder: ‘You’ve got to get staff to spot risk as they go about their day-to-day business. So they won’t think “I’ll store this box here, it’s only for a day” because if there is a fire on that very day and it’s blocking an entrance or exit, it could prove to be fatal.’

‘Appropriate’ solutions minimise costs
Mr Welland particularly emphasises the need for clarification of inspection rulings. ‘If you have been asked to make adjustments to your Fire Precautions by an Inspecting Officer, do not accept any guidance or request unless it is in writing. Without such clarification, some companies may face demands for costly changes to their premises whilst others will not, but not necessarily because they have better fire safety.’

In fact, UK enforcement policy is highly specific on this point: ‘We will minimise the costs of compliance for business by ensuring that any action we require is proportionate to the risks.’

Reassuringly, there are four stages to enforcement: inform and educate; notice of deficiencies; formal enforcement notice; prohibition/prosecution.

Mr Welland continues on this theme: ‘We conduct lots of risk assessments and we like to think that by improving staff awareness, reviewing policies and changing management procedures there is often no need to purchase any more equipment as lots of premises have in fact been over prescribed.

In fact, fire safety law enforcers are increasingly taking a realistic approach to the economic impact of tighter regulation, considering issues like affordability, non-disruptive installation, and business continuity – so a fire safety solution can be calibrated to take account of economies of scale without compromising safety.

Don’t cross the line on fire risks
Ten basic facts to remember to ensure you assess the real cost of fire safety without cutting corners. Typically, an Inspecting Fire Officer will ask the responsible person for copies of; fire risk assessment, fire precautions log book, records of staff training and fire drills, records of maintenance and testing of fire fighting equipment, records of testing and maintenance of all fire safety systems and records of adjustments and changes relating to fire safety in your premises.

In response to any notice issued by an Inspecting Office, the responsible person should also remember; adjustments to your fire precautions demanded by an alteration or enforcement notice should be in writing. If you are considering appealing against any notice, or wish to review your options, consulting a fire safety professional is recommended and if issued with a prohibition notice you have just 21 days to appeal to the Magistrates Court.

Sound advice
‘In short,’ Mr Welland says: ‘Where there is doubt, the best guidance is that businesses should seek sound advice from fire consultants. And, of course, businesses should also be alert to staff training, essential to reducing the risk of a fire and, if one does occur, to reducing the likelihood of loss of life and expensive damage.’

For more information:
Contact Fireco on 0845 241 7474,
services@firecoltd.com or visit firecoltd.com