Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 26 March 2002 16:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Malcolm Or procedure for mobility impaired staff/students is that they go to the refuge point on the escape stair. They wait there until the fire service arrives and evacuates them if required. This has been satisfactory for several years now. following a recent evacuation the officer in charge took exception to our proceddure. We have now had a formal letter from the fire service saying that we may be in breach of the Fire precaution (workplace)regs. Any advice or guidance would be appreciated. Footnote The procedure had been run by the fire service and building control twice in the last year prior to us moving into new buildings.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 26 March 2002 17:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams He may be objecting but can he justify his objections? I know my own fire service use the refuge method, you had in place. Its common sense not to obstruct the fire escape with someone who has a mobility problem. This may seem harsh to some people, but "The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few". Is it not better to have someone in a place of safety, than to have people trying to man handle them down flights of stairs potentially delaying 50 staff exiting the building? On an additional point I seem to remember a case where an individual with a mobility problem refused to evacuate a building and was removed on an e-vac chair. He made a claim against the firm under the DDA as they damaged his feelings!!! Ash
Admin  
#3 Posted : 26 March 2002 18:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Creak All employers are responsible for the safe evacuation of building occupants. The Fire Service are not there to provide this service. It could well be in breach of the Disabled Discrimination Act(DDA) to treat mobility impaired building occupants differently than able bodied people. Safe Areas (Please don't call them refuge points as I have seen on inspection more refuse dumped under these signs by misinformed staff than any anything else!!)are provided as part of your Fire Safety Management system to ensure the completion of your evacuation procedure not the Fire Service!! See www.means-of-escape.com for further information.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 26 March 2002 22:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Jarman Malcolm, My only thought is that there is a better solution available that meets a test of reasonably practicable, rather than the one you employ? Obviously the fire officer has his reasons for not liking your system, and as Ash has already stated, he should be able to justify his objections and the reasons why change is necessary. Regards Mark
Admin  
#5 Posted : 26 March 2002 23:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By shaun mckeever It is an unfortunate truth that many fire officers do not understand the idea of refuge points. Persons who have responsibility for buildings/workplaces must have suitable and sufficient arrangements for ensuring that disabled persons can reach a place of safety. The place of safety should be the same place of safety that able bodied people can reach. Reliance on the fire service to bring the disabled to a place of safety is fundamentally wrong, e.g. in the City of London you will only have to wait five minutes (normally) for the fire service to arrive but in a more rural area you can wait 20 or more minutes for the fire service to arrive. Would you like to be sitting in a wheelchair in a burning building? Twenty minutes can be a long time also, places of safety within a building are often in the stairwell and the stairwell usually relies on fire doors being kept shut to maintain the integrity of the stairwell but my experience is that these doors are often wedged open and so the place of safety is no longer a place of safety. There are many reasons against leaving the disabled in a building, I can’t think of one good reason for leaving them there to take their chances. A refuge point is only a place of temporary safety – there must be a procedure in place to help the disabled to a final pace of safety.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 27 March 2002 09:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor There seems to have been a transition of thinking on this subject over the years. It was common for fire authorities in urban areas to tell occupiers that they would perform any necessary final evacuation for non-ambulant persons awaiting rescue in refuges. The current position is as Shaun describes - which, whilst legally correct, places some employers in a very difficult position (particularly if they have many non-ambulant occupants and few, if any, able-bodied staff). In London the LFEPA Fire Safety Guidance Note 26 says that 'Disabled persons should, preferably, be employed at ground level wherever possible'!! and 'The evacuation must be planned so as to be successfully carried out by the building occupiers without dependence on assistance from the fire brigade, whose initial resources may be limited'. BS5588 Part8: 1999 is the appropriate standard (and uses the term 'refuge'. However, the situation is far from satisfactory when one considers: whether disabled are to be discriminated against by non-selection to avoid special evacuation arrangements or by confinement to the ground floor; whether they are to be included in fire drills; use of Evac-chairs or carrying wheel-chairs down stairs and the need for trained and fit persons to be readily available at all times; the cost of adding escape lifts - even if physically possible; what to do with persons confined to bed in care homes, etc, etc. I suspect that, given the choice, many wheel-chair users would rather be carried down stairs by trained firefighters than well-meaning colleagues.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 27 March 2002 12:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster Firstly, let me refer you to the thread "Disabled Evacuation Procedures" posted by JOSEPH RAE on Monday, 05 November 2001, which, as we were about to embark on a programme of work to convert our headquarters building to conform with the 2004 requirements of DDA came as a timely shock. The re-designers had planned for a stair lift to the first floor. When, in the light of the posting, I queried the evacuation arrangements (yes, and consultation with the H&S adviser is another issue) I was told the physically disabled would wait in a safe refuge for evacuation by the fire brigade!! The project has now been re-assessed in light of the ACTUAL requirements of the DDA, not the often (ill-)PERCEIVED requirements. With respect to Part III of the Act, we have managed to eliminate the need for the public to have access above the ground floor. Public meetings (formerly in the first floor Board Room)will now be held in a nearby, disabled friendly, facility. (As a bonus, the occasional rental works out cheaper than the stair lift). A meeting/interview room will be available on the ground floor so that should a physically disabled person wish to meet with an employee on the upper floor, the employee can come down to them. This would also, of course, be available to able bodied visitors. These are permissible solutions under the Act. With regard to employment provision, we have simply agreed that, should a physically disabled person be selected for a post, their office will located on the ground floor, and if this means a re-shuffle of some offices or departments, then so be it. OK, it may be easier for us in a 2 storey office block than for those in multi-storey blocks without fire lifts, but we also have offices in a 3 storey listed building in a conservation area completely enclosed by a narrow street and surrounding, also listed buildings. The DDA does not require that a disabled person have access to all parts of all buildings and premises. It requires that reasonable adjustments be made to ensure that they are not unjustifiably disadvantaged in employment and in access to goods, facilities and services provided by an organisation to the public. Sometimes we will have to be imaginative in finding alternative means to compliance with the Act. John
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.