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 : 16 October 2008 10:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Scheme for youngsters (18 - 25) to offer temp accommodation, own locked rooms etc etc. One decideds to climb out the window on a (drunk) weekend night and falls. Not dead, but several broken bones etc. Any thoughts on the investigation, questions to be asked? Thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Main one will be how come the windows could be opened wide enough to allow somebody to climb out? The method of opening limitation will come in for close examination. Ferom the owners viewpoint most locks can be defeated unless they are of good quality and well designed. Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sally First question I would ask is why the windows weren't restricted to 100mm opening. This is fairly standard for buildings with 'vulnerable' occupants.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs Brenda - please give more detail. Are these vulnerable persons, is it a charity, is it LA, was a sensible set of systems followed before providing accommodation, are youngsters assessed, etc etc
Admin  
#5 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Thanks guys. Yes vulnerable people, youngsters kicked out of home, drug/drink problems etc etc. Can you point me to the guidance with regards the windown opening distances?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Donaldson Have a look at Falls from Windows in Health and Social Care http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/79-6.htm
Admin  
#7 Posted : 16 October 2008 11:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Thanks john
Admin  
#8 Posted : 16 October 2008 12:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Della Pearlman You should also check the 2 items below: The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 S.I. 3004 state that “ No window, skylight or ventilator shall be in a position when open which is likely to expose any person in the workplace to a risk to his health or safety.” and BS 8213-1: 2004 Windows, doors and rooflights – Part 1: Design for safety in use and during cleaning of windows, including door-height windows and roof windows, says that safety restrictors should be fitted to accessible opening lights where children or adults are at risk of falling out.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 16 October 2008 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ITK Brenda have you reported the incident via RIDDOR. If you have, be ready for a visit from the enforcing authority and give reasons as to why you did not have window restrictors in place. ITK
Admin  
#10 Posted : 16 October 2008 16:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TT I've investigated a fatality not a million miles away from this accident. Drink was certainly involved along with a fair degree of unfortunate temporary lunancy. My opinion is that window restrictors are there to prevent accidents. Sounds straightforward I know, but where an individual purposefully bypasses controls then they choose to place themselves in increased danger. There are a million and one caveats to that comment though to include the health & social care setting etc. and I don't think I need to go into them (just saying it now so I don't get flamed on here!). I would have expected window restrictors to be in place (they were in my investigation but were being regularly broken by 'intelligent' students living in the rooms). Questions that arose included whether using breakable restrictors in the first place was such a good idea. Also, how often should those responsible for the premises be inspecting the restrictors, what should you do when you find them broken? The individuals described in this scenario (and here I go tarnishing all with a broad brush) don't sound like those who would take care not to break them if they thought they could get more air into the room to clear cigarette smoke, or even just for the fun of it. How good should the restrictors be? How good CAN they be against a determined individual? Minimum strength must prevent against breakage in the case of a fall against the window, but how much more? An interesting investigation albeit tragic for the individual involved. Conclusion was that the premises was not at fault but certainly could have been doing more in terms of checking up on the effectiveness of their controls and taking greater action against residents damaging property. Such thoughts might be of use during your investigation.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 16 October 2008 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Unfortunately the only fool proof answer is bars affixed externally. Planners then think they are approving a prison however. It can however be done aesthetically with false balcony fronts and top hinged windows. Bob
Admin  
#12 Posted : 16 October 2008 18:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By bill reilly to all who would be the enforcing authority for this type of accomodation ?
Admin  
#13 Posted : 16 October 2008 18:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Youel fit restrictors as advised - see the building regs Recently I had a person commit suicide and another started a serious fire on an 8 story high roof! - Both cases were the results of windows being replaced without adequate gap restrictors being in place The argument of allowing somebody freedom of choice etc is no argument when you have a dead persons parents to talk to!
Admin  
#14 Posted : 17 October 2008 10:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TT Re: Enforcing Authority It would depend on who owns and runs the property ultimately. Most privately run or charitable hotels, hostels etc. fall to the Local Authority to enforce but obviously if it is an LA owned and run premises then the HSE would be the enforcing authority instead. Private residential care homes fall to the LA whilst nursing homes fall to the HSE.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 17 October 2008 12:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Thank you for further replies. No I haven't reported it as a RIDDOR, and having just checked with the HSE it would depend on whether we were at fault. If we didn't have windown restrictors when it is deemed we should have, then yes we would be at fault. I have been out to investigate and further questions regarding the HSE guidance you directed me to. The guidance regarding the HSE guidance was revised in June 2007, what was there prior to this? Also, you say the building regs talk about window restrictors, can you point me in the direction of which sections please? Approved doc N talks about the risk of falling but points you to doc K, which talks about windows actually falling out! So any help would be appreciated!
Admin  
#16 Posted : 17 October 2008 13:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By graeme12345 it was his fault not yours, and until enough people stand up and say enough is enough ( in a court of law) it will always be some one else's fault
Admin  
#17 Posted : 17 October 2008 18:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By bill reilly Brenda There was HSE guidance in 2001 along similar lines.Sorry I no longer have a copy.It was aimed mainly at NHS ,care homes and psychiatric units. Are the premises subject to CSCI inspection /standards ?If so there might be some documentation from any of their inspections. I am surprised that the HSE suggested that reporting under RIDDOR depended upon you being at fault.As I understood it ,the test is if the accident arose out of or in connection with your undertaking.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 20 October 2008 09:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Hi Bill, Yes I was surprised too; however, I think what they meant was had there been window restrictors which were non able to be manually over ridden and the resident had broken them or deliberately forced them off, then they wouldn't consider this reportable. Anyway, it's been reported!
Admin  
#19 Posted : 20 October 2008 11:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jhty01 Buy Online cheap Generic Dugs like Generic Viagra,Edegra,Meltabs,Silagra,Kamagra from Trusted website http://www.pharmaexpressrx.com. want to buy Generic Levitra Online please visit http://www.kamagrastore.co.uk Want to buy Edegra 100mg Pills online then please visit http://www.cheapest-edegra.com Suffering From Erectile Dysfunction or Impotence,Don't Worry;because you can now Buy Online cheap Generic Drugs like Generic Viagra,Edegra,Meltabs,Silagra,Kamagra from Trusted website pharmaexpressrx.com. We offer FDA-approved prescription drugs, quick shipping, and free secure online medical consultations.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 20 November 2008 13:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brenda H Just re-raised this one.... There isn't any fire guidance or building reg guidance (please don't tell me to look at the bld regs as I find them all a bit daunting and confusing!) which states that HMO properties should be able to be fully opened is there? If there was a fire then the brigade aren't going to worry about a window restrictor are they? Surely they'll just pop the window? Anyone with fire background/experience able to comment? THanks
Admin  
#21 Posted : 20 November 2008 13:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Guderian I was taught by my fire safety mentor, that unless specifically designed, windows are not considered as a normal escape route, in the event of a fire. So I don't think this bit is relevant to this discussion
Admin  
#22 Posted : 19 December 2008 12:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Fire Fly Climbing out of windows at heights in a drucken state can be hazardous for anyone. It is difficult to legislate or manage against individual or group stupidity and therefore corrective measures must be based on the lowest common denominator principle. The security and safety measure described all have merit but also consider preventive strategies such as enforced alcohol and illegal drug bans for residents as a start. By being in control of their senses and faculties it would reduce drastically the potential for harm or injury to themselves or others
Admin  
#23 Posted : 19 December 2008 12:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GeoffB4 Brainstorm: Sheltered accommodation with rented or leasehold residents. Does the same apply for windows? Fire: A extension to a private domestic premises was allowed only if one of the upstairs windows was changed to a casement type - to allow escape in the event of a fire. Surely the principle is the same as premises in London where some official escape routes are through windows and on to the roofs of adjacent buildings?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.