My view is that it's is just guidance the same as a British standard isn't a law. But it is seen as best practice so to ignore what would be seen as best practice then you would have to prove that you have an equal or better systems then the guidance or B.S. But if you follow the guidance document then this should ensure you are complying with the law as the guidance document is aimed at achieving what is required under the RRFSO and other BS documentation. Just like the highway code isn't law but code that if followed will ensure you don't break the law. But as a person or business you could enforce stricter requirements on your self or your employees. At least that's my interpretation which makes sense to me and hopefully others without getting bogged down in the legal stuff. Phil

John the fire service won't carry out evacuations because their job is to carry out rescues. There is a difference. That is why your fire safety strategy should ensure that all occupants are safe in the event of a fire (except for maybe those in the room of origin). In a residential home your strategy may not be to evacuate but to have a defend in place strategy. If you choose to have an evacuation strategy then it would be your responsibility to ensure the occupants are able to evacuate without outside assistance i.e. the fire service. How you achieve this is entirely down to you and your staffing levels but one system that is typically used in hospitals is progressive horizontal evacuation where you initially move occupants to a place of relative safety ensuring that there is fire resisting separation between the evacuating occupants and the fire. The RRO guidance documents are purely that, guidance. If you can meet the intent of the functional requirements of the building regs in another way that does not rely on the 'prescriptive' approach then that is fine. My view is that you may not be able to meet all the prescriptive requirements but you may 'trade off' advantages you have in one area against the disadvantages you have in another area. For example you may not be able to meet the prescriptive requirements for travel distance but you may have a fire detection system that is over and above the minimum required, you may then be able to argue that whilst your travel distances aren't quite as required in the guidance you do have a super dooper fire detection and alarm system that will alert a bit earlier therefore buying you a bit more time to start and complete your evacuation. This is what risk assessment is about.

Thanks Shaun, Yes, that's what it says in the guidance, and that's the approach we are taking. However, we would be very interested to know just how far we have to follow this line. As a very practical example, we have been asked by a local fire service to carry out practice evacutions using the minimum level of staff expected to be in the building at any time (that would be at night). Fair enough, BS27555 requires your MIP to be tested to reality, and I don't have a problem with that. The issue is this; the fire service is saying that the number of people we can safely evacuate should be the maximum number of people we can provide care for. I think there are a number of factors to take into account before we accept that as writ, and I am therefore interested in the status of this guidance. Ciaran's definition is true of guidance issued under HASAWA, but does the fire safety guidance have this status or is it closer to an ACOP? After all, fire services are using it to determine how we should manage our business, John

Thanks Roly, That's kind of what I was getting at. I have looked at those articles and thought this maybe added up to something like an ACOP. We get fire officers quoting this guidance as though it's the law, and if it is (i.e. it has the special status of an ACOP) then fair enough, if it isn't then maybe we need to be more prepared to argue the toss. Which is why I'd be interested in a view on what the courts might (or even have if there's some case law) think, John