How ridicless can you get! We all make a gaff on the rare occasion but this, the less said the better ... Badger

Perhaps the fire risk assessor has paid heed to the recent publication of Fire Safety in Purpose Built Blocks of Flats by the Local Government Group. In this document it states: 67. Fire extinguishing appliances 67.1 It is not normally considered necessary to provide fire extinguishers or hose reels in the common parts of blocks of flats. Such equipment should only be used by those trained in its use. It is not considered appropriate or practicable for residents in a block of flats to receive such training. 67.2 In addition, if a fire occurs in a flat, the provision of fire extinguishing appliances in the common parts might encourage the occupants of the flat to enter the common parts to obtain an appliance and return to their flat to fight the fire. Such a procedure is inappropriate. 67.3 Any proposal for the provision of fire extinguishing appliances, or continued presence of existing equipment, should be based only on full justification of the proposal by a fire risk assessment. Where hose reels are currently provided in a block of flats, it is recommended that, subject to consultation with the fire and rescue service, they be removed. 67.4 Notwithstanding the above, it is appropriate to provide portable fire extinguishers in: • plant rooms and similar ancillary accommodation • common community facilities • any staff rooms • places where people are employed to work and so forth. In sheltered housing, portable fire extinguishers should be provided in all common facilities, such as: • laundries and common lounges • ancillary accommodation • any commercial premises within the block, such as hairdressers. However, extinguishers need not be provided within flat corridors. 67.5 This does not preclude residents in any block of flats from providing their own equipment, such as fire blankets or fire extinguishers to tackle a fire in their own flat should they wish to do so. 67.6 Where fire extinguishers are provided, they should be installed in accordance with the recommendations of BS 5306-8. With the above in mind, it is difficult on the surface of things to find anything wrong with the action - whether it is morally right or wrong is another debate.

One would have thought so. A quick well known search engine search ran up this: http://www.info4fire.com...-flats-guidance-released I have a copy here, and in the foreward it also states the following: "...Guidance on the FSO and its requirements has been issued in a series of guides. Blocks of flats are included, among many other types of residential premises, in the HM Government guide ‘Fire safety risk assessment: sleeping accommodation’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). However, application of the FSO to blocks of flats has proved problematic: it has led to widely varying outcomes. In some buildings, significant work to upgrade fire safety standards within the common parts has been undertaken to satisfy this legislation. In others, none has been considered necessary. There has also been confusion over the scope of this legislation: how it relates to those who live in the flats, and, indeed, to what extent, if any, this legislation can require improvements beyond the flat entrance door. These are just two of the questions that tax those seeking to apply and enforce it. Enforcing authorities are often unfamiliar with the particular issues that can be found in existing blocks of flats. In addition many of those now giving advice to landlords and managing agents also have limited experience of these issues. Of particular concern is the resulting variation in the findings of fire risk assessments carried out by third parties on behalf of landlords and others responsible for fire safety in blocks of flats. This guide is intended to meet the needs of housing providers and enforcing authorities for guidance tailored to purpose-built blocks of flats. These buildings are only a small part of the scope of other guidance documents. This document is intended to assist responsible persons to comply with the FSO and the Housing Act 2004. Accordingly, it is expected that enforcing authorities will have regard to this guide..." Apologies for the blatant copy and paste, but in this instance it made sense to me to do that.

What if the risk assessor had been told that there had been continued missuse / abuse / theft of the portable fire extinguishers and that they had been used to break windows and had been thrown over baclonies at passing traffic? I've just made that up. It may be the case, it may not but if I were to FRA a building under those circumstances I might well conclude that the continued provision of portable fire fighting equipment presented a greater risk than not. Just playing Devil's advocat. ;-)

I do understand the reasoning. I have an aunt who lives in sheltered housing. What if I visited her and while inside her flat a fire broke out in the means of escape. Don't say it can't happen because it could. I would like a handy fire extinguisher to take with me on my escape to use to get past the fire.

Then again, the document/ guidance also mentions that if sheltered housing, etc., that has some kind of concierge service (their words), then portable fire fighting equipment/ fire alarms is OK to have. That said, generally, MoE (corridors, stairwells, etc., are generally low(er) risk. The flats themselves would normally be the higher risk areas (along with plant rooms, etc.). All flats should have fire doors to contain a fire to that area, allowing others a suitable (relatively safe) means of escape. Also, the tendency now is that most modern blocks have built in compartmentation between floors. Therefore, the general advice is to 'stay put' rather than evacuate if you are on a different floor, until the FRS arrive and evaluate the scanario.

As is often the case many a wise word is said in jest. Apart from their usual use for propping doors open, as Safety Smurf says they are used for putting in windows, or dropping onto police officers from a great height (as at Millbank)

Safety smurf - surprised at me? I'm surprised at you thinking I would not assist anyone else - how could you, 25 years fire brigade assisting persons out of burning buildings etc? DavidFS - what's the likelihood? Ask the residents of this nursing home those questions: http://edition.cnn.com/2...hazzard-death/index.html I suppose you will say it won't happen here? Nobody has mentioned arson as a potential cause of fire - those of us that do FRAs have to consider arson as it is one of the major causes of fires. Remember the recent riots? Cliveg - so the elderley residents of the sheltered housing complex are throwing extinguishers from the roof onto unsuspecting police officers are they? Everyone needs to think outside the box when risk assessing because there are no set circumstances to follow. There may ne two or more means of escape but any thoughtful arsonist can soon sort them out. You don't know what you don't know?

Clive it is not the housing complex under discussion but the removal of extinguishers. I appreciate the guidance from nickh above but there is no mention of Arson. The guide to fra in sleeping accommodation states “Recent studies indicate that over 2,100 serious deliberately set fires, resulting in two deaths and 55 injuries, occur every week. In premises used for sleeping accommodation it is estimated that 24% of all fires are deliberately set”. Regarding compartmentation I have many photos of breached fire compartments, some through services being installed and the walls not sealed afterward, others with incorrectly fitted fire dampers. No trust there. You say "In short I would rather things are not left where they could be misused, because it is an unfortunate that in many areas it is likely that they will be." IMO we should manage problems better rather than just remove the cause of the problem. Looking at the above stats it would suggest that HMOs are likely to be subjected to arson attacks and in that case it is more important to provide equipment necessary to assist people to evacuate and/or attack the fire. I see no problem with training occupiers in extinguisher use, whether it be do not use if the exit is clear or use if you need to. As long as the correct type and size extinguisher is initially provided and regularly checked it should be no problem. Another point must consider the recent introduction of delayed turn outs by FRS. If an AFD operates in a HMO that would mean the caretaker or someone else would have to check the zone then contact the FRS. If he/she spots a small fire that could be dealt with by one extinguisher it could be - if there was one available. If not available residents would be put at greater risk by awaiting longer for the arrival of the FRS.

Chris Ask the residents of this nursing home those questions: http://edition.cnn.com/2...azzard-death/index.html I suppose you will say it won't happen here? Can you find the link you intended for this post, the one you provided goes to a story about a 69 yr old basketball player dying after heart surgery...

In addition to all of the above comments I would like to add that at my place of work staff are informed not to fight fires using fire extinguishers as they could be harmed or put at greater risk should they use the wrong type of extinguisher on the wrong class of fire depending on what the fuel source is and how the extinguisher is used. Staff are instead instructed on how to operate and use an extinguisher and informed that they should only be used to aid escape from the building. Raising the alarm is seen as more important than wasting time trying to extinguish the fire and the extinguisher are only really for small developing fires.

nickh I take your point. It has been stated here on more than one occasion that guidance is just that and not the be all and end all. As I say you have to think out of the box as no two premises are the same, there is no one size fits all when it comes to safety and fire risk assessment.