Rank: Super forum user 
|
FireSafety101 wrote:While discussing the fire and rescue service rescuing people from fires it is worth noting the extra distances they have to travel and the longer time it takes to get there.
This morning there was a fire fatality in Wirral, the local station, 2 minutes way is now unmanned due to recent cut backs in the service, so the next nearest station about 14 minutes away was sent. Another fire appliance was sent from a station in Liverpool, maybe 20 or so minutes away.
I would not like to be waiting that long for rescue when I was trapped in a building on fire.
Further to the above there has been a quote feom a senior fire officer to the effect that they were dealing with another incident at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ray try this Section 1 -1.1 says that a PEEP's should not be reliant upon the input of the fire and rescue services.
https://www.gov.uk/gover..._Means_of_Escape_v2_.pdf
I am not saying they wouldn'rt assist but the PEEP cannot state in the refuge etc that the Fire ande Rescue service will rescue them you need to have a plan to move them from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Invictus
Thanks for referencing the document.
If you can't rely on the fire and rescue service then it's back to square one. No member of staff on site and by the time someone is despatched the F&R will be at the scene. I think I'm going crackers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp wrote:Invictus
Thanks for referencing the document.
If you can't rely on the fire and rescue service then it's back to square one. No member of staff on site and by the time someone is despatched the F&R will be at the scene. I think I'm going crackers.
Ray if you read all of the Government documents it tells the same thing, sleeping accommadation, Healthcare Premises etc.
I have always felt the same but should we be putting the FRS at risk because we have not completed our role. We have here what people have deemed to be a refuge points, they do not even meet the criteria for refuge points but on my first fire evacuation drill I asked what they do we people in the refuge point they said wait for FRS and were surprised when I told them that they can't.
I suppose it's 'Those who create the risk, Must control the risk'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I fully understand the principles of those who create the risk must manage it - HSE love this mantra as well. However, where the risk has materialised beyond the control of lay people, surely we must be able to rely on the specialist skills of the blue light services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray,
I have just had a conversation with our property services who are convinced the FRS would rescue you but if I am writing the risk assessment and all guidance is pointing towards not relying on it then I will look at all alternatives. It could be my assessment that6 either kills people or jails me.
When I worked in the prison I was told in no uncertain terms by both the local FRS and the Crown Premises Inspection Group (CPIG) that R/A should not have in them 'rescue by FRS'. For that reason I still do not put it.
I don't disagree with yours or others sentiments around the subject but that appears to be the way it is.
Thinking about it I pay extra IOSH subs for the Fire and had one seminar, maybe this could be the basis of another calling in the professionals and going through it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray in BS 9999 sheltered housing it states 'a log should be kept of any residents who require assitance in a fire situation in order to evacuate their dwelling and or the building and the fire rescue service should be made aware of the lg and it's location. The log might form part of the fire safety manual.
If you have a copy of the 9999 it's under Annex Q - Q6
There is a lot more to it but I can't cut and paste.../
Looks like a big slice of humble pie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Invictus wrote:FireSafety101 wrote:To support my last post here is the section of the same Regulations relating to the FRS requirements at road traffic accidents.
You will see the specific requirement for rescues.
Road traffic accidents
(1)A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—
(a)rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents in its area;
(b)protecting people from serious harm, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, in the event of road traffic accidents in its area.
(2)In making provision under subsection (1) a fire and rescue authority must in particular—
(a)secure the provision of the personnel, services and equipment necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements;
(b)secure the provision of training for personnel;
(c)make arrangements for dealing with calls for help and for summoning personnel;
(d)make arrangements for obtaining information needed for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1);
(e)make arrangements for ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to prevent or limit damage to property resulting from action taken for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).
Don't get what your on about, I said all along that the rescue service don't acarryout rescues, that is why if you have arefuge point you then need a plan on how you are getting them out WITHOUT relying on the FB.
Does anyone? Lots of useful cut and paste information ;-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is still annoying me as I am yet to see the point. I create a list and leave it for the fire rescue, Then it is up to either the warden which I don't have or the fire brigade to come and tell the residents what action to take. Now I have advised the residents as of 9999 not to fight the fire and to stay indoors until intructed to take aother actions.
The person who is disabled goes out when we have no one on duty, therefore we have no fire warden and the disabled person does not need to tell anyway of his wherabouts. I now have the fire rescue servce looking at the log and going to the property knocking on a door where no one is at home and perhaps knocking the door down to rescue someone who isn't in.
I still don't see the point and it is yet another arse covering exercise by a profession that is already accused ridiculed.
Who is to blame when someone from the fire service dies because he is knocking on a door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why would the firefighter knock on the door while he has a fire to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
FireSafety101 wrote:Why would the firefighter knock on the door while he has a fire to fight.
Because it says that the person will be advertised to stay behind his door until he is instructed by either a warden (there isn't one) or by the fire brigade, so I gather they will either be shouting everyobne out or they will knock to get the attention of the occupier. I didn't write 9999 so i don't know what they will expect and that is why I have been saying all along it is pointless writing a PEEP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
FireSafety101 wrote:While discussing the fire and rescue service rescuing people from fires it is worth noting the extra distances they have to travel and the longer time it takes to get there.
This morning there was a fire fatality in Wirral, the local station, 2 minutes way is now unmanned due to recent cut backs in the service, so the next nearest station about 14 minutes away was sent. Another fire appliance was sent from a station in Liverpool, maybe 20 or so minutes away.
I would not like to be waiting that long for rescue when I was trapped in a building on fire.
Further to the above there has been a quote from a senior fire officer to the effect that they were dealing with another incident at the time.
All else aside I request you all sign this petition.
A second person, a female died in hospital resulting from the fire as above.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/109780
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
PEEP for sheltered = No. "Very Sheltered" - more likely.
Beyond that, if you take on the responsibility, do you have a bed for the night and alt. accommodation available?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray
I suspect it will be intended for manufacturers mainly and people such as yourself will be marginal. I have to admit that I remain uneasy that residents who cannot function within the general FE requirements are in a building that does not have continuous support available. All this talk of PEEPS is merely an attempted fig leaf and sticking plaster to a fundamental risk. Unfortunately it will require some fatalities for the law makers and shakers to really address the problem. Landlords who fail to bite the bullet and staff up adequately will however be in the direct line of fire at that point. The only alternative is to consider how to manage the risks and this could include residency terminations in extremis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=boblewis]Ray
I suspect it will be intended for manufacturers mainly and people such as yourself will be marginal. I have to admit that I remain uneasy that residents who cannot function within the general FE requirements are in a building that does not have continuous support available. All this talk of PEEPS is merely an attempted fig leaf and sticking plaster to a fundamental risk. Unfortunately it will require some fatalities for the law makers and shakers to really address the problem. Landlords who fail to bite the bullet and staff up adequately will however be in the direct line of fire at that point. The only alternative is to consider how to manage the risks and this could include residency terminations in extremis
This will have to be extended to all landlords including local council, how many people do you think live in this type of accommodation, and I'm talking about 2/3/4 bedroom houses who's children have grown up and left and they are elderly and have mobility problems. How many asthmatics people with breathing problems are out there who would be affected by smoke, blind people, deaf we would have to take the whole country in council accommodation into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob, I agree it's an unsatisfactory state of affairs. That said, there are a number of difficult issues to overcome. For example, many of those who are in sheltered housing did not have health issues when they were first housed, mobility, vision impairment, cognitive disorders often come with age. Residents dislike being moved from a sheltered scheme to an extra care or care home where they will get better support and we cannot force them against their will.
Then there is the issue of staffing and the quality of the care. Sheltered scheme co-ordinators get typically about £25K in London. Unfortunately for this type of salary you end with staff with the very basic skills. It's all very well to sit back and say we should be doing this and that...in the real world there are many difficult issues to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Invictus wrote:quote=boblewis]Ray
I suspect it will be intended for manufacturers mainly and people such as yourself will be marginal. I have to admit that I remain uneasy that residents who cannot function within the general FE requirements are in a building that does not have continuous support available. All this talk of PEEPS is merely an attempted fig leaf and sticking plaster to a fundamental risk. Unfortunately it will require some fatalities for the law makers and shakers to really address the problem. Landlords who fail to bite the bullet and staff up adequately will however be in the direct line of fire at that point. The only alternative is to consider how to manage the risks and this could include residency terminations in extremis
This will have to be extended to all landlords including local council, how many people do you think live in this type of accommodation, and I'm talking about 2/3/4 bedroom houses who's children have grown up and left and they are elderly and have mobility problems. How many asthmatics people with breathing problems are out there who would be affected by smoke, blind people, deaf we would have to take the whole country in council accommodation into account.
Excellent point, Invictus.
I wonder what would happen if I broke my leg, or developed some life limiting condition. Would I be forced to sell my house? Where would I be housed? Would I need to go into care?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To push this problem to cover ALL social housing stock is a bit of a nonsense to minimise the problem by an argument ad absurdum. Escape from a single occupancy home is very different to a multiple occupancy building - It applies to all premises in multiple occupation however and we cannot avoid that. Many charity homes I have worked for have had removal policies since the 1980s and yes it is very sad and delicate when one has to exercise such clauses but can you consciously place such people at measurable risk of life and limb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=boblewis]To push this problem to cover ALL social housing stock is a bit of a nonsense to minimise the problem by an argument ad absurdum. Escape from a single occupancy home is very different to a multiple occupancy building - It applies to all premises in multiple occupation however and we cannot avoid that. Many charity homes I have worked for have had removal policies since the 1980s and yes it is very sad and delicate when one has to exercise such clauses but can you consciously place such people at measurable risk of life and limb?
One it maybe be but it is likened to the problem that if you have no employees and and no wardens then writing something for the sake is equally nonsense, unless you come from the school of write it because it covers your arse thought.
The FRS do not have to rescue you and your assessment cannot include this. That is a fact! so without other people who may have respocibilities then you are writing it to cover your arse.
And if you are doing it for buildings were no one baring the owner/Landlord has responsibilty then why don't the local council have the same responsbility?
Within these buildinbgs you could have people with disabilities visiting they do not have to declare it, residents do not have to declare disabilites even mobilty disbilities and you cannot just look at he can't walk or walks with a stick, they might have heart disease, asthma, they might not be able to cope in new situations autism etc.
So without support they might not be able to go out. We would be better looking at the type of passive fire detection and ensuring thatr this was top standard instead o0f concentrating on a piece of paper with little to no value, but that would cost money so lets write a PEEP, well done that's one person who thinks he is safe and isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Passive fire without detection as this would make it reactive, but we could put in sprinkler systems quality alrms etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The detail is in the name? Most buildings of multiple occupancy, as described in this thread, are not 'sheltered' schemes but 'retirement housing', designed specifically to provide safe/secure accommodation which supports independent living. There are few such buildings out there that have a traditional warden system as defined under a 'sheltered scheme'. The exception to this may be where you have retirement housing which provides, normally through a third party, on site round the clock care to specific residents. Any PEEP required under these circumstances would be completed by the care team and the site manager in cooperation with the customer/resident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Invictus wrote:Passive fire without detection as this would make it reactive, but we could put in sprinkler systems quality alrms etc.
I know it is a major cost, but I agree on the installation fire sprinklers that are going to put the fire out.
The other options are all about buying time in the hope that it will be long enough.
As discussed in another post last week sprinklers are now mandatory in both Wales and Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To add another twist to this thread, I have just received a call from a senior fire officer advising me a letter will soon be sent to all LAs advising them that they will need to take into account the vulnerabilities of residents in sheltered schemes and the fire suppression controls in the individual flats via the FRA.
Why? Apparently because these properties are used/occupied by staff i.e. carers and part-time scheme co-ordinators, handymen, etc, they have been deemed a place of work...or something to that effect. Hey ho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So back to the LA's in dwellings they have property services, home helps etc.does this mean that all dwellings even ue council housing will be workpolaces, if they are only going in to work in the property?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is this a direct action from the FRS cuts! Make others do more so you do less, they could inadvertently end up with more cuts if all areas are protecting properties to a high standard, we won't need them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jwk wrote:It's hard to be definitive here, but my feeling is that for partly staffed sheltered housing you wouldn't have PEEPs. Where I have developed PEEPs for sheltered housing tenants it has been in situations where there are permanent staff, and where the people living in the accommodation have a high level of disability.
PEEPs which operate for only 3.5 hours a day would be a bit odd,
John
I have to agree with John. The landlord does not appear to have fire safety responsibilities here.
However, I would question the 3.5 hours support a day for the warden - what is this person doing and what is the relationship between the warden and the residence, or is this person only to manage the property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Toe wrote:jwk wrote:It's hard to be definitive here, but my feeling is that for partly staffed sheltered housing you wouldn't have PEEPs. Where I have developed PEEPs for sheltered housing tenants it has been in situations where there are permanent staff, and where the people living in the accommodation have a high level of disability.
PEEPs which operate for only 3.5 hours a day would be a bit odd,
John
I have to agree with John. The landlord does not appear to have fire safety responsibilities here.
However, I would question the 3.5 hours support a day for the warden - what is this person doing and what is the relationship between the warden and the residence, or is this person only to manage the property.
When my parents purchased their sheltered housing flat there was a full time warden living on site. After a year or so the warden was reduced to part time. No reduction in payments from the residents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In sheltered housing, the landlord has to comply with the fire safety aspects of the building regulations and some others laws. There is no employee/employer responsibility that is duty bound by fire safety laws that are applicable to the landlords.
When sheltered housing wardens are in place it has to be established in contract law their responsibilities including fire safety responsibilities (if any).
However, if a care provider is providing care for individuals in sheltered housing they may have fire safety responsibilities dependant on the level of care provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Back in the old days of YTS (Youth Training Schemes) the HSE saw placement organisations not taking any care to ensure workplaces were safe for the placement of young persons. That is until Sec 3 HASAWA was wheeled out - The business of these people was to place young persons into training places and thus they had a duty to conduct their business in such a manner that those not in their employ at risk from their activity. I can see a similar argument for those organisations who place people into accommodation. They should perhaps consider what risks they are creating for persons who cannot follow evacuation requirements. It is perhaps nothing to do with PEEPS at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You make an interesting point.
Responsibility of the placement = local council or healthcare body.
Responsibility for the fabric of the building = landlord, proprietor, housing association, owner etc.
Responsibility for the care (if required) = care provider.
This thing is; these are people within their own individual tenancy just like you and I. H&S and Fire Safety Laws are not generally designed to protect these people. This all changes if the person lacks capacity and has 24 hour care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Toe wrote:You make an interesting point.
Responsibility of the placement = local council or healthcare body.
Responsibility for the fabric of the building = landlord, proprietor, housing association, owner etc.
Responsibility for the care (if required) = care provider.
This thing is; these are people within their own individual tenancy just like you and I. H&S and Fire Safety Laws are not generally designed to protect these people. This all changes if the person lacks capacity and has 24 hour care.
You are taking it a tad too far - The argument rests on the business of the provider and its conduct towards persons not in its employ - It matters not that the persons are in accommodation units but rather who makes the decision to place them. One has to ensure suitability for the person to be placed. H&S law is there to protect ALL persons, not in the employment of the organisation, from the risks arising from the conduct of the business. Originally it was thought the YTS trainees were not in employment and thus HASAWA would not apply to work activities they undertook, therefore the placement organisation did not need to vet or monitor where the young people were placed. It is a very different picture today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You are correct in principle. But as I explain (lets keep to the OP) there a loads of people living in sheltered housing (and individual tenancies) some, for example have just come out of hospital. They are often given a tenancy by the council, into a building managed by a housing association. They accept the tenancy agreement and live there. Therefore, there is no business provider or employer relationship and no duty exists under HSAWA. The decision to be there is the individual themselves accepting to live there.
Now if a person lacks capacity, they will have a welfare guardianship order allowing another sound minded person to make judgements on their behalf, this may be council or care provider in which HSAWA applies (section 3). However, this gets tricky when the guardian is a family member or friend; again, although they hold the responsibility for the individual in general no H&S laws apply to them, no matter where they live.
The YTS if a completely different situation to this, because the training provider had a duty to place the youths in a safe place to work. To be read in conjunction with #70.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yoe
As you say someone ie the council, decides to place a person in a particular type of accommodation. At this point they are conducting a routine part of their business and thus sec 3 kicks in. They thus need to assess the risks to which they will expose the individual. Yes there may well be a guardian but this may indeed be also the council or even a person not in a position to assess. We will have to wait though for a fatality in these circumstances to see how the HSE might act. The use of PEEPS may well be useful and very necessary for situations with staff on 24/7 presence. Without such presence the only preventative measure has to be correct placement of suitable residents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So who writes the PEEP, is it the landlord who owns the property, saying he has 5 residents, all who pay rent directly to him, is it the company that the residents pay to have some care, say an 4 hours per week, or is it the residents themselves?
The first one only takes the money and does not care as long as the property is fit for use, The employee see's the person for 30 minutes a day so could ha make an assessment, the employer would be mainly concerned with his employees. Is it fair to have a long term resident on a floor close to the final exit and have someone move in with greater needs and move the person who is settled in his appartment to another flat so that you can accommadate the person with greater needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As the OP for this thread, I would like to add the guidance (LACORS, Fire Safety in Built Blocks, Sleeping Accommodation, etc) and the legislation (HSWA, RRFSO, Housing Act 2004, etc) is very nebulous when it comes to assessing the individual needs of residents and in particular PEEPs.
I have been asked again this morning about PEEPs in sheltered housing and my answer was as follows:
There is no explicit legal duty to carry out a PEEP that I know of for a vulnerable individual. That said, where we have full-time staff in a 'extra' care home there is no good reason not to carry out a PEEP. Where we do not have full-time staff it is pointless carrying out a PEEP. We could and I think should identify anyone with a disability which might impair their evacuation in some other way.
Not ending this thread, rather thanking all those who have contributed to this topic. I'll make sure my next question is more simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I liked the topic, it had me thinking so went to the HM Government website and got copies of the Sleeping Accommodation, residential premises because I was already working on thet and the Means of escape for disabled people.
The disabled people was a good read, and opened my eyes to othere areas that I did not consider and others maybe in the same boat, taking into account autism, cognative disabilities. So I am now asking the question what have PEEP's been covering until now.
I still don't like GEEP's not really keen on a generic fire PEEP, risk assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have to agree with Ray; the guidance and law is nebulous on this point. I'd also add that the guidance doesn't even have any easily identifiable legal status.
One point to consider is that sheltered housing is likely to be regarded as 'domestic premises' except for common areas. The RR(FS)O does not apply to domestic premises, except in very limited circumstances regarding the issuing of prohibition notices.
My experience with PEEPs is from work in residential care for severely disabled/ill people and hospices, where to be honest it would be impossible to discharge duties to 'relevant persons' without clear consideration of individual needs i.e PEEPS. I think if you had a situation where a number of people were in wheelchairs but were otherwise uncomplicated a GEEP would do the trick,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would have to disagree about GEEP,they become to generic, I have worked in the resdential sector for over 30 years, including secure units, prisoners, homes for the elderly and people with mental health issues and find that a GEEP is something that is thrown in, makes people feel better but does little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.