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
jasonraggett  
#1 Posted : 16 February 2019 09:55:30(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
jasonraggett

here is one for you lovely people. was talking to a client the other day and they said they had been given an enforcement notice by LFB due to the fire stopping in the building not being up to standard( large residential property), they then got their fire doors checked out and found that all of them are not up to code either and will have to be replaced. this is a new build and my client is the facilities company. the builders wont take responsibility as they say it was all signed off, and it is being left to the facilities company to pay. my question is how the hell does one get this worked signed of in this climate, and why are the LFB not going after the builders.
any ideas.
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 16 February 2019 12:07:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

It is always the responsibility of the owner / occupier

Manchester's Beetham tower has safety issues with its glazing but the contractor has gone bust https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/02/01/beetham-tower-owner-ordered-to-replace-glazing/ 

It is an unfortunate time in construction as materials and methods considered suitable in the past have come under increased scrutiny since June 2017 http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128007-Fire-Door-Testing

No one ethical sets out to design a building that does not meet the building regulations "applicable at the time" however between design and hand over there are many trades whose work is not fully scrutinised (and may have been poor) and involved cost reduction material switches by the various subbies. As with cladding issues your client needs legal scrutiny of the contracts and designs to see if the builder has breached contract to bring civil suit BUT that would be cost recovery not waiting to see if you can get them to pay up front.

Sign off does not necessarily mean it was thoroughly (lifting flooring, raising ceiling tiles, looking in service runs) and competently examined from a fire control view point, and then to which current knowledeg base time of design / time of approval / time of contruction / time of fit-out / handover / snagging / sign off

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC), jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 16 February 2019 12:07:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

It is always the responsibility of the owner / occupier

Manchester's Beetham tower has safety issues with its glazing but the contractor has gone bust https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/02/01/beetham-tower-owner-ordered-to-replace-glazing/ 

It is an unfortunate time in construction as materials and methods considered suitable in the past have come under increased scrutiny since June 2017 http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128007-Fire-Door-Testing

No one ethical sets out to design a building that does not meet the building regulations "applicable at the time" however between design and hand over there are many trades whose work is not fully scrutinised (and may have been poor) and involved cost reduction material switches by the various subbies. As with cladding issues your client needs legal scrutiny of the contracts and designs to see if the builder has breached contract to bring civil suit BUT that would be cost recovery not waiting to see if you can get them to pay up front.

Sign off does not necessarily mean it was thoroughly (lifting flooring, raising ceiling tiles, looking in service runs) and competently examined from a fire control view point, and then to which current knowledeg base time of design / time of approval / time of contruction / time of fit-out / handover / snagging / sign off

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC), jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
SNS  
#4 Posted : 16 February 2019 15:12:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SNS

If the building is very new there might be a warranty period after handover - sometimes up to 12 years. In a previous job we were very grateful to have the warranty in place as, when doing alterations after 9 years or so a lot of problems came to light. The original building contractor - a major player in the UK - is paying for the repairs and on-costs.

I believe that the problems stem from a lack of 'Clerk of Works' posts being on site to find and correct faults before completion.

thanks 1 user thanked SNS for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
paul.skyrme  
#5 Posted : 16 February 2019 17:06:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

It's also down to the sub-sub-sub... contractor mentality, the pay peanuts get monkeys, the, it’s not my problem coz I'll not be here next week, the use of agency labour who are anonymous, the lack of proper training, the profit above everything else, including safety mentality etc. that is the cancer that is rife in the construction industry.
Also, yes , the lack of the CoW role.
The just get it done, we'll worry about putting it right if it gets picked up on snagging, otherwise we'll get away with it.

All of these are common on big sites.

What is needed is the “right first time” concept from volume manufacturing where the cost if scrap and rework etc is understood.
thanks 2 users thanked paul.skyrme for this useful post.
SNS on 16/02/2019(UTC), jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
Messey  
#6 Posted : 17 February 2019 07:57:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Messey

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

It is always the responsibility of the owner / occupier

You are absolutely right, the 'Responsible Person' is always the employer, or where there's no employer, the person in control, or the owner if there is no person in control.

However article 5(4) says:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to—

(a)the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or

(b)the safety of any premises,

that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, if you are responsible for ensuring fire safety in any way, you can be treated as the Responsible Person as far as your duties extend. So a fire alarm engineer could be prosecuted if he fails to maintain the alarm system or a fire consultant can be prosecuted if he or she provides a useless fire risk assessment.

The LFB know this, but take a view that they will always go after the Resp Person (employer or person in control) - because it makes their life easier. They say its the RP's problem if they have used a cowboy and not theirs. I think that is a bit harsh as being an enforcer, they need to hit anyone that is routinely breaking the law, not just the RP

 They considered using a 5(4) prosecution against the Manager(s) of the branch of New Look in Oxford Street a few years back (Google New Look fire Oxford St). This would have sent a huge message to branch managers of large businesses. But the LFB legal team backed away.

There's a new residential building near where I live that has effectively been evacuated as fire stopping was not carried out effectively, despite being signed off.

I am afraid this is how it will be - and should be - after Grenfell.

 

thanks 1 user thanked Messey for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 17 February 2019 14:42:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Tried to avoid comment regarding tennants (4 b) as post Grenfell a number of management companies have used weasel wording around maintenance contracts to place the burden of replacing cladding firmly on those who are renting or have purchased property within a building.

IMHO there is maintenance - replacing broken windows, painting, boiler up keep etc. i.e. wear and tear - which are part of the annual charges set within a contract. Then there is refurbishment or re-fit neither of which should be included in a fair contract due to their unknown and/or excessive costs.

With limited resources why should LFB pursue others when they have identified failings and someone who is required to put them right. Post enquiry and with new statutory responsibilities within the supply chain clearly defined there may be more appetite to expend resource to pursue the underlying cause of problems.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC), jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 17 February 2019 14:42:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Tried to avoid comment regarding tennants (4 b) as post Grenfell a number of management companies have used weasel wording around maintenance contracts to place the burden of replacing cladding firmly on those who are renting or have purchased property within a building.

IMHO there is maintenance - replacing broken windows, painting, boiler up keep etc. i.e. wear and tear - which are part of the annual charges set within a contract. Then there is refurbishment or re-fit neither of which should be included in a fair contract due to their unknown and/or excessive costs.

With limited resources why should LFB pursue others when they have identified failings and someone who is required to put them right. Post enquiry and with new statutory responsibilities within the supply chain clearly defined there may be more appetite to expend resource to pursue the underlying cause of problems.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC), jasonraggett on 18/02/2019(UTC)
Invictus  
#9 Posted : 18 February 2019 10:14:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

It is always the RP as they should ensure that they have employed a competent contractor to complete works although finding them is hard even when you use 3rd party certified and on say FIRAS register you can't alays be certain they are competent.

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.