Just to summerise :

The Law - RRFSO - does not explicity state they are needed - its the FRA that needs to identify if they needed and if not why not  it states "take measures for fire-fighting in the premises, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of the undertaking and of the premises concerned."

The provision and maintenance of fire extinguishers is also covered by BS5306, which gives guidelines as to which extinguishers to use where and on what type of fire. - this is guidance and not law.  The British Standard 5306 provides a formula for calculating the number of Class A fire extinguishers needed. At its simplest, it involves applying the rule of thumb that one 13A extinguisher covers 200 square metres of floor area. To work out how many 13A extinguishers are required, divide the floor area by 200 then round up the figure. There should be a minimum of two extinguishers per floor (giving a combined rating of at least 26A) unless the upper floor area is less than 100 square metres and is single occupancy. In that case, only a minimum rating of 13A is required on that upper floor.

HSE - do not state they are specifically needed - "should" is used in information.

So just tell me - do I need them - you would always refer back to your FRA, if in doubt put them in, but always remember your insurance conpany may invalidate your policy without adequate fire fighting controls.

Edited by user 14 September 2018 07:38:40(UTC)  | Reason: correction to law

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

We don't have a single fire extinguisher in our offices. We have fire sprinklers. No training required.

So "take measures for fire-fighting in the premises" is mains system - the law doesnt dictate what system is used, just need to ensure something is in place.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

We don't have a single fire extinguisher in our offices. We have fire sprinklers. No training required.

It would be a brave risk assessment that said that no extinguishers were required solely using the argument that a sprinkler sysem was fitted!!!!!

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the term 'where necessary' means just that. It allows each case to be taken on its own merits - aka a FRA. It prevents  the ridiculous situation of each market stall in a covered market, or a small portable cabin being forced to be provided an extinguisher.

However, after giving this post some thought, I really cannot think of a single building I know of that is fitted with sprinklers that would be suitable for waiving the provision of extinguishers. Sprinklers are generally fitted to larger or taller buildings or those which present a certain risk (basements, bulk storage or data halls etc).  Surely all or 99.9999% of these would require extinguishers?

With the exception of common areas of blocks of flats that may be fitted with sprinklers, I really cannot see the installation of sprinklers as an automatic reason not to have extinguishers. They are first aid firefighting equipment designed to be used in the fire's early stages and perhaps before the stage where life is at risk. There can often be cases where fires produce little heat - levels below that to fracture a sprinkler bulb - but will produce lots of smoke early on in its development . An extinguisher if used competently and in time, can prevent fires developing further.

Let me be clear, I am not critising sprinklers as I am a self confessed fan, but their role in a fire is NOT the same as an extinguisher. A sprinkler system is designed to contain a partially developed fire, control smoke spread and provide time for people to escape. Extinguishers are aimed at early intervention well before the fire has developed to a point that it will activate a sprinkler bulb

I would be interested to hear others views on this especially WatsonD who perhaps could describe the risk profile of the building they are referring to

Toe: 

I cannot understand any care provider anywhere - let alone Scotland with its recent history - would penny pinch over a few extinguishers. With 10 residents, its not going to be a huge building I would imagine??

Have you considered Brittania P50s? These are so-called service free extinguishers that may be more acceptable to this person. 

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that sprinklers are not first aid firefighting equipment?Incidentially, are the residents ambulant and able to self rescue in a timely matter - even if on sleep enhancing medication at night?

Good luck

messey - my post was intended as a bit tongue-in-cheek as it wasn't in any way an answer to the OP, but as you have called me out I shall attempt to elaborate. Yes the office I work in has not got any fire extinguishers. It is a single story open plan office, with a small kitchenette which has a microwave and an urn. Other than that there are two toilets. The office is approximately 9,000  ft2 and has three fire exits. We have 30 people working in the building. We have a fully functional fire sprinkler system. I should add that we are a sprinkler installation company. The greatest risk of a fire is in the kitchenette where we have a fire blanket. We also have a fire alarm.

I agree the sprinkler system does not fulfil the same requirement as an extinguisher but I have deemed the risk to be acceptable.

Oh, and go easy on the exclamation marks, one is enough to make your point! LOL

DaveBridle - I was directly responding to a question posed by Messey, which is why I named him specifically in the post, but as you ask: the fire blanket was put in the kitchen before we moved in. I saw no reason to remove it as it is not obtrusive, thinking it might come in useful one day.

In one of my clients offices, we have an urn and microwave. There is no fire blanket, but when we had a recent external audit conducted we were challenged on the no fire blanket.

I explianed as others have, that as there is no cooker, there is no hot fat's/oils being used so no need.

His answer was quite funny really but it went along the lines of,

If a member of staff cooks something in the microwave and inadvertently puts it on for 20 mins not 2 and then walks away and forgets, it could be a food that has a high oil/fat content and could catch fire. A blanket could then be used to smother the fire that is inside the microwave.

As soon as the auditor left, I advised the MD to not renew the contract with them and go elsewhere for his external audit.. In my mind it was shocking advice coming from a professional.

Kmorrow

Fire safety legislation is all aimed at life safety (and not property or asset protection).  With that aim in mind, Fire Safety Order 2005 states:

• Article 21(1) - an employer must provide training
• Article 21(2) - that the training should include he 'appropriate precautions'

Therefore, if having the fire extinguishers is part of your emergency plan aimed at protecting life (ie for securing a protecting an escape route), then staff must receive training. 

However, is an extinguisher in a vehicle part of a life safety strategy?  For a PCV perhaps, but not usually for a car. But then add on the fact that a the Fire Safety Order doesnt apply in roadworthy vehicles (ie those subject to a road licence) then the duty to provide training isnt there.

How about providing a one sheet of A4 to/for all drivers. It should provide instructions how to use the extinguishers, but even more importantly, details of when not to and how to use it safely? Add a few FAQs and that may be sufficient. IMO, for vehicles other than PCVs, evacuating the vehcile and calling 999 is a sensible strategy and not one that asks an employee to fight a car fire with a tiny powder extinguisher

As I said, for PCV and vehicles carrying hazardous cargoes, different rules apply in relation to the provision extinguishers, and be aware that some fleet insurance companies will require them

In the examples posted by by member firesafety01 in post #8, there is the case of a hotel, Travellers Rest, and the report included:

failure to provide adequate means of fighting a fire

failure to protect the means of escape from the effects of fire.

So on his hotel premises the prosecutors are are saying fighting of a fire is an expected action, and to protect means of escape. Having fire extinguishers is one way to do both, or maybe just sprinklers? 'Fighting a fire' suggests extinguishers to me. I would certainly include it if I was writing their fire risk assessment.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

We don't have a single fire extinguisher in our offices. We have fire sprinklers. No training required.

Good job it's an office othnerwise the smoke would kill you before the sprinkler went off.

It's worrying that a lot of professionals on here don't know that a pre-action sprinkler system can be connected to smoke detectors (or heat sensors).

So 'the smoke won't kill you before the sprinklers go off''.