Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Rich T
One of our "sister" companies has no fire detection system in it's warehouse (or suppression system either - but that's another issue).
The guys up there say that their insurers seem to be content with that situation and they are therefore reluctant to do install anything, saying that the plant is staffed on a 24 hr basis, and that the staff themselves would provide the necessary detection.
I don't think that this would be considered "suitable" or "sufficient", or meet the requirements of section 2 of HASAWA.
What other views are there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Heathrow
Had exactly the same problem, except no emergency lighting, periodic tests of electrics or gas systems either. Leaving now for new pastures. The insurance passed a site which was a total disgrace, I honestly couldn't believe it.
Makes you look bl**dy stupid and destroys your credability with the board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By stevehaigh
Surely you should base the need for fire detection on the results of a fire risk assessment... ignition sources & fuel sources, human behaviour, springs to mind, plus a proactive fire safety management system If you determine the risk is low then I would agree that there is no requirement for a detection system
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rich T
In my view (as an outside observer to their situation) their warehouse is reasonably large and open plan. There are ignition sources inside (FLT charging stations located within the racking.) In mitigation, there is nothing particularly hazardous stored within.
The store is however part of the overall factory and the shop floor has quite a few power presses and is generally a noisy environment, necessitating the wearing of hearing protection in large areas. This gives me cause for concern as anyone simply shouting "Fire" is unlikely to make themselves heard in there. The attached 2 storey office block would also give me concern, as a fire would probably be well established before they became aware of it.
I'm going to ask for their FRA and see what has been said. But I am staggered at the insurance inspectors view that this situation was acceptable to them. It has weakened my potential case tremendously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Notice your concern for "attached" parts of the site. The risk assessment should take into account the boundaries between these sections, what fire ratings do they have? If sufficient, then there is much more time to raise the alarm, if just a thin plasterboard wall then there would be more concern.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Rich T, I do plenty of work for insurance companies, each has its own criteria for acceptability and much will depend on the commercial realities. If your warehouse is a small part of a larger business empire with large premiums then the one-off substandard warehouse will not greatly affect their commercial judgement. Also depends what's in the warehouse, values, business impact of loss etc.
They are first and foremost commercial organisations, not enforcement agencies although they may seek to enforce their own risk improvements on their customers.
It is also important to understand that the property insurers will have different views from the liability insurers. Even if it turns out to be the same company, different departments don't routinely communicate!
Another consideration - was it the insurers who "passed the building" or your brokers? If the latter then they were probably compiling a risk profile for the insurers who may still want to carry out their own survey.
Bottom line is, rely on your own FRA, not the insurers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rich T
Thanks for all the comments. Taking a pragmatic view, I can see that as this operation IS part of a larger business enterprise and therefore part of a much larger profile of risk , then the overall level of risk may well prove to be "acceptable" to the insurer.
I understand that the warehouse only holds easily replaceable raw materials for manufacturing and no more than about 2 days worth of production. So I think I can see where this is leading, from the insurers point of view.
However, I still have concerns over the employee aspects and my opinion is that in the event of a serious injury or death as a result of a fire, it would be impossible to justify that there was nothing more that could reasonably have been done to prevent the situation.
I'm still waiting (with interest) to see their FRA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.