Hi everyone, I've been a member of IOSH for a couple of years now, but first time I've posted. Been looking enviously at the thread of those people who have just completed their diplomas, I'm due to sit Unit B in January. The reason for my message is that the fire service in one of the Areas involved with my particular field of work has advised that if they receive a call-out to free persons trapped in a lift, they will attend, but will judge first if it is an emergency and their response time will alter accordingly. If they deem that it is not an emergency, then they will charge £600 for their attendance. This will affect one site where they suffer fairly frequent breakdowns, but where the lifts are maintained to statutory requirements. We do have a system in place that a trapped person can call through to the lift maintenance company, so that an engineer can attend, but in all likelihood this is likely to take at least 2 hours and obviously leaves the person in a very stressful environment. My question is whether others are aware of this approach, and which legislation covers this? (I've looked through the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order which states powers of inspectors, but I cannot see reference to their specific duties). I'm just wondering if there is any way we can fight this viewpoint if we are otherwise doing all that is reasonably practicable to do? Any advice/thoughts gratefully received!

I believe such charges are quite common

Ian, This can be a big problem for Fire Brigades. In London, 1 in 10 calls are for the release of someone trapped in a lift - over 16,000 calls in 2007/2008. Hence, The Fire and Rescue Services (England) Order 2004 gave the legal authority for Brigades to charge for non-emergency lift releases. (One that does not involve a seriously ill person and so does not require the attendance of an ambulance.) Policies seem to vary across the country - the LFB will allow up to 10 releases in a rolling 12 month period without charging, but once exceeded will charge for each subsequent release. Hope this helps.

Sorry to say this but you all had a chance to object to this approach when the fire service went on strike a few years ago. The Fire Brigades Union tried to bring this type of thing to the public's attention.

Many thanks for your comments Guys, all very valid. I will be making further enquiries (and also like the idea of training staff to undertake releases. Our H & S Policy states categorically that staff shall not do this (or attempt to do so), but that is because none of them have received training to do so.

I agree with Shaun that lift releases are not a 'soft' emergency, but can often be very traumatic for those trapped and put them and others at risk if unauthorised attempts are made to get people out. Perhaps most people who support this move do not live in housing where people (and particularly vulnerable members of society such as the old & infirm) rely on the lift for 'luxuries' such as fresh air and to shop for food. This is clearly an attempt at money saving by the LFB, in that they hope a charge will dissuade people to call. The costs quoted by the LFB are just paper costs as fire crews in London are all full time and (as Shaun has stated) will be paid anyway. The real savings for the LFB would be any reduction in calls could allow further cuts to front line services. That is perhaps the real agenda here. As far as for prioritising life safety goes, with morn communication & mobilising IT, there is no reason that an appliance couldn't attend a lift incident and still be available if a more urgent call comes in. This is purely a cynical political move by an LFB management more intent on saving money that lives NB:- Thanks to the IOSH IT bods for sorting out the technical issues preventing me accessing the forum in recent months

They like to call themselves a Fire & Rescue service but are getting increasingly beligerent about what they might unlaterally define as an Rescue emergency, and then charge according to some notional list of charges and based on costings that they have compiled. Most would argue that costs are astonishingly high. I see this as a matter that is crying out for close public scutiny, and root and branch review by an independent committee. probably appopinted by Parliament - after all, its a public service paid for generously by the public. I cannot sympathise with the earlier view that the Union had been teh shining knights who had tried hard to protect this key public service, but nor do their managers seem to be conscious of their public service role. It may take a judicial review, or group action by those charged such astoninshingly high fees for services that in other regions are provided foc and for which most would feel that they have already paid for. Sadly, I suspect that there is little stomach for this, due in no small part to concerns about prompting yet more bitter industial action, though last time it did make it really easy to get a taxi when you wanted one!