Rank: Super forum user 
|
Interesting FOI request and information concerning allegded breaches of the RR(FS)O at the London Headquaters of the Communities and Local Government, the department responsible for fire safety policy in Wales and England.
mmmm.... and they are responsible for the FRA guidance series too..........
see
http://www.info4fire.com...ches-at-clg-headquarters
In the words of Monty Python
Nice one Centurion-like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Intertesting to note that the enforcement notice considered that the policy not to use portable fire extinguishers in the building in the event of fire was unnacceptable.
There are many on this forum who advocate such an approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I carried out some of my fire safety training at the fire service college (as mentioned in the report). from the assessments we carried out at the college we can across a number of issues of concern so much so one of the bosses of the college came into one of the lectures to answer our questions and concerns. there standard answer was much along the line that the college trains fire fighters so they are more uniquely trained on how to react in a fire situation so the same standards should not be applied to the fire service college.
One incident that happened was that someone set fire to a piece of paper and chucked it into a accommodation block. bearing in mind that these where nothing more than portacabins with very iffy fire detection system. One person became trapped in the room as you needed a key to open the room from the inside someone had to force the door to let them out. Luckily nothing more than a bit of smoke to set of the alarms but the college seemed keen to play the incident down.
Also several other findings i could list but this was one of the most serious i came across. I don't want to give a negative view of the college as i would recommend the college to anyone as they have excellent facilities but like many places lack investment to be able to do all that they would want to.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"Many on this forum who advocate such an approach" - really? I doubt that there are too many who would advocate having a formal policy not to use them at all which is what this article seems to be saying. I assume this approach would then be used as an excuse to avoid giving training and maybe in the extreme to avoid maintenance or even avoid providing extinguihsres altogether?
I think you might find that many of us here - while agreeing that extinguishers should be provided and that employees should be trained in their use - would say they should only be used a a last resort and that the policy in general should be to leave the building by the quckest route and not stay to fight the fire.
I find it rather telling that the Inspector commented that CLG appeared not to understand the concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon them. Not really surprising that the rest of us are struggling with these concepts then is it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Careful, you may fall of that high horse. No it is not surprising at all. FOI, there have been many individuals on this forum advocating a get out stay out policy/practice rather than the use of PFE.
There are many organisations not providing training in the use of PFE but unlikely that they could get away with a failure to maintain or provide this equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ME on a high horse? How ironic.
As I said I think there are two distinct possibilities here and without seeing the report we don't know exactly what the Inspector found in the CLG building.
1. A policy that says employees should never under any circumstances use an extinguisher.
2. A policy that says employees' first priority must be to leave the building safely but recognises that there MAY be circumstances in which they might HAVE to use an extinguisher to maintain their safe means of escape.
I suspect that the Inspector found the former. I (and others on this forum) have certainly advocated the latter in the past and would continue to do so. I agree that no organisation should "get away" with not providing some form of training in extinguisher use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The exact quote was "policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building"
Which seems clear to me as to what they attended especially for it to me picked out of the report as being unacceptable and I'm sure they would have ensured they had a clear statement of what was the intended message to staff.
I believe the inspector found item 1 as you have listed it Heather especially to make such a point of it in the report. It's not likely to be something they misunderstood when carrying out the audit.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A policy does not have to be in writing.
At the end of the day we have the CLG HQ clearly operating in breach of fire safety requirements even though they are resoponsible for steering fire safety policy within England & Wales. May be they followed their own guidance when carrying out their FRA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
By the way Heather, that is ironic
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thank you Bleve - I know what it means and I believe I used it correctly in my post too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.