The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 is a statutory instrument which places the onus on individuals within an organisation to carry out risk assessments to identify, manage and reduce the risk of fire.
Its full title is: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1541 The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It became law on 1 October 2006, and only applies to England and Wales.[1]
Guidance from Communities is available in the form of 12 Government Published documents [2] each pertaining specifically to a particular type of premises.
Contents |
The guides available include
Prior to October 2006 Fire Safety in the UK was implemented on a 'Prescriptive basis'. What this meant was that there was a minimum requirement for a premises to have certain fire safety measures in place. The local fire authority would visit, assess the premises, and if all was found to be in order issue a fire safety compliance certificate. This would be valid for one year at which time another inspection would be due.
The certificate essentially meant that in the event of a fire and a fatality, provided a valid fire certificate was held by the premises, any subsequent review would find the fire systems that had been in place were lawful. This system was brought in after a fire at the Rose and Crown hotel fire in Saffron Walden in 1969, which resulted in 11 deaths. This led to hotels and boarding houses being the first premises to be designated as requiring a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRFSO) of 2005 was formed to address a number of inconsistencies in this previous fire protection regulation.
Before the RRFSO, legislation consisted of over 70 pieces of individual pieces of legislation and two major acts - The Fire Precautions Act 1971 and Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.
Much of this was brought in as and when 'holes' in the then current legislation were highlighted often by tragedies such as deaths from fires like the 1969 Rose & Crown incident. This meant that the many legislation pieces were not always consistent and could be difficult to interpret with some more applicable to a particular type of premises than others.
In comparison, the RRFSO is one piece of integrated fire safety legislation for all commercial premises. It is more consistent and clearly defined and is also adaptable to all types of premises.
As the many acts took a prescriptive approach they could only ever ensure the minimum level of fire safety to the wide range of premises under their jurisdiction. They could not account for every risk in every type of premises. The focus was on key issues applicable to all businesses. A large manufacturing plant using highly flammable materials would be subject to the same requirements of a small retail business. This would mean some high risk businesses were not given the special consideration and analysis they deserved which could allow potentially dangerous situations to continue unchecked.
This prescriptive approach also stifled technological developments in fire safety. Manufacturers had to hope that any newly developed products would be deemed acceptable by the fire authority and adopted as part of their prescriptive approach. If not hundreds of thousands of pounds could be wasted on developing a specialist product which, although an improvement, was not required by law meaning many consumers would simply choose the cheaper, technically inferior, less safe but lawfully compliant option.
The answer to this was to change to a logical 'assessment' based methodology whereby all risks are identified, assessed, appropriate action determined and the implementation of the solution recorded. There would be no minimum requirement, which would allow the use of any product or equipment deemed necessary by the assessor and which best met the requirements for the risk, allowing less measures in some cases and requiring more for others.
This 'assessment' approach would allow the unification of legislation but only under one condition. The burden of proof for compliance would have to be moved to a person at the premises in question to ensure continual monitoring of risks.
No longer would responsibility rest with a local fire authority to issue fire certificates, indeed any previously issued are now void.
It is the job of who the RRFSO identifies as being the 'responsible person' to prove that they have provided adequate and reasonable safety precautions specific to their premises.
In this Order "responsible person" means-
The proof, in the event of a fire, that adequate precautions were taken comes primarily in the form of a risk assessment file of evidence / log book.
The responsible person is required to carry out a risk assessment of their premises and, if 5 or more people are employed there, record all findings. In larger organisations several responsible persons may be delegated the task with each likely to be responsible for a particular section or division. However, the proprietor of the premises is still deemed the overall 'responsible person'.
The risk assessment itself is a logical incremental process of examining and considering the premise assessment areas. Depending on the size of the premises it can help to break it down into sections and, as mentioned, appoint section heads as responsible persons. Each section should be analysed progressively using different methods. For example, a physical walkthrough of the area first visually identifying obvious risks is a good way to start. Then repeat the exercise with the concept in mind that an emergency is taking place and you wish to make your way out. Identify risks as you again walk through with a view to escaping. Finally perhaps consider walking through a final time this time assuming additional obstacles to your escape exist such as in-adequate lighting. Is sufficient emergency lighting in place for this eventuality?
An immediately obvious concern with this assessment approach is the appointment of inexperienced individuals to assess fire safety. With the above example it may not occur to an untrained person that in emergencies low-level lighting solutions may be required. As such it is imperative that appointed persons are competent. Training, literature and guidance is available from a variety of organisations to aid understanding and compliance.
Another option is to contract a fire safety consultant to perform the risk assessment whereby the consultant will visit your premises and conduct a risk assessment in accordance with the appropriate guidelines on your behalf. They should then produce a report outlining the identified risks and give recommendations for improvement.
All advice should be taken under caution, with the introduction of the RRFSO there has been a remarkable increase in companies offering risk assessment services. Ranging from individuals with no industry experience yet an impressive training history to people with a wealth of industry experience, but no formal training (such as retired fire officers). As with training, in the event of an incident where lives are lost any advice or assessments carried out by a third party will be under scrutiny as to whether they were a reputable service with adequate qualifications.
All persons who take on any duties under the Order (including risk assessors) are accountable for their actions but primary responsibly rests with employers (occupiers and owners).
The RRFSO has been in force now for approximately a year and a half. It is believed that as many as a third of businesses are still not aware of their duties under the order (2). Of those that are aware of their duties it is hard to say how many are taking the law seriously or may be using the assessment approach as a way to go unmonitored in choosing not to spend on fire safety.
With local fire authorities no longer required to assess premises and issue certificates they now both enforce the order and raise awareness of it.
Under the order an inspection officer has the following rights.
If either of these is not met or the officer feels that any part of the order has not been satisfied then formal action may be taken. Initially this will likely be the issue of an alterations notice or an enforcement notice, if it is believed that the level of non-compliance is such that a serious risk to life is posed then a prohibition notice can be served restricting the use of the premises for certain activities i.e. a hotel not being allowed to host and sleep guests.
Repeated disregard for these notices is not advisable. Offenders will be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for up to two years.
Recent news seem to indicate that Fire Authorities are now beginning to use their new powers to enforce compliance from constant offenders via court proceedings more so than under previous legislation.
Bringing a case to court previously proved difficult due to the inaccuracy of legislation definitions relating to responsible parties. The definition of 'occupier' was used prior to the RRFSO to identify responsible persons but this definition was open to interpretation allowing for defence lawyers to often throw doubt on the identity of who the law defined as responsible and subsequently have the case dismissed. Now with a clearly defined responsible person, who is to blame is easier to identify.
This logically leads to an increase in the number of prosecutions with less cases being thrown out for spurious reasons and currently the punishment of choice is punitive fines. One law professional finding himself ever increasingly involved in RRFSO prosecutions quotes an average figure of £7000 in fines and costs per case. This is based on an average of 5 charges brought against a defendant, £1000 fine per charge and £2000 in costs following a successful verdict (3).
This severity of fine is comparable to prosecutions brought against defendants for Health & Safety transgressions and demonstrates the weight the matter is beginning to be given by the courts. No doubt many of these initial offenders are treated as important for setting examples to other companies and high profile prosecutions only serve to generate heightened interest in order compliance.
The highest record fine so far currently stands at £240,000 given to an Essex based company for constant and repeated disregard for the RRFSO and fire Safety.
The close scrutiny of work place practices and fire safety measures is no doubt a good thing, with the inconvenience and additional cost to business proving ultimately worth it if it ensures exemplary fire safety. Indeed it is not so much an increased cost or inconvenience but an adjustment to the correct level for that particular type of business.
It is still early in the legislative life of the RRFSO and data is only now beginning to surface that indicates as to whether it is proving successful. Imperative now is ensuring all businesses are aware of their duties under the order and that training and education material is easily available to all responsible persons. In future when more businesses are aware of their responsibilities and consultants have become more regulated, any tragic high profile incident may then bring into question the orders effectiveness. But for now, that remains to be seen