Fire Safety Blog

What is fire compartmentation, where is it required and why is it important?

30/1/2021

Approved Document B, Volume 2 (2019) defines a fire compartment as; -

“A building or part of a building comprising one or more rooms, spaces or storeys constructed to prevent the spread of fire to or from another part of the same building or an adjoining building.”

This is achieved through the provision of fire resisting walls and floors (commonly offering between 30 minutes and 120 minutes fire resistance). And will include special measures to address any openings in the compartment lines, such as doors, glazing, service penetrations and ductwork.

The wall or floor must remain functional for the duration of the designed fire resistance period. The compartment wall or floor should not crack or develop holes that allow flames, smoke or hot gases to pass through it, and if appropriate, it should maintain a suitable degree of insulation.
There are two main reasons as to why fire compartmentation is required – for life safety and property protection purposes.

It is required for life safety purposes when protecting or sub-dividing escape routes, this may include external or internal means of escape. For example, escape corridors, stair enclosures including those with refuge areas, protected lobbies / firefighting shafts. Fire compartmentation provides occupiers of the building additional time to evacuate before escape routes are potentially compromised by the spread of smoke and fire. It will also decrease the danger which the Fire and Rescue Services may be exposed to. Compartmentation will also be used to limit maximum compartment sizes in premises such as warehouses. Compartmentation is also used to support specific fire evacuation strategies, such as a defend in place strategy in blocks of flats – where each flat is designed as its own fire compartment limiting the need for a full evacuation of a building in the event of a fire in one flat. It may similarly be used to support progressive horizontal evacuation in healthcare buildings – were patients can be moved horizontally away from a fire into adjoining compartments and minimising the need for vertical evacuation of vulnerable patients and/or full evacuation of the entire building.
It is required for property protection purposes as it will limit spread and attempt to contain the fire to the location it has originated, this is predominantly for enclosures housing special fire hazards such as plant rooms or other high risk rooms. It may also be used to protect areas of high financial or strategic value, such as IT suites / server rooms or strategic storage spaces. Where a building contains more than one occupier and the nature of their activities significantly different (for example residential premises sited over or alongside retail units) they are likely to require separating by compartment walls and floors to prevent a fire progressing to the other purpose group, this is the same case with wall common to two or more buildings.

Approved Document B Tables B3 and B4 provide detailed information regarding the minimum periods of fire resistance required in buildings for different purpose groups and maximum permitted compartment sizes. In some instances, automatic fire suppression systems such as a sprinkler system may be provided where necessary to reduce the rate and growth of fire which may also impact on permitted maximum compartment sizes.
How do you achieve fire compartmentation?

Fire resisting construction and cavity barriers, with any fire stopping if necessary.

Approved Document B refers to a cavity as any concealed space and states that cavity barriers should be provided in the following situations.

To divide cavities at junctions and cavity closures
To close the edges of cavities at junctions and cavity closures, and
To protected escape routes
To cavities affecting alternative escape routes

Fire doors together with its frame and furniture, it is intended when closed to resist the spread of fire and/or toxic gases and meets the requirements of BS 476-22 and or BS EN 1634-1. Please refer to Approved Document B, Volume 2 (2019), Table C1 and B5 regarding incorporating glazing in the design of the door.

This can include fire shutters or curtains, predominantly found in large open spaces such as atriums, shopping centres and can be installed in roof spaces.

Fire dampers in air handling ductwork are generally actuated by automatic smoke detection or thermally actuated devices and are sited where ductwork penetrates the fire resisting construction.

All passive fire safety measures should be subject to regular inspection and where necessary testing and maintenance in line with recommendation in standards and manufacturers.

What if my building does not have adequate fire compartmentation?

In the scenarios where fire resisting construction is breached, there are a variety of different methods to use depending on the physical sizes, gaps and type of service penetration or linear gaps between the elements of construction. It is critical that the correct choice is taken to ensure that the required fire resistance of the fire separating wall/floor is maintained, despite the original construction compromised by breaches. Fire stopping will ensure that compartment lines are not breached and help delay the spread of fire, smoke and hot gases. Examples of fire stopping products / methods include proprietary materials such as fire resisting boards or mineral fibre baths cement mortar, Gypsum-based plaster, intumescent mastic, ‘seal bags’ filled with intumescent granules etc. Certain specialist products such as intumescent fire collars may be used to protect certain types of service penetrations.

Any fire stopping should be completed by a competent third-party contractor, preferably accredited by a third-party scheme, for example Warrington Fires FIRAS scheme or Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB).

To summarise, fire compartmentation is the sub-division of a building into smaller sections or units in order to withstand and limit damage/growth from a fire situation by preventing the spread of smoke and fire, with the use of fire resisting construction.

Fire compartmentation should be analysed during each Fire Risk Assessment carried out by a competent Fire Risk Assessor. Alternatively, if you are particularly worried about the fire compartmentation within your building, it is recommended that a full compartmentation and fire door survey is carried out by a competent contractor.

Scenario

A contractor has breached a fire rated ceiling to install fire alarm cables and has replaced the ceiling with non-fire rated suspended false ceiling tiles, is this acceptable? The answer is no, as this now allows the spread of smoke and fire above the fire door through the roof space as there is no adequate compartment. You can resolve this issue by fully extending the wall construction to storey or roof height, using materials which achieve the same period of fire resistance achieved by the fire door.

0 Comments

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIRD PARTY ACCREDITATION FOR FIRE SAFETY

30/1/2021

1 Comment

Ensuring appropriate action is taken to minimise risk in the workplace may seem like a daunting prospect for those responsible for fire safety.

However, its important to remember that while the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 states that a ‘suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks’ must be made, the responsible person can seek help and support from professionals where they feel they are not suitably qualified.

Image courtesy of FPA

Those responsible for building safety are often juggling many responsibilities, and fire safety can be a complex addition to the mix, so it’s important to remember that you are not expected to know all the answers. By using accredited, competent contractors and products, the responsible person can ensure they are working within industry best practice, and minimising the risk to employees, the business and the local community.
One of the major issues when it comes to competency however is that there is no consistent legal definition. The debate around who qualifies as a ‘competent’ person gained momentum following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, although was one that the fire sector has been lobbying government to distinguish for many years. The subsequent Hackitt Review into building regulations identified a significant lack of skills, knowledge and experience within the building and construction industry in relation to fire.

Despite this lack of clarity however, those responsible for fire safety within a building may still be liable in the event of a fire if they cannot evidence that the fire risk assessment has been carried out by a competent person. Seeking help from an accredited third party is therefore the best way for businesses to better identify and assess fire risks, and ultimately limit their impact. Below, we identify some of the areas in which a certified third party can help you to become fire secure.

Receiving the right training

Approved training is an important and established way to ensure that building managers and owners understand exactly what their responsibilities are, and the impact their decisions could have in the event of a fire. Legally, a responsible person (normally the owner or managing occupier of the premises) must make a ‘suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks’. If they choose not to use an accredited company or individual, then it is of paramount importance that they seek training, which provides them with a third party stamp of approval to undertake this work. This is the only way they can get a better understanding of the potential challenges caused by fire, as well as guidance on conducting the fire risk assessment itself and implementing the findings.

This type of knowledge and skillset is not achieved overnight, and depending on the complexity of the premises it may take many hours of practice and assessment to reach a standard that meets competency levels.

Building evacuation

Another key consideration is ensuring an appropriate evacuation strategy is in place. The building’s fire risk assessment should consider the specific people at risk, where they are in the building and the risks that cannot be removed or reduced any further. This may prove difficult for those with limited experience in fire strategy, as the evacuation approach often differs based on the building size, use and occupancy, meaning a single staged or phased evacuation may be required.

Training of all staff and evacuation drills are vital to ensure that procedures are embedded and that risks are minimised. While few buildings have large numbers of fires each year, many have an unnecessary number of evacuations due to false alarms and poor control over contractor work. Having competent, well trained responders can quickly eradicate the problem at hand with minimal disruption.

Putting a thorough fire strategy in place

The British Standards Institution’s guidance document, PAS 911, refers to a fire strategy as providing ‘a clear set of measures encompassing fire precautions, management of fire safety and fire protection.’ This includes the development and implementation of systems, policies and procedures that address relevant risks in line with specific business objectives - with an aim to reduce life risk while also protecting business procedures and assets.

However, in our experience businesses don’t always take a robust and holistic approach to fire strategy. For health and safety managers, an important first step is understanding that their fire strategy will vary per building, and is based on their individual requirements and specifications. This includes:

building descriptions, including layouts and materials
fire compartmentation, including protection for escape routes
evacuation strategies
fire detection and alarm arrangements, emergency lighting and fire safety signage
smoke ventilation and fire suppression
fire safety management arrangements including staff training, inspection and review requirements

Alongside the obvious risk to life, a fire can have a prolonged impact on a business resulting from factors including loss of income, damaged equipment and stock, and many others. The harsh reality is that some companies may not recover from a major fire. Building managers and owners, and all others responsible for fire safety, should therefore take the action necessary to minimise the risks, which could include partnering with an accredited third party.

Original article here

1 Comment

Petition launched as research finds risk of fire at schools double that of other buildings

30/1/2021

0 Comments

According to new research from insurer, Zurich Municipal, schools in England are “nearly twice as likely” to suffer from a fire as other types of commercial buildings.

Data was taken from 26,800 schools in England, with the analysis showing that the average fire risk is almost doubled than that of most other non-residential buildings. This is due to a number of reasons, believes Zurich Municipal:

Two thirds lack adequate fixed fire protection measures (e.g. sprinklers)
A quarter rated ‘poor’ for fire detection
The regular presence of cooking equipment
Malfunctioning equipment, faulty electrics and arson are the leading causes
Sizes of the buildings (bigger and older schools were deemed to be more at risk)

These issues have resulted in nearly 2,000 school blazes in the last three years, and follows recent calls for sprinklers to be made mandatory in schools in England. Larger fires in schools cost on average £2.8 million to repair and in some cases over £20 million.
The findings have led Zurich to launch a parliamentary petition to urge MPs to change the law on sprinklers in schools. Whilst sprinklers are compulsory in all new or major refurbished school buildings in Scotland and Wales, this is not the case in England. In fact, they are fitted in fewer than one in six new schools, believes Zurich.

Case Study – Sprinklers save Flintshire school from ‘laser cutter’ blaze
Connah’s Quay High School in Flintshire, north Wales, was saved from a potentially disastrous blaze when a laser-cutter caught fire. Around 1,000 pupils had to be evacuated at lunchtime when the fire broke out at the secondary school in June 2019. The school’s sprinkler system quickly extinguished the fire and contained the damage to a single room allowing pupils to return the next day. Emma Dale, Connah’s Quay School Business Manager, said: “Without sprinklers, the damage could have been devastating.” She added: “Sprinklers are a cost saving measure, not an expense. They save the cost of rebuilding and repairing schools, and can pay for themselves in lower insurance premiums.” Speaking at the time North Wales Fire and Rescue Service, said: “This incident clearly highlights the importance of sprinklers in helping to avoid the spread of fire.”

Tilden Watson, Zurich Municipal’s Head of Education, said: “An alarming number of school buildings pose a high fire risk – yet many are poorly protected against a potential blaze. Unless Ministers bring England into line with other parts of the UK, where sprinklers are mandatory, large fires will continue to blight schools. This is harming children’s education and putting lives at risk.

“As well as protecting pupils, sprinklers drastically reduce the extent of damage when there is a blaze, often confining the fire to a single room. This gets children back into schools and classrooms quicker as well as saving taxpayers’ money.”

Nick Coombe, Protection Vice Chair and Building Safety Programme Lead for the National Fire Chiefs Council, said: “The case for sprinklers is compelling. Of almost 1,000 fires over five years in buildings where sprinklers were fitted, our research found they controlled or extinguished blazes in 99% of cases. We want to see a greater inclusion of Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS), including sprinklers, across the built environment. Sprinklers can dramatically reduce fire damage, making the reopening of a school much easier. This not only minimises the disruption to a pupil’s education, but also the impact on their family, the community and the wider education establishment.”

In June, Boris Johnson pledged £1bn to fund a decade long school rebuilding and repair programme and a further £560m in early August. Based on large fires alone, Zurich estimates that the repair for school fires could hit £320 million over 10 years – a significant portion of the government’s slated investment. Zurich wants the government to ring-fence some of its promised investment to improve the resilience of schools at high risk of fire. Insurers work closely with schools to help them manage their fire risks but the installation of sprinklers minimise the dangers from the outset.

0 Comments

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT A FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT?

30/1/2021

1 Comment

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO) states that almost all types of premises – unless a single domestic dwelling – must be subject to a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. It is the duty of the ‘Responsible Person’ to take general fire precautions as far as reasonably practicable under the RRO Part 2 to ensure the premises is safe for all relevant persons and to reduce the risk of harm and prevent fire.

The ‘Relevant Persons’ are defined in the RRO Part 1 Article 2 as:

Any person (including the Responsible Person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises.
Any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises but does not include a fire-fighter who is carrying out his duties in relation to a function of a fire and rescue authority under section 7, 8 or 9 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

The ‘Responsible Person’ is defined in the RRO Part 1 Article 3 as:

In relation to a workplace, the employer, if the workplace is to any extend under their control;
In relation to any premises not falling within the above;
- The person who has control of the premises (as occupier or otherwise) in connection with the carrying on by a trade, business or other undertaking.
- The owner, where the person in control of the premises does not have control in connection with the carrying on by that person of a trade, business or other undertaking.

To summarise, a ‘Responsible Person’ could be the employer, owner, landlord or appointed managing agent of the premises. In some buildings there may be more than one Responsible Person.

How often should a fire risk assessment be undertaken/reviewed?The fire safety order 2005 states that if necessary, the ‘Responsible Person’ should seek safety assistance to assist when carrying out a risk assessment by appointing a competent person. The RRO Part 2 Article 18 defines a competent person providing safety assistance as an individual who has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable them properly to assist in undertaking the preventative and protective measures.

In terms of undertaking/reviewing fire risk assessments there is often no prescriptive time frame, but the ‘Responsible Person’ should regularly review the document to ensure it remains up to date and relevant to the premises. If the fire risk assessment is no longer valid due to a significant change to the premises such as structural alterations, change of building use, increase in occupancy or use by a different group of people etc. then the risk of fire has changed and a review of the existing fire risk assessment is required with the changes made as appropriate.
It should be noted that a prescribed record of the fire risk assessment should be documented if:

The company employs five or more people (not necessary in the building but within the company as a whole);
A license under an enactment is in force in relation to the premises such as a license to sell alcohol;
An alterations notice has been served by the local fire and rescue authority.

The 4 types of fire risk assessmentThe RRO does not expand on how intrusive a fire safety risk assessment should be. When it comes to creating a fire risk assessment for residential properties only, there are 4 different ‘types’ defined as endorsed by the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) ‘Fire Safety in Purpose Built Blocks of Flats’, issued by the Local Government Association in 2012.

Type 1 Fire Risk Assessments are the most common type and is a non-destructive assessment of the common areas of the building only and does not include access to the private dwellings. In some instances, it may be requested by the client to inspect the front door of the private dwellings as part of the assessment.
Type 2 Fire Risk Assessments are similar to Type 1 assessments of the common areas of the buildings only. Type 2 assessments should only be carried out if there is good reason to believe the structural compartmentation is flawed as this involves a contractor sampling the construction, carrying out any fire stopping afterwards.
Type 3 Fire Risk Assessments are non-destructive assessments which cover beyond the requirements of legislation and consider the individual dwellings in addition to the common parts.
Type 4 Fire Risk Assessments are similar to Type 3 assessments in the individual dwellings and common parts. Like Type 2, Type 4 assessments should only be carried out if there is good reason to believe the structural compartmentation in both the common areas and individual dwellings are flawed and will again involve a contractor sampling the construction in the areas in question.

It is important to stress, the above types ONLY apply to domestic dwellings and not commercial properties. If the existing compartmentation is insufficient and as a result people are at risk, the emergency plan for the premises should be reviewed by a competent person.

1 Comment

Critical Workers

2/5/2020

0 Comments

In a letter sent from James Brokenshire MP, Minister for State for Security, on the 14th April, directly to the FIA, the Government’s support for the fire safety sector was repeated.

Mr Brokenshire stated: “The Government is grateful for the sector’s continuing efforts at this challenging time… Such employees engaged in this critical task will need to continue to perform their work.” It is also made clear that the industry continues to consider “carefully” which roles are vital to services, and “what possible steps can be taken to facilitate staff working from home”.

For those who cannot, and are vital to “provide essential safety to people”, the guidance continues by detailing that they should only travel when it is safe to do so and themselves or others in their household are not symptomatic. Advice for workers needing to send their children to schools is also outlined in the letter.

The letter states: “NFCC also believes that people working on vital fire safety measures such as the installation and maintenance of sprinklers, fire alarms, waking watch and other measures also constitute key workers… We have already discussed many of these matters with Home Office and MHCLG.”

NFCC also believes that people working on vital fire safety measures such as the installation and maintenance of sprinklers, fire alarms, waking watch and other measures also constitute key workers…

0 Comments

Fire & COVID-19

10/4/2020

0 Comments

What landlords can do for fire safety during the COVID-19 crisis?

Original article from: IFSEC Global

The coronavirus crisis has created completely unprecedented conditions across the country and around the world. This has left almost everyone in a position where they are entirely reevaluating their lives – from a business perspective to living arrangements, things feel markedly different.
This is true for landlords too, as standard practice needs to be re-thought in many cases as what needs to be done for tenants, and how to manage the safety and security of rented properties during this time. Of course, landlords are legally obligated to take specific legal steps to look after the safety of their tenants.

Certainly, one of the most vital aspects of safety that could be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak is fire safety. Fire safety professionals are still required to visit properties on a regular basis, so it is essential that they can practice safe levels of social distancing in order to manage their own level of risk. It would appear, based on responses to the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and Fire Industry Association (FIA), that those responsible for fire safety have been granted key worker status and will continue to carry out as many tasks that require immediate attention through the crisis.

Here we take a look at some of the things that landlords need to start thinking about with regard to their tenants’ safety, and what they can do to minimise the risk going forward.

Carry out a new fire safety assessment

Perhaps one of the most important things to note is that due to the lockdown, tenants will typically be spending much of their time in their home. This can have implications for fire safety – and this is something that it is worth considering. So, the first step that landlords may need to take is carrying out a new fire safety assessment.

Fire safety assessments are an important legal requirement for landlords – but when significant changes occur to a property, it is essential that you ensure your fire safety assessment is still valid. Carrying out a re-assessment is important in order to make sure that the systems and plans in place are still relevant with tenants in their properties at all hours of the day. If you believe that your property might be affected by the change in usage, now is the time to act.

Take precautions with checking the fire alarm system

Landlords with multiple flats in one building are required to organise testing for the fire alarm system on a regular basis depending on the type of alarm you have installed. In some properties with communal alarm systems, testing needs to be carried out every week.

In this case, you may employ someone to check the system, or it may be that you carry out the spot check yourself. In either case, it is essential that this process continues to be carried out as normal, however, you need to ensure that you are following the Government’s social distancing recommendations when doing so.

Continue with all legally required services

It is also important to note that the coronavirus is not considered to be a reason that landlords can relax their responsibilities with regard to any kind of legally required fire safety services. It is imperative that crucial health and safety measures continue to be followed by landlords in other to remain in compliance with legislation.

The COVID-19 crisis is not an excuse for failing to uphold health and safety measures – it may just take more care and precautions to be taken in order to be able to do so safely.

Install a stronger fire alarm system

It may be the now is the right time to consider having an upgraded fire alarm system installed. After all, a fire alarm going off in a building with a number of tenants is now likely to impact every person who is in the building, and it is essential that the strongest possible measures are in place.
If you have a strong alarm system in place, then you could consider further preventative and reactive measures; it could be worthwhile to have fire sprinklers installed. According to sprinkler system specialists Applications Engineering “sprinklers not only save lives but can significantly reduce the damage caused by a fire. Their instantaneous response to a breakout allows a fire to be controlled before emergency services can reach the scene”.

Ensure escape routes are accessible at all times

It is also vital to ensure that all properties have their communal hallways and other fire escapes clear at all times. Now is the time to carry out regular inspections to ensure that there are no potential obstructions that could cause a problem in the event of a fire breaking out.

Final thoughts

It is a great idea to take this time as a key moment to reassess the fire safety precautions in your property, and ensure that they are up to standard. The situation with coronavirus is very serious, but so are a landlord’s obligations to take health and safety seriously.

0 Comments

Hotel fined £45k for fire safety failings

12/2/2020

1 Comment

An East End hotel and its owner have been ordered to pay a total of £45,000 for “serious and systemic” fire safety failures which “put staff and guests at risk”.

Act Grange Ltd, which runs The Baytree Hotel in Vicarage Lane, and the company’s sole director Mr Falgun Patel were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court earlier this month after pleading guilty to five breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. If Mr Patel fails to pay his fine, he could face six months imprisonment.

London Fire Brigade Fire Safety Officers visited the 16-room hotel, which is above a traditional East-End pub, in January 2019 as part of a routine audit. During the visit, they found serious fire safety deficiencies including no smoke detection, numerous fire doors tied open and missing or malfunctioning door closers.

Officers also found a first-floor external emergency exit route was being used to store large amounts of rubbish and was blocked along almost its entire length. It led to a gate which was locked and could not be opened by staff.

There was no fire risk assessment in place or any evidence of methodical management of fire safety and on duty staff could not explain emergency procedures.

Following the visit, an Enforcement Notice was served on Mr Patel and he was interviewed under caution in relation to the deficiencies. The Brigade then took the prosecution forward to court.

The full (original) article can be found at: https://www.ifsecglobal.com/

There was no fire risk assessment in place or any evidence of methodical management of fire safety and on duty staff could not explain emergency procedures.

1 Comment

The rising cost of negligence.

15/1/2020

0 Comments

Fines for fire safety breaches have risen sharply since Grenfell.

The average fine handed down for breaches of the Fire Safety Order has increased since the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017.

A review of 200 fire safety legislation cases handled by fire safety solicitor, Warren Spencer, found that the average fine since the Grenfell is now £27,519. This is more than a 35% higher than the average across 2014-2019, which is £20,375.

Warren Spencer's research, published to mark the 13th anniversary of the Fire Safety Order coming into force, also found that three fire services have not brought a single prosecution under the order.

The most enforced part of the order relates to emergency routes and exits. The ground-breaking study reveals that the most enforced part of the order is Article 14, which relates to emergency routes and exits. And of Spencer’s 200 cases only nine defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges brought.

The research might be the most detailed analysis yet of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, to give it its full name.

“All of the data relating to sentencing comes from my own records as I am not aware that there has been any other analysis relating to this since the Fire Safety Order came into effect,” said Spencer. “There are some interesting patterns and a sharp increase in the average fine imposed since Grenfell.”

Spencer, who has prosecuted and defended fire safety cases for over 12 years, has written the first in a series of articles examining his findings across four areas: breaches prosecuted, premises prosecuted, prosecuting fire services and sentencing. He also considers enforcement notices, defences typically deployed by defendants, the Grenfell effect and why so many defendants plead guilty.

The most enforced part of the order relates to emergency routes and exits.... of Spencer’s 200 cases only nine defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges brought.

The standout numbers

Out of 200 cases only nine defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges brought
Article 14 relating to emergency routes and exits is the most enforced
The most prosecutions by a single fire service is 120
Three fire services have not brought any prosecutions since the order came into force 13 years ago
A total of £1,230,879 has been handed out in fines
The average fine between 2014-2019 was £20,375
Average fine Post Grenfell was £27,519

0 Comments

Dangerous landlord prosecuted

13/12/2019

Landlord fined £14,000 and banned from lettings.

Camden Council has successfully prosecuted an irresponsible landlord for multiple fire safety risks and overall breaches against the Housing Act 2004.

Camden Council reported that after investigation, it was found that Mr Cesar De Sousa Melo failed to provide adequate fire/smoke alarms in his a flat he had been letting.

The council said: “Tenants’ health and safety at Goldington Crescent was placed at risk through non-working fire alarms, a kitchen door broken off its hinges and the property being overcrowded, and the kitchen was too small.”

All tenants were identified as young, overseas tenants who were vulnerable to exploitation, that had their health and safety ‘compromised’ through the landlord’s neglect.

This case is the first of its kind in London, where a landlord is banned from letting for numerous safety breaches including fire.

Mr Melo’s operation has now ceased, and all the flats have been fitted with working smoke/fire detectors.

https://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-council-obtains-londons-first-rogue-landlord-banning-order/

“Tenants’ health and safety at Goldington Crescent was placed at risk through non-working fire alarms, a kitchen door broken off its hinges and the property being overcrowded, and the kitchen was too small.”

Grenfell Tower: Phase One Recommendations

19/11/2019

Grenfell Tower Inquiry hearings are held at Holborn Bars, 138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2SW.

Evacuation

There were no plans to evacuate Grenfell Tower available. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, recommended:

The development of national guidelines for carrying out partial or total evacuations of high-rise buildings – including protecting fire access routes and procedures for evacuating people who require assistance
Fire services develop policies for partial or total evacuation of high rises
Owner and manager be required to draw up and keep under review evacuation plans, with copies provided to local fire and rescue services and placed in an information box on the premises
All high-rise buildings be equipped with facilities to enable the sending of an evacuation signal to the whole or a selected part of the building
Owners and managers be required by law to prepare personal evacuation plans for residents who may struggle to do so personally, with information about them stored in the premise’s information box
All fire services be equipped with smoke hoods to help evacuate residents down smoke-filled stairs

Fire doors

Sir Martin said it is apparent that “ineffective fire doors allowed smoke and toxic gases to spread through the building more quickly than should have been possible”, and that missing self-closers played an important role. He recommended:

An urgent inspection of fire doors in all buildings containing separate dwellings, whether or not they are high rises
A legal requirement on the owner or manager of these buildings to check doors at least every three months to ensure self-closing devices are working effectively

Sprinklers

Noting the recommendation from the coroner investigating the Lakanal House fire that the use of sprinklers be encouraged, Sir Martin said that some of his experts had “urged me to go a step further and to recommend such systems be installed in all existing high-rise buildings”.

He said that sprinklers have “a very effective part to play” in an overall scheme of fire safety, but that he had not yet heard evidence about their use. He said that he could make no recommendations at this stage, but that he would consider the matter in phase two.

Internal signage

Floor numbers in the tower were not clearly marked and markings were not updated when the floor numbers changed following the refurbishment. Sir Martin said that all high-rise buildings should have floors clearly marked in a prominent place, which would be visible in low light or smoky conditions. Given that not all residents of Grenfell could read fire information signs, he said this should now be provided in a means that all residents can understand.

Use of combustible materials

Sir Martin said the original fire in the kitchen was no more than an ordinary kitchen fire that spread to the cladding because of “the proximity of combustible materials to the kitchen windows” – such as the uPVC frames.

He said this is a matter that “it would be sensible” for owners of other high-rise buildings to check.

He said he would “add his voice” to those who have expressed concern about the slow pace of removal work for more than 400 other tall buildings in England with aluminium composite material cladding.

A total of 97 buildings in the social housing sector and 168 in the private sector have not yet seen the work complete. Sir Martin said the work must be completed “as vigorously as possible”.

He said particular attention should be paid to decorative features, given the crucial role played by the architectural crown at Grenfell in spreading the fire around the building.

Given the decision to ban combustible materials on new buildings last year, he did not call for further restrictions on their use.

Fire service: knowledge and understanding of materials in high-rise buildings

Sir Martin raised concern that junior firefighters were not aware of the danger of cladding fires, and that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) was unaware of the combustible materials used to refurbish Grenfell Tower.

He therefore recommended:

That the owner and manager of every high-rise building is required to provide details of external walls and the materials used to the local fire service, and inform them of any changes
To ensure that fire services personnel at all levels understand the risk of cladding fires

Plans

Sir Martin said that a lack of plans did not “unduly hamper” fire services at Grenfell, as each floor was laid out in the same way. However he warned that another building with a more complex layout could pose problems. He recommended:

That owners and managers of high-rise buildings are required by law to provide paper and electronic versions of building plans of all high rises to local fire services
To ensure the building contains a premises information box, including a copy of floor plans

Lifts

Firefighters were unable to use a mechanism that allows them to take control of the lifts on the night of the fire, hampering their progress and meaning residents could still use the lifts, “in some cases with fatal consequences”. Sir Martin therefore recommended:

That the owner and manager of every high-rise building be required by law to carry out regular inspections of any lift required for use by firefighters and the mechanism that allows them to take control of it

Section 7(2)(d) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act

The judge was concerned that inspections of the tower by the fire service before the fire were not enough to meet their responsibilities under this act. He recommended:

A revision of the guidance for the London Fire Brigade, and training for all officers above the rank of crew manager in inspecting high-rise buildings

Co-operation between emergency services

There was a lack of communication between each emergency service at Grenfell, with each declaring a major incident at different times without telling each other. Sir Martin recommended several changes to ensure better communication in the future.

Personal fire protection

Sir Martin decided not to issue a recommendation that individual flats be provided with fire extinguishers or fire blankets, noting concerns that this could encourage residents to fight fires rather than escape and call the emergency services.

Communication between the control room and the incident commander

While guidance calls for a “free flow” of information between a fire service control room and the commanding officer on the ground, that often does not happen. Sir Martin therefore recommended:

A review of policies by the LFB on this matter, including training for all officers who could serve as incident commanders and senior control room officers.
A dedicated communications link between the senior officer and the incident commander

Emergency calls

Even allowing for the pressure of the night, Sir Martin said that fire survival guidance calls were not handled in an “appropriate or effective way”. He therefore recommended:

Amending of policies and training for control room officers
That all fire services develop policies for multiple fire survival guidance calls
Electronic systems to record and display calls
A policy for managing a transition from ‘stay put’ to ‘get out’ and training for call handlers in delivering this change of advice

Command and control

Sir Martin said firefighters too frequently “acted on their own initiative”, resulting in a duplication of effort. He called for better policies to ensure:

Better control of training and deployment
Information is obtained from crews after they have deployed

Equipment

Sir Martin made some recommendations for improvements to fire service equipment, including radios and the command support system.

Testing and certification of materials

Sir Martin said this is an issue that will be investigated “early in phase two”, along with an assessment of “whether the current guidance on how to comply with the building regulations is sufficiently clear and reliable”.

He also said the inquiry would investigate whether a ‘prescriptive’ regime of regulation was necessary. However, as these issues have not yet been examined by the inquiry he did not make any recommendations.

Source: Inside Housing