Author: firecall

Don’t invalidate fire insurance policy.

Published by firecall

Don’t invalidate fire insurance policy.

I find this a very strange case but it just shows how important it is to read the small print as if you ignore the conditions of the policy your policy could be invalidated.

In this case it was a condition of the FIRE insurance that the SECURITY Alarm was maintained and monitored. Times had been tough for the insured and he let the maintenance of the security alarm and as the ARC had not been paid for 6 months they stopped monitoring the site.

Vandals broke in and set fire to the factory. It was a furniture company and they incurred losses of over £750000.

The case went to the High Court, the judge had nothing but sympathy for the Directors of the Company and he took ‘no pleasure’ in ruling that as it was a condition of the combined insurance policy that alarm was monitored by an external firm and the Insurers did not have to meet the claim.

There are often conditions attached to the insurance policies we take out which relate directly to the risk. We need to make sure our cars have valid MOTs in order not to invalidate the policy. We are required to notify the insurance company if we get a speeding fine but, to my mind oddly, you do not have to tell them if you decide to do the Speed Awareness Course rather than pay the fine.

Look at the position of the Fire Risk Assessment. According to the 2005  Regulatory Reform [Fire Safety] Order they should be ‘reviewed’ by a competent person every year. [A bit like the MOT]. But so far as I am aware I have heard of no fire insurance claim dismissed because the fire risk assessment was out of date.

Back to case in hand where a fire insurance claim was dismissed as a security alarm and monitoring were allowed to lapse. We have experience of this monitoring condition; clients of Firecall run a hotel. Reception is manned 24hrs a day, so if the fire alarm activated there was always someone on duty to respond. We came round to the time when the annual contract with the ARC [monitoring station] needed to be renewed. The Hotel Manger wanted to cancel it as it was considered an unnecessary expense. I said fine but asked him to check this with his insurers before we did anything. The Insurers confirmed; monitoring was a condition of the policy.

Often with in the insurance policy there is a clause that the fire alarm is maintained in accordance with British Standards. It would be interesting to know whether a similar claim has been dismissed as the Fire Alarm has not been adequately maintained.

So: read the small print and don’t invalidate fire insurance policy.

Hotelier Fined £200,000 Violating Fire Safety Rules.

Published by firecall

Hotelier Fined £200,000 Violating Fire Safety Rules. It would be difficult, I hope , to find a hotelier who has a more blatent disreguard for his guest safety than Mr Salim Patel who was the former owner of a Bayswater hotel who has been hit with London’s biggest ever fine for an individual for violating fire safety rules.

Also for anyone wanting to learn about Fire Risk Assessments this case would be worth studying as nearly examples of nearly every infingement possible will be found. Stragely the Daily Mail in their article about the case did not mention the lack or need for an fire risk assessment. I feel certain that they did not have one.

 

The extraordinary thing about this case is that Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice which he then ignored.
London Fire Brigade said guests’ lives were put in jeopardy due to the shoddy conditions which were discovered inside The Radnor Hotel during an inspection in 2011.
It brought charges against then-owner Salim Patel, who was fined £200,000 this week after a successful prosecution.
London Fire Brigade said fire doors inside the building were tied open with electrical cords or string
+5
In other areas of the hotel, fire doors were removed or missing
+5
London Fire Brigade said fire doors were missing (right) or tied open with electrical cords or string (left)
In addition to the six-figure fine, Mr Patel was ordered to pay nearly £30,000 in court costs after pleading guilty to seven offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
He was also handed a four-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, the London Fire Brigade said.

Fire safety officers were stunned when they toured the six-floor, 18-room hotel, on Inverness Terrace, to carry out a routine inspection.
They discovered numerous fire safety breaches, including inadequate fire detection systems, blocked emergency exits and inadequate emergency lighting.
Fire doors were missing or tied open with extension cords or string, there was evidence the basement store room was used for sleeping, and the owner had not conducted a fire risk assessment.
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
+5
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said the hotel, on Inverness Terrace, is under new ownership
Mr Patel was given an enforcement notice, which required him to address the safety concerns to make the hotel safer for guests, but follow-up visits found that no action had been taken, the London Fire Brigade said.
The hotel continued to operate without a working fire detection system, so court proceedings were launched against the hotelier.
When Mr Patel was sentenced Judge Kennedy said the public expected ‘absolute attention’ to fire safety when occupying sleeping accommodation.
The judge told court that Mr Patel did not provide that protection and, as a business owner, he was where the ‘buck stopped’, the London Fire Brigade said in a statement.
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine
+5
Fire safety officers were stunned when they discovered the conditions during a routine inspection
+5
Hotel owner Salim Patel received a record £200,000 fine this week after a successful prosecution
Neil Orbell, head of fire safety regulation, said he hopes the penalty serves as a deterrent for other hoteliers.
He said: ‘Our fire safety officers carry out around 16,000 inspections every year to help ensure the capital’s buildings are safe from fire.
‘This is the biggest fine we have ever secured against an individual for breaking fire safety laws and it should send a message to all business owners that if they are shirking their fire safety responsibilities and putting the public at risk we won’t hesitate to prosecute. ‘The size of the fine should also serve as a stark reminder that the court’s take fire safety just as seriously as we do.’
A spokesman for the London Fire Brigade said Mr Patel no longer runs the hotel and it is under new ownership.
Guests complained about the conditions in a series of scathing reviews on TripAdvisor, where The Radnor Hotel had a rating of two stars before it closed.
Of 92 reviews, 59 were filed under ‘terrible’.
Helen, from Australia, wrote in August 2012: ‘We were a little alarmed at the fire emergency plan which was printed straight off the internet and put up without being filled in. We drew comfort from the fact the place has not burned down yet.’

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2993090/Former-London-hotel-owner-hit-record-200-000-fine-fire-safety-violations.html#ixzz3WizZrsJy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Top 10 Reasons Commercial Kitchen Fires:

Published by firecall

Top 10 Reasons Commercial Kitchen Fires:

This research comes from the NFPA of the USA, none the less the findings are as valid for us here as they are over there. The reference to a ‘UL300 compliant system’ does not mean much to us but it relates to thse systems which have been upgraded since it was established that vegitable oil fat burns at a much higher temperature than animal fat oil and the old ‘dry powder’ method of extinguishing no longer works and a ‘wet chemical’ solution must be used. it also demonstrates why when we are doing fire risk assessments on commercial kitchens in hotels and restaurants we need to see the records for the filter cleaning.

Causes of Restaurant Fires Chart

Restaurants pose high fire risks with their open flames, hot equipment, electrical connections, cooking oils, cleaning chemicals and paper products. These hazards are a recipe for disaster. Nearly 8,000 eating and drinking establishments report a fire each year, according to 2006-2010 data tabulated by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These fires caused an annual average of $246 million in direct property damage.

A fire can devastate your business, leading to lost revenues and even permanent closure. Here is a list of the top 10 fire safety issues from the Washington Surveying and Rating Bureau and why they’re so important:

1]The system is not UL300 Listed. A common cause for this is the presence of a dry chemical extinguishing system. With the widespread transition from animal fat to vegetable oil use in deep fat fryers, dry chemical systems are no longer able to control the higher temperature, longer burning fires produced by vegetable oils. A UL300 Listed system is specifically designed to handle these intense fires, contain them longer, and prevent splashing of hot oil during the fire.
2]Nozzle covers missing. When the nozzles of an extinguishing system are not kept covered, airborne grease can clog the hole. This may impede or prevent operation of the extinguishing system.
3]Nozzles not aimed properly. If a nozzle is not properly aimed to deposit the extinguishing chemicals on the source of the fire, it will be less effective.
4]Combustible construction within 18 inches of hood not protected with mineral wool pad (or equivalent). Combustible materials within 18 inches of the kitchen hood may aid in the spread of fire. Incombustible materials provide a barrier that creates a break in the fire’s path.
5]Filter panels installed wrong. Filter panels are specifically designed to collect grease. If they aren’t properly installed, the amount of grease they are able to collect may be reduced causing more accumulation on the hood.
6]Hood or suppression system does not cover all appliances. If a fire occurs in or on an appliance that is not covered by the hood or suppression system, it cannot be adequately controlled by the system.
7]Inadequate cleaning cycle. Hood and vent systems that are not kept clean can accumulate grease and pose a serious threat of fire. Adequate cleaning schedules vary greatly from one kitchen to the next. A full service restaurant using multiple fryers or woks may need to be cleaned monthly, while a low-volume kitchen like that in a daycare or senior center only requires cleaning annually.
8]Lights not covered with explosion-proof covers. Explosion-proof lights are generally required in applications involving high heat or high risk of fire or explosion.
9]Fire suppression system tags out of date. When a kitchen suppression system is serviced, a tag should be left by the servicing company indicating the service date. An out-of-date tag indicates that the system is not being serviced regularly.
10]No, or inadequate, separation between open flame appliances and fryers. Without adequate separation, oil can splash or splatter into open flames, causing a fire risk. Suitable separation can be achieved by either providing 16 inches between the appliances or a 16 inch vertical, non-combustible (metal) divider.
Despite the increased risks of fires in restaurant kitchens, simply knowing some of the greatest hazards within a kitchen setting can help prevent a fire from occurring or spreading.

To ensure that sure your restaurant is covered against fires and other hazards, contact us for a complete evaluation of your restaurant coverage.

How to Choose a competent Fire Risk Assessor

Published by firecall

How to Choose a competent Fire Risk Assessor

The attached article shows just how important it is to get your Fire Risk Assessment done by a competent person. Indeed the 2005 RRO makes it the duty of the responsible person to commission a competent person. Given just how much was missed in this assessment you would have thought that the client would have realised that this was a document which could not be relied upon. Firecall only employs highly qualified fire risk assessors. These are a range of the qualifications you could expect our assessors to have: EngTech GIFireE MIFSM ACMIN NAFRAR. So the answer to the question is: ask to see the assessors qualifications.

This is the story: A private fire risk assessor has been found guilty of failing to provide an adequate risk assessment to a large Newton Abbot restaurant.

Mr Craig Richard Stonelake was prosecuted by Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service under Sections 9 and 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Appearing at Torquay Magistrates today (25 March), Mr Stonelake had pleaded guilty was ordered to pay a total in fines and costs of £7,383.

The risk assessment Mr Stonelake had been employed to carry out was found to be unsuitable, not taking into account the sleeping risk, the inadequate means of escape, lack of suitable fire doors, inadequate fire alarm system, and inadequate firefighting equipment.

Mr Stonelake also serviced the firefighting equipment at the premises when not qualified or trained to do so and failed to service the equipment to any appropriate standard. Failing in his duty to undertake this work to an appropriate standard placed people using the premises at the risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire occurring.

Station Manager Glen Wells said: “Anyone offering professional services to a premises, a business or a person has a responsibility and a duty of care to that business or person.

“This responsibility is at its highest and most fundamental when that work has the potential to affect the health and safety of people or employees at that premises. In the case of fire risk assessments and the servicing of emergency equipment, failures may unnecessarily expose people to the risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire occurring.

“Where that person, with a duty of care, has failed and should reasonably have known that they did not have the requisite training, qualifications or experience for that work compounds that failure. Sadly it would appear that this particular case is not an isolated one.

“It would appear that there is a minority of people purporting to be bona fide fire risk assessors offering their services, for payment, to businesses that are unclear about the requirements of the FSO. To fail in this service provision has the potential for devastating consequences.

“It needs to be made very clear to anybody that is considering working or works in the provision of fire risk assessments and or the servicing of fire safety equipment such as fire extinguishers the seriousness of this undertaking and the need complete the work to a satisfactory standard.”

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service will be providing an event whereby guidance will be provided to fire risk assessors or to people considering starting in that line of work.

The day will include covering the expectations placed upon fire risk assessors and the auditing of those assessments. The event is planned for Friday 5 June 2015. Anybody wanting to register interest or a place should email firesafety@dsfire.gov.uk and leave their details.

How we can help with your Fire Risk Assessment.

How we can help

Published by firecall

Legally the ‘Responsible Person’ can do their own Fire Risk Assessment, provided they are competent to do so. This is completely acceptable for some businesses, particularly those employing under five employees.

For many though it is a false economy and the cost of paying a company like us to carry out the Fire Risk Assessment is not only money well spent, but time well saved.

Not only are we fully trained and know exactly what to look for and how to remedy any potential problems, we have also gleaned useful knowledge from helping other businesses like yours, so when trying to come up with acceptable solutions we are not starting from scratch we have a wealth of experience to lean on, which could well end up saving you money in the long run.

When we do the Fire Risk Assessment for you we are shouldering some of the responsibility and liability. You can rest easy that you have employed experts and done the best you can.

We are also used to dealing with insurance companies and  Fire Officers, so our Fire Risk Assessments are also produced in a way that is acceptable to them. There is no time spent with clarification and amendments to satisfy them.

If you would like a quote please call 01242 584490.

What is a Fire Risk Assessment?

What is a Fire Risk Assessment?

Published by firecall

A fire risk assessment is an organised and methodical  look at the premises, the activities carried on there and the likelihood that a fire could start and cause harm to those in and around the premises.

The aims of the fire risk assessment are:

  • to identify the fire hazards;
  • to reduce the risk of those hazards causing harm to as low as reasonably practicable; and
  • to decide what physical fire precautions and management arrangements are necessary to ensure the safety of people in the premises if a fire does start.
Fire Safety Law UK

The Law regarding Fire Risk Assessments

Published by firecall

The ‘Health and Safety at Work Act 1974’ legislated that employers are obligated to understand the inherent risks relating to the work that they may be carrying out, and also (so far as is reasonably practicable) put measures in place to safeguard their workforce and anyone else who may be affected by their undertakings, seeking competent advice where appropriate.

These duties were further enhanced by ‘The Management of Health and Safety at Work Act 1999’ and ‘The Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005’, which both make specific requirements on business owners and ‘responsible persons’, in particular the need to assess any risks that may be present, and put suitable control measures in place to deal with them.

There is also a duty under all three regulations to assess the risks involved with the storage, use and transportation of hazardous or dangerous substance, particularly from a fire safety point of view.