FIA

The decision by a risk assessment company to remove fire extinguishers from two blocks of flats in Bournemouth has been revoked following a strong response from the fire protection community and the flats’ residents alike.

The decision in question was an attempt to ban fire extinguishers from Avon House after a risk assessment identified them as a health and safety risk. 

The risk assessment company employed by the buildings’ managers concluded that the extinguishers located in hallways and landings posed more of a risk than a safety feature, unless occupants were properly trained to use them. While the recognition of the importance of training is to be applauded, the lack of it should not be used as a reason to take out the means to tackle a fire, and the decision elicited strong comments from many working within fire protection.

The FIA’s own CEO, Graham Ellicott, was one of the first to respond, commenting that “The Dorset Fire & Rescue Service suggests that it is dangerous for residents to leave their flats in order to fetch a fire extinguisher from a hallway and then return to the blaze. But what

if the fire is in the hallway – an extinguisher could aid in creating an escape route. I feel very strongly that we should not remove equipment that could save someone’s life.”

The risk assessment was endorsed by the Dorset Fire & Rescue Service but it is not a view commonly held, a point ably demonstrated by Tom Carroll, Former Chief Fire Officer of Cambridge Fire & Rescue Service and Past President of the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA).  He comments - “The fire and rescue services know how important fire extinguishers are.  They get to fire incidents as quickly as possible but are not there on the ground when the incident occurs and if a fire can be tackled safely with the intervention of a fire extinguisher in those first few vital minutes, then that can obviously prevent a minor incident turning into a major conflagration.  In no way am I advocating that the general public put themselves in danger but if it is safe to do so, then an extinguisher can be an invaluable ally.”

Similarly, Iain Cox, Chair of the Chief Fire Officers’ Association National Fire Safety Committee,said – “From time to time providers of sheltered and multi occupancy housing have, via their risk assessment process, indicated that provision of fire fighting equipment such as portable fire extinguishers is incompatible with the potential non-availability of staff to use them.  I believe this approach is basically flawed and that in nearly all cases, where there are common use areas, fire fighting equipment should be provided and maintained.”

Jonathan O’Neill, Managing Director of the Fire Protection Association, recognised the importance of training but concluded that   – “It is difficult to imagine circumstances where a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment undertaken by a competent person could conclude that it would be safer to remove portable fire fighting equipment rather than to continue to provide appropriate and properly maintained equipment. Notwithstanding that employers have a duty to instruct their staff in its safe use; FPA would advise that the removal of fire-fighting equipment should never be justified on the basis of cost savings disguised as health and safety concerns.”

The residents of Avon House were similarly non-plussed by the decision. Mike Edwards, A Director of Avon House, said – “I was absolutely staggered to discover the fire extinguishers were to be taken out.  It’s ludicrous, like Britain has gone mad?”  Following the outcry against the decision, extinguishers were allowed to remain in the communal areas, with FIA member company Kidde Safety Europe also presenting Avon House residents with free extinguishers to use in their homes.