fire safety and fire alarm breaches at CLG headquarters

We can today reveal that the London headquarters of Communities and Local Government – the government department that steers fire safety policy in England and Wales – has been served with an enforcement notice under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

In a damming review of the building’s fire safety, an inspector from the enforcing authority, states:  “The concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon those persons under the Order, appear not to be understood within CLG premises”.
The notice, served on 16 February on the then secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, details numerous shortcomings in fire safety measures and management at CLG’s Eland House premises in Victoria. It lists alleged breaches of 13 of the 15 Articles of the Fire Safety Order that impose duties on the CLG, as the responsible person, including:

• Introducing a fire load in the atrium which was not considered in the building’s fire engineered design, by installing a cafeteria which, it is said, may lead to “uncontrolled fire spread throughout the building”
• An unsuitable and insufficient fire risk assessment
• Failing to nominate competent persons to help the responsible person discharge his duties
• Failure to adequately provide fire alarm maintenance for the fire alarm system, interconnections between fire alarm systems, and smoke vents throughout the building
• Lack of evidence of adequate training and provision of essential fire safety information to staff

In an apparent reference to other CLG premises, the inspector goes on to say: “At present there is a lack of national policy, guidance and ownership of fire safety management across the CLG estate.”

Details of the fire inspection and the enforcement notice have come to light under a Freedom of Information request made to CLG by an individual linked to the fire safety industry.
“Unacceptable” policy
Other deficiencies found include an “unacceptable” policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building; the inability of the building to support the phased fire alarm evacuation strategy; no adequate arrangements to ensure visitors and contractors are accounted for in an fire alarm evacuation; and shortcomings in the means of escape for the number of people likely to occupy the building.

Although Eland House is categorised as Crown premises, it is still subject to safety legislation including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, and enforcement procedures are similar to those of other premises. However, Crown Immunity means the responsible person cannot actually be prosecuted for offences.
The enforcement notice also reveals that the contracted facilities company, having some control of the premises, was sent a copy of the notice. However, it makes it clear that although the company is considered a ‘nominated competent person’, they had not been provided with sufficient means to carry out their duties.

We at Fire Systems Ltd, find this story extraordinary, as this is the governing body responsible for ensuring we all abide by the new legislation. And to add insult to injury, they are immune from prosecution.

They appear to have failed on so many basic items, such as fire alarm maintenance, fire alarm interconnection, supplying a expectable fire risk assessment.