Can Fire Exits be padlocked?

lucylucky

KiKi wrote: »

Hi there

Maybe I'm being stupid / ignorant here, but surely that's not unreasonable? You have to lock the doors before you leave, so there will always be a point between starting to lock the doors and leaving where all the exits are locked, bar one?

The same in the morning...as soon as you walk in the front door, effectively there are no other exits - as it takes time to unlock the fire doors.

You can't be in a position where you're in the building with all doors unlocked - and then suddenly outside with them all locked; there will always be a bit of overlap, surely?!

Sorry if I've misunderstood..!

KiKi

I think the general gist of the question (and apologies to all if I have completely got this wrong) is that if there are a number of people in the building and fire exits are being locked, then is this right?

As I, and others, have said there will (??) be a risk assessment that should put the OP's mind at rest.

thelurch

Hi I am a serving firefighter, we regularly visit commercial premises to check fire exits are clear, both inside and outside the fire exit, especially at this time of year with shops getting larger deliveries for Christmas.

The general rule of thumb is anybody in a building must be no more than 18m from an exit, so if you have a shop which is very "deep" from the front door to the till at the back and it's 18m or over then there must be another exit and this must be signed and designated as a fire exit with the signs etc and kept as clear as possible.

A building can have more exits but if that exit isn't signed a fire exit then it can be padlocked while people are in the building.

I have seen fire exits with a chain and padlock hanging by the side of the door on visits and this is technically ok but in an ideal world it should be just a push bar lock or similar release mechanism which does not require a key.

I have also seen fire exits still padlocked while staff/customers are in the building and have had these removed immediately.

I know fire exits get padlocked because often lower quality or older fire exit doors are an easy target as burglars know they may well not have a lock on them.

It relies on the 1st person to arrive in the morning to unlock them all, unless they forget and then that's where the problems could start.

As mentioned already the manager should have a fire risk assessment which should detail this policy about padlocking doors etc. If there was a fire, and fire exits were locked and someone was hurt/killed then person filling out the FRA would potentially be in court for corporate manslaughter. That obviously doesn't help individual employees.

My advice would be to look up your counties fire service HQ phone number in the phone book, give them a call and ask to be put through to the local fire safety centre to your workplace.
Tell them your concerns and ask someone to come out to have a look, you wouldn't have to give your name or details, just say you are worried about fire exits being padlocked and you are worried that someone might forget to unlock them.

If they are breaking regulations with their procedure, they won't be for long as our inspectors have the power to shut a business down immediately if it's serious enough but its more likely they would tell the manager what should be happening etc and they will then return randomly to check that things are in order.

Good luck, let us know how you get on

dickydonkin

Push bars with ceramic break tubes satisfies the security issue and enables a 'locked' door to be opened in the event of an evacuation.

There are other systems of course, but personally, I just don't like the idea of padlocking any fire escapes. Risk assessments are a legal requirement, but are only as good as the competence of the person doing it!

As for the people using fire escapes for a 'sly fag', simply make the entire site a smoking free zone - anyone caught abusing the requirement - sack them. You just don't mess around where fire is concerned.

I make no apologies for offending smokers - Smoking and arson are high on the list of sources of ignition, therefore reducing the risks by improving security and reducing the likelihood of a lit cigarette end causing a fire should be of prime importance in any organisations fire prevention arrangements.

Monitoring a company's fire safety arrangements is also vital. Preventing a fire is a more preferable option (obviously).

As suggested earlier, rather than report the situation to the local Fire & Rescue, discuss this with the relevant person responsible for safety in your workplace - only then if you are not happy, do as thelurch suggests and take the matter to those will ensure something is done about it.

thelurch

dpassmore wrote: »

As suggested earlier, rather than report the situation to the local Fire & Rescue, discuss this with the relevant person responsible for safety in your workplace - only then if you are not happy, do as thelurch suggests and take the matter to those will ensure something is done about it.

I agree that talking to the relevant responsible person about concerns, and asking to have a look at the risk assessement is the preferable best option but a lot of people fear being viewed as a possible trouble maker for asking questions, so a phone call to a fire safety officer to come and have a look maybe the way to go.

We were tasked earlier this year with visiting as many of our local businesses/churches etc to just check they had done their fire risk assessment, not to read it but to check they had done it. Although having been law since 2006, it was at least half of those visited hadn't even heard of it let alone done one.Infact some well known high street shops were unaware!

dickydonkin

thelurch wrote: »

I agree that talking to the relevant responsible person about concerns, and asking to have a look at the risk assessement is the preferable best option but a lot of people fear being viewed as a possible trouble maker for asking questions, so a phone call to a fire safety officer to come and have a look maybe the way to go.

We were tasked earlier this year with visiting as many of our local businesses/churches etc to just check they had done their fire risk assessment, not to read it but to check they had done it. Although having been law since 2006, it was at least half of those visited hadn't even heard of it let alone done one.Infact some well known high street shops were unaware!

I can well believe that.

My opinion for what it's worth is that a certification of fire safety should have remained with the professionals - i.e. the local F&R Dept.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order is in my opinion, a bad bit of legislation. I appreciate that a lot of administration, time and most relevant - money - has been saved by removing many duties from the local fire services.

I still have serious reservations, and the requirement for a fire risk assessment to be carried out by the duty holder or a 'competent person' on their behalf is unwise I believe - in particular where no really detailed definition of 'competence' exists.

thelurch

dpassmore wrote: »

I can well believe that.

My opinion for what it's worth is that a certification of fire safety should have remained with the professionals - i.e. the local F&R Dept.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order is in my opinion, a bad bit of legislation. I appreciate that a lot of administration, time and most relevant - money - has been saved by removing many duties from the local fire services.

I still have serious reservations, and the requirement for a fire risk assessment to be carried out by the duty holder or a 'competent person' on their behalf is unwise I believe - in particular where no really detailed definition of 'competence' exists.

Yes I agree too, but before the change of legislation, the old fire certificate was only ever applicable to office, shops and railways ( and a few others ) so now at least it now applies to any building where people meet, under 5 employees and no requirement for written, over 5 and has to be on paper, so a lot of smaller businesses have maybe now identified things they would have otherwise ignored, as previously they would have never had a visit from a fire officer.
We have discovered some really really shocking and potential death trap situations in some businesses because they've never before qualified to have a visit/or inspection.

WhiteHorse

Any doubt about the law, ask the local Fire Brigade.

lucylucky

"Push bars with ceramic break tubes satisfies the security issue and enables a 'locked' door to be opened in the event of an evacuation."

On the advice of our safety advisor and local fire brigade we used to smash these tubes on our regular inspections.

The tubes were often placed at a height where they could not be broken by a child or a person who had some difficulty in reaching their height.*

Eventually they were all removed and better "push bar" type opening devices were installed.

*This was highlighted in the risk assessment but out "service partner" seemed to disagree

dickydonkin

lucylucky wrote: »

"Push bars with ceramic break tubes satisfies the security issue and enables a 'locked' door to be opened in the event of an evacuation."

On the advice of our safety advisor and local fire brigade we used to smash these tubes on our regular inspections.

The tubes were often placed at a height where they could not be broken by a child or a person who had some difficulty in reaching their height.*

Eventually they were all removed and better "push bar" type opening devices were installed.

*This was highlighted in the risk assessment but out "service partner" seemed to disagree

As I indicated earlier, push bars with tubes are not the only method to enable suitable means for escape without compromising security.

For example, it would be very unlikely that children would have access to ceramic tubes in an industrial environment such as a factory or warehouse.

In a food grade production unit, these tubes may also be unsatisfactory due to the potential of contamination of products should one break.

This argument was fired at me by an over zealous QA manager and I suggested that a fluent escape in an emergency situation outweighed the limited possibility of contamination - bearing in mind that if there was a fire, it would be very likely that a piece of ceramic tube would be the least of their worries.

Any doubt about the law, ask the local Fire Brigade.

Absolutely - and they will be able to offer advice on the type of equipment required that is suitable for the premises in question. It is not just the buildings that have to be considered, but the types and numbers of the people using them also need to be assessed.

lucylucky

dpassmore wrote: »

As I indicated earlier, push bars with tubes are not the only method to enable suitable means for escape without compromising security.

For example, it would be very unlikely that children would have access to ceramic tubes in an industrial environment such as a factory or warehouse.

In a food grade production unit, these tubes may also be unsatisfactory due to the potential of contamination of products should one break.

This argument was fired at me by an over zealous QA manager and I suggested that a fluent escape in an emergency situation outweighed the limited possibility of contamination - bearing in mind that if there was a fire, it would be very likely that a piece of ceramic tube would be the least of their worries.



Absolutely - and they will be able to offer advice on the type of equipment required that is suitable for the premises in question. It is not just the buildings that have to be considered, but the types and numbers of the people using them also need to be assessed.

Apologies if you thought I was suggesting that this was what you said.

I was highlighting an example where one potential solution may not be ideal.

A proper risk assessment should identify the risks and control measures.

I was reading a RA this afternoon connected with some work I am doing and it is woefully inadequate.