Len Manning

Technical Manager, Hochiki Europe

Author Bio ▼

Len Manning is the Technical Manager for Hochiki Europe (UK) Ltd. He is responsible for all aspects of R&D for all UK-designed Hochiki products. He has 20 years' experience in FD&A design and manufacture and currently sits on two working groups within the FIA: WG3 (Fire detectors) and WG27 (Alarm Devices). He was also a member of the joint FIA/BRE task group which produced CoP 0001, the Code of Practice for visual alarm devices used for fire warning. Len is the main Hochiki representative on GETAWAY, an EU funded research project for Generating simulations to Enable Testing of Alternative routes to improve WAYfinding in evacuation of over-ground and underground terminals.
April 9, 2014

Get the IFSEC Global newsletter

The latest security and fire news, reports and resources


VESDA protects thousands of tourists at the largest timber-framed church in Europe

Fire Doctor: Navigating the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

Red fire alarmThe Fire Safety Order 2005 was a game-changing piece of legislation in the fire prevention world.

Making fire-risk assessments the responsibility of building owners or managers, the legislation caused considerable apprehension among end users – and still does nearly a decade later.

Len Manning of Hochiki Europe, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of fire detection products, has kindly sought to assuage some typical concerns raised by facilities managers and others responsible for arranging fire-risk assessments.

Has the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) improved levels of fire safety since it was introduced?

Len Manning, Hochiki Europe: The answer is very simple – yes.

For those new to the industry, the RRFSO was introduced to simplify, rationalise and consolidate the law on fire safety in buildings. Previously, there were nearly 100 regional and national acts and statutory instruments regarding fire safety provision, some of which were inconsistent or out-of-date.

When it became law on 1 October 2006, the RRFSO 2005 represented a major step change in protecting occupants within buildings. The requirement for a dedicated ‘responsible person’ or team that ensures that premises are risk assessed and that any installed life safety equipment is fully maintained and fit for purpose, has been one of the most important pieces of legislation in recent times.

Does being a responsible person require specialist knowledge?

Not necessarily. However, it does require a certain level of understanding about the causes of fire, how to prevent it and what to do in the event of an emergency.

When it comes to carrying out a risk assessment, a responsible person or member of the premises management team can complete a suitable training course. Alternatively, there are a number of professionals who can do this on your behalf. If you use external resources to conduct a risk assessment that you will be responsible for, you should satisfy yourself that they are suitably competent and qualified to conduct it.

It sounds as if the RRFSO has made fire prevention and safety uniform across all types of premises. Is this so?

While in theory there should be the same rigorous and thorough approach to assessing risk and the potential for danger within any building, this is simply wishful thinking.

Although some individuals wilfully neglect their responsibilities, others are simply unaware of the extent of their duties. While the former are far more overt in their flouting of the law, the fact is that ignorance is just as much of a problem.

In order to address this, far more emphasis is now placed on the role of the responsible person following the tragic events that took place at Rosepark Care Home in South Lanarkshire, when a fire broke out in a cupboard, spread through the building and led directly to the deaths of 14 elderly residents.

Attempts to prosecute the owners for alleged fire safety breaches failed, due to a loophole in the law that meant that as they had dissolved their partnership they could no longer be prosecuted.

However, in November 2012, Lord Wallace introduced a bill to close the loophole and ensure that dissolving a partnership will no longer protect the responsible person from prosecution in such cases.

I have a small business and only employ two people. Does the RRFSO affect me?

Yes – you will need to carry out a risk assessment. The answer would be the same even if you had just one employee.

Should emergency lighting be included in the risk assessment process?

The fire risk assessment will also identify the requirement for emergency lighting. The RRFSO states that the responsible person or premises management team must ensure that ‘the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair’.

Emergency lighting is included, as its function is to indicate a clear means of escape and provide illumination along such routes to allow safe passage to an exit and ensure all points of emphasis are illuminated.

What are the consequences to the responsible person for failing to comply with the RRFSO?

Any failure that leads to loss of life, personal injury or damage to property could lead to prosecution. Those convicted will experience the full weight of the law – minor penalties include a fine of up to £5,000, while major penalties can have unlimited fines and up to two years in prison.

There is a growing portfolio of cases that demonstrates the seriousness of the issue.

Take, for instance, the Nottinghamshire businessman who was found guilty of a failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.
His crimes included failure to comply with an enforcement order, failure to ensure an effective means of escape from the premises, failure to ensure that exit routes were clear at all times, failure to provide adequate emergency lighting in emergency routes and exits, and failure to ensure that the non-automatic fire-fighting equipment provided was easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs.

He was sentenced to 26 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years, ordered to do 180 hours unpaid work and had to pay £4,000 in costs.

I’ve just changed the use of my building. Do I need to carry out another risk assessment?

Yes. The responsible person or premises management team is required to conduct a risk assessment as soon as changes are made in the workplace which have an effect on the fire risk or people at risk. Otherwise, it should be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.

Where can I get more information about the RRFSO and being a responsible person?

Industry leading life safety equipment manufacturers offer a range of advice on the subject and Hochiki Europe’s Emergency Lighting Considerations for Responsible Persons continuing professional development (CPD) seminar provides an overview of what is required when it comes to emergency lighting systems and the responsibilities under the RRFSO.

Free Download: A Technical Guide to Fire Detection and Alarm Systems

Fire legislation, which is written for the purpose of life safety, requires duty holders in non-domestic premises to assess fire risks and put in place arrangements for the prevention of fire and to protect people from fire when it occurs. This guide provides an overview of the need to know information for fire detection and alarm systems and your legal requirements, key actions, key terms and more.

Click here to download now

Related Topics

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "Fire Doctor: Navigating the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Steve Skarratt

Ironically enough, whilst you are correct in stating that there was a failure to provide adequate emergency lighting in emergency routes and exits in the Nottinghamshire case, it is worth pointing out that this was picked up in the FRA – and the owner did go and purchase the required equipment.  During the inspection it was found that not only was the EL still in its boxes, but it was these boxes that were blocking the fire exit and escape route……

Have to say I am fed up with people who do not know their history on fire safety making the party line statement, the FSO is a charter for Consultants and suppliers of equipment to provide services and equipment that may well not be needed or is just inadequate.  The FSO is an abortion of legislation and swept away good robust pieces that did not cause confusion, in fact there is more today than ever before. What it did do was allow Fire Authorities to get rid of or dramatically reduce their qualified fire safety officers.  There has been an… Read more »

Carl140, think you should re read your reply.


The problem with the FSO is that too many people think that they can carry it out themselves and think they are “the competant person”.
I would’nt survey a house so how come i can do a fire survey!
This does need clarification. On the continent a competant person is descibed as someone who is qualified but here it seems a competant person is someone who has a position of office manager or common sense.
Fire Risk Assessments need to be conducted by properly qualified individuals- with certification and proper indemity insurance.

Steve Skarratt
Hi Andy.  the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council laid out a definition of competence, and it seems that when put to the test the traditional model of a mixture of a qualification, training and experience is what is being used.  There is no specification as to the required levels of these categories, just that all three must be present.  This recognises that someone with a qualification and no experience is not “competent”.  It also means that someone with lots of experience but no qualification is also “not competent”.    What is important is to distinguish between “competence” and “capability”. It does… Read more »
CouvreFeu Fire
Richard, although I emphasise with you with respect to the demise of the fire (safety) departments having served as both a fire safety officer and now run a consultancy business I can quite happily state that the FSO is bringing many more premises into the fire safety legislative arena than were previously included. The main problem at this time is unqualified and unscrupulous fire risk assessors who are jumping onto the bandwagon/charter to line their own pockets with little regard for the RP. A further problem is that the majority of RPs are completely unaware of their responsibilities and Len… Read more »
RichardBaker1 Richard, first of all sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. When I agreed to contribute to this article I researched a number of sources, so I am not towing the “party line”. They all had a similar conclusion that since the FSO was introduced there has been a “significant” reduction in the number of fires. I do not think that this is a coincidence, although you may disagree. Certainly your response does not contain any real evidence to the contrary although you state “There has been an increase in fires where fire safety is poor or… Read more »
Steve Skarratt : Apologies for breaking into and reviving an old debate, but both ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ are poor yardsticks as measures of competence. In my humble opinion, they are merely useful as supporting evidence of competence – they are not actual measures of competence.  I have encountered time-served people (to all intents and purposes, what you would call ‘experienced’) in all walks of life, who also have qualifications of the highest order, and I would still regard some of them as lacking competency. Experience is only of any value if you reflect on it and learn from it. Qualifications… Read more »
AndyLuke Again: I’ll apologise for reviving an old debate, but there are issues that I have been wrestling with over the last few weeks and months. The point that I would like to pick up on here is not really the certification point – I have addressed that elsewhere – a piece of paper that follows a 1-day or 3-year course does not make a person ‘competent’. The point I would really like to pick up on though is ‘indemnity insurance’: since when did indemnity insurance make a person ‘competent’!? It simply doesn’t. Indemnity insurance simply provides peace of mind… Read more »
RichardBaker1 : I was a serving firefighter when the RRFSO 2005 was introduced and I was very apprehensive about it. I know from doing inspections that the only time most businesses gave any thought to their fire precautions was when an inspection was scheduled and/or taking place. And I know from talking to small business owners now, in what will be deemed to be low-risk premises, few – if any of them – have done anything about a FRA. The argument that the RRFSO ‘swept away’ over 70 pieces of legislation and brought everybody/everything under a single umbrella – supposedly… Read more »
LManning RichardBaker1 : THIS:- In my opinion I think that it has been a good move to make employers more accountable for the fire strategies within their own boundaries. With more people involved in the process, there is a greater understanding and spread of knowledge of the risks, and this must surely be a good thing. Is best-case-scenario stuff! In an ideal world, this is what we would see. But we don’t live in an ideal world and the problem is getting ‘responsible persons’ to engage. You seem to accept that there is a need for proper enforcement – and that is… Read more »
Alan Cox
Some interesting points have been made in this conversation and many of them have been made previously and will probably be raised again in the future and so I think it unlikely that we will resolve the issue of competency at this time but perhaps when we leave the EU it may change but I am not holding my breath. As a matter of interest I sit on a number of EU Standards including CEN/CLC/TC 4 Technical Project Committee – Services for fire safety and security systems and competency was an issue here and whilst I would have liked to… Read more »