Hotel Fire Safety Case Study: Are the Hotel and Local FRS Doing Enough?

In April this year I stayed in a hotel and during my usual fire-safety check I found a number of aspects that caused me some concern.

So on my return home I raised these issues with the hotel, which is more than a century old with a large number of rooms and a range of facilities. Below are the hotel fire safety issues I raised and the response I received from both the hotel and Fire and Rescue Service (FRS).

Areas of concern

1. The first aspect that concerned me was that there was no fire separation between bars and function rooms on the ground floor and a number of bedrooms on the first floor.

In this picture the bedrooms are to the left and right of the stairs and at the bottom of the stairs you can see a bar area within the staircase. The bedrooms on the left are in a dead end and the second picture shows another bedroom and furniture and storage on the first floor.

The hotel stated: “The main staircase is one area which in any general building would have to have a fire break in place, and we would certainly do so if allowed. Unfortunately due to the building’s Grade 1 listed status, this prevents the fire break being granted planning permission and the fire authority are well aware of this.”

FRS response to my Freedom of Information request: “The FRS does not have any record appertaining to this issue for these premises.”

I personally find this response somewhat concerning and wonder what they would say in a post fire investigation and the statement appears to be different to the understanding of the hotel.

2. The second aspect that concerned me was the fact that there were transformers in the dead-end section of the first floor corridor (see picture on right).

The hotel stated: “The transformers outside room 114 are only 12-volt lighting transformers, with an energy-restricted mains supply, additionally ultra-fast fused inside the master dimmer, and then each transformer has its own protection fuse as well. Therefore a low inherent risk of a fault, and duplicated protection reduces the consequences of a fault.

“The equipment does not meet the definition of ‘distribution equipment’ on an escape route.  The transformers are not oil-filled.  During the period of increased risk – ie, during the night – his lighting system is normally switched off anyway.  We will, though, consider erecting an enclosure to further mitigate any risk.”

FRS response: “The FRS does not have any record appertaining to this issue for these premises.”

 I also find this response disturbing and would have thought that this was an item they would have noted.

3. The next aspect I raised was the fact that a number of fire doors did not have intumescent strips/smoke seals installed although the grooves were provided. It was also observed that daylight could be seen between the frame and wall (see picture on right).

The hotel stated: “We are already in the process of installing intumescent strips with cold smoke seals in all doors opening onto escape routes, having previously identified this deficiency.”

The FRS response: “the FRS does not have any record appertaining to this issue for these premises.”

 Again I find this response quite worrying and wonder just exactly what the FRS does when it carries out a fire safety audit.

The fourth aspect that I raised related to the main fire escape outside my bedroom window. Quite clearly there was no fire protection to this staircase and it was in a poor state of repair.

The hotel stated: “You may have noticed that the two fire escapes to the left hand side of the main fire escape have been recently refurbished, with one new landing plate and new treads. We also stripped the paint back to bare metal and treated a Fertan antirust treatment that is used on north sea oil rigs, and then painted with several coats of paint.

“We have already started work on the main fire escape from the top and are working our way down; again this is being stripped back fully and treated in the same way as the other two fire escapes with any landings or treads being replaced.

“We also have some new stanchions that have been made and are about to be put in place over the next few weeks as the work continues and weather permits for the chemical fixings.  We will be replacing the glass in the window with fire safety glass, and also replacing the window and glass in the room above yours.

“We have already installed wired glass both in the reception area and by the staircase on the ground floor which back on to the fire escape. Once again thank you for your observations.”

The FRS response: “the FRS does not have any record appertaining to this issue for these premises.”

My investigation into the Penhallow Hotel Fire revealed a very similar situation that resulted in guests not being able to use the external fire escape and I find it extremely worrying that the FRS have no records relating to this serious problem.

5. While the hotel had an electric fire alarm I noticed a manually operated rotary gong in the corridor not far from my room.

The hotel response: “We are currently decorating the first floor corridor with the second floor being finished two weeks ago, as part of this work the fire alarm cables are being enclosed in coving and all redundant fire alarms and the manual rotary gong are being removed.”

The FRS response: “The FRS does not have any record appertaining to this issue for these premises.”

Clearly there is the danger here that people could use this in the event of a fire and not use the break-glass system – again, worrying that the FRS has no knowledge of this.

6. The last issue I raised was that there was no record of PAT testing on electrical appliances.

The hotel stated: “While you are correct that there are no test stickers, you must be aware that there is no legal requirement under the EAW Act to PA Test, only to “maintain appliances to prevent danger”.  Where the method of PA testing is chosen to meet the requirements of the EAW, then there is absolutely no requirement under the Code of Practice to attach those little green stickers.

“We can uniquely identify every appliance in the hotel – by serial number, RFID or simply location – and this forms the basis of our appliance inspection and testing management.

“You surely must also be aware that the bigger part of maintaining appliance safety is inspection, rather than testing, and to this end our housekeepers visually inspect and functionally test all bedroom appliances as part of their housekeeping tasks. In addition, we have three members of maintenance staff who also check on appliances, and when any faults are found the item is either replaced or repaired by an electrical engineer that we use.

In any case, the hairdryer which you identified is less than a year old, and as a Class-II appliance would have not even been due a test yet.”

This was the response from the FRS “A check that portable appliance testing has been carried out is included in every audit.”

Clearly the FRS looks at this item but has no record of other fire safety aspects, which I find very worrying.

Additional freedom of information questions

I also asked the FRS when they last carried out a fire safety audit and they replied: “The last audit was carried out on 30th April 2016 and the premises were found to be broadly compliant.” I am not sure what they mean by “broadly compliant” but it is an interesting comment.

The other question that I asked was “had they ever issued a fire certificate” and they replied “fire certificates ceased to exist as a legal entity with the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRFSO), which came into effect on 1st October 2006.  The FRS does not retain records relating to repealed legislation.”

My view is that I think that this building would have been issued with a fire certificate in the past and again I am surprised that they do not have this information.

Additional information from The hotel

The hotel also provided the following information: “We have a competent person who has been trained both in health and safety and on fire-risk assessment.  We also use a former fire officer to undertake our fire training, and have the local retained fire brigade come in and hold training exercises at the hotel. As I am sure you are aware we have an annual inspection by the local fire safety inspector, to date we have never failed an inspection and always value and act on any requirements or requests that may be made.”

This photo shows the 1st floor layout:

 

Conclusions

Clearly, the hotel has been very open on the matter and is obviously working towards improving the level of fire safety that is required but why do we find ourselves in such a position and more importantly why don’t the FRS appear to be aware of these problems?

The points that I have highlighted are fairly basic fire safety requirements and there is no doubt in my mind that in a fire situation these aspects could easily lead to a very serious condition – so is it fair that the public and staff are exposed to such risks?

I should also point out that there were other fire safety problems such as fire doors left open, free-standing LPG cylinders on external escape routes and non-fire-resisting doors to risk areas.

So the chronology of events is clear, here are the relevant dates:

• My stay – 9 April 2016
• My report – 15 April 2016
• FRS inspection – 30 April 2016

Unfortunately, this hotel exhibits many of the same problems I have observed in numerous other hotels around the UK. So the question I ask is this: should the hotel industry and fire and rescue services be doing more and is this an acceptable state of affairs?