fire door/health and safety legislation

[imamartian]

http://www.dorgard.com/Dorgard.asp

Thanks for this !

 

[gregers]

put this to your bosses,if there was a fire in the building and the fire door was wedged open do they think there insurance company will pay out im pretty sure THATLL BE A NO,we have fire inspections on a regular basis by the fire brigade and prior to them turning up someone will go round making sure all doors are closed,i work in a college and the pupils wedge them open,i was always told that you can only wedge a door open if your taking objects through and as soon as you have you close it,PERIOD.

 

[^woody^]

The wedging open of a fire door would be a civil matter and not a criminal offence or "against the law"

There is no penalty for wedging open a door, but if a fire did occur, and it is proven that whoever wedged the door caused the fire to spread causing damage/injury then that person (or those with responsibility for the building) could be liable in negligence

 

[Softus]

The wedging open of a fire door would be a civil matter and not a criminal offence or "against the law"

Quite wrong - a fire door is a piece of health and safety equipment, and it's illegal (i.e. a criminal offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act) to render it inoperable by keeping it open for longer than is necessary to pass through it.

 

[^woody^]

The HSWA is quite large and rambling. AFAIK, it does not define a door as a piece of equipment. And I don't know of any regulation that defines a door as equiment in the same context of say a safety guard.

If your supostion is correct, then the windows, walls and roof are all pieces of H&S equipment as they keep the cold and wet out and the sun out in summer, and the same logic could be extended to many more items as H&S equipment

A door is a structural item in all property and construction law and not a piece of equipment and there is a specific difference between the two meanings. So I am not sure how the HSWA defines doors as equipment

 

[tim west]

We're not talking ordinary doors here we are talking of Fire doors which are a safety device.

 

[Softus]

...fire door...

...door...door...door...doors...

 

[megawatt]

Softus wrote:

Quite wrong - a fire door is a piece of health and safety equipment, and it's illegal (i.e. a criminal offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act) to render it inoperable by keeping it open for longer than is necessary to pass through it.

And is 100% correct.

Woody: A fire door is defined within the HSW Act as a fire safety device and it is illegal to tamper with it or affect it's operation in any way ... Just as it is illegal to tamper with fire alarms, fire extinguishers or other fire safety devices.

If you are visited by the fire service and are found in breach of the act on any of their spot checks the manager responsible (not the company) is prosecuted ... Last time I was involved with this the fine was £5000 and is probably more now.

MW

 

[WDIK]

yes yes it is an offence, however dealt with under civil law rather than actual criminal law.
the majority of the hsawa is covered by civil law.
the only exception it the 1985 gas reg's
GSIUR
criminal law

 

[Softus]

...dealt with under civil law rather than actual criminal law.

Please would you explain that sentence; particularly your use of the word "actual"?

the majority of the hsawk is covered by civil law.

And that one?

For example, which offences covered by the HASAW Act are not criminal ones?

 

[tim west]

I have always been led to believe that certain parts of the Health and Safety Act is dealt with by the Criminal Courts and that it is unusual in that those accused are automatically deemed guilty and have to prove their innocence.

For imamartian

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/law.pdf

At this moment I cant find the relevant sections on Criminality but here's an extract on the guilty before being found innocent bit

UK Legislation (Health and Safety)/UK Parliament
Statutes/Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (1974 c 37)/Part I Health,
Safety and Welfare in Connection with Work

(6) Health and safety regulations--
(a) may specify the persons or classes of persons who, in the event of a
contravention of a requirement or prohibition imposed by or under the regulations,
are to be guilty of an offence, whether in addition to or to the
exclusion of other persons or classes of persons;

 

[blondini]

i want to 'force' my company to look after my welfare.... and not prop open fire doors

Just call the local Fire Service, they will sort it. Probably with a stern word in the approprate ears.

 

[WDIK]

Civil law is concerned mostly with disputes between individuals or corporate bodies. Cases must be proved on the balance of probabilities (more than a 50 per cent probability that the defendant is liable) rather than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard applied in criminal cases. In both criminal and civil cases, the courts make decisions on an adversarial rather than an inquisitorial basis. This means that the prosecution and defence test the credibility and reliability of the evidence their opponent presents to the court. The judge makes decisions based on the evidence presented.

If the police charge someone with a criminal offence in England or Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may decide to prosecute.
In jury trials the judge decides questions of law, sums up the case and discharges or sentences the accused The CPS may proceed with prosecution if there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge and it is in the public interest to proceed.

Offences tried at a magistrates' court include:

'indictable only' (such as murder, manslaughter or robbery), which must be tried on indictment at the Crown Court by judge and jury
'either-way' (such as theft and burglary)
The magistrates' court must decide whether the case is serious enough to be sent to the Crown Court on indictment. However, if the magistrates choose summary trial, the accused person can choose, if they prefer, a trial by jury in the Crown Court.

If a 'not guilty' plea is entered, the prosecution and defence form opposing sides. They call and examine witnesses and present opposing versions of the case.

In jury trials, the judge decides questions of law, sums up the case to the jury, and discharges or sentences the accused. The jury is responsible for deciding questions of fact. Its verdict, which must be reached with a majority of at least 10 to 2, may be 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. A 'not guilty' verdict results in an acquittal.

If an accused person is acquitted, the prosecution cannot appeal, nor can the accused be tried again for that same offence unless there is proof that a juror has been interfered with or intimidated (which is a criminal offence).

 

[Softus]

...dealt with under civil law rather than actual criminal law.

Please would you explain that sentence; particularly your use of the word "actual"?

the majority of the hsawk is covered by civil law.

And that one?

For example, which offences covered by the HASAW Act are not criminal ones?

 

[WDIK]

as far as Im aware, the only exception in the hasaw from being in civil law is the gas act.

clearly you may dispute that,

it depends how badly you want another cyberkill to notch up