IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Emergency lighting
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02 May 2014 10:21 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02 May 2014 10:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6169
Joined: 04 July 2007

Hi all,
I recently replaced a "2D light fitting in the entrance hall area of the local church, the old one was full (and I do mean full!) of water due to a recent roof leak. When I removed the old unit I found that it had emergency lighting capability incorporated but the replacement I had didn't. The chap I deal with there whom I assume I could call the "duty holder"? said not to worry about it, just fit the replacement one.
This does bother me a bit, in fact I've put a note on the bottom of the invoice drawing attention to the fact that there's no emergency lighting incorporated in the light fitting and recommending that a separate emergency light be installed.
Is emergency lighting any sort of legal requirement as it's a building open to the public and could it be thrown back at me if there was ever a problem as I was the person that removed the emergency light,
Dave.
 02 May 2014 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3482
Joined: 17 December 2004

I think the answer is in your question.
Who is regarded as the 'Duty Holder' in this situation?
You followed the Duty Holder's advice and have subsequently notified this person that emergency lighting (M, S) is required at emergency escape exits.
IMO, Its now up to him to make the necessary arrangements.

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 02 May 2014 10:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6169
Joined: 04 July 2007

Thanks Legh.
 02 May 2014 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Jaymack

Posts: 4635
Joined: 07 April 2004

Originally posted by: daveparry1
When I removed the old unit I found that it had emergency lighting capability incorporated but the replacement I had didn't. The chap I deal with there whom I assume I could call the "duty holder"? said not to worry about it, just fit the replacement one.

Who's COTB would be applicable if there are repercussions? The emergency lighting, would probably have been designed to the licensing requirements of the local authority.

Regards

http://www.churchsafety.org.uk...ation/fire/e_light.htm
 02 May 2014 04:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for weirdbeard.
weirdbeard

Posts: 1499
Joined: 26 September 2011

Originally posted by: Legh


Who is regarded as the 'Duty Holder' in this situation?

Jesus?

IMO, Its now up to him to make the necessary arrangements.


 02 May 2014 05:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19618
Joined: 23 March 2004

It's not quite that simple

You cannot collude with your client to create a breach of statute provision.

In this case knowingly removing an emergency light that would, credibly, lead to a breach of the RRO and put at risk "relevant persons" would still put you in the dock alongside the client.

Not really likley to happen in this case, but the potential is there.

In the same way you cannot pass your duty of care to a client by some mechanism of getting them to sign off on a design (for example)

They have no duty to approve, even if competent to do so

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 02 May 2014 06:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3482
Joined: 17 December 2004

Originally posted by: OMS

It's not quite that simple

You cannot collude with your client to create a breach of statute provision.


Is it really collusion? Where a person has been given the responsibility for the church premises has given you instruction to make a change even though it has been made clear to that person the changes are likely to contravene some local regulation

In this case knowingly removing an emergency light that would, credibly, lead to a breach of the RRO and put at risk "relevant persons" would still put you in the dock alongside the client.


Knowingly removing a waterlogged light fitting which is likely to cause a serious fault on the lighting circuit ?

Not really likley to happen in this case, but the potential is there.

In the same way you cannot pass your duty of care to a client by some mechanism of getting them to sign off on a design (for example)

I can't see that Dave is signing off anything as he has made it clear that the light fitting is unlikely to be acceptable

They have no duty to approve, even if competent to do so

Who are they who have no duty to approve? - lol, I assume you mean church wardens, caretakers and the like?

Regards

OMS


Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 02 May 2014 07:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19618
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: Legh

Originally posted by: OMS

It's not quite that simple

You cannot collude with your client to create a breach of statute provision.


Is it really collusion? Where a person has been given the responsibility for the church premises has given you instruction to make a change even though it has been made clear to that person the changes are likely to contravene some local regulation

The instruction was to change the luminaire - not swap it for a non emergency luminaire. When the emergency function of the luminaire was discovered, and presumably for expediency, the client and contractor colluded ?


In this case knowingly removing an emergency light that would, credibly, lead to a breach of the RRO and put at risk "relevant persons" would still put you in the dock alongside the client.

Knowingly removing a waterlogged light fitting which is likely to cause a serious fault on the lighting circuit ?

and not replacing it with an emergency conversion as existing ?


Not really likley to happen in this case, but the potential is there.

In the same way you cannot pass your duty of care to a client by some mechanism of getting them to sign off on a design (for example)

I can't see that Dave is signing off anything as he has made it clear that the light fitting is unlikely to be acceptable

I didn't say he had - I was just drawing a parallel to what a duty of care extends to

They have no duty to approve, even if competent to do so

Who are they who have no duty to approve? - lol, I assume you mean church wardens, caretakers and the like?


The client - who ever that may be

Regards

OMS


Legh


OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 02 May 2014 07:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6169
Joined: 04 July 2007

They are due a periodic EICR soon so i'll see if they make any comment re the lack of emg. lighting. I won't be doing the EICR btw (although they usually ask me to) but i'll probably get any remedial work.
 02 May 2014 07:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19618
Joined: 23 March 2004

but i'll probably get any remedial work.


Stick a N/M fitting up as part of that then Dave

You've already suggested that to them anyway, on the invoice.

It's a Bank Holiday - no shirt, no shoes, no worries.

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 02 May 2014 07:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6169
Joined: 04 July 2007

Thanks OMS, will do,
have a good weekend,

Dave.
 02 May 2014 11:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3482
Joined: 17 December 2004

They have no duty to approve, even if competent to do so

Who are they who have no duty to approve? - lol, I assume you mean church wardens, caretakers and the like?

The client - who ever that may be


Oh come on, 'whoever that may be' is the person who has been given the overall responsibility to provide the necessary guidance, or take advice from somebody who does have the knowledge, on the building services maintenance, which may or not be a one off contractor asked by the Duty Holder to fit an ordinary light fitting as opposed to an emergency lamp.

This is the point of a nominated person who has some control of the risk assessment procedure for a specific building; not an ephemeral contractor - no offense Dave - lol,

Advice from the contractor was given and then ignored by the official representative in charge of the building, the assumption was that a lamp that worked as a temporary measure was better than a waterlogged failure causing no lights on that circuit to work at all.
The other alternative, without the correct fitting, would then be to remove the exiting lamp until the correct replacement could be found.

Lol - I can think of an example where a gas fitter was assured that it was wrong and dangerous to provide an earth bond connection to a gas pipe without using a crimped lug.

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 05 May 2014 09:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



lyledunn

Posts: 617
Joined: 13 August 2003

The law is slightly different in this neck of the woods but I cannot see how Dave could possibly be prosecuted under the RRO. He is not the "Responsible Person" as defined in the RRO and he has made the situation clear to a representative of the church. If the church were following the recommendations of BS5266-1 2013 then there should also be a " Responsible Person" appointed to co-ordinate and manage the ongoing appropriateness of the emergency lighting system.

-------------------------
Regards,

Lyle Dunn
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.