Wednesday, 24 August 2016
Now established in SE Asia
The fire investigation and fire expertise service is now fully embedded in Andrew Moore and Associates Ltd (www.andrew-moore.com) and has already completed instructions with land and marine fire cases. I look forward now to updating the blogs more frequently and stimulating some discussion.
Sunday, 6 March 2016
Update - David Townsend - Andrew Moore and Associates Ltd
With effect from May 2016 I will be employed as Consutant Fire Investigator by Andrew Moore and Associates Ltd (AMA) and based at their Hong Kong office. I look forward very much to this new and very exiting position.
I have enjoyed my work with IFIC Forensics and hope to work with them in my new role.
AMA are a well established and global marine survey, science and engineering company. The establishment now of a dedicated, in-house fire investigation capability will add greatly to the services provided.
The marine survey, science and engineering skills experience acquired by the personnel will greatly enhance the fire investigation division. This is the ideal skills mix for fire and fire expertise for land based and marine casework.
I intend to continue with the blogs and to remain very active with the Institution of Fire Engineers.
I hope blog readers will contribute and stimulate more posts. Healthy discussion is good for learning.
I have enjoyed my work with IFIC Forensics and hope to work with them in my new role.
AMA are a well established and global marine survey, science and engineering company. The establishment now of a dedicated, in-house fire investigation capability will add greatly to the services provided.
The marine survey, science and engineering skills experience acquired by the personnel will greatly enhance the fire investigation division. This is the ideal skills mix for fire and fire expertise for land based and marine casework.
I intend to continue with the blogs and to remain very active with the Institution of Fire Engineers.
I hope blog readers will contribute and stimulate more posts. Healthy discussion is good for learning.
Tumble dryer safety alerts
The safety of white goods generally over the last 20 years has been very much influenced by the effectiveness of public and private sector fire investigation. We have learned a great deal.
Insurers have greater expert resources with which to pursue and win recovery of claims.
But the white goods industry is an unwieldy beast. As is common now with so many consumer products there are many different badges to the exact same product and the ultimate parent company and manufacturer can be very large and also remote from the Country of sale.
This makes customer relations and communication difficult.
A friend of mine recently found he was one of many unfortunate owners of a tumble dryer from a very well known brand (or badge) that had been proven to be of unsafe design and consequently a fire risk. The manufacturer (no doubt very reluctantly) accepted the design fault to be proven and took action to trace existing owners to rectify the problem.
And how did they do that?
They wrote to known owners (and let's not forget that this will in practice be only a fraction of all those actually in possession) and informed them that they would be sending an engineer to rectify the problem (to make it safe!). The visit by the engineer may take up to 9 months. Yes, 9 months!
In the meantime my friend was told he may continue using the (defective) machine but not to leave it unattended.
However if he wished to purchase a new machine then it could be delivered and fitted the next day!
How kind and thoughtful of them. It is quite apparent that if there is a sale to be made then this company can respond instantly with full resources. But if a consumer's safety, goods and chattels are at risk well.....
As a safety professional I am fully aware that a service engineer is not the same as a fitter but the perception to my friend was very clearly that this company has very twisted morals. He is highly unlikely to ever purchase anything from that company again. He is also likely to relay his tale to other friends and relatives who may contemplate buying a new machine.
But also as a safety professional I consider this apparent risk assessment taken by the company to be either a very brave or a very stupid decision. They have chosen to risk lay persons knowingly using an unsafe appliance until repairs can be made. The defect remains. Merely being present will not prevent any fire. Being present does not mean sitting by the appliance with a fire extinguisher at the ready.
They have taken the gamble that the number of fire incidents compared to the numbers of machines produced was very low and the losses were not particularly high. Thus the likelihood of a further fire occurring before the fault is rectified is low and any loss will be lower because the fire will be discovered early. It is a simple numbers game. That is the way of big business and safety. The most famous of such risk assessments years ago was the Ford Pinto disgrace where the company chose to take the hit and did not inform anyone. In this case the company are at least being upfront about it.
Nevertheless when a fire occurs that is proved to have been by the known defect I look forward to be the expert who is assigned to investigate.
Insurers have greater expert resources with which to pursue and win recovery of claims.
But the white goods industry is an unwieldy beast. As is common now with so many consumer products there are many different badges to the exact same product and the ultimate parent company and manufacturer can be very large and also remote from the Country of sale.
This makes customer relations and communication difficult.
A friend of mine recently found he was one of many unfortunate owners of a tumble dryer from a very well known brand (or badge) that had been proven to be of unsafe design and consequently a fire risk. The manufacturer (no doubt very reluctantly) accepted the design fault to be proven and took action to trace existing owners to rectify the problem.
And how did they do that?
They wrote to known owners (and let's not forget that this will in practice be only a fraction of all those actually in possession) and informed them that they would be sending an engineer to rectify the problem (to make it safe!). The visit by the engineer may take up to 9 months. Yes, 9 months!
In the meantime my friend was told he may continue using the (defective) machine but not to leave it unattended.
However if he wished to purchase a new machine then it could be delivered and fitted the next day!
How kind and thoughtful of them. It is quite apparent that if there is a sale to be made then this company can respond instantly with full resources. But if a consumer's safety, goods and chattels are at risk well.....
As a safety professional I am fully aware that a service engineer is not the same as a fitter but the perception to my friend was very clearly that this company has very twisted morals. He is highly unlikely to ever purchase anything from that company again. He is also likely to relay his tale to other friends and relatives who may contemplate buying a new machine.
But also as a safety professional I consider this apparent risk assessment taken by the company to be either a very brave or a very stupid decision. They have chosen to risk lay persons knowingly using an unsafe appliance until repairs can be made. The defect remains. Merely being present will not prevent any fire. Being present does not mean sitting by the appliance with a fire extinguisher at the ready.
They have taken the gamble that the number of fire incidents compared to the numbers of machines produced was very low and the losses were not particularly high. Thus the likelihood of a further fire occurring before the fault is rectified is low and any loss will be lower because the fire will be discovered early. It is a simple numbers game. That is the way of big business and safety. The most famous of such risk assessments years ago was the Ford Pinto disgrace where the company chose to take the hit and did not inform anyone. In this case the company are at least being upfront about it.
Nevertheless when a fire occurs that is proved to have been by the known defect I look forward to be the expert who is assigned to investigate.
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Who is in charge?
When the owner or occupier of any property finds that there has been a fire in his or her property they frequently find themselves excluded and confused. The Police and Fire Service appear to close ranks and the insurance loss adjuster may treat them with suspicion.
The owner often does not know who to turn to or who is in overall charge of a property which, up until the fire had been entirely his or her domain and responsibility.
It is an unpleasant truth that owners and occupiers are often suspects or, at the very least, biased witnesses. The various agencies concerned with investigation of the fire have little choice but to treat them as such.
But who is in charge?
Probably the clearest scenario is where there is any suspicion of crime: The Police have (or should have) full control. They will take possession of keys and will arrange secure boarding up. Perhaps even keep an officer posted on site.
Where there is no crime then often the insurer effectively takes possession but, under normal circumstances, cannot exclude the owner. It is the insurer who is going to be expected to pay for the loss so it is entirely in the insurer's interest to keep the scene preserved in the same manner as a crime scene. There will be crucial evidence that the insurer may rely upon in order to refute the claim or to make a full or partial recovery of costs from another party.
There will often be multiple insurance interests from other policies, buildings, installers or manufacturers.
The Fire Service? after the fire is fully extinguished they have the legal authority to investigate, to conduct interviews and to take samples. They should give 24 hours notice but they have no authority to exclude the owner from access.
Gas and electricity? They have right of access in order to make systems safe.
Each of these agencies may engage the services of an investigator and those investigators may engage specialists. So yes, it can be very confusing for the owner. It is often the investigator or the loss adjuster who explains the situation. It is they who tend to have the most direct and frequent contact.
I always try to engage the owner or principal occupier. It is the best way to get cooperation and good information (of course with the usual caveats). They know the building better than any other.
The owner often does not know who to turn to or who is in overall charge of a property which, up until the fire had been entirely his or her domain and responsibility.
It is an unpleasant truth that owners and occupiers are often suspects or, at the very least, biased witnesses. The various agencies concerned with investigation of the fire have little choice but to treat them as such.
But who is in charge?
Probably the clearest scenario is where there is any suspicion of crime: The Police have (or should have) full control. They will take possession of keys and will arrange secure boarding up. Perhaps even keep an officer posted on site.
Where there is no crime then often the insurer effectively takes possession but, under normal circumstances, cannot exclude the owner. It is the insurer who is going to be expected to pay for the loss so it is entirely in the insurer's interest to keep the scene preserved in the same manner as a crime scene. There will be crucial evidence that the insurer may rely upon in order to refute the claim or to make a full or partial recovery of costs from another party.
There will often be multiple insurance interests from other policies, buildings, installers or manufacturers.
The Fire Service? after the fire is fully extinguished they have the legal authority to investigate, to conduct interviews and to take samples. They should give 24 hours notice but they have no authority to exclude the owner from access.
Gas and electricity? They have right of access in order to make systems safe.
Each of these agencies may engage the services of an investigator and those investigators may engage specialists. So yes, it can be very confusing for the owner. It is often the investigator or the loss adjuster who explains the situation. It is they who tend to have the most direct and frequent contact.
I always try to engage the owner or principal occupier. It is the best way to get cooperation and good information (of course with the usual caveats). They know the building better than any other.
Fire Risk Assessor in the frame
Fire investigation has for many years now been far more than only a matter of cause and origin. With the general increased awareness of the value of thorough and complete fire investigation its tentacles soon developed to include fire spread, materials, structure, systems, management and of course .... culpability.
The fire risk assessor from its beginnings, after the enactment of the Regulatory Reform Order, was regarded by many a a safe bet because the "Responsible Person" carried the can.
Safe from legal consequences perhaps but those who had had experience with the Coroners Courts were aware of the fact that the fire risk assessor was not so safe. The case at the link below is the first that I have seen where a fire risk assessor is named and effectively blamed.
It was only a matter of time.
From a fire investigators point of view a Fire Risk Assessor is just another contractor, designer, manufacturer or installer: If something he or she has done may have been a contributory factor then it will be duly noted and reported.
This is another example of how fire investigation closes the feedback loop into many branches of the fire safety industry. It is one of the key drivers in the identification of fault and the subsequent improvement of products and systems.
But what about the fire investigator? Are we not also possibly culpable? Of course we are. Our reports are often crucial in the actions taken by others. Actions that will cost other parties. Litigation is always potentially knocking on the door and where fire has been involved then there will probably be a fire investigator behind it.
Link:
http://idighardware.com/2014/05/coroner-open-fire-door-resulted-in-death/
The fire risk assessor from its beginnings, after the enactment of the Regulatory Reform Order, was regarded by many a a safe bet because the "Responsible Person" carried the can.
Safe from legal consequences perhaps but those who had had experience with the Coroners Courts were aware of the fact that the fire risk assessor was not so safe. The case at the link below is the first that I have seen where a fire risk assessor is named and effectively blamed.
It was only a matter of time.
From a fire investigators point of view a Fire Risk Assessor is just another contractor, designer, manufacturer or installer: If something he or she has done may have been a contributory factor then it will be duly noted and reported.
This is another example of how fire investigation closes the feedback loop into many branches of the fire safety industry. It is one of the key drivers in the identification of fault and the subsequent improvement of products and systems.
But what about the fire investigator? Are we not also possibly culpable? Of course we are. Our reports are often crucial in the actions taken by others. Actions that will cost other parties. Litigation is always potentially knocking on the door and where fire has been involved then there will probably be a fire investigator behind it.
Link:
http://idighardware.com/2014/05/coroner-open-fire-door-resulted-in-death/
Monday, 21 April 2014
Deliberate fire setting - Intentional? Reckless? Behavioural? A fine line indeed
Arson is a very emotive word and one commonly used and abused to sell papers and TV programmes: It grabs the attention and the imagination. It conjures up images of steely connivance and heartless villainy.
Arson is in fact the offence of deliberate, intentional or reckless fire setting that results in injury or criminal damage.
But the difference between intentional, reckless and accidental acts is often difficult to assess because it takes only a slight difference in circumstances to tip the balance in favour of either. A candle placed too close to the side of a TV set - is it a deliberate, reckless or ignorant act?
In the world of criminal law it is not too difficult a decision because the burden of proof is one of "Beyond reasonable doubt" and persons who commit an act of arson rarely do it in a manner of careful planning. It is a crime often of passion and anger. The "Red mist" negates all reasoning and the assumption is often made that the fire will destroy the evidence anyway.
Like all crime the influence of drink or drugs is generally not considered relevant in terms of guilt; A person who abuses drink or drugs is held to have done so knowingly thus they are fully responsible for any act done as a result. But what about drink and drug addiction? is it rational? Is it reasonable that such persons have control and responsibility?
The fine line between intent and recklessness is particularly interesting. For example: Two youths were seen on CCTV to be playing with something at the back of a bus and shortly after they left the bus there was a fire that destroyed the bus.They were charged with intentional arson and with intent to endanger life (more about that subject another time).
They admitted they had been playing with a lighter to see if chewing gum stuck to the back of the seat shell in front of them would burn. Their intention was to burn the chewing gum. Not the bus. It was proved that, from their description of the behaviour of the chewing gum under flame, from the ability (unknown to the youths) of chewing gum to sustain combustion in an undramatic manner and the fact that they had left the bus only because it was actually their off stop they they had indeed not intended for the bus to burn. They were convicted of reckless arson. Intentional arson would have carried a custodial sentence.
Juvenile fire setting behaviour is widely held to be an aberration that is understood, accepted and can be treated very successfully. This is a good thing but is it right to regard it as entirely age related? Many persons beyond teenage years have mental disabilities that render their understanding and perceptions to be similar to juvenile years. It seems highly appropriate that such persons should be considered in the same way as juveniles. Indeed such persons are entitled to the services of an "Appropriate Adult". Perhaps the mental ages of the youths in the above example could have been assessed. It would not have changed the result of the trial but may have further altered the punishment.
In civil matters the burden of proof is one of probability. Fraudulent arson is very difficult to prove and many Insurance agencies wisely engage specialist teams or agencies to tackle it. Of course if the evidence available is strong enough for criminal charges then the matter is reported to the Police for action. But where the evidence is less clear then it would seem a very heavy onus to lay upon a policyholder that "on the balance of probabilities" he or she set the fire or caused the fire to be set.
In reality, and with the assistance of a judges ruling, the balance of probability for fraudulent arson has been set somewhere between the two.
And what about contributory negligence? I examined a few of the same fleet of buses from the above incident in the same company and found nearly all had cigarette lighter damage to the rear of the seat shells at the back of the buses. Some of the holes created had been filled with chewing gum and some by epoxy resin filler. Clearly the company were aware of the problem but had taken no action to negate it. This was an incident waiting to happen. If it had resulted in a death then I for one would have been making some representation to the coroner in regard to the clear awareness and lack of action by the transport company and bus manufacturer.
PS - I wrote to the company expressing my concern and received no reply!
Arson is in fact the offence of deliberate, intentional or reckless fire setting that results in injury or criminal damage.
But the difference between intentional, reckless and accidental acts is often difficult to assess because it takes only a slight difference in circumstances to tip the balance in favour of either. A candle placed too close to the side of a TV set - is it a deliberate, reckless or ignorant act?
In the world of criminal law it is not too difficult a decision because the burden of proof is one of "Beyond reasonable doubt" and persons who commit an act of arson rarely do it in a manner of careful planning. It is a crime often of passion and anger. The "Red mist" negates all reasoning and the assumption is often made that the fire will destroy the evidence anyway.
Like all crime the influence of drink or drugs is generally not considered relevant in terms of guilt; A person who abuses drink or drugs is held to have done so knowingly thus they are fully responsible for any act done as a result. But what about drink and drug addiction? is it rational? Is it reasonable that such persons have control and responsibility?
The fine line between intent and recklessness is particularly interesting. For example: Two youths were seen on CCTV to be playing with something at the back of a bus and shortly after they left the bus there was a fire that destroyed the bus.They were charged with intentional arson and with intent to endanger life (more about that subject another time).
They admitted they had been playing with a lighter to see if chewing gum stuck to the back of the seat shell in front of them would burn. Their intention was to burn the chewing gum. Not the bus. It was proved that, from their description of the behaviour of the chewing gum under flame, from the ability (unknown to the youths) of chewing gum to sustain combustion in an undramatic manner and the fact that they had left the bus only because it was actually their off stop they they had indeed not intended for the bus to burn. They were convicted of reckless arson. Intentional arson would have carried a custodial sentence.
Juvenile fire setting behaviour is widely held to be an aberration that is understood, accepted and can be treated very successfully. This is a good thing but is it right to regard it as entirely age related? Many persons beyond teenage years have mental disabilities that render their understanding and perceptions to be similar to juvenile years. It seems highly appropriate that such persons should be considered in the same way as juveniles. Indeed such persons are entitled to the services of an "Appropriate Adult". Perhaps the mental ages of the youths in the above example could have been assessed. It would not have changed the result of the trial but may have further altered the punishment.
In civil matters the burden of proof is one of probability. Fraudulent arson is very difficult to prove and many Insurance agencies wisely engage specialist teams or agencies to tackle it. Of course if the evidence available is strong enough for criminal charges then the matter is reported to the Police for action. But where the evidence is less clear then it would seem a very heavy onus to lay upon a policyholder that "on the balance of probabilities" he or she set the fire or caused the fire to be set.
In reality, and with the assistance of a judges ruling, the balance of probability for fraudulent arson has been set somewhere between the two.
And what about contributory negligence? I examined a few of the same fleet of buses from the above incident in the same company and found nearly all had cigarette lighter damage to the rear of the seat shells at the back of the buses. Some of the holes created had been filled with chewing gum and some by epoxy resin filler. Clearly the company were aware of the problem but had taken no action to negate it. This was an incident waiting to happen. If it had resulted in a death then I for one would have been making some representation to the coroner in regard to the clear awareness and lack of action by the transport company and bus manufacturer.
PS - I wrote to the company expressing my concern and received no reply!
Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Natural curiosity
It is an unavoidable by-product of this profession that we (well, me at least) are often making observations of the mundane and routine to find potential fire risk. It helps form our knowledge and experience and, when examining actual fire scenes, it adds to our confidence when concluding the report.
It also helps to consider and evidence causes that are often only assumed or suspected (I will not stray into myth and legend!). For example, it is well known of course that cigarettes can cause fire and that they are frequently thrown from moving vehicles. It is not unreasonable to assume that there is a real possibility of a thrown cigarette landing on another moving vehicle and resting on combustible material. But has it been witnessed and tested?
Some years ago while servicing my own car I found a spent cigarette lodged in a recess behind the grille among dry leaves. Perfect proof of the potential.
Much more recently I was at my high street bank and noticed that the coax and power cables from a desktop computer monitor in use had severely chaffed against a cable tidy bracket. This was because the monitor was free to swivel to allow customer interaction with the adviser but the cable tidy was fixed to the support pillar arm.
The coax was chafed down to the metal. It was only luck that it had not been the power cable in close contact with the bracket. Also I noted that the power plug into the monitor was not anchored. This allowed the plug to flex in the socket when the monitor was pivoted around in use. The result would be a weakening of the contacts and further potential for fire.
If any reader has any photo of potential and unexpected fire cause then please send. Your experience will add to mine.
David
It also helps to consider and evidence causes that are often only assumed or suspected (I will not stray into myth and legend!). For example, it is well known of course that cigarettes can cause fire and that they are frequently thrown from moving vehicles. It is not unreasonable to assume that there is a real possibility of a thrown cigarette landing on another moving vehicle and resting on combustible material. But has it been witnessed and tested?
Some years ago while servicing my own car I found a spent cigarette lodged in a recess behind the grille among dry leaves. Perfect proof of the potential.
Much more recently I was at my high street bank and noticed that the coax and power cables from a desktop computer monitor in use had severely chaffed against a cable tidy bracket. This was because the monitor was free to swivel to allow customer interaction with the adviser but the cable tidy was fixed to the support pillar arm.
The coax was chafed down to the metal. It was only luck that it had not been the power cable in close contact with the bracket. Also I noted that the power plug into the monitor was not anchored. This allowed the plug to flex in the socket when the monitor was pivoted around in use. The result would be a weakening of the contacts and further potential for fire.
If any reader has any photo of potential and unexpected fire cause then please send. Your experience will add to mine.
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
