Fines for non compliance

[Lori]

Thanks for the update Poolguy.  

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Poolguy"]It has been sponsored buy the revelation that there have been three deaths of toddlers in pools with alarms on them since the law was introduced. The conculsion should be that they are not effective and so should be considered for removal from the list. [/quote]

By that logic, so should fences, non?    Have there been no toddler deaths in fenced pools in the same period? 

 

[Poolguy]

I have no information on any deaths of infants or even serious incidents where pools were protected with Fence, cover or abris during the same period.

Nevertheless, the Decision is due on the 1st June, by the responsible committee, and it is they who will decide what is and what is not compliant, and I trust publish the reasoning behind their decision.

It may be worth restating that Alarms are not acceptable as security in other exemplar countries.

Andrew

[JJ]

Facts,

Alarms can be and are often de-activated.

Covers and Abris can and are often left open

Gates can and are often left propped open

Adults supervising children can be so drunk, they do not see their child die!

No device, however clever will save a child from dying, this has been said on this forum many times before, so I apologise for this.

Whilst I accept that alarms are useless, some people have made a lot of money out of people like me, who now realise that we are going to have to pay a lot more for suitable security, that is until a child dies in a fenced pool, a pool with an abri or cover!

[Wils]

OK, so the 1st of June has come and gone, any news on the outcome yet?

 

 

[Poolguy]

We have reports that the Gendarmes are beginning the sweep in

Departments 24, 46 and 31 and they seem to think that Fences are the

only compliant alternative- wrong of course.

It gets to be very important to ensure that you security is up to the

norm - the fine is much more expensive then the installation.

Andrew

[Lori]

Hi there PoolGuy.  If the Gendarmes are beginning their

inspections, surely they have a copy of the actual legal

requirements?  How else could they complete such

inspections?  There are so many distances from the pool, size,

height, etc. requirements I can't see how they could complete the task

without those legalities in hand.  The written text I have is 80

pages long.  And, it includes all approved security devices, not

just the fences.  So, it would be hard to mis-interpret.

Any word on how these inspections are actually taking place?

Thanks for keeping us up to date.

[Poolguy]

Lori

Thanks for your comment, which is to me as well IS quite obvious but it

was Lost on the Gendarme we spoke to who states (twice) that he was

sure that 'only Fences are acceptable'. He is wrong of course and any

fines which he tries to impose will be unenforceable if a compliant

devise is extant.

But, its the first sign of activity on this matter and I believe that

as the pace picks up so too will the knowledge of what is and isn't

acceptable. We shall see who is the first ot be caught and whether or

not the fine will stick.

I'll continue to keep you informed as information comes to hand.

Andrew

[Lori]

I think I am very grateful I have a copy of the AFNOR

requirements.  If the Gendarmes show up here, I'll be sure to have

it handy, just in case they want to double check something....

[JJ]

I look forward to greeting my local Gendarmerie. However, have anyone heard about the meeting that took place on 1st June about alarms, does anyone know what the decision was, are they still in the AFNOR list?

Just to cheer everyone up in Dept 17, they are meeting today in La Rochelle to decide whether or not to impose water restrictions, I apologise if this is slightly off the thread, but then not if you cannot top up youre pool and you are one of the lucky ones with an immersion alarm which needs a constant water level.

So it is relevant, this was discussed last year, and with no conclusion I am afraid to say.

[Truffleman]

I would not use or trust an alarm (whatever the price) as the sole means of protection of a pool to save a small child. Even if the batteries worked and the alarm was going off, what difference will that make if no-one hears it. Who pays attention to car alarms. An approved fence and lockable gate designed to defeat a child upto 5 years old (I think that is the age) will stop unauthorised access by the same. An alarm will not. A security cover is far to heavy and difficult to take off and put back on after a quick dip.

A fence will also stop animals, deer and boar in our area. Will your insurance company pay out for a new liner or heavy "bache" torn by a deer's hooves as it tries to get out?

For those without I think it's case of biting the bullet and getting fenced.

[dogbreath]

There has been a huge amount written about the French Pool Safety Laws. Many people, French and ex-pats alike do not understand their responsibilities in relation to pool safety and have installed systems which are non-compliant with the Law. It is not enough just to buy an approved system, many people selling such items as alarms will not tell you the full facts because if they did they could not sell what is virtually a useless product for most people’s requirements.

I am contributing the text below in order to help clarify the situation. Many will disagree with what I am about to write, mostly because they will find that the alarm or cover or fence they have installed whilst on purchase may have been ‘approved’ is in fact upon installation not ‘compliant’.

First off let’s distinguish between the word ‘Approved’ and the word ‘Compliant’. To do this I shall use an example.

Mrs Jones buys an approved fence from Point P with the intention of installing it around his pool… so far so good. He fixes the fence permanently to the patio and follows all the guidelines…. He also installs an approved gate. OK… pretty obviously he is using an approved fence and he is compliant. This is how it should be done…..

Now Mr Jones builds a rockery up against the outside perimeter of the fence. The rocks are 300mm high…. Now he is using an approved fence but it is non compliant. He has compromised the legal minimum height between horizontal members from 1100mm to 800mm. Basically he has provided a means by which a child my be aided in climbing the fence.

He is now liable to the full force of the law as he has got a non compliant pool safety system… even though the system itself is approved…. So far this is not nuclear physics so forgive the patronisation… I just need to show that it is not just pool alarms which are capable of being non compliant.

This is an obvious example and I use it for demonstration purposes however, on one advertising brochure for pool fencing the fence is shown installed in a flower border with rocks…… Hard to believe but true!

Other ways of inadvertently becoming non-compliant include; tying open the gate, placing a child’s slide near to the fence, planting a climbable tree within close proximity to the fence, digging a tunnel under the fence and leaving a trail of sweets to the water’s edge…. And so on… Basically any form of climbing aid (or tunnelling… i.e. lose soil flower borders) near (or under) the fence will render you non compliant.

So far most reading this will say ‘Yea…. That’s all obvious…..’ Well now for the not so obvious….

If you install a pool alarm the audible part of it must be within earshot of a sober adult at all times… That means 2 4 / 7. Now I can hear all those who have alarms protesting that this is impractical… and of course it is…. That is why you should never fit an alarm without a secondary method of protection……. Oh did the alarm salesman not mention that??? Did he mention that almost all alarms of the submersible type also are not suitable for pools where the distance between possible entry and the alarm is greater than 7.5m? That means if your pool is 10 x 5m you MUST have 2 alarms…. Funny he didn’t mention this… But then only an idiot would take the advise of an alarm salesman when it comes the whether or not you need an alarm…..

If an alarm is used and not monitored 24 / 7 (all year) you MUST use a secondary system for the periods the alarm is not monitored (i.e. when you are in the pub or out shopping or in the garden etc…). The most suitable secondary system with an alarm is of course an approved (and compliant) cover (not normal winter or summer covers). A secondary system consisting of alarm (perimeter or submersible) would of course be pointless (unless your primary system is a cover of course).

I Realise many of you will immediately disagree with this assessment but you will be reacting due to the fact that you have a non compliant system not for any logical reason.

Do you really think that people like me spend 10,000 euros on a fence when we could have bough an alarm for a tenth of that sum do so for no good reason?

And what makes me so knowledgeable?…. 4 years reading Law, a Bachelors of Law (Hons) Degree and 16 years suing PGL Freedom of France in the French Courts for their negligence leading to the death of my own child in La Rochelle.

Kev

[Poolguy]

Kev

Thanks for contributing you time and sharing your insight and knowledge to the discussion.

Please accept my sympathy for the death of your child - surely the worst tragedy ever to happen to any adult.

I endorse your comments

Andrew

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="nivek1900"]Do you really think that people like me spend 10,000 euros on a fence [/quote]

Well, there's the rub, isn't it?   I know the rich-Brits-isn't-France-so-cheap-when-you-live-without-a-mortgage brigade won't believe it, but we don't all HAVE effing 10 000 euros to spend on a fence.  [:@]

It's not whether it's right to have one or not.   The prices are a ripoff.

 

   

 

[hastobe]

Sorry SB - but I would think Kev would think 10,000 Euro would be worth every cent - if he could bring back his kid

Kathie

[Viv]

I don't have a pool, it's a bit of a luxury that my budget doesn't run to and so I am ignorant of all the legislation. But, surely it's a bit like owning a car?  If you can't afford the MOT , servicing, insurance etc, don't have one.

If I couldn't afford to have a pool that complied fully with the legislation, whatever it may be, I wouldn't have one. I wouldn't want a child's death on my conscious because I had been a cheapskate. I can't imagine how it must feel to lose a child over something that could have been avoidable.

[Russethouse]

Mod Hat on

Some posts have been removed from this thread, some because they were not in line with LFs Code of Conduct, some because they were responses that made no sense once the original posts had gone, and some because they were off topic.

Apologies to those who have received several 'post deleted' notices !

 

[Miki]

Kathie, you have no idea how his child died though and under what circumstances, he is 4 years in to suing a company?

And have no doubts, €10,000 will no more guarantee a childs life, any

more than care by an adult. It can only be another security device to

help save young lives NOT a guarantee that no other child drowns, as

people seem to be insinuating. Children have died all over the World,

with these kind of security measures in place.

Aviv, if one buys a house and the pool was already installed and don't

forget, the law until recently, was for places where the public had use

of, not private then many people like that, got caught out when the rules were

brought in. They don't want to be cheapskates by choice, they are

trapped by the sheer prices that some crooks want, to put the security in

place. And the rules for what goes where, what is allowed, what isn't

but was once and so on and so on, makes many people loathe to lay out a

lot of money, only to find that a short while later, the rules have

changed.

I did put all this before but in all the haste, it got

deleted, which is so bluddy annoying. Please do take more care with

deletions and please try to stop throwing the baby out with the proverbial.

I will also add again, that SB  posted a while back, that she was

all for these security measures and has done all she can to comply. It

was more me that said that  thought it was all a knee-jerk reaction

and regulations was rushed through and, lo and behold, it is not much clearer now to

many folks, than it was when it was first announced. Take a look around

the bricos and pool places, everyone is offering a different kind of

security measure, I think even Lidl had infra red lenses at fairly

cheap prices that were said to conform. It is alright screaming foul at

those that have not got the all singing, all dancing set up, which the

people with money to throw at the situation have but for many French as

well as Brits and others, they need crystal clear advice at a price

that is affordable. After all, the rules were brought in just to save

lives, so surely, it must be affordable to be able to

work............just like cars really !

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="hastobe"]Sorry SB - but I would think Kev would think 10,000 Euro would be worth every cent - if he could bring back his kid

[/quote]

I said - some people don't have 10 000 euros, so it's irrelevant.

I saw what he said afterwards - if I'd worked harder at school, I too could have a Merc in my drive like him, and why don't I get on a ferry and go back to the UK? 

I don't remember anyone telling me I had to have a Merc to live in France?   He really doesn't know very much, does he?   Anyway, in most countries, they're only taxis, it's only here that people fall for the "upmarket" marketing.  [;-)]

If he thinks it's so important, he can always pay to fence my pool for me.  [:)]

[Lori]

Thanks Russethouse. Things got a bit hot in here.

I agree with what Miki and SB have said.  We WANT to be

compliant.  None of us wants to experience the pain of an accident

in our pool.  I believe I can say that most all of us have

carefully reviewed the written law (even after having had to pay 80

euros to get a copy) and have chosen what is within our budget (and the

law) for our pools.  Often the location of a pool can determine

what security device you can use (directly against house/wall, etc.).

If the pool security law changes, we will all have to deal with that

when the time comes.  Until then, I don't think it is fair to

throw around negative remarks about other people's choices.  

Security devices (that are legal) come with AFNOR certification. 

If you choose one that doesn't, you have made a mistake (my opinion).

Like several others have said, there is no greater protection than

parents carefully watching their children when they are anywhere near a

pool.  I know we have always done that, security device or no

security device.

[hastobe]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

[quote user="hastobe"]Sorry SB - but I would think Kev would think 10,000 Euro would be worth every cent - if he could bring back his kid

[/quote]

I said - some people don't have 10 000 euros, so it's irrelevant.

[/quote]

Answer seems pretty simple to me then - if you can't afford to operate the pool legally and safely then you either have to move or fill the pool in.  At the end of the day - as many people have already pointed out - a pool is a not a necessity - its a luxury item... 

Kathie

[Russethouse]

One really has to ask how sincere the French government are about wanting to save lives, when they do not allow people affordable options. If the French government really wanted this to be a success perhaps they should have provided no/low interest loans or more reasonably priced solutions. 

I have a garden pond, deep enough for a child to drown. We have 6 ft fence all round and a solid gate, normally locked. My neighbor has four children ranging from 3 - 10 years. I showed her the pond, told her the depth and the rest is really up to her.(I'm in the UK)

 If your family is all adult, and your pool is on private property, why should you spend € 10,000 being responsible for someone else's child ?

I know of a child that drowned in a water butt - are we all going to start taking measures to stop that ?

 

[Poppy]

Don't know whether anyone will believe me but we have a pool and no bathroom so it is a necessity and  just shows even though it might be a one off that it is not aways a luxury. I know this is probably not the norm, but it is a situation where we can't afford expensive security. We do have an infra red beam which at least means detection before waterisation We are lost in the Lot and if any child ventured into our pool they would be very lost. They would also have to get over the perimeter fence which is barbed wired and scale the entrance gates.