I have a lithium ion fire extinguisher rather than a CO2 for my (home) office. For me it is worth the small cost.

If offices have fire extinguishers then why not for remote workers?

Will you also be providing these employees with regular training on how and when to use the CO2 extinguisher?

My inclination is to say "no, don't do this". When people are working at home, if there's a fire the correct response is to leave the building and call the fire brigade.

Advice on avoiding the risks of fire (don't block cooling vents, dispose of waste paper safely, use extension leads with care and always use ones with a separate fuse, only smoke outside, dispose of cigarettes and matches safely) would be a far more practical and effective mitigation than the supply of an extinguisher.

When I was fostering, we were asked to install a fire blanket in our kitchen, which I found funny given that we have an induction hob and no fat fryer. But even they didn't go so far as to expect us to have a fire extinguisher.

In reply to Robey:

I have one, the company paid for it as they would for any safety equipment.

Even in an office building, the advice is always "get out and fast" rather than "fight the fire". I agree with Robey that providing a fire extinguisher (and then presumably having to check them annually?) is not the right call, and that we should be focused on helping people escape quickly and efficiently.

It is interesting to think through how far we should take responsibility for home office safety however - should we be checking smoke alarms etc? Creating a fire evacuation plan? There needs to be a clear line between the responsibility of the home owner and the organsation, and agree that without a conversation about where that line is, it's much harder to know how to proceed.

Equally, if someone asked for specific fire prevention equipment, I'd be happy to provide it.

In reply to Nina Waters:

It is an interesting and probably undefined area for many about the boundary between business and personal responsibilities. Has this area ever been tested to see where the liabilities lie?

My wife is a remote worker, she had to confirm at least one smoke alarm and produce a fire evacuation plan as well as demonstrate low trip hazards from cables etc and then had a visit from a manager to make sure the desk/chair etc was set up correctly and then the risk assessment was signed off.

To my mind there is a significant difference between working in an office and working from home. If a office building burns down and no one is hurt then the rest is up to the insurance, I have no emotional connection to a work building. My home is different, I will try and put out a small fire, this is my home.

Obviously, if there is a large fire then getting my family out is my only concern. From a business perspective, every file I work on is backed up on 2 different cloud services. All I have to do is buy a new laptop and phone, sign in and I am back up and running.

If someone wants or does not need a fire extinguisher, I don't really have any strong feelings. For me, the higher and well established risks from lithium ion batteries justifies a small extinguisher and in the overall scheme of my business, the cost is insignificant.

In reply to Nina Waters:

'Reasonably practicable' is the H & S legalese that surely applies here?

Recall I once encountered a very officious safety officer adamant that work based learner trainees shouldn't be permitted to undertake short term placements (one or two weeks) in domestic homes unless all the electrical appliances they were likely to be near had been PAT tested etc etc. Tried to argue that 'reasonably practicable' measures to ensure their health and safety were indeed required, but general preliminary checks and guidance issued to the householder and learner probably sufficient to come under 'reasonably practicable'

To be sure, it's a matter of degree / interpretation of the term but can't see either the Government or the HSE taking it quite to the extent of mandatory PAT tests and / or fire extinguisher provision (which can of course be ineffective unless they are regularly checked and potential users know how to deploy them and they are of the correct type etc etc)....

In reply to Robey:

Hey Robey, definitely a really interesting insight to it. I suppose my question is, what's the harm in providing a fire extingusiher on top of everything you've said? Even if the training we provide is only theoretical training, rather than practical, isn't it still something that mitigates risk?

In reply to Nina Waters:

Hey Nina,

Thanks for your take on this, I agree that figuring out the line is difficult and from briefly researching online most HSE guidance still refers to office/sites rather than home working. If you have any further guidance as to anything you've implemented I would love to hear it

In reply to Charles:

I work in a school, so my interest in this is completely theoretical! Not a lot of home working for us (but lovely to be here in the holidays and have the place to myself pretty much.)

Hi Charles 

Good advice so far. Another thread here...

 New Homeworking policy - cost reimbursement 

David mentions PAT testing and the like, above. Maintenance was also flagged by Zoe in this discussion, too...

 RE: Work From Home set up allowance 

In reply to Charles:

what's the harm in providing a fire extingusiher on top of everything you've said?

Well, if you're asking me to play Devil's advocate...

1. The cost of provision, training and annual maintenance, obviously.
2. The risk arising from using the fire extinguisher improperly (example 1: employee's child thinks it is water and sprays a friend or sibling giving them frostburn; example 2: there is a small fire and the employee uses the extinguisher over-enthusiastically in an enclosed space and they pass out from carbon dioxide inhalation and strike their head on a desk)
3. The risk arising from a false sense of security from having the extinguisher that leads to the employee neglecting other safety measures.

I'm not saying, of course, that any of these are likely. But you do have to ask yourself whether they are more or less likely than the risk of an actual fire for which the extinguisher would be an effective mitigation.

In reply to Robey:

I would add an extra risk to this as well that it's just another reason for businesses to refuse flexible working as standard practice - "the cost of kitting everyone out with fire extinguishers, plus maintaining them and providing training, is prohibitive". In small businesses, it's a small cost. In larger businesses...a larger cost for individual extinguishers and a whole big cost in admin! We may not feel that's a reasonable objection, or it may be just an excuse, but we know there are excuses used all the time so why hand over another one?

The other precautions sound much more sensible to me. It's got me thinking now, are fire extinguishers provided to all car drivers who drive regularly for work...

In reply to Sophie:

There was roughly 40,000 building (26,000 homes) fires in 2023 and 20,000 vehicle fires.www.gov.uk/.../fire-and-rescue-incident-statistics-england-year-ending-june-2023

Edit:  Forgot to add, taxis and private hire along with larger commercial vehicles must carry fire extinguishers, I believe all public transport vehicles (PSV) must also do the same.

In reply to Steven :

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point? I'm not suggesting home or vehicle fires are not an issue - just that I don't believe employers providing fire extinguishers for use in domestic property is the best way to tackle that issue.

In reply to Sophie:

My apologies Sophie, I was simply trying to put some data to the "It's got me thinking now, are fire extinguishers provided to all car drivers who drive regularly for work...". My post was a minor point.