Radio alarm systems for life safety- response to low battery warning

[Clevelandfire]

Wiz

Responsible persons will always have problems, but they shouldnt just sit there and expect people to wipe their backsides for them.

Enforcement notices issued by several fire authorities tend to be very woolly these days to allow scope for the Responsible Person to seek various ways in complying with it. In other words there is no (or atleast very little) prescription.

This is in stark contrast to the good old days of the Fire Cert and Workplace Regs. The RRO apparently allows for the flexibility that our friends in the business world wanted. You have got to understand the fire officer isn't there to hold people's hands now. You don't want guide hugging enforcers yet you still want to be told what to do in order to comply. Its very much a balancing act and whilst fire authorities don't always get that right the client kurnal talks of has got the option to communicate and convey any problems they might have.

Your comments regarding "brave old fire officer" took out of context of what the poster was trying to say. Most businesses never recover from fire was the sentiment I believe, not "we firemen are heroes cos we save peoples lives when the RP cocks up" as you seem to suggest.

You definately can not leave it until all the devices are showing fault or low battery warning to do something about it. I have known leakages to occur on some older systems. I would accept certain procedures, such as following manufacturers guidance for example to see how long the batteries would last and risk assessing it from there. There may be other acceptable solutions or measures too. Thats why these forums were started no doubt so that people could bounce around ideas.
 
You make comment about the fire officer demanding an engineer be called out to replace the battery. Yes, because unfortunately if anything were to happen that night and as a result the device didn't work and people were put at risk or worse it you can imagine the headlines the next day.

As Clevelandfire points out, if the maintenance costs involved in providing adequate early warning of fire are too prohibitive review your fire risk assessment, and decide if an alternative system or procedures are required. If the RP isn't competent to do this the RRO is quite clear in stating that s/he should employ someone who is to assist them.

I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?

The fact that the owner has been doing this for a decade is of no consequence. The Fire officer who inspected previously may have cocked up and not picked up on the issue , or standards / knowledge may have been updated or increased since the last inspection.

But regardless of the reasons why the issue has only now come to light, just because the RP has done it for a decade doesn't make it right. You are totally missing the point about enforcement notices. They are designed to be non prescriptive because the fire safety order is designed to allow different ways of achieving compliance. If the notice said "You will replace every battery once the warning light comes on" then surely it is too presecriptive. You said that Mr nasty Fire Officer must exist and how prescriptive and unreasonable he is and then moan when an enforcement notice is non prescriptive. I just don't see where you are coming from. What has the owner done to prove his system works? The answer is we don't know, and so unhelpful comments about the circumstances dont really achieve anything.

[Midland Retty]

I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?

Morning Wiz

I'd advise Kurnal's client to ask why the practice has been accepted for over a decade only to be highlighted now. Whilst Clevelandfire is right in that it makes no odds now atleast it would be interesting to know.

The flexibility comes from the fact that the enforcement notice isn't prescriptive. It sounds like the inspecting officer has said that batteries should be changed as soon as the low battery warning signal is activated. I think that is onnorous personally but the officer has just given his preferred solution. That isn't specified in the enforcement notice though.

The RP can go back to the Insp. Officer and ask if s/he can do "a,b,c " instead of "x,y,z". One of my colleagues does a similar thing by only giving one solution verbally but then refers the punter to the guides. He believes that this helps motivate the punter into thinking of other alternatives (often the punter will want to go with the most cost effective method) and inturn it helps that individual understand the process of risk assessment and the fire precautions installed within their premises.

[Wiz]

The fact that the owner has been doing this for a decade is of no consequence. The Fire officer who inspected previously may have cocked up and not picked up on the issue , or standards / knowledge may have been updated or increased since the last inspection.

But regardless of the reasons why the issue has only now come to light, just because the RP has done it for a decade doesn't make it right. You are totally missing the point about enforcement notices. They are designed to be non prescriptive because the fire safety order is designed to allow different ways of achieving compliance. If the notice said "You will replace every battery once the warning light comes on" then surely it is too presecriptive. You said that Mr nasty Fire Officer must exist and how prescriptive and unreasonable he is and then moan when an enforcement notice is non prescriptive. I just don't see where you are coming from. What has the owner done to prove his system works? The answer is we don't know, and so unhelpful comments about the circumstances dont really achieve anything.

I take exception to being accused of making 'unhelpful comments'. Kurnal's original post asked for opinions. I gave the opinion that the fire officer probably did not know enough about wireless fire alarm systems and batteries. None of us know the precise details of the actual circumstances of what has happened. Therefore I did not actually criticise the fire officer and say what he had done was wrong. I voiced sympathy for the business owner and asked the question if it was right for such an enforcement notice to be issued in the circumstances that were described, and asked if the fire officer could have given some leeway, before the enforcement notice was issued, for the business owner to try and prove his method of dealing with the low battery warnings was acceptable.
I'm not saying that the business owner's method was or wasn't correct, but wondered if issuing an enforcement notice in the circumstances described, was the way that both sides 'could work together'
Whilst also not knowing all the details, other postings have stated that the fire officer is totally right in what he has done and his 'probable' understanding of the effect of the low-battery fault warnings is correct, but these postings have not, in my opinion, offered any arguments to convince me why. Furthermore, no one has offered an explanation or opinion to my question as to why no 'time-based leeway' appears to be given.
Cleveland fire intoduced the concept of Mr Nasty Fire Officer I only asked that if he didn't exist, why do so many people talk about him?
I'm accused of 'moaning' about prescriptive and non-prescriptive desicions. Where is the proof that I've ever moaned about prescriptive desicions? I feel that that a desicion saying you will do X because of Y is perfectly acceptable, if it is the best solution in respect of cost
and effectiveness. Obviously, this couldn't be achieved in the past otherwise there would have been no reason to change things. I wonder why?
Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?

[Wiz]

I understand everything that you have said. But is it fair for the fire officer to issue the 'woolly' enforcement notice ''to instigate a proper system of maintenance for the fire detectors" in respect of something that the owner had been doing for a decade (apparantly without a problem) and may, in fact, have been an entirely suitable method of dealing with the problem? Where is the flexibility, that your friends in the business world wanted, in that?

Morning Wiz

I'd advise Kurnal's client to ask why the practice has been accepted for over a decade only to be highlighted now. Whilst Clevelandfire is right in that it makes no odds now atleast it would be interesting to know.

The flexibility comes from the fact that the enforcement notice isn't prescriptive. It sounds like the inspecting officer has said that batteries should be changed as soon as the low battery warning signal is activated. I think that is onnorous personally but the officer has just given his preferred solution. That isn't specified in the enforcement notice though.

The RP can go back to the Insp. Officer and ask if s/he can do "a,b,c " instead of "x,y,z". One of my colleagues does a similar thing by only giving one solution verbally but then refers the punter to the guides. He believes that this helps motivate the punter into thinking of other alternatives (often the punter will want to go with the most cost effective method) and inturn it helps that individual understand the process of risk assessment and the fire precautions installed within their premises.

Morning Midland Retty,
Your post came in after I had finished my one above.
I fully understand and accept all of your last posting.
Any explanation or opinions whether if it would have been possible to hold off with the enforcement notice until the client could 'prove' his practice as valid?

[Midland Retty]

Hi Wiz

Generally an enforcement notice would be issued in three circumstances.

The first would be after an inspecting officer has asked for some upgrades or failings to be addressed during an audit, then makes a return visit only to find nothing has been done. An EN would be then issued - ist their way of saying "We're now telling you this MUST be done else we may prosecute".

The second would be if the RP has tried to address the failings highlighted during a recent audit but the Insp Officer doesn't feel that the measures put in place are sufficient. Or where both parties cant reach agreement on how compliance should be achieved. This is done to stop people deliberately dragging out the whole process or delaying enforcement action because whilst all that is going on the premises may still be unsafe. SO an enforcement notice would be issued if you see what I mean.

The third is where during an audit the IO comes across serious failings that need to be addressed imminently. I have for instance issued an enforcement notice straight away for failing to produce a fire risk assessment. This is used where the issuing of a prohibition notice would be too onerous but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later.


I can only assume that in the example we are talking about Kurnals client had tried to address the failings highlighted, but the Fire Officer still wasnt happy.

Somewhere down the line I would have hoped Kurnal's client was given the opportunity to talk with the Inspecting officer to discuss best value solutions to the problems found.

If the Inspecting officer didn't listen to the concerns of the RP then In my opinion the Fire Officer isn't doing his or her job properly.

If the RP didn't advise the Insp Officer of any concerns that would prevent them from complying then the RP is at fault.

If the RP and Insp O did communicate but the measures proposed by the RP didn't go far enough to rectify the failings the Insp o may then have issued the EN. At anytime however the RP can appeal or ask for determination from the secretary of state.

As you say its difficult to know the full picture and what exactly was said in the situation good old Kurnal describes, but hopefully the above will clear up under what circumstances EN's are issued

[kurnal]

Thanks to all, sorry for the lack of info on the original query, I had not been appointed at the time of posting so only had limited info. They have now asked me to work on their behalf and bottom all fire safety issues for once and for all.  So all will become clear I hope.

BS5839 covers radio systems to some extent but was written some years ago, and since then battery technology has advanced with lithium  cells becoming the norm and modern alarm technology I believe making lower demands on batteries. I believe that this system was converted to  operate on lithium cells post installation and the period for routine replacement of cells extended.

BS5839 recommends a minimum of 3 years operational life for the primary cells, with a 30 day low power condition beiong signalled and a backup battery to be installed in reserve.   But I believe some of the  radio alarm manufacturers are now recommending 4 and 5 year replacement of batteries and that because of the reliability and longevity of the battery technology do not discuss with the RP the issue of replacement and the various issues that may arise.

The status of my system is unclear because of the battery conversion. I think that on conversions perhaps the alarm engineers need to stick with the original battery replacement periods unless there is some hard and fast evidence of the improved performance of the newer technology.

That explains why the RP is vulnerable to the questions of the enforcement officer if the information was never handed over- and maybe with maintenance visits every 3 months perhaps the RP does not need to know the detail??? How much technical knowledge do we expect RPs to have at their fingertips? That is a difficult one. They should have an understanding of regular fault issues that arise but the advice not to report till 8 batteries are in battery low alarm was given by the system engineers.  

I have been told that after speaking to the alarm maintenance engineer the fire officer has now  agreed to delete this requirement from the enforcement notice, but this is still to be formally confirmed.

Thanks as always for the guidance and help.

[Chris Houston]

So have I got this right: the low power alarm comes on 3 months before component died; fire alarm contractors visits are exactly 3 months apart, so the user leaves faults to the next visit?

This seems to be playing the odds - what if the alarm comes on the day after the last visit, can the RP be sure the contractor will turn up 3 months to the day of the last visit - this would be more than any alarm company I have ever dealt with can manage.

Is the 3 month warning accurate to the day?  If I had a life safety system that was about to power down in 3 months, I would be unhappy leaving it until the last day before taking action to fix it.

[kurnal]

Yes but there is also a standby battery to take over when the first fails

[Wiz]

Hi Wiz

Generally an enforcement notice would be issued in three circumstances.

The first would be after an inspecting officer has asked for some upgrades or failings to be addressed during an audit, then makes a return visit only to find nothing has been done. An EN would be then issued - ist their way of saying "We're now telling you this MUST be done else we may prosecute".

The second would be if the RP has tried to address the failings highlighted during a recent audit but the Insp Officer doesn't feel that the measures put in place are sufficient. Or where both parties cant reach agreement on how compliance should be achieved. This is done to stop people deliberately dragging out the whole process or delaying enforcement action because whilst all that is going on the premises may still be unsafe. SO an enforcement notice would be issued if you see what I mean.

The third is where during an audit the IO comes across serious failings that need to be addressed imminently. I have for instance issued an enforcement notice straight away for failing to produce a fire risk assessment. This is used where the issuing of a prohibition notice would be too onerous but action needs to be taken sooner rather than later.


I can only assume that in the example we are talking about Kurnals client had tried to address the failings highlighted, but the Fire Officer still wasnt happy.

Somewhere down the line I would have hoped Kurnal's client was given the opportunity to talk with the Inspecting officer to discuss best value solutions to the problems found.

If the Inspecting officer didn't listen to the concerns of the RP then In my opinion the Fire Officer isn't doing his or her job properly.

If the RP didn't advise the Insp Officer of any concerns that would prevent them from complying then the RP is at fault.

If the RP and Insp O did communicate but the measures proposed by the RP didn't go far enough to rectify the failings the Insp o may then have issued the EN. At anytime however the RP can appeal or ask for determination from the secretary of state.

As you say its difficult to know the full picture and what exactly was said in the situation good old Kurnal describes, but hopefully the above will clear up under what circumstances EN's are issued

Hi MR,

Thanks for your perfect explanation. So it seems that it would be unlikely that  'in normal circumstances' the Inspecting Officer would not give the business owner a chance to avoid an enforcement notice. My support would then fully be with the IO if he was forced to issue one. Unless of course, it was issued under your third scenario, which I would have thought to be a bit harsh in the circumstances of Kurnal's original post.
I note from a later post from Kurnal that the requirement has now probably been removed from the Enforcement Notice. Maybe he gave the situation a bit more thought or has been reading the postings on Firenet !

[Wiz]

So have I got this right: the low power alarm comes on 3 months before component died; fire alarm contractors visits are exactly 3 months apart, so the user leaves faults to the next visit?

This seems to be playing the odds - what if the alarm comes on the day after the last visit, can the RP be sure the contractor will turn up 3 months to the day of the last visit - this would be more than any alarm company I have ever dealt with can manage.

Is the 3 month warning accurate to the day?  If I had a life safety system that was about to power down in 3 months, I would be unhappy leaving it until the last day before taking action to fix it.

Chris, I agree that 3 months seems a very long time. Especially when every low battery warning system I've checked up about mentions a 30 day minimum continuation. I thought the advice to Kurnal's customer was to deal with the problem when 8 devices are showing low battery warning. If this happens within a period of less than 30 days, then theoretically, this should not be a problem. But if less than 8 batteries are low then this period might be 3 months! But does this not then mean that we could have the situation where the device may have continued operating on it's 'other battery' but with no standby battery for up to approx. 60 days (if the first battery totally failed after 30 days). Surely this can't be satisfactory.
I know it is not my desicion to make, but this would be my proposal for the most practical advice in the circumstances that we have been assuming (two batteries each capable of supporting the device/ low battery warning detection/battery continues working for at least 30 days after low warning)
Batteries should be replaced in a device within 21 days of the low-battery warning first indicating for that device
This would give the Responsible Person the flexibility of not having to call out an engineer on an emergency (possibly on a daily) basis and the devices would never be left with any less than two functioning batteries.
In saying the above, Graeme has attended to low battery warnings and found them to be leaking. It is my belief that they have started leaking and this has affected them enough to trigger the low battery warning. It may well be that if you then leave it too long (three weeks?) it may well be that the leak has become so bad that the fluid has damaged the electronic components of the device (as also found by Graeme). This could prove more expensive than calling out an engineer immediately to replace batteries that have just started leaking.
My own practical experience of battery operated wireless smoke detectors (a long time before lithium versions!) was to replace all the batteries on a site at the same time but at half the manufacturer's suggested battery life. When we did this, the costs were pre-determinable and proved to be the cheapest option in the long run (we very rarely had a battery 'fail' within the cycle)

[kurnal]

Thanks Dr Wiz. That 21 day solution is so straightforward its beautiful. (And I bet matron can find a good use for those half used batteries).

So far all I have done is give advice over phone and email but am looking forward to going down and seeing it in in all its glory ( the alarm system I mean). Will let you know what I find early in April.

[Wiz]

.... but am looking forward to going down and seeing it in in all its glory ( the alarm system I mean). Will let you know what I find early in April.

Phew! For a moment I thought you were talking about Matron! I've been there and it's not a nice place. Furthermore if you had started investigating in April, you wouldn't have got back out again until late Summer!

[Graeme]

I have two sites recently that started giving faults. The first site was at the 4 year mark so only that device had a battery change,however another device flagged up fault within a couple of weeks so i replaced them all so the customer was not going to get anymore call outs.

The second site was in 4.5 years of service and three devices called in fault. The fault was not reponded to that day but a few days after and i foound that the batteries had leaked causing two detectors having to be replaced.

so this is why i personally am very wary of leaving any device in fault for any length of time.

Graeme, out of interest, do you think the low warning is given because the batteries have started to leak or that they start to leak after the low warning point is reached?

very good point Wiz.

 Other devices on this system were found to have leaked batteries but they did not generate a fault.

[Clevelandfire]

Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?

I apologise if I have caused offence but I think if you read my posts again you will see Im actually in agreement with you and I do explain why the fire officer in question issued an enforcement notice. Furthermore you did intimate that the fire officer in question didn't know what he was doing. That is bound to spark of a reaction is it not?.

[Wiz]

Whilst perfectly understanding the problems of those enforcing standards, I once again suggest that those who hold the 'power' need to be seen to be reasonable and sensible, as far as possible, to ensure it really doesn't become and 'us' and 'them' position. How would that make anyone's life anything but more difficult?

I apologise if I have caused offence but I think if you read my posts again you will see Im actually in agreement with you and I do explain why the fire officer in question issued an enforcement notice. Furthermore you did intimate that the fire officer in question didn't know what he was doing. That is bound to spark of a reaction is it not?.

No need to apologise. You are entitled to your opinions when they are reasonably put. Furthermore, even I have to accept that what people say about me could be true!
In my defence, I did say the Fire Officer probably didn't know enough about wireless alarms and batteries. I feel that this will only spark a reaction in those who are supersensitive or feel that Fire Officers are perfect, never make mistakes and know everything about everything. I certainly don't expect them to be or hold it against them if they don't-Unless they are arrogant, officious or abuse their powers. Gladly, I can say that, in my experience, these types are rare. I certainly would never denigrate a Fire Officer who made an honest mistake or did something based on what he honestly believed was right, even if it turned out to be wrong.