FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: TFEM on November 18, 2013, 11:40:26 AM
-
Just obtained a new contract with a facilities company who have asked us to carry out just a basic service, ie no discharge/pressure testing which are chargeable/additional extras over and above the basic inspection fee that they insisted we supply.
This is something we don't normally do as our normal service fee includes all testing.
Should we mark the extinguishers as "not serviced in accordance with......" or should we supply a written report to that effect following the service? Or both?
John
-
My view is following the standard you should do both and I would also recommend that you remove fire extinguisher from its location and give it to the engineer on the site.
On a number of FRAs I have found extinguishers on location marked 'Test Required' or 'Out of Test Date'. The report on the test has gone straight from the envelope into the file.
-
When carrying out inspections, it is common to come across devices that are not full serviceable and are left in the original location. As the engineer you need to cover yourself.
According to BS, is it not the case that:
If a Device is found to be faulty and no able to be repaired during the service visit for which ever reason, that it should be;
“Any extinguisher with a major defect or defects which make it unsafe for use, and which cannot be rectified during maintenance, should immediately be made safe, removed from its designated place, and marked “CONDEMNED” together with the reason for this assessment. The responsible person should be advised in the written report”
Equally if for any reason the maintenance is not completed on a device it:
“If the required spare parts are not available for any of these extinguishers, the maintenance should be interrupted and the extinguisher made safe, removed from its designated place and marked “NOT MAINTAINED”, together with the reason for this assessment; and the competent person should advise the responsible person, in the written report”
The responsibility then placed back in the hands of the responsible person.
-
CWEENG.....I'm not sure that we could use those sections of 5306.
a) It's not a faulty extinguisher
b) Parts would normally be on the van and available.....ie a service exchange powder or CO2.
I'm happier with Mike's suggestion but I would ensure that a representative of the FM company signed a docket whilst on site to confirm receipt of non-conforming service notice.
One further point arises.....presumably the RP would be a member of the company employing the FM company so a copy should be forwarded to him also I guess???
John
-
A nice big sticker on the front of the extinguisher saying 'Corrective Action Required' usually does the trick - London Securities group companies loved these in the 90's and early 00's
The poor old end user is often blissfully unaware of due test (& far worse condemned extinguishers) as the engineer quietly visits site, get a signature and sends the report off to a central location or FM 'middleman' to be overlooked for years.
Sometimes the only way it gets resolved is if I actually show the tenant's local manager (if doing a landord's audit) or making it an action point in the FRA
-
a) It's not a faulty extinguisher
b) Parts would normally be on the van and available.....ie a service exchange powder or CO2.
My view is:
a) The test is to ensure that the extinguisher is satisfactory, in the same way the MOT is to ensure that a vehicle is roadworthy. On the same basis if the extinguisher has not been tested it must be assumed that it is not satisfactory until proved otherwise.
b) Parts may be available on your van but if you are not allowed to use them they may as well be on the moon.
At the end of the day if you leave the extinguishers on the wall the FM company is liable to do nothing and blame you if things go pear shaped. If you remove them and give them back to the FM or whoever you have done your bit and then it is up to them. In the worst case they will put them back but you can show you have complied with the BS. In the best case they ask you if you can do the necessary work and you add a bit onto your contract to replace or maintain the extinguishers and adjust your bill accordingly.
-
I'm coming to this a bit late but if were me, the inspection/invoice would state "Annual Service Only" and the comments box would clearly state "client refused extended services". We issue a separate certificate of conformity to BS, and where the site does not meet those requirements no certificate is issued.
-
It transpires that the FM company doesn't have a problem with the extended service/extra work......they just see it as a means of extracting more cash from their client. So we will need to carry out the basic service, notate non-conformity, advise FM company who will add their % before advising their client who will issue their purchase order for us to return to site to carry out the extended service. Extra attendance fees for us.
John
-
This type of "service" is extremely common with FM's. They've limited spending power so they want the cheapest possible.
They've still to comply and cover their arses though.
So they will sell the service to the client as a "service only" contract, sub it out as such, quote for additional works and leave the client with the responsibility of following it up.
On the service cert you simply state something along the lines of "serviced o/s BS5306:3 as per clients' (the FM) requirements".
Your arse is covered and the cheapskate client takes the blame when the **** hits the fan. It's how the FM firms get away with employing their own staff to service extinguishers, just another asset to a contract tender.
AKA Wipe 'n' Sign