FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Neil G on October 24, 2007, 12:03:55 AM
-
I would like opinions please on the suitability or validity of action I’m using to solve the problem of excessive false alarms. I am a FRS FSO and I have used the following method for a few months now but some colleagues are questioning its validity.
I should state that I start with friendly advice & support which has very successful results in about 80% of cases. A stubborn few tend to be premises run by managers who would really like to reduce their UFS levels but are not getting support from their head offices. I have not got as far as Enforcement Notices yet and have had no need.
1. First I establish to what standard the fire alarm is maintained. They invariably tell me the British Standard (confirm BS5839 pt1:2002)
2. then find out how many detector heads are fitted (BS allowance = 1 false alarm per 25 detectors…) to confirm excessive false alarms
3. the British Standard, section 3: False Alarms states that if there are excessive false alarms then the system does not comply with that part of the British Standard,
4. I send a standard letter on the basis that they do not comply with Article 17: Maintenance as the AFD must be maintained to an acceptable standard and as their false alarm levels are excessive they don’t comply with BS5839.
5. In all cases so far their ‘head office’ has reacted promptly to solve the problem and the results are most satisfactory
-
In my opinion your comment is totally valid, but the word should be to conform not comply. The requirement is to conform to Standard (Best Practice) to comply with legislation.
-
Excellent. May I poach your methodology?
-
The only concern I would have with an approach like this is that writing a letter quoting article 17 makes it a formal enforcement activity but one that sits on the margins of your normal enforceement protocols- is it goodwill advice, an agreed plan of action or a formal enforcement notice under article 30?
I also think that unless you include at least a very basic audit of other compliance issues before writing you may leave yourself open to criticism later if under a full audit you found loads of issues more significant than unwanted signals. "Heres the letter I got from the brigade and the only problem was unwanted signals so why are you complaining about ......... now? "
Personally I would prefer to see the unwanted signals issue as triggering a full audit of compliance.
-
Excellent. May I poach your methodology?
Yes - if this approach works; and it's not poaching - it's sharing!
-
Hi Kurnal,
Yes this is supposed to be the first stage of enforcement in line with the concordat, the standard letter threatens further action (Enforcement Notice) if the problem is not resolved.
I fully agree with your point about this being part of a fuller audit. I was trying to get all the I/Os to print off a record of the premises' FADs for the previous 12 months before routine inspections so they could address this issue when relevant; in fact this was the question that started the debate and why I posted this question in the forum.
-
Hi Neil,
my concern with this approach is the fact that the Responsible Person only has a duty to take General Fire Precautions. I can't see how reducing the number of false alarms fits into that description (unless you are approaching it from the point of view that relevant persons will become complacent in responding to the fire alarm signal if it is sounding all the time). I read Section 3 of BS5839 as saying, that if there are excessive false alarms, then they aren't complying with Section 3 only (i.e. not the rest of the BS). Therefore, are we saying that if the fire alarm system has been maintained in accordance with BS 5839 1, and only the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms hasn't been complied with, we could potentially serve an enforcement notice under maintenance?
However, I am more than willing to shut up if the overwhelming number of people posting a response to this support your opinion.
-
Hi Neil,
my concern with this approach is the fact that the Responsible Person only has a duty to take General Fire Precautions. I can't see how reducing the number of false alarms fits into that description (unless you are approaching it from the point of view that relevant persons will become complacent in responding to the fire alarm signal if it is sounding all the time). I read Section 3 of BS5839 as saying, that if there are excessive false alarms, then they aren't complying with Section 3 only (i.e. not the rest of the BS). Therefore, are we saying that if the fire alarm system has been maintained in accordance with BS 5839 1, and only the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms hasn't been complied with, we could potentially serve an enforcement notice under maintenance?
However, I am more than willing to shut up if the overwhelming number of people posting a response to this support your opinion.
I agree. To serve any kind of notice, there has to be a failure of the responsible persons duties under the order, and that failure has put one or more relevant persons at risk. If everyone evacuates safely each time, how is enforcement an appropriate measure?
The policy to reduce UWFS was put in place to reduce the burden on F+RS's and to reduce the risk to public when travelling under blue lights, therefore is not an FSO issue. There are other ways to reduce the numbers, and many premises will work with the brigades if there is a policy to alter the responses to fire alarms (999 confirmation required etc). I've used this threat to get a major supermaket to spend £120,000 on a new fire alarm, because their insurance premiums would go up if there was a reduced response.
-
I agree with posts 7 and 8, the BS is recommendation only and you do it or not. The RR(FS)O is an Order and you can only comply or not comply with it. If you use Article 17 what you are saying is that the equipment is not being maintained "in efficient working order and kept in good repair" and UWFS do not fit that category. In most cases the system is doing its job which is reacting to the circumstances around it.
-
Hmmm... interesting debate; so maybe I'm working under several misconceptions then.
1) I thought that if you had a safety system, such as a fire alarm, it had to be properly maintained and to be properly maintained it MUST be maintained to a recognized or appropriate standard. It does not have to be the British Standard but has to be a suitable standard. Playing devil's advocate then; the alternative is that the RP does not have to test or maintain their fire alarm system as long as when an IO asks for a demonstration the system operates?
2) Section 3 of BS5839 is part of the standard, since when did we now allow people to pick and choose which parts of a standard they conform with? Reasonable variations yes, but surely not to disregard a whole section and then still claim that it conforms?
3) AM wrote "To serve any kind of notice, there has to be a failure of the responsible person's duties under the order, and that failure has put one or more relevant persons at risk." - I've re-read Article 30: Enforcement Notices and I can see no reference to putting relevant persons at risk only failure to comply with provisions of the Order; have I missed something?
4) Jokar wrote "If you use Article 17 what you are saying is that the equipment is not being maintained "in efficient working order and kept in good repair" and UWFS do not fit that category." Quite possibly. If it's a system fault? - definitely yes. Inappropriate detector head for the risk? - probably yes. Incorrect siting of detector? - maybe. Not being maintained to a recognized standard? - surely!!!
5) jokar wrote "In most cases the system is doing its job which is reacting to the circumstances around it." which surely is the crux of the matter. A fire alarm system, if doing its job, should detect fire, it should NOT detect steam, dust, insects, etc. FADs cause unnecessary disruption and should not be tolerated by either the business or the FRS. New developments in this field could virtually eliminate false alarms of this type.
-
Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore, if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with. I agree with you that the UWFS are a disruption and excessive ones should not be tolerated, and the F&RS's have reasonable grounds for altering the PDA to these premises if the false alarm numbers are outside of that tolerated by the BS - but this is between the Service and that premises. The FSO/enforcement notice is not the best way to deal with it as a lawyer could easily appeal it and have it overturned. What do you do then?
-
Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore, if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with.
I'm starting to feel a bit dim now - what am I missing?
I read that as saying that if the fire alarm is provided to safeguard the safety of relevant perons (i.e. life protection rather than property protection) then it must be "subject to a suitable system of maintenance", which is where the British Standard comes in.
If someone is NOT at risk I agree that the provisions of the FSO have been complied with...but surely then they wouldn't need a life protection fire alarm system either?
-
Look at it in this way:
Assume that the fire alarm is actually required.
If the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms was removed from the BS completely, would it place relevant persons at a higher risk from fire? I think you would agree that the answer has to be no.
If the fire alarm system was not maintained (serviced) at the prescibed intervals, would it have placed relevant persons at a higher risk from fire - I think you could and probably would argue yes.
If you agree with both of these statements, then you must agree that we could not enforce it using the Fire Safety Order because we are not having any effect on the General Fire Precautions, therefore we are accepting that they are at an acceptable level as they stand.
(This is in my opinion only).
-
Is there a valid argument that a large number of unwanted alarms leads to persns becoming blase and reluctant to respond when it does sound, delaying their evacuation and placing them at risk if it is a real fire?
This is the argument used to justify heat detectors in hotel bedrooms.
-
Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore, if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with.
I'm starting to feel a bit dim now - what am I missing?
I read that as saying that if the fire alarm is provided to safeguard the safety of relevant perons (i.e. life protection rather than property protection) then it must be "subject to a suitable system of maintenance", which is where the British Standard comes in.
If someone is NOT at risk I agree that the provisions of the FSO have been complied with...but surely then they wouldn't need a life protection fire alarm system either?
Absolutely correct. The "Where necessary" applies to the provision of the alarm in the first place - not to it's maintenance. Therefore, if it isn't maintained you are not complying with that part of the legislation.
In any case, by providing it you are held to have demonstrated that it is necessary in order for risk to be reduced so far as is reasonably practicable. If you don't maintain it adequately you are therefore placing people at risk.
-
Sorry, the term where necessary applies to Article 17 maintenance as well.
-
Neil
have a look in the guide "Small & Medium places of assembly Page 102, section 7.1...........
It states your records should be kept in a specified place........and should include...............
....recording of false alarms.
Therefore the R.P. does have a responsiblity to log the false alarms which if common sense prevails by the R.P.?? ... They would take measures to reduce the number of false alarms within their premises.
But the key word is should are they bothered only when it starts costing them money.
I agree with previous comments i do not believe you could enfoce Article 17 on them.
-
Is there a valid argument that a large number of unwanted alarms leads to persns becoming blase and reluctant to respond when it does sound, delaying their evacuation and placing them at risk if it is a real fire?
This is the argument used to justify heat detectors in hotel bedrooms.
I believe that you would be on safer ground with this approach, but I think you would need some evidence that the false alarms were having a negative impact on relevant persons response to the fire alarm signal, such as the building not being evacuated when fire crews arrive (if indeed they respond to fire alarms nowadays).
I have no idea under which Article of the Fire Safety Order you would address it though; Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements; Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas; or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work?
This may be one of those that you need to push through to enforcement to see what happens, if you feel that strongly about it.
-
1) I thought that if you had a safety system, such as a fire alarm, it had to be properly maintained and to be properly maintained it MUST be maintained to a recognized or appropriate standard. It does not have to be the British Standard but has to be a suitable standard. Playing devil's advocate then; the alternative is that the RP does not have to test or maintain their fire alarm system as long as when an IO asks for a demonstration the system operates?
2) Section 3 of BS5839 is part of the standard, since when did we now allow people to pick and choose which parts of a standard they conform with? Reasonable variations yes, but surely not to disregard a whole section and then still claim that it conforms?
Throwing another spanner into the works.
If the fire alarm system was designed and installed to BS5839 Part1:1988, where if I remember correctly there was no mention of reduction of false alarms, you wouldn't be able to say they were not conforming with relevant British Standard.
Therefore, if you had two identical premises, one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 2002 and one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 1988, would you consider the one with the 2002 spec to be breaching Article 17 and the one with the 1988 spec to be conforming?
Just a thought.
-
Just to add my tuppence worth. When we were drafting FPN 11 "Reducing unwanted fire signals in healthcare", we started with a considerable research programme into the main causes of unwanted alarms. Unsurprisingly, cooking, contactors works and smoking featured highly. As a result, the argument was put forward that since the main causes of unwanted fire signals were derived from issues that need to be adequately managed in order to avoid a fire, a high level of unwanted alarms was indicative of poor fire safety management!
-
Just to add my tuppence worth. When we were drafting FPN 11 "Reducing unwanted fire signals in healthcare", we started with a considerable research programme into the main causes of unwanted alarms. Unsurprisingly, cooking, contactors works and smoking featured highly. As a result, the argument was put forward that since the main causes of unwanted fire signals were derived from issues that need to be adequately managed in order to avoid a fire, a high level of unwanted alarms was indicative of poor fire safety management!
I agree. I've been working with businesses to reduce excessive levels of UFS for about 18 months now and the majority of actuations are due to poor management. Most businesses respond well to advice, support, pointing out wasted resources, disruption, loss of productivity or trade, etc. There are a hardcore few though that can't be bothered and they need a little nudge... In some others it is down to persistent system faults, unsuitable positioning, inappropriate detector type, etc and it often seems that the manager of the premises claims he wants to solve the problem but it's the fault of head office...or the maintenance company. An official letter (pre-enforcement notice) sent to the company secretary or chief Exec has been effective on every occasion so far - I let them decide whose fault it is!
-
If the fire alarm system was designed and installed to BS5839 Part1:1988, where if I remember correctly there was no mention of reduction of false alarms, you wouldn't be able to say they were not conforming with relevant British Standard.
Therefore, if you had two identical premises, one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 2002 and one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 1988, would you consider the one with the 2002 spec to be breaching Article 17 and the one with the 1988 spec to be conforming?
Just a thought.
1) If they used an acceptable standard which didn't refer to controlling false alarms then maybe we couldn't say that they weren't maintaining the system properly could we?
2) Every fire alarm maintenance company that I've come across so far claims in their CV (on-line, etc) to conform to BS5839 pt1:2002
3) Every company with excessive FADs that I've spoken to so far claim they maintain their system to the current British Standards
4) I'd consider enforcing Article 11: Principles of Prevention to be applied; Part 3, Schedule 1: Principles of Prevention, (d) adapting to technical progress
-
It now appears that my Brigade likes this solution and is going to trial it so I’ll update this site with any outcomes if anyone’s interested.
There appears to be many different opinions out there; all welcome and all food for thought, thank you all. Some points have left me scratching my head though. Just to summarize my position:
The assumption: business premises, FSO applies, AFD required for life protection, excessive false alarms, ignoring advice and support, FRS decides to enforce;
1) Article 30: Enforcement Notice. The test is: If FRS of the opinion that RP has failed to comply with ANY provision of the FSO an Enforcement Notice can be served. This does NOT limit us to Article 4: General fire precautions (or Article 8, 9, etc) nor does it require relevant persons to be put at risk…
2) Article 17: Maintenance “…subject to a suitable system of maintenance…”
Is BS5839 pt1:2002 suitable? - Surely yes.
Can other standards be used? If suitable – yes.
I was taught that “where necessary” applies to whether you have the facilities, equipment or devices installed, if so then it is “necessary” to maintain them, if not then it’s “not necessary” to maintain them.
The bit about ‘to safeguard the safety…etc’ means that the “where necessary” bit refers to anything installed for the safety of relevant persons.
3) BS5839 pt1:2002 states that excessive false alarms mean that the system doesn’t comply with that part of the standard, just as say sounders which aren’t loud enough don’t conform to another specific part of the standard.
The standard is a whole document and if we allow anyone and everyone to reject what doesn’t suit them on the basis that no-one is put at risk by ignoring it then we’ll be in freefall risk assessment or complete stalemate.
Let everyone choose a suitable standard that suits their needs, but surely they have to stick to it
Here’s another thought; if you don’t like parts of BS5839 and feel that you have to ignore some of it then it can’t provide a suitable system of maintenance can it? Therefore could the business be taken to task for choosing an unsuitable standard for maintenance?
Why would the BSI bother to write a whole section if their intention was to have it ignored? Where’s Colin Todd? I thought he claimed to have been on the committee that wrote this standard – could he tell us what the intention of it was?
What if the enforcement notice is challenged? Bring it on! Let a judge make a determination. It’s got to be better than us fumbling about in the dark discussing the meaning and interpretation of ambiguous legalese. At least we’ll be trying to solve a recognized problem that wastes everyone’s time & resources.
-
To serve any kind of notice, there has to be a failure of the responsible persons duties under the order, and that failure has put one or more relevant persons at risk. If everyone evacuates safely each time, how is enforcement an appropriate measure?
Sorry but that is not correct.
Persons must be placed at serious risk for an offence under article 32(1) (a) or (b) and article 32(2)(a).........there are however many other offences that may be committed without placing anyone at risk e.g. failing to comply with an enforcement notice or obstructing an inspector.
In my opinion if an alarm system is producing such a high number of false alarms, someone could be failing to comply with the following articles:
11. Fire Safety Arrangements;
13. Firefighting and Fire Detection;
15. Procedures for serious & Imminent Danger;
17. Maintenance;
22. Co-operation & Co-ordination.
Now if any of those failures have placed relevant persons at serious risk an offence has been committed. As Kurnal correctly points out, to prove that persons have been placed at risk may be difficult, but a building full of persons who have failed to evacuate on hearing the alarm, particularly if there was a real fire, would be good evidence.
If no persons are placed at risk, but the enforcing authority are of the opinion that some person who has control has failed to comply with any provision (article); the enforcing authority may serve an enforcement notice detailing the failures and requiring steps to be taken to remedy the failures. If those steps are not taken.......an offence has been committed by virtue of article 32(1)(d).
-
Neil,
Another issue with using BS5839 1:2002 Section 3 Limitation of False Alarms to address this problem as a maintenance issue is:
3.32 Definition of Maintenance - 'work of inspection, servicing and repair necessary in order to maintain the efficent operation of the installed system'
all of which is contained within section 6 of the standard i.e:
section 6 Maintenance.
44 Routine testing
45 Inspection and servicing
46 Non-routine attention
Limitation of false alarms does get a mention in section 6:
45.3c) 'The records of false alarms should be checked in accordance with 30.2i). The rate of false alarms during the previous 12 months should be recorded [see 30.2i)]. Action taken in respect of false alarms recorded should comply with the recommendations of 30.2j).
30.2j) says 'At least, a preliminary investigation should be carried out as part of the service work if any of the following apply:'
It then goes on to give the circumstances (number of false alarms etc).
It then says 'The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether any action should be taken to reduce the potential for false alarms;'
Therefore I would suggest that a RP could be seen as meeting their responsibility of maintaining the fire alarm system in an efficient state by referring to Section 6 only, and carrying out an investigation into the false alarms if required (i.e. not to put the problem right).
I totally agree that false alarms are a real drain on everybodys time and resources (apart from the alarm engineer perhaps) and that we should all be doing what we can to address the problem. I just think that there could be better ways of addressing it than through Article 17.
-
I totally agree that false alarms are a real drain on everybodys time and resources (apart from the alarm engineer perhaps) and that we should all be doing what we can to address the problem. I just think that there could be better ways of addressing it than through Article 17.
what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?
-
what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?
What about Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements:
11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.
The words that interest me here are MUST, CONTROL, EFFECTIVE and PROTECTIVE MEASURES
As I stated earlier in the thread, if you have some evidence that Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm signal due to excessive false alarms occuring with the system (crews turning up and the premises not being evacuated, maybe a previous academic investigation into the problem if one has been carried out) would you have grounds for saying that they MUST CONTROL the false alarms to ensure that their PROTECTIVE MEASURES (in this case the fire alarm system) are EFFECTIVE? I think you probably could.
What about Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas:
The responsible person must—
(a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;
Again, if Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm, can the Responsible Person be said to be 'Giving Effect' to appropriate procedures? I think the answer could be 'no they are not'.
Or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work:
Every employee must, while at work—
(a) take reasonable care for the safety of himself and of other relevant persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;
If they are not responding to the fire alarm then are they taking care of themselves and other relevant persons (escpecially where they have been nominated for Safety Assistance under Article 18 or have been nominated to carry out evacuation under Article 15(1)(b) or have been nominated to carry out fire-fighting under Article 13(3)(b))?
I appreciate that this is probably not targetting the Responsible Person directly (although they may have nominated themselves to carry out the Safety Assistance role) but it may push them into getting the problem sorted out. Maybe starting to clutch at straws with this one!
I appreciate that none of the above may be the perfect solution or even applicable, but personally I would feel on safer ground trying to address it using the above methods (escpecially the first one) than through Article 17 Maintenance.
Again these are my personal opinions, they may be misguided, and they will probably be the last contributions I have to make regarding this matter (probably)!
-
I think the most appropriate article here is 17 or 11, but as I said earlier all of the following articlea may be relevant
11. Fire Safety Arrangements;
13. Firefighting and Fire Detection;
15. Procedures for serious & Imminent Danger;
17. Maintenance;
22. Co-operation & Co-ordination.
I think enforcement action is a good idea, remembering that enforcement action includes educating and informing but if that fails serve an enforcement notice.
I think trying to pursue employees using article 23 is not the best way forward....you could not serve a notice on employees as they do not have control of the workplace, so the only option would be to prosecute them if their failure placed relevant persons at serious risk......a bit too complimicated in my opinion.
-
what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?
What about Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements:
11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.
The words that interest me here are MUST, CONTROL, EFFECTIVE and PROTECTIVE MEASURES
As I stated earlier in the thread, if you have some evidence that Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm signal due to excessive false alarms occuring with the system (crews turning up and the premises not being evacuated, maybe a previous academic investigation into the problem if one has been carried out) would you have grounds for saying that they MUST CONTROL the false alarms to ensure that their PROTECTIVE MEASURES (in this case the fire alarm system) are EFFECTIVE? I think you probably could.
What about Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas:
The responsible person must—
(a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;
Again, if Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm, can the Responsible Person be said to be 'Giving Effect' to appropriate procedures? I think the answer could be 'no they are not'.
As far as I am aware the problem premises ARE responding to the fire alarm actuation appropriately (got to rely on fire crew's reporting problems for that one as well!). What they are not doing is solving their excessive amount of false alarms
Or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work:
Every employee must, while at work—
(a) take reasonable care for the safety of himself and of other relevant persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;
If they are not responding to the fire alarm then are they taking care of themselves and other relevant persons (especially where they have been nominated for Safety Assistance under Article 18 or have been nominated to carry out evacuation under Article 15(1)(b) or have been nominated to carry out fire-fighting under Article 13(3)(b))?
I appreciate that this is probably not targetting the Responsible Person directly (although they may have nominated themselves to carry out the Safety Assistance role) but it may push them into getting the problem sorted out. Maybe starting to clutch at straws with this one!
I agree with you there - you're probably clutching at straws...I can't see how this would work.
I appreciate that none of the above may be the perfect solution or even applicable, but personally I would feel on safer ground trying to address it using the above methods (escpecially the first one) than through Article 17 Maintenance.
Again these are my personal opinions, they may be misguided, and they will probably be the last contributions I have to make regarding this matter (probably)!
My plan might not be ideal, but you haven't convinced me that there's anything better - sorry
-
Neil,
fair enough, I tried.
Best of luck with this.
Can you keep the forum updated with how you get on, as I'm sure other Brigades will want to use this approach if it is successful :P
-
Neil
If you would like to contact me i'll send you details & discuss how we are attempting to reduce the number of UWFS we get within my brigade, I think article 17 is the most effective to try to educate people into taking the number of UWFS they get seriously
-
Without going into each individual article. If the system is reacting excessivley to the environement that is placed in and causing unwanted fire signals ( not false alarms that may be good intent), then I would suggest that either the system has not been designed and installed for the premises correctly or is not being maintained properly, therefore it is not a satisfactory system.
In a previous life I dealt with UWFS and when bringing to the attention of senior management the problem, ( the problem is generally with larger premises and organisations, and its amazing how many of senior management are not aware how many times their premises have UWFS) they instigated a look at the maintenance and the system, and it solved the problem without any enforcement being required.
A well designed and managed system will not give UWFS. Ones that aren't, are giving AFD a bad name.
ps
How many alarm engineers when doing their scheduled service and maintenance, look at the log book used by the premises for weekly tests and other occurences including UWFS/flase alarms.
The answer is very few, which is another reason systems are not reliable.
-
our FRS authority has just given guidance on enforcing excessive false alarm rates.
they have focused on article 11 to enforce under.
below is an extract (there are more) from the guidance , it is of example text to use on enforcement notice's
The arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the fire detection and warning system are inadequate. [IO to insert circumstances e.g. Students showering, using spay deodorant or smoking in their rooms] are causing the fire alarm to actuate, indicating the system has been inappropriately planned and that the design has not been subject to appropriate monitoring and review. Frequent activation of the fire detection and warning system by non-fire events shows that due to inadequate planning and control the system is not in an efficient state.
they do not cover anything under article 17.
i do however agree with Niel G. if there are excessive alarm rates it is not compliant. in my opinion, this DOES put relevant persons at a higher risk, employees get a 'oh! no not again' attitude and do not respond as they should.
-
Hi Terry, interesting submission thanks.
Johno made the suggestion earlier in the thread about using Article 11, but this puts some meat on the bone. Do you know how often it's been used and if anyone has challenged it yet? The only people to challenge my efforts to date are other IOs; companies and councils have played along so far...
A good suggestion put to me is to send my theory to the Secretary of State for a technical determination (although not yet challenged). Has anyone out there tried this with anything yet?
-
Neil,
the guidance note was only issued within the last few weeks so there has been little opportunity to see any benefits or problems.
i have a list of enforcement example text, which we can use to enforce this issue under other articles. if you would like to see the list. let me know and i'll email you a copy