FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Benzerari on January 03, 2008, 11:12:41 PM
-
Hi guys happy New Year:
It seems that I have started the New Year with a strange fire alarm system of a new site; we have recently taken over…
It is a school with very old fire alarm system, it is sort of manual fire alarm system, the panel is the power supply itself with no buttons, a small basic PCB circuit inside, with one zone and sounder circuits, when tested the call points alarm went off normally, but the system can be silenced just by puling off the test key, there are no detectors at all in the whole school. Only fire exits, corridors and main entrance have call points, also in the corridors between call point and the next one to it, there is more than 45m. The sounder and zone circuits are not monitored for short and open circuits...
My concern is;
Is that kind of old fire alarm systems still acceptable by BS 5839 nowadays, if yes in what circumstances, and to what level of protection?
Thank you in advance
Benzerari
-
Sounds like an old Gent's (or similar) 240V system - they came in three 'flavours':
1) The 'top range' model, where the system could be zoned, had a electromechanical drop flag zone indicator system & 'silence' & 'reset' sliders.
The system was also available as a 24V system with trickle charged wet cell batteries
2) The 'basic plus' system - no zoning etc like version 3, but with a silence alarms button box that temporarily cut off the sounders allowing you to replace the broken call point glass in peace
3) The basic system - a series of call points and bells or electromechanical klaxxons the only control being the power supply switch at the fuse box.
Even some very large multi use buildings had (& still have) type (3) variety's. Most of these old systems are manual, but you can find them with bimetallic strip heat detectors which are either risk specific in sparse locations or almost throughout the whole premises. Ion Smoke heads did exist, but are extremely rare as a lot were pulled out many years ago for various reasons including the fact they used a significant radioactive source (compared to their modern 24V & 9V counterparts).
A test key makes me think that the call points are not original - one building I assessed had a 240V type (1) variant that had been previously been 'upgraded' by replacing all the Gent call points with KAC call points for ease of the weekly test (Gents were always a pain, especially if you had forgotten your Allen Key - also after a decade or two the grub screws round off & you have to hammer in a small flat head screwdriver to unscrew it!).
If the alarm stops when the key is out then it's probably a variant (3) system - the most basic.
If its 240V only it's been illegal since 1996. (Safety Signs & Signals Regulations). It will also not comply with BS 5839.
A 24V version of the type (1) system would not be outright illegal, but may not meet BS5839 spec - suitability would be decided by the cover provided v risk and the condition of the system - a replacement may still require consideration.
Standards History:
Pre 1951
Installation Rules of the Fire Offices’ Committee
1951 – 1972
BSI - 1951 Code of Practice CP327.404-402.501
1972 – 1985
BSI - 1972 Code of Practice CP 1019
1985 onwards
BS 5839 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings
-
I think AnthonyB has answered rather well and he even stopped up until past 1am to answer it. That's dedication for you.
My only comment would be about the call points being more than 45m apart. They could be 90m apart, as you should never have to walk more than 45m to get to the closest call point. :)
-
Sounds like an old Gent's (or similar) 240V system - they came in three 'flavours':
1) The 'top range' model, where the system could be zoned, had a drop flag electromechanical drop flag system & 'silence' & 'reset' sliders.
The system was also available as a 24V system with trickle charged wet cell batteries
2) The 'basic plus' system - no zoning etc like version 3, but with a silence alarms button box that temporarily cut off the sounders allowing you to replace the broken call point glass in peace
3) The basic system - a series of call points and sounders or electromechanical klaxxons the only control being the power supply switch at the fuse box.
Even some very large multi use buildings had (& still have) type (3) varient's. Most of these old systems are manual, but you can find them with bimetallic strip heat detectors which are either risk specific in sparse locations or almost throughout the whole premises. Ion Smoke heads did exist, but are extremely rare as a lot were pulled out many years ago for various reasons including the fact they used a significant radioactive source (compared to their modern 24V & 9V counterparts).
A test key makes me think that the call points are not original - one building I assessed had a 240V type (1) variant that had been previously been 'upgraded' by replacing all the Gent call points with KAC call points for ease of the weekly test (Gents were always a pain, especially if you had forgotten your Allen Key - also after a decade or two the grub screws round off & you have to hammer in a small flat head screwdriver to unscrew it!).
If the alarm stops when the key is out then it's probably a variant (3) system - the most basic.
If its 240V only it's been illegal since 1996. (Safety Signs & Signals Regulations). It will also not comply with BS 5839.
A 24V version of the type (1) system would not be outright illegal, but may not meet BS5839 spec - suitability would be decided by the cover provided v risk and the condition of the system - a replacement may still require consideration.
Standards History:
Pre 1951
Installation Rules of the Fire Offices’ Committee
1951 – 1972
BSI - 1951 Code of Practice CP327.404-402.501
1972 – 1985
BSI - 1972 Code of Practice CP 1019
1985 onwards
BS 5839 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings
Thanks AntholnyB for these details, one thing I wanted to make sure about is that; Is it a must for a service engineer to keep reminding the customer about these abnormalities, through his service dockets? stating i.e. system operation OK but........( rise concern about what should be ).
Because testing the system's operation is really just a piece of cake, but it still not complying with a lots of BS5839 such as zone and sounder circuits monitoring, MCP distance ...etc
Thank you
Benzerari
-
I would keep putting the abnormalities on the service sheets - you are contracted to maintain the system to current standards & under those it fails to comply (even if working). It covers you and ensures the customer cannot claim they didn't know the system wasn't up to standard - I've seen this before when a client had to admit they'd been deliberately ignoring a problem, they couldn't escape it as it was documented on every 25% service sheet for the previous 4 years!
If it is still considered adequate by the user after your advice & the system works that's all you can realistically do
-
I would keep putting the abnormalities on the service sheets - you are contracted to maintain the system to current standards & under those it fails to comply (even if working). It covers you and ensures the customer cannot claim they didn't know the system wasn't up to standard - I've seen this before when a client had to admit they'd been deliberately ignoring a problem, they couldn't escape it as it was documented on every 25% service sheet for the previous 4 years!
If it is still considered adequate by the user after your advice & the system works that's all you can realistically do
Thanks AnthonyB thats all I wanted to know!
-
To continually 'remind' a customer that his system doesn't comply with current British Standards is both time-consuming for the service organisation and could also cause friction between the customer and the service organisation.
BS5839 part 1 2002 Clause 46.2 clearly recommends a special inspection on appointment of a new servicing organisation. This special inspection is intended to highlight major deficiences in compliance with current standards. Once this has been done and properly recorded then the service organisation has done it's duty and there is no need to continually keep highlighting the same problems on every service visit.
After the special inspection, the recommendations for periodic inspections are covered in 45.3 & 45.4 and these include requirements to identify any changes in use and structure of a building, since the previous inspection, that may affect the system.
Rectification of non-compliances is a matter for the user to determine, and not for the service organisation to force through.
-
Is it possible to point out to the client, as politely as possible, that his fire risk assessment under the RR(FS)O needs to take into account the deficiencies in the existing alarm system?
-
I've yet to see a special inspection report from a changeover and if it wasn't put on the regular sheets we wouldn't know about it! Many of our clients never see the engineers in person and it's only if we flag up problems in the FRA via faults recorded in the routine paperwork that they end up acting.
I'm not saying you are wrong & I see your point, but just going on my experience. I'm not expecting for modernisation to be 'forced through' unnecessarily, but in our sector of work the clients representatives need regular reminders or it escapes them - they all have many buildings to manage & often let fire safety run itself.
-
Obviously there are different types of customers. There are those that need constant reminders of what they should be doing and who are happy to receive them. My own experience shows there are there are also those customers who take exception to being constantly reminded. They feel they are being inappropriately pressured or even 'oversold' and subsequently 'shoot the messenger'. Benzrari and others should possibly take this into account if they don't want to 'lose' customers. I always found that if the people receiving the reports only had responsibility for a number of buildings that they didn't own themselves then they were happy to receive constant reminders (which they just passed on to the building user/owner). Where the person who got the report was the user/owner then they hated being 'badgered'
I agree that the 'special inspection' has hardly become a popular option and this is because no-one wants to pay the costs associated in carrying it out! However it is the recommendation of British Standards and until everyone who 'takes over' a system insists on carrying it out, the situation will not get any better.
John is obviously right in stating that any deficiences have an impact on any fire risk assessment and, of course, the manner and method of informing customers of deficiences is important.
-
I've yet to see a special inspection report from a changeover often let fire safety run itself.
we do them as standard although it does not always make me popular as the customer always asks "why did the last company never mention all these?"
The fact that you have identified all the non complainces and another company has not, should do you credit but the customer usually thinks that the new company coming in is looking to make some money.
-
Who knows what have been discussed with the previous service company? probably it has just got fed up of servicing a none cost effective site located more than 70 miles away, with a service time of less than an hour, and further more it is what we called sometimes in French (Porteur de maleur) 'trouble bringer', with a customer who wants you to witness that his bicycle is doing the job just like a motorbike…
To be honest I would not spent my time to argue about any related past events which I had not been involved...
I agree that 'diplomacy' does much matter in convincing customers, being a service engineer and a good seller has never been that easy, also it is not that easy to convince customer to invest in the right direction in one service visit. That is why I wanted to keep reminding him in the service sheets till he gets the point.
We all want to make money by doing the right job and that is the bottom of the line thought! :)
-
Couple of things I have forgotten to mention is that; according to the Fire Log Book I checked in there, it seems the service has not been done since 2002 except the weekly bell test records stating Bell test done OK but no trace of which MCP been tested. The fire alarm system is serving the school bells too, it is linked to the school bell’s timer which has two buttons for start and stop, I guess, they where doing their bell tests through that school bell’s Buttons and not from MCPs in rotations…
The MCPs are a mixture of very old types, with different types of screws, and few KAC ones… so you need: Flat screw driver, Philips one, Alan key and KAC test key… to do 100% test. What’s this headache!
I would prefer then to make a full report once, and then join it with each service sheet as a reminder to save my time and cover my self … :)
-
i still have a few Schools on my list with gents 240v systems and they bore the pants off me having to do them.
I find it very tedious having to service really bad or old installs and spend half my time writing the same non compliances out,time and time again.
i would much rather maintain new complaint installs where i could just do the testing and leave.
-
How about having a box to tick on service inspection reports that said something like: Previously advised system deficiences NOT yet rectified, instead of re-confirming all the problems on each visit?
-
How about having a box to tick on service inspection reports that said something like: Previously advised system deficiences NOT yet rectified, instead of re-confirming all the problems on each visit?
That's a good idea why not?
And we provide a full details of these abnormalities to the customer when he wakes up.
If he is a customer of first priority I would run.... behind him, but if he is not your idea would be ideal...
-
Our BAFE man advised that we should repeat all non conformities after every service visit to cover our backs....
-
How about having a box to tick on service inspection reports that said something like: Previously advised system deficiences NOT yet rectified, instead of re-confirming all the problems on each visit?
That's a good idea why not?
And we provide a full details of these abnormalities to the customer when he wakes up.
If he is a customer of first priority I would run.... behind him, but if he is not your idea would be ideal...
Obviously 'previously advised' deficiences have to have been advised previously and not subsequently or 'when he wakes up'. Otherwise it would be a silly to 'tick the box'!!
Our BAFE man advised that we should repeat all non conformities after every service visit to cover our backs....
I don't disagree with the advice. It is sensible as long as it doesn't annoy the customer. British Standard's doesn't specifically ask for it.
However, from the service provider's viewpoint it can't be cost-effective. It's time-consuming enough to have to re-check whether previously defficiences have been attended to (if you don't re-check, it's odds-on that he has had someone else in to do so, and make you look silly when you 'report' it again) but to have to keep listing all non-conformities on each visit is time-consuming.
-
Compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement.
Compliance with the Signs and Signals regulations is! - so with regards to the acceptability of the fire alarm systems, even if the Fire Safety Risk Assessment concludes that the fire alarm is OK, it is illegal and must be replaced.
-
Compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement.
Compliance with the Signs and Signals regulations is! - so with regards to the acceptability of the fire alarm systems, even if the Fire Safety Risk Assessment concludes that the fire alarm is OK, it is illegal and must be replaced.
Chris, please explain your understanding of non-compliance with S&S reg. when the original post confirmed.........'when tested the call points, alarm went off normally'
-
I don't have time to look up the exact wording, but in simple terms the Signs and Signals regs require a battery backup for all safety alarm systems. Unlike a British Standard, this is not a recommendation but a legal requirement.
-
The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 relate to the requirements of safety signs and signals used at work.
Clause 2, Interpretation, of these Regulations states within Section (1) the following text:
““fire safety sign” means a sign (including an illuminated sign or an acoustic signal) which –
(i) provides information of escape routes and emergency exits in case of fire;
(ii) provides information on the identification or location of fire fighting equipment; or
(iii) gives warning in case of fire”
As a fire alarm may be signalled by a visual or audible signal, such devices are included within the Regulations.
Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 8 of the Regulations states:
“8 Signs requiring some form of power must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut, unless the hazard has thereby been eliminated.”
By taking the requirements of these clauses into account, the use of mains powered fire alarm systems with no standby power supply is not acceptable if they are provided as a means of meeting health and safety requirements in a place of work. In such places, fire alarm systems complying with the requirements of BS5839-1: 1988 or 2002 would normally be recommended.
-
Chris; can you please re-explain
this:
Compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement..
and that
so with regards to the acceptability of the fire alarm systems, even if the Fire Safety Risk Assessment concludes that the fire alarm is OK, it is illegal and must be replaced.
on what basis it must be replaced if you said, 'compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement'
do you mean it is just a good practice to comply with the standard BS5839.
I still haven't got the point.
Thank you
-
I remember 4 years ago I had been several times in a situation where the main PCB board of the panel was gone, in a week end and at night, I did not have choice, I used to build up a very basic circuit to combine the zone circuits with the sounder circuits and make the MCPs operation working OK, just by using external relays and resistors, and by using the silence button... the circuit had been tested OK, and it was just for temporary measures till the next working day so we can order a proper brand new panel...
The main point is that, I had been told that time that the circuit was not acceptable just because it was not complying to BS5839... due to a lots of monitoring are required too... and if any incident happens I am the first responsible...
so what is the difference between this basic circuit and the very old basic fire alarm system which still in use in that school?
-
It is illegal as it does not conform to the absolute requirement contained in the The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996.
In theory there is no absolute duty under fire regs to replace it unless your FRA dictates it is not suitable & sufficient to meet the duty to provide fire warning - it is the Health & Safety regulations that make it mandatory in all circumstances.
Just because a fire alarm does not meet the latest BS5839 edition does not always mean it requires it's replacement - however if it doesn't meet The Health and Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations requirements then it does
-
Guys, this is going around in circles a bit.
It is understood and accepted that the S & S regs. are a legal requirement. You appear to be applying it to the situation of this specific original post. If so, please confirm where this specifically described system doesn't comply. As far as I read it, the system has signals, they operate when expected to do so, and there is no mention of there not being a standby power supply. Also what does Anthony B mean by an 'absolute requirement' in the context of this specific post?
Just because Benzerari says there are non-compliances with some of the very many recommendations of BS5839 part 1 2002, surely it can't be said that it then always fails the S & S regulations? If the non-compliances do not relate to the specifc definitions of the S&S regulations then surely they are not applicable?
We musn't allow subjects to get confused on this site. Too many people rely on it for definitive answers.
-
Chris; can you please re-explain
this:
Compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement..
and that
so with regards to the acceptability of the fire alarm systems, even if the Fire Safety Risk Assessment concludes that the fire alarm is OK, it is illegal and must be replaced.
on what basis it must be replaced if you said, 'compliance with British Standards is not a legal requirement'
do you mean it is just a good practice to comply with the standard BS5839.
I still haven't got the point.
Thank you
Benzerari, BS 5839 is a code of practice containing recommendations. These recommendations are not law. Even if you didn't follow BS5839 recommendations, you might be able to argue that your alternative solutions are equally applicable and as suitable as a BS 5839 recommendation. However, by following BS5839 recommendations it could always be strongly argued, in any situation, that you followed a recognised published code of practice and what else could you be expected to do?. However, the foreword of BS5839 part 1 2002 also states ' Compliance with British Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations' !
-
I remember 4 years ago I had been several times in a situation where the main PCB board of the panel was gone, in a week end and at night, I did not have choice, I used to build up a very basic circuit to combine the zone circuits with the sounder circuits and make the MCPs operation working OK, just by using external relays and resistors, and by using the silence button... the circuit had been tested OK, and it was just for temporary measures till the next working day so we can order a proper brand new panel...
The main point is that, I had been told that time that the circuit was not acceptable just because it was not complying to BS5839... due to a lots of monitoring are required too... and if any incident happens I am the first responsible...
so what is the difference between this basic circuit and the very old basic fire alarm system which still in use in that school?
In the circumstances you mention, if your provided solution put the system in a better position than how you found it, and there was no better solution you were capable of providing, and you eventually effected the proper repair in the quickest time practically possible, I would put it to the judge that you had done the very best that you could have been expected to achieve and should be found not guilty!
-
I'll try again to be as clear as possible. The signs and signals regulations apply to all fire alarm systems (or at least all all in workplaces) and make it a legal requirement that all fire alarm systems have a battery backup. This one doesn't and is therefore illegal.
-
Chris, Ill also try again to be as clear as possible.
I have extracted the relevant part of the original post and shown it below.
Where does it say that there is no battery back-up?
It is a school with very old fire alarm system, it is sort of manual fire alarm system, the panel is the power supply itself with no buttons, a small basic PCB circuit inside, with one zone and sounder circuits, when tested the call points alarm went off normally, but the system can be silenced just by puling off the test key, there are no detectors at all in the whole school. Only fire exits, corridors and main entrance have call points, also in the corridors between call point and the next one to it, there is more than 45m. The sounder and zone circuits are not monitored for short and open circuits...
Benzerari
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
-
i have just wrote that on my sheets in the past but i,m informed that you have to list them every service.
-
Also I never said a non BS5839-1 system had to be removed - in fact the opposite!
Indeed in a risk assessment a system that did comply with BS5839 could require alteration/replacement if it was unsuitable for the risks!
Lets be clear- as far as the law is concerned:
1)Does your system (of whatever type, BS5839, CP1019, none of the above) provide adequate means of fire warning & detection to protect the relevant persons from the risks on site?
2)Does the system have a back up power supply?
If you answer yes to (1) & (2) then you are OK
If you answer no to (1) your system will need alterations or replacement
If you answer no to (2) the whole system must be replaced
As for 'absolute requirement' that is reference to the use of MUST in the law - not 'should', or 'as far as reasonably practicable', or 'where relevant', in other words you have got to do it regardless - it is one of the few throwbacks to the old prescriptive legislationof the Factories Act et al that still exists, most current law is, by being risk based, full of should/maybe/where practicable etc
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries, but would that classify it as acceptable system and then there is no need for replacement, regardless of other requirements?
Is that all the health and safety regulation 1996 is obliging?
What do you think if some one just built up a basic circuit fed from both mains and standby batteries to monitor fire condition only? would that be classied as acceptable system, in terms of health and safety regulations. and none acceptable in terms of BS5839?
-
Also I never said a non BS5839-1 system had to be removed - in fact the opposite!
Indeed in a risk assessment a system that did comply with BS5839 could require alteration/replacement if it was unsuitable for the risks!
Lets be clear- as far as the law is concerned:
1)Does your system (of whatever type, BS5839, CP1019, none of the above) provide adequate means of fire warning & detection to protect the relevant persons from the risks on site?
2)Does the system have a back up power supply?
If you answer yes to (1) & (2) then you are OK
Do you mean by this:
That the health and safety regulation 1996 is looking after fire condition only, if YES what about if the sounder and zone circuits are cut off, the system would be decapitated from the power supply with NO warning and that is the case of the school I am talking about.
If you answer no to (2) the whole system must be replaced
Could we just add a standby batteries instead of replacing the system?
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries
Sorry then Wiz, it seems you were correct and that I am guilty of making a wrong assumption.
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries, but would that classify it as acceptable system and then there is no need for replacement, regardless of other requirements?
Is that all the health and safety regulation 1996 is obliging?
What do you think if some one just built up a basic circuit fed from both mains and standby batteries to monitor fire condition only? would that be classied as acceptable system, in terms of health and safety regulations. and none acceptable in terms of BS5839?
There is an obligation to comply with the requirements of the Signs and Signals Regulations.
A home made fire alarm system may comply with the signs and signals regulations, but would be very unlikely to meet all the recommendations of British Standard 5839. The acceptability of such a system would be the decision of the competant person when they do their fire safety risk assessment, but it would seem folly to not design something new to the relevant local standard (i.e. BS 5839) and I would recommend against this.
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries, but would that classify it as acceptable system and then there is no need for replacement, regardless of other requirements?
Is that all the health and safety regulation 1996 is obliging?
What do you think if some one just built up a basic circuit fed from both mains and standby batteries to monitor fire condition only? would that be classied as acceptable system, in terms of health and safety regulations. and none acceptable in terms of BS5839?
There is an obligation to comply with the requirements of the Signs and Signals Regulations.
A home made fire alarm system may comply with the signs and signals regulations, but would be very unlikely to meet all the recommendations of British Standard 5839. The acceptability of such a system would be the decision of the competant person when they do their fire safety risk assessment, but it would seem folly to not design something new to the relevant local standard (i.e. BS 5839) and I would recommend against this.
What about the basic system discribed below would you recomend against too:
It is a school with very old fire alarm system, it is sort of manual fire alarm system, the panel is the power supply itself with no control buttons and no indicator LEDs at all, a small basic PCB circuit inside, with one zone and sounder circuits, when tested the call points alarm went off normally, but the system can be silenced just by puling off the test key, there are no detectors at all in the whole school. Only fire exits, corridors and main entrance have call points, also in the corridors between call point and the next one to it, there is more than 45m. The sounder and zone circuits are not monitored for short and open circuits...
Also according to the Fire Log Book I checked in there, it seems the service has not been done since 2002 except the weekly bell test records stating Bell test done OK but no trace of which MCP been tested. The fire alarm system is serving the school bells too, it is linked to the school bell’s timer which has two buttons for start and stop, I guess, they where doing their bell tests through that school bell’s Buttons and not from MCPs in rotations…
The MCPs are a mixture of very old types, with different types of screws, and few KAC ones… so you need: Flat screw driver, Philips one, Alan key and KAC test key… to do 100% test.
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries
Particularly where most of our service sheets as you know are mentioning in little writing in the bottom, stating i.e. that: 'The servicing is to be done in accordance to the standard BS5839...'. Some times I think I would not sign in these circumstances a certificate and hand it to customer...
What do you think?
-
I remember 4 years ago I had been several times in a situation where the main PCB board of the panel was gone, in a week end and at night, I did not have choice, I used to build up a very basic circuit to combine the zone circuits with the sounder circuits and make the MCPs operation working OK, just by using external relays and resistors, and by using the silence button... the circuit had been tested OK, and it was just for temporary measures till the next working day so we can order a proper brand new panel...
The main point is that, I had been told that time that the circuit was not acceptable just because it was not complying to BS5839... due to a lots of monitoring are required too... and if any incident happens I am the first responsible...
so what is the difference between this basic circuit and the very old basic fire alarm system which still in use in that school?
In the circumstances you mention, if your provided solution put the system in a better position than how you found it, and there was no better solution you were capable of providing, and you eventually effected the proper repair in the quickest time practically possible, I would put it to the judge that you had done the very best that you could have been expected to achieve and should be found not guilty!
Many thanks wiz for being not guilty but the main concern is the following:
What is the difference between this basic circuit and the very old basic fire alarm system which still in use in that school?
-
I invite every one to look at the link below, and please let me know what grade the fire alarm system in that school is classified, because it seems that the grades of fire alarm systems from A to F mentioned in this article are still in use nowadays.
here is the link and what do you think?
www.iee.org/Publish/WireRegs/WiringMatters/index.cfm#17
-
Grades A-F come under BS5839 part 6 for Dwellings.
Schools go by part 1-buildings.
-
Also I never said a non BS5839-1 system had to be removed - in fact the opposite!
Indeed in a risk assessment a system that did comply with BS5839 could require alteration/replacement if it was unsuitable for the risks!
Lets be clear- as far as the law is concerned:
1)Does your system (of whatever type, BS5839, CP1019, none of the above) provide adequate means of fire warning & detection to protect the relevant persons from the risks on site?
2)Does the system have a back up power supply?
If you answer yes to (1) & (2) then you are OK
Do you mean by this:
That the health and safety regulation 1996 is looking after fire condition only, if YES what about if the sounder and zone circuits are cut off, the system would be decapitated from the power supply with NO warning and that is the case of the school I am talking about.
If you answer no to (2) the whole system must be replaced
Could we just add a standby batteries instead of replacing the system?
not if it's 240v.
all the bells would have to be changed to 24 v
-
Presumably if a mains system could it be run from a UPS or provided with a battery/ inverter back up supply? Or do these AC bells require a perfect 50Hz?
Personally I would not support such modifications to a system that is so old. To start to make significant modifications to a system that is 40-50 years old gives you ownership of the work that you do and of the system- and why risk your reputation to support a system that is not fit for pupose and hasn't been for over 10 years?
Unless there are very special reasons- eg to temporarily make the system a little more compliant in a heritage building whilst awaiting a lottery grant for example- it wants replacing.
Most of these systems are in government buildings - they would have made everybody else upgrade them years ago. And typical of these buildings would be inner rooms and dead end unprotected corridors - if you look for these you will probably find there is a need for AFD as well.
-
i have just wrote that on my sheets in the past but i,m informed that you have to list them every service.
Graeme, I'm assuming your reply relates to the possibility of simply highlighting previous advised deficiencies that have not been dealt with. If so, whilst not suggesting the advice might be wrong, who informed you that you had to list them every service, and why?
If your reply relates to something else, please ignore.
-
Well, he listed the parts that the system comprises of and doesn't mention any battery, so that seemed clear enough to me and consistent with the old systems I have seen in schools myself. Perhaps for the avoidance of any further doubt Benzerari can confirm that I have understood him correctly?
Yes the fire alarm system in that school have standby batteries
Sorry then Wiz, it seems you were correct and that I am guilty of making a wrong assumption.
No need for sorry Chris. However, Matron will be scheduling an appointment for you to attend some of the 'music and movement' classes on Wednesday afternoons to try and take your mind off the Signs and Signals Regulations of which you have become obsessed with lately. You'll be in good company, because Professor K and myself are regular attendees of the class. Our problems are different but no less obsessive!
-
i have just wrote that on my sheets in the past but i,m informed that you have to list them every service.
Graeme, I'm assuming your reply relates to the possibility of simply highlighting previous advised deficiencies that have not been dealt with. If so, whilst not suggesting the advice might be wrong, who informed you that you had to list them every service, and why?
If your reply relates to something else, please ignore.
Hi Wiz
It was a lecturer from the BFPSA a few years ago on a course i was on who mentioned that they had to be written every time.
I don't see what is wrong with a tick box you suggested or what i have done in the past and state that all previous findings are still outstanding.
alot easier
-
i have just wrote that on my sheets in the past but i,m informed that you have to list them every service.
Graeme, I'm assuming your reply relates to the possibility of simply highlighting previous advised deficiencies that have not been dealt with. If so, whilst not suggesting the advice might be wrong, who informed you that you had to list them every service, and why?
If your reply relates to something else, please ignore.
Hi Wiz
It was a lecturer from the BFPSA a few years ago on a course i was on who mentioned that they had to be written every time.
I don't see what is wrong with a tick box you suggested or what i have done in the past and state that all previous findings are still outstanding.
alot easier
Hi Graeme, I wonder if it was just the lecturer's opinion, or even just the BFPSA's opinion. It may not have been based on a 'fact' but just a preference or a 'good idea'. We all have to be careful about the difference between 'facts' and 'opinions' so we don't pass on opinions to others as facts and so cause things to become confused. In saying all of that, there is definite sense in re-confirming deficiencies in systems to customers, but it is time-consuming, so unless we have to do it, there would be those who would be pleased to avoid keep repeating themselves every time!
-
I invite every one to look at the link below, and please let me know what grade the fire alarm system in that school is classified, because it seems that the grades of fire alarm systems from A to F mentioned in this article are still in use nowadays.
here is the link and what do you think?
www.iee.org/Publish/WireRegs/WiringMatters/index.cfm#17
Would the fire alarm system in that school be classified as Grade D, E or F ?
-
Hi Benzerari
The grades you refer to only apply to fire alarm systems for dwelling houses under BS5839 part 6. These systems are mainly interconnected smoke alarms.
The grades are not relevant to fire alarms in other types of building or to BS5839 part 1 alarm systems.
-
Graeme, I'm assuming your reply relates to the possibility of simply highlighting previous advised deficiencies that have not been dealt with. If so, whilst not suggesting the advice might be wrong, who informed you that you had to list them every service, and why?
If your reply relates to something else, please ignore.
Hi Wiz
It was a lecturer from the BFPSA a few years ago on a course i was on who mentioned that they had to be written every time.
I don't see what is wrong with a tick box you suggested or what i have done in the past and state that all previous findings are still outstanding.
alot easier
Hi Graeme, I wonder if it was just the lecturer's opinion, or even just the BFPSA's opinion. It may not have been based on a 'fact' but just a preference or a 'good idea'. We all have to be careful about the difference between 'facts' and 'opinions' so we don't pass on opinions to others as facts and so cause things to become confused. In saying all of that, there is definite sense in re-confirming deficiencies in systems to customers, but it is time-consuming, so unless we have to do it, there would be those who would be pleased to avoid keep repeating themselves every time!
very true and it may have been that particular persons own opinion. I am for sure one of the guys who does not want to write an essay after every service.
tick for me every time if it's acceptable
-
Hi Benzerari
The grades you refer to only apply to fire alarm systems for dwelling houses under BS5839 part 6. These systems are mainly interconnected smoke alarms.
What about this? who can give interpretation of the following
The Grades of system for fire alarm systems in dwellings range from Grade A to Grade F. Grade A and B systems are systems of a type described in BS 5839-1. In a Grade C system, the fire detectors are supplied with a common power supply unit with central control equipment and this type of system normally incorporates a secondary rechargeable battery. Fire alarm systems in dwellings are, in most cases, Grade D, E or F which do not employ a control panel.
Grade C systems i.e. aren't they the systems we are dealing with on our daily basis (conventional and analogue addressable) ones?
-
Hi Benzerari
The grades you refer to only apply to fire alarm systems for dwelling houses under BS5839 part 6. These systems are mainly interconnected smoke alarms.
What about this? who can give interpretation of the following
The Grades of system for fire alarm systems in dwellings range from Grade A to Grade F. Grade A and B systems are systems of a type described in BS 5839-1. In a Grade C system, the fire detectors are supplied with a common power supply unit with central control equipment and this type of system normally incorporates a secondary rechargeable battery. Fire alarm systems in dwellings are, in most cases, Grade D, E or F which do not employ a control panel.
Grade C systems i.e. aren't they the systems we are dealing with on our daily basis (conventional and analogue addressable) ones?
no
Grade A and B but grade A has minor differences to B in the spec of the control panel.
you need to get a copy of 5838-6 as it crossess over into part 1 with Grade A. It's a bit confusing at first but unless you deal with dwellings i.e where people live then Part 1 for buildings is what you will be involved with everyday.
-
Hi Benzerari
The grades you refer to only apply to fire alarm systems for dwelling houses under BS5839 part 6. These systems are mainly interconnected smoke alarms.
What about this? who can give interpretation of the following
The Grades of system for fire alarm systems in dwellings range from Grade A to Grade F. Grade A and B systems are systems of a type described in BS 5839-1. In a Grade C system, the fire detectors are supplied with a common power supply unit with central control equipment and this type of system normally incorporates a secondary rechargeable battery. Fire alarm systems in dwellings are, in most cases, Grade D, E or F which do not employ a control panel.
Grade C systems i.e. aren't they the systems we are dealing with on our daily basis (conventional and analogue addressable) ones?
no
Grade A and B but grade A has minor differences to B in the spec of the control panel.
you need to get a copy of 5838-6 as it crossess over into part 1 with Grade A. It's a bit confusing at first but unless you deal with dwellings i.e where people live then Part 1 for buildings is what you will be involved with everyday.
If the grade C systems are not conventional and analogue addressable systems we deal with on every day, so what is grade C then?
Any interpretaion of what John Ware is stating in his article ???????????
I still did not get this point!
-
Finally, I have just received a private e-mail from a colleague in the company saying that the school has recently received an inspection and the system has been accepted OK, except extra signs have been recommended, even the system is not complying to the recommendation of BS5839...
How? I do not know!
-
If the grade C systems are not conventional and analogue addressable systems we deal with on every day, so what is grade C then?
Any interpretaion of what John Ware is stating in his article ???????????
I still did not get this point!
I think I know where you are coming from now- but can't help you!
The article gives a very clear description of Category D to F systems, it gives a partial (and confusing IMO) description of category A and B systems, but appears to give very little description of a category C system other than referring to the power supply to the detectors being sourced from a common control panel.
I have never seen a grade C system but will take a look at the BS5839 part 6 later today to see if there is any further information there.
Finally, I have just received a private e-mail from a colleague in the company saying that the school has recently received an inspection and the system has been accepted OK, except extra signs have been recommended, even the system is not complying to the recommendation of BS5839...
How? I do not know
Was this recommendation for additional exit signs as a result of a full fire risk assessment or was it just an isolated problem noticed by an alarm engineer and brought to the attention of the school?
The reason I ask is that there is a huge problem with Exit signage in this country which has been discussed on this forum before. I was looking at the NECIEC guidance to members on escape lighting and exit signs, and unfortunately all they have done is adopt the very flawed ICEL guidance as NECIEC policy which is a shame because its full of mistakes and perpetuates the problem.
-
If the grade C systems are not conventional and analogue addressable systems we deal with on every day, so what is grade C then?
Any interpretaion of what John Ware is stating in his article ???????????
I still did not get this point!
I think I know where you are coming from now- but can't help you!
The article gives a very clear description of Category D to F systems, it gives a partial (and confusing IMO) description of category A and B systems, but appears to give very little description of a category C system other than referring to the power supply to the detectors being sourced from a common control panel.
I have never seen a grade C system but will take a look at the BS5839 part 6 later today to see if there is any further information there.
Finally, I have just received a private e-mail from a colleague in the company saying that the school has recently received an inspection and the system has been accepted OK, except extra signs have been recommended, even the system is not complying to the recommendation of BS5839...
How? I do not know
Was this recommendation for additional exit signs as a result of a full fire risk assessment or was it just an isolated problem noticed by an alarm engineer and brought to the attention of the school?
The reason I ask is that there is a huge problem with Exit signage in this country which has been discussed on this forum before. I was looking at the NECIEC guidance to members on escape lighting and exit signs, and unfortunately all they have done is adopt the very flawed ICEL guidance as NECIEC policy which is a shame because its full of mistakes and perpetuates the problem.
No, they had previously an inspection just few days before I been there, I did not notice any thing about signs... but I noticed that the system should be in the ( Mortuary ) and not at the school, it is over...
But, my concern now is that in what basis the inspectors who did inspect that school have accepted the system, the only extra details I have received is that the school does not afford the cost of any upgrade of the fire alarm system, and any way the decision of that, is on the hand of another external office which runing many schools in the area.
Therefore, because they have not got enough budget to cover the system's upgrade, the inspectors accepted the minimum of the system's capabilities.... which is then came back to the general public undestanding when saying:
' For now, as long as the system is working OK that's fine '
I did not know that's the way it works some times, as I am still learning like any one else, some times I just feel I have not understood any thing especially when the matter is about standards and legislations... probably because it is out of the sphere of my knowledge... but I believe I am not the only one... at the end of the day when bringing up some times some concern it is for the benefit of every body...
-
Benzerari,
Take a bit of advice from someone who has been doing this for 30 years, and also deals with local authority customers:-
Advise your customers of any defficiences in writing and basically leave it at that. Don't try to 'encourage' them to spend any money at this stage by immediately looking for pieces of legislation etc. that support your case. They will think you are trying to force them into spending money and, anyway, they should be aware of any legislation. They are responsible.
If they query your findings, then quote the B. S. recommendations that are applicable.
If they ask what the ramifications will be if they don't rectify the deficiences, then also quote any legislation that is applicable.
They are likely to carry on using you as a contractor because you haven't 'badgered' them.
If they don't rectify the problems you are covered against any comebacks.
If they decide to rectify the problems you are in a position to quote for the work.
-
The commentary in BS5839 part 6 2004 describes a grade C system thus
" A system of fire detectors and alarm sounders (which may be combined in the form of smoke alarms) connected to a common power supply, comprising the normal mains and a standby supply, with central control equipment"
Grade A,B,C systems all have a degree of monitoring - Grade A control and monitoring equipment refers back to BS5839 part 1, grade B monitoring is as per Annex C of BS5839 part 6, whereas there are specific requirements for some monitoring of Grade C systems, these are
- an open circuit or short circuit in any circuit external to the panel serving MCPs, fire detectors or alarm devices this should result in a visual indication at the control panel or a fire alarm system in the dwelling within 100 secs of occurrence and
- a power failure shuld result in a visual indication at the control panel within 30 mins which may be a normally illuminated indicator being extinguished or a fault lamp being lit.
This clause more than any other highlights a major difference between a grade C system under part 6 and a Part 1 system.
Hope this explanation helps - but if you have any technical question I would ask our friend Dr Wiz. He should be free very soon- I can hear Matron coming.
-
........ask our friend Dr Wiz. He should be free very soon- I can hear Matron coming.
It's likely to take far longer than I have the stamina for
-
Benzerari,
Take a bit of advice from someone who has been doing this for 30 years, and also deals with local authority customers:-
Advise your customers of any defficiences in writing and basically leave it at that. Don't try to 'encourage' them to spend any money at this stage by immediately looking for pieces of legislation etc. that support your case. They will think you are trying to force them into spending money and, anyway, they should be aware of any legislation. They are responsible.
If they query your findings, then quote the B. S. recommendations that are applicable.
If they ask what the ramifications will be if they don't rectify the deficiences, then also quote any legislation that is applicable.
They are likely to carry on using you as a contractor because you haven't 'badgered' them.
If they don't rectify the problems you are covered against any comebacks.
If they decide to rectify the problems you are in a position to quote for the work.
Thanks for these advice wiz
-
The commentary in BS5839 part 6 2004 describes a grade C system thus
" A system of fire detectors and alarm sounders (which may be combined in the form of smoke alarms) connected to a common power supply, comprising the normal mains and a standby supply, with central control equipment"
Grade A,B,C systems all have a degree of monitoring - Grade A control and monitoring equipment refers back to BS5839 part 1, grade B monitoring is as per Annex C of BS5839 part 6, whereas there are specific requirements for some monitoring of Grade C systems, these are
- an open circuit or short circuit in any circuit external to the panel serving MCPs, fire detectors or alarm devices this should result in a visual indication at the control panel or a fire alarm system in the dwelling within 100 secs of occurrence and
- a power failure shuld result in a visual indication at the control panel within 30 mins which may be a normally illuminated indicator being extinguished or a fault lamp being lit.
This clause more than any other highlights a major difference between a grade C system under part 6 and a Part 1 system.
Hope this explanation helps - but if you have any technical question I would ask our friend Dr Wiz. He should be free very soon- I can hear Matron coming.
Thanks for these details Kurnal;
What you have stated about Grade C aren't they in conventional and analogue addressable systems aspects too?
Sorry if I am a bit slow in understanding interpretations of the standards and legislations, but I just need a clair confirmation that the Grade C systems are not the conventional and analogue addressable systems we deal with on every day basis...
All I have seen up till know and every where is conventionals and analogue addressable systems in addition to very old smoke detectors powered with both batteries and mains kind of systems. a part from that where are they fitted Grade C then? and how they look like any example of a make in the marketplace?
-
I have never seen a grade C system and I dont know of any guidance that recommends them- usually the guidance either recommends a grade A system for larger high risk premises or Grade D elsewhere.
I guess their limited use will make them uneconomic to produce.
The monitoring requirements for Part 1 systems are far more rigorous than those for a grade C system. The list in my earlier posting is the total requirement for monitoring on a grade C system whereas Part 1 systems also monitor for earth faults, removal of heads etc etc. The conventional and analogue systems you see every day will be to part 1- a much higher spec.
-
Benzerari,
Take a bit of advice from someone who has been doing this for 30 years, and also deals with local authority customers:-
Advise your customers of any defficiences in writing and basically leave it at that. Don't try to 'encourage' them to spend any money at this stage by immediately looking for pieces of legislation etc. that support your case. They will think you are trying to force them into spending money and, anyway, they should be aware of any legislation. They are responsible.
If they query your findings, then quote the B. S. recommendations that are applicable.
If they ask what the ramifications will be if they don't rectify the deficiences, then also quote any legislation that is applicable.
They are likely to carry on using you as a contractor because you haven't 'badgered' them.
If they don't rectify the problems you are covered against any comebacks.
If they decide to rectify the problems you are in a position to quote for the work.
that's very good advice Benzerari from Wiz.
it's a no win situation as the more you try to point out the flaws the more you alienate your customer.The last thing someone wants to hear is their system is rubbish because that equals money.
If someone has accepted a 240v system as fine then good luck to them.This is the very thing i wrote about a while ago when recommending works on sites with sub standard very old systems,only for someone else non technical to tell the customer it is okay.
The customer will take that word over anyone elses as it costs the least.
As long as you have pointed out all you find,then your covered and the comeback is on the one who said it is fine.
-
Right; this topic has given me ( including others ) more than I was expecting, however, since I launched the free MCB01 training software, roughly 1500 downloads been carried out and none of the members who downloaded and run the software tried to ask: ' that's conventional fire alarm system it is not Grade C system ' ... because in the first form when opening the software it shows:
‘Learning the basics of fire alarm systems of (Grade C) just by the click of mouse’
In fact then it should be simply as follows:
‘Learning the basics of fire alarm systems just by the click of mouse’
I did not know that I do not know
Luckily every day is school day
Thanks to all contributors
-
A grade C system bears little resemblance to an addressable system, but does have some aspects of a conventional twinwire system, but it is not the same.
It uses 9V combined detector/sounders (normally powered by stepped down mains & back up internal battery or capacitor) and if required combined call points/sounders. The control panel as far as it is is similar in function to that of a 1 zone conventional panel, but is far smaller.
http://www.sensotec.co.uk/firex/PDFS/Firex%20-%20Microfire.pdf
is a Grade C system and the central control panel is not what you would find in a commercial system. Other makes of Grade C system have an even more rudimentary 'panel' little bigger than a single lightswitch fitting would be - a couple of LEDs and buttons.
Grade C systems are sometimes used in commercial premises who size is less than a single zone (as defined in 5839-1), but thats another can of worms!
-
Thanks for that Anthony. That link is very interesting as it appears that the materials to install a part 6 grade C system may come to about half the cost of a comparative simple two wire one or two zone part 1 system?
-
This is my first post on this site, I've been very interested in this topic because I work for a "large" servicing company who maintains a large number of schools.
I have always assumed that a 240v mains system in any building was fine because it complied to the legislation at the time it was installed. I was also under the impression that an upgrade to a 240v system would only be required when any building work was undertaken by the school because the current legislation would have to be taken into account.
Am I completely wrong? Or drastically misinformed?
-
I have always assumed that a 240v mains system in any building was fine because it complied to the legislation at the time it was installed.
This was effectively the case under the old legislation- the fire precautions Act 1971 - for buildings with fire certificates- hotels, factories, offices and shops. (but not schools) A querk of that legislation meant that having once issued a fire certificate the fire authority could never go back and require improved standards- until the owner made changes to the building when those areas would be brought up to modern standards.
Things changed legally with the advent of fire risk assessment in 1997 under the workplace fire safety regulations and the Management of H&S Regs. These brought a duty on the employer (and now the Responsible person) to use the "principles of prevention" to determine their priorities under a risk assessment- one of the principles being "Adapt to technical progress". Without this- and the Bull**** and Persuasion Act 1871 many hotels would still have manual fire alarms without any fire detection as they were issued with fire certificates way back when.
Schools have always been the poor relation.
In the brigade I worked for we were banned by the politicians from inspecting schools in the 80s and 90s because they could not afford to implement the recommendations we would inevitably make.
-
This is my first post on this site, I've been very interested in this topic because I work for a "large" servicing company who maintains a large number of schools.
I have always assumed that a 240v mains system in any building was fine because it complied to the legislation at the time it was installed. I was also under the impression that an upgrade to a 240v system would only be required when any building work was undertaken by the school because the current legislation would have to be taken into account.
Am I completely wrong? Or drastically misinformed?
If we are talking about a fire alarm system that has no battery backup, then these are not acceptable. The signs and signals regs is pretty clear and applies to all fire alarm systems, not just ones that have been installed since the regs came out.
-
I have always assumed that a 240v mains system in any building was fine because it complied to the legislation at the time it was installed.
This was effectively the case under the old legislation- the fire precautions Act 1971 - for buildings with fire certificates- hotels, factories, offices and shops. (but not schools) A querk of that legislation meant that having once issued a fire certificate the fire authority could never go back and require improved standards- until the owner made changes to the building when those areas would be brought up to modern standards.
But Kurnal,the enforcement of the signs and signals regs was not and is not the duty or the fire service, but instead the HSE, who should expect all places of work to comply with this legislation.
-
Exactly - as an example in 1997 a certified building that had changed little since the installation of a 240V only system in the 60's could retain it as far as the fire certificate was concerned as the fire authority were powerless to require a change, but in reality would have to plan it's replacement as it breached health & safety law (signs regs) which gives no statutory bar and requires compliance in all circumstances from the day it came into force (although it gave a 2 year change over period for fire signs as these were largely text only whereas most health & safety signs had used pictograms since the late 70's)
-
A grade C system bears little resemblance to an addressable system, but does have some aspects of a conventional twinwire system, but it is not the same.
It uses 9V combined detector/sounders (normally powered by stepped down mains & back up internal battery or capacitor) and if required combined call points/sounders. The control panel as far as it is is similar in function to that of a 1 zone conventional panel, but is far smaller.
http://www.sensotec.co.uk/firex/PDFS/Firex%20-%20Microfire.pdf
is a Grade C system and the central control panel is not what you would find in a commercial system. Other makes of Grade C system have an even more rudimentary 'panel' little bigger than a single lightswitch fitting would be - a couple of LEDs and buttons.
Grade C systems are sometimes used in commercial premises who size is less than a single zone (as defined in 5839-1), but thats another can of worms!
Thank you AnthonyB for the link, after a good break, I have finally had chance to look at the link, certainly (Grade C) has many resemblances to conventional TwinWire system but not totally the same. it is the first time to hear about.
-
Sorry to be pedantic but ( I have got to say that I suppose- I love it really)
If we are talking about a fire alarm system that has no battery backup, then these are not acceptable. The signs and signals regs is pretty clear and applies to all fire alarm systems, not just ones that have been installed since the regs came out.
Just to be absolutely clear the guidance says this:
"33 A guaranteed supply of power or back-up in the event of failure may be necessary for safety signs and signals which require some form of power to enable them to operate (unless the hazard is itself eliminated by the power failure)."
Clearly you would be very brave to continue to use a system that did not have the backup supply but the only reference is in the guidance to the regs, not the regulations themselves. Its not an absolute duty to provide a backup supply but if you dont and something goes wrong you will have to make a very good case to convince the Judge why you did not follow the guidance.
But Kurnal,the enforcement of the signs and signals regs was not and is not the duty or the fire service, but instead the HSE, who should expect all places of work to comply with this legislation
No Chris the Regulations make the fire authority responsible for enforcement in respect of fire safety signs in most premises.
Enforcement
Notwithstanding regulation 3 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989(a), the enforcing authority in relation to fire safety signs provided in pursuance of regulation 4(4) as applied by regulation 4(3) (signs provided to comply with the provisions of any enactment) shall be-
(a) the Health and Safety Executive, in the case of-
(i) premises where the Fire Certificates (Special Premises) Regulations
1976(') apply; or
(ii) premises and activities to which these Regulations apply by virtue of
paragraph (2) (b) of regulation 3;
(b) in any other case, the authority or class of authorities responsible for
enforcing the relevant provision of the enactment which applies to the
case.
-
(Suddenly much less sure of myself on this one but.........)
I would say a fire alarm is not a "fire safety sign" but a "signal"..........
-
see " interpretations" on the attached link
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1996/Uksi_19960341_en_1.htm
-
Enforcement
Notwithstanding regulation 3 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989(a), the enforcing authority in relation to fire safety signs provided in pursuance of regulation 4(4) as applied by regulation 4(3) (signs provided to comply with the provisions of any enactment) shall be-
(a) the Health and Safety Executive, in the case of-
(i) premises where the Fire Certificates (Special Premises) Regulations
1976(') apply; or
(ii) premises and activities to which these Regulations apply by virtue of
paragraph (2) (b) of regulation 3;
(b) in any other case, the authority or class of authorities responsible for
enforcing the relevant provision of the enactment which applies to the
case.
It's late in the day, but does your quote not confirm my thoery that the HSE enforce this?
-
The last quote was from the Regs themselves.
Heres the relevant clause from the guidance document L64
Enforcing authority for fire safety
115 Further advice on the application of these Regulations to fire safety signs
can be obtained from your enforcing authority for fire safety, that is, from fire
officers, environmental health officers or building control officers of local
authorities, or in cases where the Fire Certificates (Special Premises)
Regulations 1976 apply,(a) HSE inspectors.
Tis my belief and understanding that unless special premises where fire safety is enforced by the HSE in all respects, the Fire Authority are, under these Regs, the enforcement authority for fire safety signs under both the fire safety order and the signs and signals regs. The Fire Safety Order may require more signs than those under Signs and Signals regs and bring in the whole issue of BS5499.............
-
Thanks for the update guys!! I only service 1 school with a 240v system, it does have battery backup. Will just have to deliver the bad news on the next service.
-
240V with a battery back up? Does it use an inverter?
It's probably a very old 24V system - identical looking to it's more common contemporary 240V only system using the same equipment - the only outward way of telling was if you found a battery box (which was sometimes nowhere near the panel- seen one with the drop flag panels in a cupboard at the entrance and the batteries in an obscure room in the basement)or the bells still had their data plates on showing they were DC bells not AC.
-
It does use an inverter, plans are already in progress for an upgrade.