FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: tmprojects on January 22, 2011, 12:20:21 AM
-
I know every one of you know about this. its almost become an accepted fact. wherever you go they have a ridiculous amount of extinguishers. And most probably, like me, you chuckle at the stupidity of it.
But seriously, there is nothing i hate more in my job than seeing people being ill advised and ripped off.
i see it constantly. people employing a fire extinguisher company to provide there extinguishers and being told. 'Oh you need this many mate. thats the standard'. meaning thats our companies recommended standard. not the required standard. But because they don't know any better, and because they want to comply, they sign on the dotted line in good faith.
Then i come along and say why have you got 72 extinguishers when you only need 24. some of them are understandably incandescent with rage (i would be). but are stuck in a contract.
To me. Misleading someone into paying more than they need. and hiding behind small print is basically theft.
i suppose this is a bit of a rant. but it is also a question. what can be done?
-
Other than advise your client that they can save a bit of money, you will find that this is a constant problem, but not confined to extinguishers. I was in a building only yesterday that was a small portakabin type structure single storey containing 2 small offices a corridor of 15m with 2 changes of direction and plenty of windows, a small tea room and a toilet.
There was a L5/M category fire alarm, 10 emergency lights in the corridor, 2 of which were maintained, 1 in the tea room, 1 in each office and a heat detector in the toilet. The offices had fire doors with seals and self closers which weren't required. I went and told the person who specified this work that he had wasted a lot of his clients money and he is probably having a bad weekend.
In other words, unless you control the process yourself all you can do, and it obviously depends on the situation as each one will be different, is inform the person(s) indentified as interested parties of your observations/recommendations.
The only caveat I would put on advising your clients of over provision is - don't make any situation worse if you reduce any percieved over provision and make sure you get all the facts before highlighting your concerns.
In your case you may want to advise your client of a different firm which you may think might be more reputable or qualified/certified. Or you could reassess/rescale the premises and write to your client with advice that they can either take or ignore.
-
It does not stop at extinguishers. I was in a car parts outlet the other day and there where 6 smoke detectors in the counter area. The area was around 10 X 8. There was three within 3M of each other and they all looked the same and new.
-
We supplied a price to fit out a warehouse/archives building for a new client and lost the job on what we where told was a cost factor of around £300 diffrence.However when we returned to site later on and the other company had insatlled there equipment there was no cover for any of the electrical panels or plant rooms as they had been told it was just a warehouse full of paper records and the equipment had been supplied and two of the new extinguishers where in fact flat or almost lost pressure and the equipment was refurb not new, but try telling the customer this.....
-
One example I saw was a three storey block of coversion flats with a single stair and thus a single front door onto the street.There was no basement
The RA stated "The extinguishers are too heavy and all need to be replaced and fitted with signage to tell people that these are fire extinguishers" " and that "There needs to be signage on every floor indicating the way out"
He had not mentioned the non FR glazing above every front door though..... a cynic might say that was because he didn't sell FR glazing!
-
We have a fire station that required 1 smoke detector linked to the existing system to cover an inner room. When the quote came back the company insisted we need an L2 system (wireless) at a cost of £8500.
-
We've all got hundreds of stories sadly.
But have you ever had to argue with an installer....
I had a portable Accomodation unit which was refurbished to an open plan office, single storey only with single exit front and rear. The installer 'electrician' fitted amongst other things 2 maintained lighboxes, standard type with man running to fridge. When I asked him why, instead of NM fittings he argued and I quote
'Dont know what your problem is guv, i've only done what it says in the building regs cos they says maintained all the time.' I tried to explain the difference between maintenance and the requirements for NM v M or X-1 v X-0, but as soon as I got past about the 5th word 'servicing' I started to feel the despair/boredom setting in.
-
Like the rest of you, I encounter similar examples of over provision and under provision all the time. It's not just the supply of equipment and installations of alarms etc where the problems lie, the field of fire risk assessment is just as bad. People focusing on trivia of fire extinguishers and signs and not noticing huge and fundamental problems with means of escape for example. And it's not the one-man bands who are getting it all wrong either, many of the big official or national organisations are just as bad. I was in a large university building two weeks ago on behalf of one of my clients, a tenant within a large university building. Their own contracted out fire risk assessment was hot off the press and there was no mention of the fact that they had imposed an unacceptable fire loading in an atrium, and ruined the means of escape by removing fire doors at the base of one of the staircases essential to the MOE, to open it out into a large multipurpose foyer including a cafeteria.
To a great extent I blame the level of training, particularly those short courses which are so lacking in respect of the real underpinning knowledge of the fire safety design and layout of buildings, means of escape, compartmentation, fixed installations and sprinklers, fire detection and alarms, and human behaviour.
But why is it all happening? We have third-party certification schemes for fire alarms and portable fire fighting equipment, yet the average responsible person has never heard of them and thinks a fire alarm system is bread-and-butter to any practising electrician.
The politicians have no appetite for compulsory third-party certification of fire risk assessors but the industry moves ahead and FRACS Warrington, the FIA and BAFE are all helping to put things in the right direction. But just as with the third-party certification schemes in the alarms and portable sector the schemes will achieve nothing unless backed up and supported by publicity and the enforcing authority including the insurance companies.
The installation and maintenance of sprinkler systems is very very different. Why? Because with sprinkler systems the insurance companies take a very proactive role in making sure that systems are designed installed and maintained correctly.
I fear that those of us who have agreed to jump through hoops in the interest of driving up standards within the fire risk assessment sector (as all members of the FIA have agreed to do) in signing up for third-party certification are likely to see little return for our investment in time and trouble and cost unless the insurance companies and enforcers help to drive it forward by giving all third-party certification schemes, whether alarms, portables, fixed installations, or fire risk assessments the publicity and importance that they deserve. And the certification bodies must be more diligent in the work carried out by member companies and must not be frightened of imposing sanctions for bad practice and breaches of their schemes.
-
Eloquently put, and it is a problem without direct solution.
Herding cats is a lot easier than coming across a correctly designed and installed, well managed and cost effectively funded fire strategy that meets the requirements in the circumstances of the case, with all the right ticks in all the right boxes.
I am presently working (just picking up the reigns from a colleague) on a £11m newly constructed project that is very involved and during a cause and effect analysis of the fire alarm system the otherwise reputable two different company representative contractors couldn't tell me how the gas suppression system worked in conjunction with the double knock fire detection and separate forced ventilation system in the building.
Ironically, the extinguisher provision I will have faith in, but the cynical side of me still makes me question everything during a project.......Is there a Doctor in the house :P
-
With regards to overprovision, the simple answer to the issue of the kit being under a contract...cancel it and talk to a decent company who will adhere to your requirements complete a survey, giving you chance to run through their advice and who you trust. The obvious answer to selection is to talk to others for recommendations..or on here.
-
The politicians have no appetite for compulsory third-party certification of fire risk assessors but the industry moves ahead and FRACS Warrington, the FIA and BAFE are all helping to put things in the right direction. But just as with the third-party certification schemes in the alarms and portable sector the schemes will achieve nothing unless backed up and supported by publicity and the enforcing authority including the insurance companies.
I fear that those of us who have agreed to jump through hoops in the interest of driving up standards within the fire risk assessment sector (as all members of the FIA have agreed to do) in signing up for third-party certification are likely to see little return for our investment in time and trouble and cost unless the insurance companies and enforcers help to drive it forward by giving all third-party certification schemes, whether alarms, portables, fixed installations, or fire risk assessments the publicity and importance that they deserve. And the certification bodies must be more diligent in the work carried out by member companies and must not be frightened of imposing sanctions for bad practice and breaches of their schemes.
Kurnal has the assessor who completed the work been reported to their certification/registration body?
I agree totally that the government in England will not be prescriptive in their support of raising competence standards; that I am afraid will be left to the industry and as the industry is split right down the middle on this I can’t see any improvement being made.
The issue of supporting third party certification is one that needs addressing; but what type of third party scheme can legitimately supported and if all the schemes do the same thing, why can’t they club together to make a national register, i.e. a sort of mutual recognition. All the IFSM guys could be listed on the IFE register and the FIA and FRACS and IFPO and visa versa.
The truth is that it could never happen; it would be like putting an apple an orange a plum a grape and a gooseberry in to a bowl and calling them all apples. In reality you have a mixture and standardisation hasn’t been achieved.
-
Over provision does happen with lots of things, but extinguishers are most obvious (search the forum for similar threads where I have a rant about it).
Clients are all too happy to pay for fire extinguishers they don't require at the expense of real issues, which if they didn't waste hundreds, even thousands on buying & maintaining extinguishers, they could easily address.
Fortunately I'm seeing the tide turn and more places are dumping the excess extinguishers & doing real fire safety works instead - I'm removing another 20-odd for a client from common areas next week and just moving a couple into genuine risk areas (which perversely got missed out when the others went in!)
-
I fear that those of us who have agreed to jump through hoops in the interest of driving up standards within the fire risk assessment sector (as all members of the FIA have agreed to do) in signing up for third-party certification are likely to see little return for our investment in time and trouble and cost unless the insurance companies and enforcers help to drive it forward by giving all third-party certification schemes, whether alarms, portables, fixed installations, or fire risk assessments the publicity and importance that they deserve. And the certification bodies must be more diligent in the work carried out by member companies and must not be frightened of imposing sanctions for bad practice and breaches of their schemes.
To be honest i don't see how accreditation can help. it's not really the fly-by-night companies over charging and ripping people of. its mostly the big companies, we all know who i mean. These are the same companies who are at the forefront of accreditation schemes. they usually have so much influence on the requirements needed to be registered, they make it almost impossible and very costly to be part of it. thus hogging the system.
I am not knocking the concept of accreditation. its very important in my opinion. Its just abused. its allowed to be used as a tool to control the market by larger companies. And is used as a Badge to say 'you can trust us. Honest!' 'don't trust those dodgy non-accredited people'. and then ripping them of left right and centre.
we all talk about accreditation schemes taking action and being more diligent. but we never lodge a complaint or push our client to. If no one complains nothing will get done.
So! here's my suggestion.
who's up for starting a revolution?
From now on don't just notice and chuckle. Do something. Lodge a complaint. Encourage your clients to.
what do you say?
-
Complain or they will keep on doing it. Withdraw your business or they will keep on doing it.
Accreditation doesn't solve the problem, it just means that there is a greater chance that the engineers know what they are doing, are up to date and will check things properly (still you see the odd big player cut corners now and again). It does not defend against the other end of the scale which is over provision or replacement of still serviceable equipment.
As for big accredited companies using their influence, this was seen in the latest revision of the maintenance standard which was delayed for a year as one group (famous for over-provision & un-necessary replacements) who had a vote on the BS panel wouldn't let the standard pass (must be unanimous vote) until a clause that would render 1000's of their extinguishers instantly condemned removed.
The clause was that extinguishers must not use colouring that distracts or misleads from the BS 7863 colour code panel and any that do should be condemned. This group produced a foam extinguisher across it constituent companies that had 5% body area cream colour section of label, swamped by a 25% body area of green on the rest of the label
-
Quote:So! here's my suggestion.
who's up for starting a revolution?
From now on don't just notice and chuckle. Do something. Lodge a complaint. Encourage your clients to.
what do you say?
How about: "Foxtrot Oscar matey, we'll get someone else in" That's the response you'll get from you're every dwindling list of clients! No client can be bothered with our quality issues. They just want thier H&S listings boxes ticked, the cheaper the better-they assume it's standard practice to be ripped off. You start asking them to stand up for better services and they'll ignore you.
Example: I was complained to by a client regarding a fire training session they had attended in the previous couple of days provided by one of our own esteemed departments.
Two sites had a real good rant to me (I was servicing their Ansul kit) But nobody was prepared to raise their heads above the parapet as they did'nt wish to be seen causing ripples within their own company. I said I would send a notification of the complaint, but they would obviously need to follow it up with one of their own.....
The clients' sites haven't bothered to.
Maybe it's best just to plod along and ignore whats going on around you. A bit like the green labellers........
-
Just to add to the debate, we conducted an assessment of a gym recently that had no extinguishers installed. We recommended a total of 6 extinguishers, 2 to cover the front and rear exits and 2 on a large gallery/floor with seating, coffee and drinks machine and portable gas heater. The assessment is based on the BS for floor area, the risk presented and common sense, for example there are sun beds in the changing rooms and you could try to sell a CO2 in both rooms to cover the electrical risk but we felt that over the top given the extinguishers near the front exit (6ltr AFFF and CO2) are in close proximity to the sun bed rooms.
Anyway, fire officer (ops crew) turns up and says they don't need the 2 extinguishers on the gallery in fact just the 2 at the front would be fine! The client calls and says don't provide the extinguishers on the gallery as the FSO says they are not needed.
I do get very frustrated when they "reject" assessments for the slightest of detail and then in the same breath contradict an assessment for going over the top.
???
-
Slightly similar situation I had with BC. New two storey bowling club built and secretary asked me to carry out a FRA. BC carried out final inspection and certified building as completed. BC guy then told secretary that the building was fine and he could do his own Assessment on one side of a A4 page.
I was told by secretary that my services were not required. >:(
-
Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!
Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...
If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.
I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.
-
Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!
Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...
If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.
I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.
When this type of thing comes up where we have done an FRA and the FSO relaxes a recommendation or states that a fire safety provision is not required I simply state this clearly in the FRA. I had a similar situation in a warehouse where we recommemded as a minimum a manual 5839 part 1 fire alarm system, again not over the top but the inspecting FSO stated stand alone single point call points would save them money and thats what they went for. I explained that the call points would not be linked and given the size of the premises would not be adequate in my view but they went with the advice of the FSO.
-
Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!
Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...
If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.
I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.
When this type of thing comes up where we have done an FRA and the FSO relaxes a recommendation or states that a fire safety provision is not required I simply state this clearly in the FRA. I had a similar situation in a warehouse where we recommemded as a minimum a manual 5839 part 1 fire alarm system, again not over the top but the inspecting FSO stated stand alone single point call points would save them money and thats what they went for. I explained that the call points would not be linked and given the size of the premises would not be adequate in my view but they went with the advice of the FSO.
To this and to anthonyb's point I would say this. (Forgive my rose tinted glasses)
Challenge it! Even if the client doesn't want to or can't be bothered. I would.
We all know ops crew are like bulls in a china shop. And that brigades put their staff in the posts of inspectors with wholly inadequate training and most end up learning on-the-job.
Because of this mistakes will be made.
I would write to the brigade. Detailing my concerns regarding their judgement and ask them to explain and justify their reasons for contradicting my recommendations. I would then present my argument as to the reasons for the fire safety arrangements I specified.
Even if you have already lost the client. You would have redress for the future. And would maintain your professional integrity.