FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Midland Retty on November 22, 2012, 06:28:33 PM
-
I'm often accused (perhaps rightly so) of having an "OCD" when it comes to fire alarm systems that are offline in sleeping accomodation (hotels, HMOs, Care homes etc etc).
Lets say we have a HMO, fire alarm system is showing a general or undefiuned fault, functionality of system is unknown. Lets also assume it 6 o'clock on a friday afternoon.
Landlord does have a nominated fire alarm contractor but they can't get to site earliest until the following day.
The landlord is contactable by phone, but can't get to premsies to implement some form of temporary measures as s/he is abroad on holiday.
What do you feel is reasonable in this situation?
I for example would ask that the faults are inspected by a fire alarm engineer same-day to ascertain functionality of system (and restore acceptable level of functionality to the system where necessary).
If thats not possible I'd ask the landlord to implement temp measures in place to compensate for the non functioning alarm system, be it the installation of battery powered smoke alarms (if appropriate) conducting fire patrols, or even paying for tenants to stop in hotel overnight. All of these can be impracticable if landlord has no support and can't get to site, or if tenants are beligerant and dont want to be rehoused!.
Am I being 'over the top' ? I'd welcome your thoughts / opinions on this type of situation... what would you accept / recommend? Would you allow the system to remain offline overnight?
-
It isnt difficult to assess the functionality of the system. Thats got to be a first step. Test it.
But you are right and I go along with what you say. It is more common than you think. If a panel fails and is beyond repair, even a straight swap of panels can take more than a day.
There was one large hotel in a tourist area where they had ordered a completely new fire alarm system. What did the installer do first? Took out the old system completely then knocked off for three days (bank holiday). They got an august bank holiday prohibition notice as soon as one of the guests complained to the brigade.
If the system is completely down I like you would apply a risk based approach. Insist on the attendance of engineers to repair it if at all possible, many work 24/7. If this could not be achieved I would then consider how big? how many? who? how much? how high? compartmentation? I also would look at smoke alarms and if not interconnected, back it up with waking patrols.
(I might even put in 8 extinguishers at each fire point as well ;) )
-
Thanks Kurnal
With regard to testing the functionality. How do you do that? Do you go around testing each call point and detector?
For example - worst case- a HMO, some of the tenants are out, you can't get in their rooms to look at the detection.
-
Quote from BS5839-1
46.3 Recommendations for arrangements for repair of faults or damage
The following recommendations apply.
a) Where maintenance is carried out by a third-party, such as a fire alarm maintenance organization, there should be an agreement for emergency call out to deal with any fault or damage that occurs to the system. The agreement should be such that, on a 24 h basis, a technician of the maintenance organization can normally attend the premises within eight hours of a call from the user.
I would argue that if the alarm maintenance company cannot adhere to this they are not providing a suitable system of maintenance.
-
Quote from BS5839-1
The agreement should be such that, on a 24 h basis, a technician of the maintenance organization can normally attend the premises within eight hours of a call from the user.[/i]
I would argue that if the alarm maintenance company cannot adhere to this they are not providing a suitable system of maintenance.
Agreed but often many landlords I deal with employ contractors loosely and dont have any formal agreements in place. Furthermore if the contractor is self employed s/he may legitimately be engaged on other calls and may genuinely be unable to attend.
-
I would suggest that a suitable simple test may be to operate at least one mcp and detector in each zone and, if possible, to choose devices towards the end of each zone on non-addressable systems. Check that during the fire condition all important functions operate (sounders, door closers etc.).
Anyone who has a business where it is going to cost them a considerable amount of money to shut-down operations really needs to have a fairly cast-iron agreement with a company who they can rely on to quickly ascertain the reason for a fault condition and be able to rectify it immediately, where possible.
When I provided such a service to Local Authorities our contract was for attendance within 4 hours. Our average attendance time was within 1 hour. In a 16 year period, I can only remember a couple of times where we had to leave them with a non-functioning system overnight. I don't think our service was much different to what our competitors could provide.
A quick attendance and repair service is not impossible, if you choose the right company. It is unlikely to be a one-man band.
-
Let's think about this another way. Say the landlord had been operating for a number of years and didn't have a fire alarm system protecting the escape route. Your visiting fire officer turns up on spec and after the sharp intake of breath says you need a fire alarm system and FRA etc... The enforcement notice would allow a period of time to put those measures in place; you can't expect an instant rectification. He wouldn't normally insist that the residents were removed from the building until the alarm was installed. Equally you must accept that from time to time things go wrong and they take time to fix. In your example the fix is next day so you've got to ask the question "is that reasonable?" In the grand scheme of things I would suggest that it was.
-
Thanks Wiz and Lancs
Wiz, sticking with my HMo for a moment. AFD in each bedsit is critical, because if a detector isn't working in a bedsit and a fire occurs and spreads, the first we would know about it is when smoke hits a detector in the communal areas. By that time the MOE is compromised. How do we check those detectors if the tenants are out and landlord or keyholder isn't available? Do we just assume the system may be ok if say the communal detectors are tested it will probably be ok? And furthermore who's job is to go round testing anyway? Is it an enforcing officer, a fire consultant? or fire alarm engineer? If so I'll need to be carrying ladders and test equipment in my car from now on! (sorry I don't wish to be confrontational)
Lancs it may not be an enforcement notice the fire authority issues, if it is a sleeping risk you will probably find prohibition notices will be issued in the first instance
-
Let's think about this another way. Say the landlord had been operating for a number of years and didn't have a fire alarm system protecting the escape route. Your visiting fire officer turns up on spec and after the sharp intake of breath says you need a fire alarm system and FRA etc... The enforcement notice would allow a period of time to put those measures in place; you can't expect an instant rectification. He wouldn't normally insist that the residents were removed from the building until the alarm was installed. Equally you must accept that from time to time things go wrong and they take time to fix. In your example the fix is next day so you've got to ask the question "is that reasonable?" In the grand scheme of things I would suggest that it was.
...but not having kit is very different from having kit & not maintaining it properly! The former might be understandable, but there is really never a valid excuse for the latter.
I really don’t think that I could argue that the arrangements that you describe comply with Regulation 17 of the RR(FS)O. The recommendations in BS 5839-1 represent the acknowledged ‘good practice’ methodology for managing faults & reactive maintenance on fire detection and alarm systems. They allow that 'instant rectification' isn't usually achievable, but they do recommend rapid attendance & attention by a competent engineer.
If the RP hasn’t put in place a means of maintenance that either complies with the BS, or that they can demonstrate is equivalently safe, it would be hard to see how it could be argued that this complies with the Law.
-
Lancs it may not be an enforcement notice the fire authority issues, if it is a sleeping risk you will probably find prohibition notices will be issued in the first instance
Not in my experience they don't - especially if there are residents already in there. Have a look at the CFOA Register for HMO's, you'll see it's littered with enforcement notices citing section 13. (Granted some may refer to extinguishers but I find it's usually alarm issues they come unstuck on of the two.)
-
.....Wiz, sticking with my HMo for a moment. AFD in each bedsit is critical, because if a detector isn't working in a bedsit and a fire occurs and spreads, the first we would know about it is when smoke hits a detector in the communal areas. By that time the MOE is compromised. How do we check those detectors if the tenants are out and landlord or keyholder isn't available? Do we just assume the system may be ok if say the communal detectors are tested it will probably be ok? And furthermore who's job is to go round testing anyway? Is it an enforcing officer, a fire consultant? or fire alarm engineer? If so I'll need to be carrying ladders and test equipment in my car from now on! (sorry I don't wish to be confrontational)......
M.M., obviously you are concerned by this problem. I believe the level of concern could be modified by the results of some simple testing of the system.
It is the case that many panels, especially non-addressable, indicate only general purpose fault warnings and don't give enough information about the type and extent of the problems caused by the fault. Carrying out simple basic testing of what the fire alarm system is supposed to do will allow us to assess if the problem is extremely serious (nothing works!) or probably far less serious (the fault does not appear to have any current affect on the workings of the system!).
From the results of the test we can probably also work out if the extent of the fault is limited to specific areas etc. Obviously the more we test, if access etc. is available, the better our assessment of the seriousness of the problem can be, and also what steps the responsible person probably has to take to ensure the continued saftey of the occupants of the building.
Simple testing probably only requires a can of test smoke, a mcp test key and working eyes and ears, to be carried out effectively. We all know what a fire alarm system should be capable of doing, so it isn't that difficult to carry out basic tests of its most important functions.
Obviously the fault still needs investigating and rectifying asap. I wouldn't be happy with people sleeping in a building with a fire alarm system with a 'fault' on it without suitable fire detection patrols AND a fully working fire alarm warning sounder system.
-
Thanks for your detailed reply Wiz.
I can see exactly where you are coming from, and I agree its a useful process to follow
The major problem however is even if i did have my key and my can of smoke, often the tenants are unaware of the code to reset the system, or the key for the panel has gone missing or is with landlord!
Furthermore how many of us non fire alarm engineer types routinely carry ladders with us to access high detectors!
The amount of times I've stood in a HMO with a very simple fire alarm panel showing fault, and not having and any means of knowing what that fault is, nor access to all areas to determine if the system works.
I would argue that unless they are a qualified fire alarm engineer the layman could not assume a fire alarm system was working unless they were able to test every last detector, and MCP.
It goes back to the fundemental question would any of you accept a premises containing sleeping risk to have its fire alarm off line with unknown fault overnight, to await inspection by an alarm engineer next day?
Or imagine fire alarm engineer has attended but is unable to fix same day due to obtaining parts? What is reasonable?
Im often accussed that by assuming the worst I'm being 'over the top'.
-
always air on the side of caution. some people will tell you your being ott until something happens and someone is hurt. then those same people will be asking why you did nothing. if temp measures cant be put in place my advice is to call your local fire brigade and have them dispatch their on call fire safety officer to deal because ultimately the premises will probably need to be prohibited.
-
It goes back to the fundemental question would any of you accept a premises containing sleeping risk to have its fire alarm off line with unknown fault overnight, to await inspection by an alarm engineer next day?
I wouldn't advise a Responsible Person that it was an acceptable risk.
-
Much obliged Wiz, just needed someone else to say it. I don't think I'm being OTT but sometimes you just need to be re-assured!
-
There comes a point where you run out of options . I think you have to back your professional judgement, if the system isnt working and nobody is going to come and manage the problem then really your left with an Article 31. An interesting point you mentioned was single point detectors I've heard this mentioned elsewhere but my issue there is audibility and inter-linking.
Still I like these real world problems you throw in(particularly the Friday afternoon bit), always good to chew over.
-
Cheers Steve
On the point of single point detectors, I would only accept this in premises two storeys in height (i.e; ground and first ) where there are escape windows (max 4.5 m high etc )
-
Lancs it may not be an enforcement notice the fire authority issues, if it is a sleeping risk you will probably find prohibition notices will be issued in the first instance
Not in my experience they don't - especially if there are residents already in there. Have a look at the CFOA Register for HMO's, you'll see it's littered with enforcement notices citing section 13. (Granted some may refer to extinguishers but I find it's usually alarm issues they come unstuck on of the two.)
Sorry to disagree lancs but I would be looking at Prohibition and have done it following a consultation with the housing officer to rehouse. All the prohibitions have been for faulty or lack of fire warning system but all have been three storey or no possible window escape.
Conversely, I have also worked with the landlord to get single point detectors put in as a temporary measure where window escape is possible.
-
and Lancs that register of enforcement notices may have followed issue of prohibition notices
-
Sorry to disagree lancs but I would be looking at Prohibition and have done it following a consultation with the housing officer to rehouse.
I dont wish to sound cynical , but finding one on a Friday afternoon :D Other than that yes good shout
-
These jobs ALWAYS arise on a Friday afternoon. thats a fact. When it comes to prohibitions every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Of course the very people we are trying to protect by tipping them out of their home tend not to be very chuffed about it either. Often they would rather stay and face the risk than go and sleep in a grimy B&B hotel - often with dodgy fire precautions itself.....
-
and Lancs that register of enforcement notices may have followed issue of prohibition notices
I do lots of assessments for residential properties and such and plenty follow enforcement notices. Maybe your local fire service are a bit keener but in my neck of the woods I'm not seeing it.
Here's one for you. A client manages a block of purpose built flats and had me do the FRA. Had no policy, no alarm system (other than 9v smokes in the stairwell and PT 6 in the flats), no fire doors at flat entrances. I raised the fire door, fire policy and communal alarm issues in the FRA and then the fun started with the flat owners with regard to their front doors. Half changed them to fire doors, the other half didn't. According to my client, the local FRS said that they would not prosecute the owners for not replacing their doors but has given them until around Summertime 2013 to get them changed (12 months from the FRA). I pointed out to my client that they should be operating a stay put policy but need the doors to be fire rated to facilitate that and she said that the FRS had suggested that the flats with fire doors could operate a stay put policy and the ones without could have an evacuation policy! I nearly choked on my tea. I pointed out that if they have an evacuation policy then they'd need the fire alarm system to facilitate that which they don't have, and they still need fire doors but in no way can you have two differing fire policies. I suggested she get that in writing. Don't forget.... they walk amongst us!
-
Lancs, I might have a few worries about the lack of FR doors to the flats but there shoudn`t be a need for a communual alarm.
Most brigades would say that it isn`t in the public interest to give notices to individual flat owners. Where I have come across the removal of self closers, I worked with the landlord and held residents meetings and explained the situation, why the S/C were needed and told them what powers I had. most did it traight away, some moaned but did the work. It took 4 or 5 visits over a two year period to sort it out.
As the risk assessor all you can do is document it to protect yourself.
-
Lancs, I might have a few worries about the lack of FR doors to the flats but there shoudn`t be a need for a communual alarm.
Indeed, that's why I put it in the assessment to remove them.
Most brigades would say that it isn`t in the public interest to give notices to individual flat owners.
When the actions (or lack of actions) of a flat owner affect the safety of their neighbours then the brigades need to get on the case, otherwise, what's the point?
Why the name "dinnertime Dave"? Out of interest? :)
-
Lancs are you talking about hmos or purpose built flats when it comes to prohibition cos they are very different animals
-
These jobs ALWAYS arise on a Friday afternoon. thats a fact. When it comes to prohibitions every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. Of course the very people we are trying to protect by tipping them out of their home tend not to be very chuffed about it either. Often they would rather stay and face the risk than go and sleep in a grimy B&B hotel - often with dodgy fire precautions itself.....
true very true. and often you could be tipping them out to somewhere even more dangerous or even out on the street. believe me the decision to prohibit is never taken lightly ever.
-
Lancs are you talking about hmos or purpose built flats when it comes to prohibition
The question was raised about a HMO. cos they are very different animals
I agree.
-
Can think of several off the top of my head where we're talking about 3 storey HMO that were not fitted with an alarm system, had a fire officer visit who issued an enforcement notice which detailed fitting an alarm. No mention of a prohibition notice.
In fact I've just checked my records and I have a copy of one enforcement notice issued to an HMO last year. The notice details "No fire alarm system that provides warning of fire throughout the building to all residents. Including no interlinked detection on the communal areas and behind all doors that open directly on to the communal means of escape." They had approximately 5 weeks from receiving the notice to comply (or provide a summary of proposed changes) and were also given a 5 week extension following that. So apply the concern of an alarm system being offline for a night seems a little pale in comparison.
-
Why the name "dinnertime Dave"? Out of interest? :)
When I joined the forum my brigade internet security settings would only allow me access to the forum at dinnertime. simple Oh and my name is dave!!
That situation changed and our policies now prevent me from posting at anytime whilst at work. so perhaps I should change it to "Onlyathome dave"
Shame really as I think the forum should be tool to let all people involved in the fire industry including I/O give their views.
-
Why the name "dinnertime Dave"? Out of interest? :)
When I joined the forum my brigade internet security settings would only allow me access to the forum at dinnertime. simple Oh and my name is dave!!
That situation changed and our policies now prevent me from posting at anytime whilst at work. so perhaps I should change it to "Onlyathome dave"
Shame really as I think the forum should be tool to let all people involved in the fire industry including I/O give their views.
Simples really & I agree its a useful debating tool for all parties