FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Alarm Systems => Topic started by: SuzannaC on September 29, 2016, 11:52:34 AM
-
If there is AFD installed in PPBF and it is not required, is it ok to leave the system panel showing a fault indefinitely?
-
Is there a risk of creating confusion if there are break glass points that will not work? If the system is definitely not required, eg for controlling vents, it would be better to disconnect it from the mains, remove the batteries and mask the panel and call points to avoid confusion. And first make sure the fire risk assessment accounts for and justifies the changes made.
-
What does "PPBF" mean, if it is not a standard abbreviation write it in full the first time and then abbreviate, it helps dummkopfs like me.
-
The discussion about whether it's "required" or not aside, having fire protection kit present but failing to maintain it is inviting enforcement action, & (particularly if there were a fire) potentially a criminal prosecution.
If the RP is convinced that they achieve a higher level of fire safety without it than with, then as a matter of good practice it should be properly decommissioned and (ideally) removed.
-
And of course informing / educating all involved of the new stay put procedure.
-
What does "PPBF" mean, if it is not a standard abbreviation write it in full the first time and then abbreviate, it helps dummkopfs like me.
I'm guessing 'Purpose Built Block of Flats".
Usually it's the call points and sounders that aren't required, the detection and panel are usually interfaced to smoke control which is required.
Although I have seen a (confirmed in strategy and construction) stay put block with full detection, call points and sounders that wasn't part of the smoke management system as the vents and shaft doors had their own AFD...
If it's there it should be in good working order, if it's not needed at all it should be correctly decommissioned and not some confusing half way house.
-
Thank you all for the reply. I was on the same page so I will take appropriate action
-
If a fire alarm is provided then under Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order is should be maintained in an efficient state, even if it is actually not needed as the flats are purpose built and suitable for a stay put policy. The fault on the panel would/may indicate the fire alarm is not functioning correctly?
-
I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.
-
I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.
Fully agree with you re the unnecessary reasons as to why AFD goes into to PB flats and we regularly recommend them to be removed or disabled, particularly if they are only fitted to the common parts. My point is, if a system is installed, whether required or not the RRFSO is quite clear that any such system should be maintained, in an efficient state and good working order.
-
I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.
Spot on ..... Either there are a lot of lazy people who don't read the regulations or the regulations are made too complicated.... probably a mixture of both.
But it is very frustrating for companies like mine that end up having to do the work of some lazy XXXX consultant that's being paid ?1000 a day to put his name to a design that we inevitably end up doing.
-
Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."
Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?
-
Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."
Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?
Ok, practical example. Large housing client with many 2 storey, small PB block of flats. All have emergency lighting installed, but they are not maintained or tested and there are no plans to do so due to cost. No requirement to install EL in the common stair when the blocks were built (1970s) or under the current ADB. At some point EL was installed but decision was taken not to test/maintain.
So, is said client in breach or Article 17 or not?
-
The other issue with the AFD in blocks of flats is that quite frequently if it is not maintained or there are no suitable arrangements for resetting it there are a lot of UWFS, occupants don't evacuate, and the FS starts sending nasty letters saying they aren't going to turn up to the fire alarm.
-
Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."
Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?
Ok, practical example. Large housing client with many 2 storey, small PB block of flats. All have emergency lighting installed, but they are not maintained or tested and there are no plans to do so due to cost. No requirement to install EL in the common stair when the blocks were built (1970s) or under the current ADB. At some point EL was installed but decision was taken not to test/maintain.
So, is said client in breach or Article 17 or not?
To me, yes they should, if the FRA considered it necessary, even if it wasn't a requirement under ADB in 1970s.
-
Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."
Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?
Ok, practical example. Large housing client with many 2 storey, small PB block of flats. All have emergency lighting installed, but they are not maintained or tested and there are no plans to do so due to cost. No requirement to install EL in the common stair when the blocks were built (1970s) or under the current ADB. At some point EL was installed but decision was taken not to test/maintain.
So, is said client in breach or Article 17 or not?
To me, yes they should, if the FRA considered it necessary, even if it wasn't a requirement under ADB in 1970s.
Same point then with the fire alarm, installed but not required, but should be maintained. Or remove it. :)
-
I would think it is the RR(FS)O that rules the roost and if the FRA requires emergence lighting then it should be tested the statutory bar does not exist anymore. If not necessary I think it should be removed, the problem is, which legislation would you quote, bluff and persuasion act?
-
My point was that where a fire alarm has been installed in a purpose built block, when it wasn't deigned at built stage with said fire alarm, this was added later for reasons unknown. The extent of this fire alarm is AFD in the single common stair only and does not link into any flats, sounders, call point x 2 and panel are provided.
The system is not linked to any AOV's, as none required due to having no such requirement given the date of build, lets say late 1980's.
However, for whatever reason this fire alarm is not being tested (weekly as per the BS) or being maintained and the panel is showing fault.
Even though this fire alarm was not required at build stage and is still not required under ADB, is the RP in breach of Article 17 of the RRFSO for not maintaining and testing the fire alarm?
In my view they are in breach. Any opinions? where is Mr Todd when you need him? ???
-
PS I have housing clients that want to retain the common alarm (as it makes them feel safe ::) but don't like sending the site manager once a week to test a call point in rotation!? I often get asked do you think we are in breach of the RRFSO or BS5839
-
I would think, that as the premises requires a FRA under the RR(FS)O and if a fire alarm is necessary, then the FA is subject to art 17. If it is not then there is no way of requiring him/her to take any action other than persuasion and make them fully aware, in writing of any possible problems that could arise.
It would be in breach of BS 5839 but the BS is only recommendation and good practice.
-
I would think, that as the premises requires a FRA under the RR(FS)O and if a fire alarm is necessary, then the FA is subject to art 17.
A fire alarm isn't necessary in this case though, in fact it is likely to cause more harm than good.
-
It's the same whatever aspect of fire protection you're talking about - if it's been installed and if it contributes to a reduction in fire risk then it should stay and has to be maintained. This is basic risk assessment good practice and it applies whether the current codes/standards would recommend it or not. The decision about whether you need to supply a risk reduction measure that isn't there at the moment is very different to the decision about taking out something that's there already (and therefore it must have been reasonably practicable to provide it).
If it doesn't contribute to a reduction in fire risk, then it can (and should) be decommissioned and removed. If an RP leaves it in place, faulty and unmaintained then they're basically inviting enforcement action and whilst we can all speculate on how this would play in court, why invite that risk (and expense)?
-
My point was that where a fire alarm has been installed in a purpose built block, when it wasn't deigned at built stage with said fire alarm, this was added later for reasons unknown. The extent of this fire alarm is AFD in the single common stair only and does not link into any flats, sounders, call point x 2 and panel are provided.
The system is not linked to any AOV's, as none required due to having no such requirement given the date of build, lets say late 1980's.
However, for whatever reason this fire alarm is not being tested (weekly as per the BS) or being maintained and the panel is showing fault.
Even though this fire alarm was not required at build stage and is still not required under ADB, is the RP in breach of Article 17 of the RRFSO for not maintaining and testing the fire alarm?
In my view they are in breach. Any opinions? where is Mr Todd when you need him? ???
If you had a car and never took it on the road could you be prosecuted for not putting it through an MOT every year? (If that was the case). My point being that if it ain't necessary to have something you have do you have to keep it operational?
-
Agree with fishy's posting, would add that as regards a fire authority taking a prosecution in regards to failing to maintain something that isn't necessary, I fail to see how that would be in the public interest which is one of the criteria applied in whether or not to prosecute. Most FA's are cash strapped these days and have more pressing priorities than an iffy prosecution which could leave them ?'s out of pocket.
That said never say never.
-
Agree with fishy's posting, would add that as regards a fire authority taking a prosecution in regards to failing to maintain something that isn't necessary, I fail to see how that would be in the public interest which is one of the criteria applied in whether or not to prosecute. Most FA's are cash strapped these days and have more pressing priorities than an iffy prosecution which could leave them ?'s out of pocket.
That said never say never.
I can see a F&RS having any interest in pushing something like this. The bigger problem would likely be from a green horn fire safety officer on a promotion trip.
-
If I find something that can be removed or doesn't need maintaining as patently unnecessary and adding no value I make sure that the rationale is clearly explained in the FRA to demonstrate that it isn't part of any of the 'where necessary' requirements of the Order. It's also important that if there is something having to be left in situ but not operational it is clear to all relevant and responsible persons (especially in multi occupancies) so they aren't mislead - I've seen tenant FRAs that detail the wonderful protection provided by the sprinkler system in their building despite it having been drained down years ago......
-
Hopefully the green horn fire safety officer on a promotion trip would have sufficient line management to report to who should be calming him/her down and pointing out the error of their ways, besides I suspect most brigades have a policy that requires high level authorisation before going to prosecution.
-
Hopefully the green horn fire safety officer on a promotion trip would have sufficient line management to report to who should be calming him/her down and pointing out the error of their ways, besides I suspect most brigades have a policy that requires high level authorisation before going to prosecution.
;D That made me smile
-
??
-
??
The chances of you finding a situation as per your statement are slim in my experience.
-
That's my experience in my brigade when I tread the boards, has things changed that much.
-
Certainly the case in my Fire Authority area, with resources both finances and personnel such as they are, it has never been more important to direct time and effort where it is really needed rather than an inappropriate prosecution, hence a number of levels of checks before a go ahead is given to prosecute.
-
Hopefully the green horn fire safety officer on a promotion trip would have sufficient line management to report to who should be calming him/her down and pointing out the error of their ways, besides I suspect most brigades have a policy that requires high level authorisation before going to prosecution.
;D That made me smile
Not always. Lots of loose canons out there.
-
Hopefully the green horn fire safety officer on a promotion trip would have sufficient line management to report to who should be calming him/her down and pointing out the error of their ways, besides I suspect most brigades have a policy that requires high level authorisation before going to prosecution.
;D That made me smile
Not always. Lots of loose canons out there.
Yep I concur ;D
-
Lots of loose cannons, probably, but as in all walks of life there is good and bad, you will never get a perfect system where a human element exists.