Bs 5839 - 6:2004

[Keith Tarbuck]

Dear all

I will do my level best to explain as clearly as possible what I am trying to find out.

I have done the normal things i.e. internet, code of practise etc and either am missing something or am a "half wit".

So here goes, and this is a direct transcript from our newest (2007) Student Accommodation Complex.

"The fire warning system will comply with BS 5839 -2002, a level 5 (L5) system will be installed"'

The fire alarm strategy will be achieved by installing 2 independent systems, the text below describes the components of each system.

System 1 - Local (Grade D - BS5839 - part 6)

"This is a mains powered local system operating within the bedrooms and kitchens of each flat. Each bedroom will have a smoke detection and alarm unit, the kitchen will have heat detection and an alarm unit. The bedroom and kitchen units are linked and will therefore all be activated when on sensor detects a fire"  

NOTE: here it goes in to the detailed action on alarms etc, and this is not really relevent to my question, hence I have omitted this section.

System 2 - landlords

In outline all, all the flat corridors, stairwells, riser cupboards, offices etc are all fittted either heat or smoke detectors linked to the main panel and are addressable.

My question is, what is the legal/recommended testing regime of the "Local system" I am fully aware of the landlords system requirements.

Your considered opinions/comments will be much appriciated.

PS: Apology in advance for any spelling or grammer errors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PhilB]

hmmmm you're not a half-wit..have a read of article 17 of the Fire Safety Order. This places a duty to maintain all facilities that have been provided for the safety of relevant persons even in premises to which the order doesn't apply.

Therefore the landlord will have to take reasonable measures to ensure that the occupiers of the flats maintain  and test their systems or devise some other suitable arrangement.

My opinion only of course.

[Graeme]

the system 2 will be the BS5839-1 2002 but i,m not sure about the L5 part. L=life The spec sounds more like an L2

[kurnal]

Presumably the office refers to  a single office ancillary to the provision of the student accommodation?

PhilB thanks for a non controversial answer as always. Trouble is I cant actually disagree with you based on the definitions in the order.
The fact that this is "Our newest  student accommodation complex" probably takes the argument outside the normal flats situation and beyond arguments in respect of "relevant persons" and "responsible persons in so far as they have control", "common areas" and "general fire precautions".

Would your answer have been different had it been a block of council flats in the city centre?

[John Webb]

The L5 for System 2 is a specific system tailored to meet the risks as determined by Fire Risk Assessment. As I understand it if you state 'L1' or 'L2' for a bulding then the whole building must be covered, not just a particular part of it.
The System 1 spec for each individual dwelling area sounds remarkably like linked domestic type detectors powered off the mains as required by ADB for dwellings.

So I presume the fire safety stratergy behind this is:
Give a local warning in each dwelling area to protect the inhabitants thereof, but minimise the effect of false alarms through smoking/frying etc by only alerting that area and no other, as it is behind the fire-resistant front door.
Provide means in the common area to protect the common area and give an alarm to all if need be.

Re testing system 1; perhaps:
1) encourage the students to check once a month while they are in occupation - it should not disturb anyone else due to the individual nature of each system;
2) Landlord to inspect during the long Summer holiday?

[terry martin]

it would be different in a block of flats. the building owner may not have control over the private dwellings. but they could place a clause within the terms of the lease that they maintain their system

being student accomodation, the LD5 system is installed in parts of the premises that will remain under the control of the landlord.  
it is unlikely that the students are going to regularly maintain or even care for their sytem and the risk assesment of the premises should reflect this.

if it where my premises i would retain control of the maintenance of the LD5 system and incorporate it into the schedule for the LD2 ststem

as for the frequency, there is nothing in the RRO that defines the frequency, some brigades say every 12 months as a guide, but, if you where to maintain it according to the manufacturers instructions that would be sufficient.

[Dragonmaster]

No-one has mentioned the evacuation strategy on this one. If it is a stay put policy, then the system looks suitable. If simulataneous evacuation is part of the FRA, then i would suggest the proposals leave the liklihood of only partial evacuation at best (the common area system won't acheive 75dB at the bed head, if the fire is in an adjacent flat).

I would also suggest that a heat detector/sounder off the Part 1 system is provided in each lobby to the accommodation, which, in conjunction with FD30s (sc) on each flat, would allow either evacuation strategy to work.

[Keith Tarbuck]

Firstly, as ever many thanks for your response.

I should have stated that this transcript was from the "Fire Strategy" document.

As regards to the Local system John is spot on, the bedrooms and kitchen would only intially alarm giving warning to that faly only. If smoke then penetrated (or door wedge or left opened) a bedroom or kitchen door then this would then activate the detector in the corridor alarming the complete core, in this case 6 to 8 flats over 4 levels and 32 residents.

The entire complex can be alarmed in stages if required.

All other areas are covered by a fully automatic addressable system.


My understanding of L5 is "Category 5 systems are a category that relate to some special requirement that cannot be covered by any other categaory. Where such systems are specified careful referencemust be made to the objective of cover". this again is a direct transcript from a document found through a search on the internet.

So in summary we test are addressable alarm system weekly (MCP's)

We have maintenance contract in place (4 visits - 25% each visit)

I have read Article 17 (RRO) Maintenance, and I understand the wording, but what we have to do as a operator/landlord of this type of accommodation is get the balance right between safety and our resident's rights, i.e how often our we in their flats/bedrooms either testing or inspecting. We do not have the same powers as Universities have in their accommodation.

Hence why I posed the question in the first place to see if maybe somebody else out there is already dealing with this issue.

Lastly I understand that the Risk Assessment/safety aspects must and will be taken into consideration.  

Again I hope I have made sense?

[CivvyFSO]

spelling or grammer errors

Shurely shome mishtake?

[PhilB]

Presumably the office refers to  a single office ancillary to the provision of the student accommodation?

PhilB thanks for a non controversial answer as always. Trouble is I cant actually disagree with you based on the definitions in the order.
The fact that this is "Our newest  student accommodation complex" probably takes the argument outside the normal flats situation and beyond arguments in respect of "relevant persons" and "responsible persons in so far as they have control", "common areas" and "general fire precautions".

Would your answer have been different had it been a block of council flats in the city centre?

Bloomin flippin good point Kurnal!!!

....block of council flats in City centre...common parts are subject to the order and the tenants are therefore relevant persons...so perhaps you could argue that alarm systems inside flats need to be maintained to comply with the Order........BUT........modern flats are designed so that a fire in one flat should not affect the safety of persons in another flat......therefore the alarm in the flat is not for the safety of relevant persons.

As Dragonmaster correctly points out it is the evacuation strategy that is important.

If in the example quoted by Keith, the alarm in the flat is purely to ensure the safety of the occupants of the flat, it would be difficult to require maintenace by virtue of article 17.....controversial....Moi??!!!

[kurnal]

Keith
This could develop into a very technical argument - interesting but I dont know if we could come to any conclusion without a legal precedent.

I would take a more pragmatic view. I guess that the flats are private sector accommodation for students in a block with other services for the students and that the building is compliant with the building regs. The one question that would make a big difference to the interpretation over the "relevant Person" is whether the building is compartmented as flats- one hour walls and floors, ventilated corridors and staircase?
This will determine whether when the common areas  alarms sound the strategy is for full evacuation or not.  

 Do the tenants have a fixed term or is their lease of the flat for  an indefinate period? How much access do you as landlord have to the flats- you say it is less than for University accommodation.

The Law is all about what is reasonable in the circumstances, If you have fixed term lets and a period between lets when the flats are vacant then under article 17 it may be reasonable to use that as a window of opportunity to service the detectors within the flats.  That may be seen as both reasonable and appropriate. Similarly if your agreement with the tenant gives you the right of access ( As the universities do for maintenance and inspections) then it may be reasonable to incorporate maintenance of the tenants alarms. But if they have an open ended lease and you do not have the right of access other than when invited in to repair something then it would not be practicable to take on maintenance and testing of their alarms in flats.

[peanut]

Compartmentation (and hence evacuation strategy) appears to be the key issue here.  I would assume that the building has been constructed as though it were self-contained flats and thus the detection within the individual flats is for the benefit of the occupants of the flat in which the fire occurs.

Be careful when looking at article 17.  Whilst this allows for a responsible to make arrangements with a person in another premises (even where the other premises does not fall within the scope of the Order) for the purpose of maintaining fire safety measures, this is only where those measures are provided to protect relevant persons.  An example may be lobbies, provided in small flats which open directly onto a stair (ADB diagram 9), or where detection is provided in some flats in lieu of poor fire seperation.  In a purpose built flat (with the correct level of compartmentation) the detection is there for the flats' occupants, who are not relevant persons.  Hence article 17 does not apply.

You should also look at Regulation 16B of the Building Regulations.  If the responsible person is not aware of the correct maintenance routine for the building it would suggest that Regulation 16B has not been complied with.