BS5839 Category P

[BB]

Consider this....An office premises of a simple layout which would only require a simple system for raising the alarm in the event of a fire. (i.e. shout or rotary gong)

However the occupiers decide because of the valuable documents stored on the premises they are going to install a Category P BS5839 solely for property protection.

However the system is not maintained or tested weekly. and is not in a very good working order

Now the local Fire Authority decide to carry out an inspection under the FSO. Having carried out their inspection they have concerns about the Cat P fire alarm system, they therefore decide to enforce the responsible person to maintain their fire alarm system under Article 17 maintenance.

Do they have powers to enforce onder the FSO onto the responsible person as Article 13 (1) (a). states........premises are.........equiped with fire detectors and alarms.........Where neccessary.

My gut feeling is no as the Fire Alarm is not there for life safety and they would be hard pushed to enforce.

your thoughts please!!!!
   

[jokar]

The Company obvously do not think a lot of their records if they do not wish to maintain the system.

The Order is about Life Safety and if the system is not there for that it is probably not enforceable if the Company can demonstrate that the simple system they have will alert and evacuate all staff and any other relevant persons.

[CivvyFSO]

I would suspect that the cat P system is being used to raise the general alarm, so it is being used to protect the relevant persons, so it would be enforceable. If, as jokar says, the shout/gong is still in use, staff are trained in these procedures, and it is detailed in the risk assessment, then it would be difficult to enforce. But remember to appeal the notice within the 21 days allowed if this is the case.

However, if the cat P system has call points which I rather suspect it will have, then would it not be considered that this system could be better than voice/gong and as such it should be utilised in accordance with reducing risks ALARP.

If I inspected the place and found they were not maintaining a propertly protection system then I would be forwarding this information to our unwanted fire signals team, they may decide not to automatically mobilise to someone running such a system unless a phone call is received confirming a fire. (Kinda negating the entire system really)

[AnthonyB]

If it's so small as not to require even a simple type M system, then AFD would be of no value for them unless installed for out of hours. If it was a true cat P to cover this & not in any way fulfil a dual role it wouldn't have or need call points, only one sounder near the panel and a 24/7 monitored link at an alarm receiving centre.

However I bet that it's a Cat P/M system with sounders and call points as well as the AFD in which case it can perform a life function & should be maintained.

Rip it out or maintain it are the only realistic approaches rather than a battle of semantics.

Also don't forget that the RRO does have legal obligations for mitigation as well as life safety - if the FRS can't get them one way they'll get them another.

If they are getting a notice they'll have to do something, it's cost them more to argue the toss on going up the chain of appeals and court appearances than to have it serviced.