Author Topic: Removal of Fire Alarm  (Read 2989 times)

jakespop

  • Guest
Removal of Fire Alarm
« on: June 28, 2009, 09:35:00 AM »
I recently became aware a multi occupied building of three floors with shops on ground level and offices on upper floors where an electrical contractor(because he had not been paid) had ripped out the whole of the fire alarm from a ground floor shop( call points, detectors, sounders etc). It appears the alarm is still active in rest of building but obviously any fire in this shop will not be detected or alarm raised. I have never heard of anything like this before. It raises some interesting questions such as responsibility etc. I wonder what view fire brigade will take when they inspect? Any opinions?

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2009, 11:40:52 AM »
When I was an enforcement officer I once threatened to prosecute an electrical contractor who threatened to do this in a nightclub for unpaid bills. This was before the Fire Safety Order when the club would have opened that night and other action through licensing and prohibition would have been slow and created public order hazards. I proposed that the prosecution would have been taken under section 8 of HASAWA. In all honesty it was a bit of the old Bluff nd persuasion Act but it worked at the time.

Now trying to run a business and with direct experience of bad debt my sympathies have been modified somewhat!

In any case, under the Fire Safety Order it is much easier to take direct action in all cases against the duty holder- in this case the Responsible Person for the shop. After all in this case the Responsible Person has failed to make adequate provision for raising the alarm of fire  (indirectly as a consequence of not paying his bills).

If this places others at immediate risk in the building I suppose the electrician could have been charged with an offence under article 23 (duties of employees) but I think this may be very tenuous.

Article 32 sets out the offences that can be committed under the order and this example is not directly covered. It would take a brave enforcement authority with a big cheque book to pay a good barrister to make charges against the electrician stick using the Fire Safety Order- as I see it.

Offline Galeon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Dont ask me on here for advice , come down the Pub
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2009, 12:46:29 PM »
Done the same as the electrical firm myself , firm we were employed by on a 6k contract . The main builder then offered us £400.00 to settle for manuals certification.
We were invited back to site for a meeting , and removed the kit , anything that can be identified specifically ie serial number was removed.
Had the builder thenen threatening us , police etc etc.
Only saving grace it turned out the owner of the building knew us for years , and wasn't impressed with what had happened , he held the builders account , we got paid , and put it back.
Wouldn't think twice about doing it again .
Its time to make a counter attack !

Offline Thomas Brookes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2009, 09:07:39 AM »
I agree with Galeon,

This would be a very scarey problem if someone could order a fire detection system, not pay for it and then the Law stops the supplier reposessing their equipment.
I refuse to have a battle of wittts with an unarmed person.

Offline Wiz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1591
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2009, 10:13:35 AM »
Sometimes 'repatriating' equipment is the only way to recover anything from a bad debt.

You should never be suprised by the depths to which some people will stoop to cheat you out of your money or by the lack of embarassment they have about breaking promises.

In my experience the two biggest areas for this potential non or late payment problem are restaurants and nightclubs. I always advise people to avoid this sort of work if they can.

The main rule is to never threaten 'that you will take the system back unless you are paid'. Giving this warning allows the cheat to take action to prevent you from doing so. Once the pre-determined and promised payment deadline is past just swoop in and recover.

The second rule is not to listen to the sort of person Prof. Kurnal admits he was in a former life. (I know that, and he confirms, he has a different viewpoint these days!).

This is the sort of person who gets involved in something that has nothing to do with them and takes the side that will make life easier for them. You would think they wouldn't take any side and they would keep out of the argument. But they don't for some reason. They just want a fire alarm system in place and they couldn't care less about if it has been paid for or not.

These type of people don't give a sh*t about the problems you will have in recovering your money and will come up with any sort of bluff to try and stop you removing the system. They are actually powerless to do anything to you to prevent you taking back what is legally yours.

One wonders why they even try and get involved. They will still be getting their own salary (and even complaining big time if the wages office miss just 1 hour of their overtime!) and don't have a care that you might not be able to feed your kids that month. If they did, they wouldn't get involved and they certainly wouldn't side with the debtor. Just ignore them they are powerless to do anything against you.

All of what I said above is based on the premise that you, the supplier, has  robust Terms and Conditions of Trading in place that includes an agreement that you hold full title to the goods supplied until paid in full and also that you haven't allowed these to be overidden by accepting a subsequent order that has overiding terms and conditions. Furthermore, if the Police turn up as you are removing your property you need to explain to them that your right to be on the premises is inherent in the fact that you were invited to have access to the premises to install the equipment in the first place. If the premises tells the Police that the equipment you are recovering was not supplied by you, ask them to show the purchase invoice to the Police. Have your order for the equipment available.

Anyone giving credit in the U.K. needs to understand that World is full of crooks, that the legal system is not only ponderously slow but offers very little chance of ever recovering a debt (her Majesty's Court Service's own literature even admits this) and if the debtor goes into administration you, as an unsecured debtor, has virtually no chance of getting anything. The administrator works hard to ensure the Government and the banks get what they are due and then the administrator's fees magically take virtually everything else recovered!

This is the way of the world and your survival depends on quick and effective (sometimes drastic) action when promised/agreed payment fails to materialise.

If you need confirmation of how not paying someone what you owe is an accepted practice in the U.K. , check out the internet for advice on how to 'recover bad debts'. There is very little advice available. Then check out the internet for advice on how to 'avoid paying a debt' there are millions of pages of advice and organisations that will help you do so. Also read all the forums used by people who discuss how to avoid and/or drag out the process of paying a debt and ignoring a court judgment. They are quite funny in their cheek and audacity unless you are the one who is owed money!!!

Millions of pounds have gone through my bank accounts since I have been in business and I suppose I should feel pleased that my total of unrecovered bad debts over nearly 30 years totals less than 50K.

That 50K all came from my own pocket because it was otherwise due to me as potential profit.

Then I think about what I could have done with that 50K. :'( The cheating barstewards !

« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 10:30:37 AM by Wiz »

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2009, 11:35:28 AM »
Just returning to the fire safety issues here....

The shop may not need automatic detection or even a fire alarm system to ensure safe means of escape within it.

There may (and should) be at least one hour fire resistance between the shop and the offices above (including the offices' m.o.e.).

At times when the shop is unoccupied, the offices may be unoccupied.

The lack of AFA/AFD may be of no significance and the fire authority may have no concerns.


Or, maybe, none of these assumptions is right.


Stu


Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2009, 12:54:26 PM »
The big concern here is the liklihood of damage being caused by removing the equipment. If conduit tracking is bonded and skimmed it is very difficult to remove cabling without damage, unless cabling is an acceptable loss. Ensuring of course that any mains cabling is properly isolated.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2009, 01:38:52 PM »

The second rule is not to listen to the sort of person Prof. Kurnal admits he was in a former life. (I know that, and he confirms, he has a different viewpoint these days!).

This is the sort of person who gets involved in something that has nothing to do with them and takes the side that will make life easier for them. You would think they wouldn't take any side and they would keep out of the argument. But they don't for some reason. They just want a fire alarm system in place and they couldn't care less about if it has been paid for or not.

These type of people don't give a sh*t about the problems you will have in recovering your money and will come up with any sort of bluff to try and stop you removing the system. They are actually powerless to do anything to you to prevent you taking back what is legally yours.

One wonders why they even try and get involved. They will still be getting their own salary (and even complaining big time if the wages office miss just 1 hour of their overtime!) and don't have a care that you might not be able to feed your kids that month. If they did, they wouldn't get involved and they certainly wouldn't side with the debtor. Just ignore them they are powerless to do anything against you.

No it isnt quite like that Dr Wiz. It all depends how the information comes to you as an enforcement officer. In the case I quoted the alarm supplier was trying to be devious.

They phoned the office at 2pm on a friday afternoon to make a complaint that the club would be open for business that evening and did not have a fire alarm,"what are you going to do about that Mr Fire officer?"

Why hasn't it got a fire alarm?  "Because I am going up there to take it out this afternoon".

The side of my nature that resents being used as a battering ram in someone elses dispute (It constantly happens in the fire service and markedly less  now that I charge for my services) kicked into gear to turn the tables on him. Quite legit I think.

If it had been the night club owner complaining they would have just got the standard response- its your duty to make sure you have a working fire alarm otherwise dont open for business.   


Offline Wiz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1591
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2009, 02:25:38 PM »
In the circumstances, fully understood Prof. If either party try to use you to re-inforce their own argument about payment, then it is blatantly not right.

Actually I wasn't actually trying to infer that you were that were the type that I described in my rant, and I apologise if I gave that impression to anyone.

However, I have met those types who get involved in a dispute about payment for their own ends and I always disappointed when they do.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Removal of Fire Alarm
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2009, 03:09:38 PM »
In all cases I think that the RP is at fault, not the elctrical contractor.

As many have already pointed out I believe legally the contractor is well within their rights to take back any components they have fitted if they have not been paid

Even if they are not legally allowed to do so the bottom line is that the RP should have done something to remedy the situation (even if that meant closing the premises) or atleast put in temporary measures until the situation was resolved or argued out.

There will be the odd exception of course, and I can think of occassion where an electrical supplier  incorrectly cut off the mains supply to the common areas of a block of flats (and with it took out the emergency lighting and fire alarm system). They claimed the landlord hadbn't paid the bill, but due to a cock up on the electricity suppliers part this wasn't the case.