Fire Alarm Maintenance/Service Periods

[David Rooney]

This is the bit I couldn't find.....

45.3

"...........The recommended period between successive inspection and servicing visits should not exceed six months. If this recommendation is not implemented, it should be considered that the system is no longer compliant with this part of BS 5839."

So yes you can give a certificate - providing you have done a 100% "annual" test on a system that may not have been checked for years, but back to the OP, if you have a contract to carry out maintenance to 5839 and the customer doesn't want a six monthly test then surely you need to qualify the certificate saying "it doesn't comply with BS but it's only a recommendation" etc etc. - Your RA mr client, do as you wish and make sure you tell your insurer....

[nearlythere]

Remember that you have to satisfy the enforcement authority and probably the insurance company, not the BSI, that you have adequately maintained the system.

[Wiz]

This is the bit I couldn't find.....

45.3

"...........The recommended period between successive inspection and servicing visits should not exceed six months. If this recommendation is not implemented, it should be considered that the system is no longer compliant with this part of BS 5839."

So yes you can give a certificate - providing you have done a 100% "annual" test on a system that may not have been checked for years, but back to the OP, if you have a contract to carry out maintenance to 5839 and the customer doesn't want a six monthly test then surely you need to qualify the certificate saying "it doesn't comply with BS but it's only a recommendation" etc etc. - Your RA mr client, do as you wish and make sure you tell your insurer....

That's about the crux of it, David.

[David Rooney]

Remember that you have to satisfy the enforcement authority and probably the insurance company, not the BSI, that you have adequately maintained the system.

So if the client only wants to pay for an annual visit and has satsified his own RA, is the enforcement authority likely to tell him to pay more money and comply with the "recommendations" of 5839 ??

Based on the posts above if I were the client I'd be saying "it's just a recommendation" and I choose not to accept it based on.......etc.

So what happens then.... are we off to court ??!!

[Big A]

Remember that you have to satisfy the enforcement authority and probably the insurance company, not the BSI, that you have adequately maintained the system.

So if the client only wants to pay for an annual visit and has satsified his own RA, is the enforcement authority likely to tell him to pay more money and comply with the "recommendations" of 5839 ??

Based on the posts above if I were the client I'd be saying "it's just a recommendation" and I choose not to accept it based on.......etc.

So what happens then.... are we off to court ??!!

Yes, but you may win. Or ask for a determination against a prescriptive application of the 'guidance'

[David Rooney]

Sounds like suppository territory to me !

Sorry but what is a "determination against a prescriptive application of the 'guidance'"

[Galeon]

Dave ,
 but the smoke jockeys who do a service for £30 obviously know something I don't know .
Tell you what why don't we all go painting and decorating it must be easier?

[Wiz]

You can never legislate for those who don't know what they should be doing. For the simple reason many don't really care why they are supposed to be doing something.

Others don't trust what they are being told. They've been conned so many times by shysters, that they believe that everyone is taking them for a ride. How many times have I heard about a building that has a perfectly adequate fire alarm system where the Responsible Person is told that their system doesn't 'comply' and needs to be ripped out and replaced with a brand new one. Or designers who provide a L1 system where L4 would be suitable (can't go wrong with an L1!) Or the cost to replace one fire bell is £500. No wonder people are 'wary' of advice.

As a maintenance provider you should always offer the BS recommendations as a minimum. If the customer wants less, then as a businessman, you should keep your customer happy, but also indemnify yourself against future problems. Why spend time arguing over a 'principle' which will lose you income if the customer goes elsewhere? At the end of the day it will be the Responsible Person's problem and not yours as long as you have offered and explained the recommended service and highlighted that the customer is ignoring your advice.

[David Rooney]

Dave ,
 but the smoke jockeys who do a service for £30 obviously know something I don't know .
Tell you what why don't we all go painting and decorating it must be easier?

As long as I don't have to choose the colour scheme.... I'm no good at coordinating colours!!

Wiz you are right, and I follow the same principles, I just get fed up having to write reams of paperwork giving the client every angle and every choice known to man about every other clause in the BS....

And then you get the client say "my electrician reckons......"   

.... next...!!

[Graeme]

You can never legislate for those who don't know what they should be doing. For the simple reason many don't really care why they are supposed to be doing something.

Others don't trust what they are being told. They've been conned so many times by shysters, that they believe that everyone is taking them for a ride. How many times have I heard about a building that has a perfectly adequate fire alarm system where the Responsible Person is told that their system doesn't 'comply' and needs to be ripped out and replaced with a brand new one. Or designers who provide a L1 system where L4 would be suitable (can't go wrong with an L1!) Or the cost to replace one fire bell is £500. No wonder people are 'wary' of advice.

As a maintenance provider you should always offer the BS recommendations as a minimum. If the customer wants less, then as a businessman, you should keep your customer happy, but also indemnify yourself against future problems. Why spend time arguing over a 'principle' which will lose you income if the customer goes elsewhere? At the end of the day it will be the Responsible Person's problem and not yours as long as you have offered and explained the recommended service and highlighted that the customer is ignoring your advice.

Wiz

i could not agree more even if i tried

[Big A]

Sounds like suppository territory to me !

Sorry but what is a "determination against a prescriptive application of the 'guidance'"

A determination by the Sec of State - Art 36. A recent one in Scotland found against the FRS. There is a seperate thread entitled 'Scottish Determination'