Are many brigades implementing the CFOA policy (or indeed their own policy) on false alarms from AFA's. e.g:
1. Attendance Level one: Is an immediate emergency response, resulting in an initial attendance based on a risk assessment of the fire fighting requirements that will be not less than one fire engine.
2. Attendance Level two: In the absence of a confirmation call, the fire and rescue service will make an attendance, based on a risk assessment of the fire fighting requirements. The attendance may be made under non-emergency conditions, thereby maintaining the availability of the resources for other confirmed emergencies and protecting the public from the risk that arises from fire engines responding under emergency conditions.
3. Attendance Level three: No emergency response, until a confirmation of fire is received from the premises using the 999 or 112 systems. Such confirmation will result in an immediate emergency response, resulting in an initial attendance based on a risk assessment of the fire fighting requirements that will be not less than one fire engine.
I understand there has been a recent fire in the South West where the client may have been on level 2 response and the brigade attended at normal traffic speed, and not under blue lights, to find a well developed fire.
The speed of response is obviously a contributory factor in fire spread, and one could argue that it is the clients fault for not managing the fire alarm system correctly (if this is the case?), has anyone else come across this situation or are the brigades not implementing the CFOA policy listed above (1-3).
