Brigade refusal to reset

[Allen Higginson]

I'm not sure if this is a national issus but it would appear to be the case that the brigade in Northern Ireland have made it policy to not reset a fire alarm following a false alarm. They are insisting in most cases that it is done by the maintenance company.This is proving to be a problem to many of our customers because it has happened that I have been on my way to another call with the result of an ETA to the unreset system to be a minimum 2 hrs.This means that during this period if an incident occurs on the activated zone the fire alarm will not resound.More worryingly,in the case of sheltered accomodation the signal to the help line is tied up for fire signals and they will not call the brigade again until the system has been cleared.
Is there any clarity on this situation out there as it seems a bit pointless to be in this situation if it is clear why the false alarm occurred - what happened to false alarm with good intent!

[dave bev]

buzz, this is a question that needs to be asked of the actual fire authority as ooposed to opinion on here!

i have worked (yes i did work for the wags who read this board!) in two brigades, both of which had a different policy, both of which claimed they were correct, both of which claimed the other brigades were wrong,

how does that help you? it doesnt!

why they are choosing this option may have something to do with the whole afa process including call challenging etc, but the real answer can only be provided by asking the fire authority ( fire authority as opposed to fand resce service, it is the authority that has the policy - the f&rs implement that policy - does that open up a debate?)

dave bev

[burgermuncher999]

I am in my 3rd Brigade and all of the 3 have had a policy which stated that it was the responsibility of the owner/occupier to reset the alarm. This was purely to ensure that in the event of alterations being made to the alarm system (isolation of zones) there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was not the FS that carried out the alterations to the set up and mucked up the system. Also, it is all to easy for the attending crew to get bogged down in attempting to rectify a system fault which they are neither trained or authorised to do. Many system providers for intruder alarms as well as fire alarms insist that they are the sole provider of all maintenance and repair work as part of the contract and any unauthorised work on a system (including the well intentioned resetting of the alarm by the FS) can lead to a system provider charging the Fire Authority for any repair to a system that was incorrectly reset causing what might be perceived as damage to the eqpt.
The providers do however train the owner/occupier on how to reset the system in the event of an actuation as part of the contract. The fact that the responsible person chooses not to or does not know how to is a matter for them to address not us as the Fire Authority.

[Allen Higginson]

THis does make things a bit clearer but you can appeciate the possible serious implications of an unset system. As far as the maintenance providers insisating that they be the only ones working on the system,it wouldn't normally apply to normal user ioperations (reset,silencing or limited isolations).Thats what the customer or level two access codes are for.However, I would be surprised to  think that any reputable company would charge the brigade for repair of a system that the user should have been trained to operate..It's not the first time that an engineer has accidentally caused a brigade turn out for one reason or another and the guy with the white helmet is (generally!) ok about it.

[steve walker]

Hi all,

I have attended many calls to fire alarms and agree with burgermuncher. Surely it is reasonable to expect the occupiers to be able to reset their own system.

Steve

[fireftrm]

Buzzard

My FRS will not sanction the resetting of any system, for exactly the same reasons as Burger. I would also be surprised if the FA company invoiced the FRS, however we should not be doing this job anyway. It is the sole responsibility of the occupier.

On another point I am never 'cool' about an engineer causing the FRS to be called, quite the opposite. If I had my way each one would result in a charge to the FA - it is totally unaccepatble for a trained, competent FA engineer to cause the actuation of an alarm call to the FRS. It is against the BS and is may even be an illegal act where FA forms part of the requirements for the premises (remembering that BS is not a legal requirement itself but can be held to be so by another regulation). All too often the FA engineer 'laughs' off the actuation, forgetting it is his/her responsibility to ensure that their actions do not cause any call to the FRS.

[Peter]

Buzzard

The Brigade in my area has had this polocy for a number of years - It is now accepted, & staff in protected premises now have a better reason to know how to manage the system they are responsible for.
fireftrm whilst I agree its not 'cool' there will be few long serving FSO's who could say it hasn't happened to them.

[Allen Higginson]

I didn't mean to sound flippant with regards to the false calls,I was just tying to indicate that locally we have a good relationship with the brigade.As far as the calls go in 15 years I have had 6 false turn outs,5 of which were due to the ARC and/or the customer not putting the system on test properly.The other was due to my error in over running the off line time,something which I now don't do by setting the timer on my phone.I certainly have never "laughed" off a call as I do appreciate the possible consequences of such calls.
In relation to the resetting issue,I now appreciate the "blame" issue and we are tying to advise the customer to organize a "key holder" scheme for their sheltered schemes with no live in supervisor.This would mean a quicker reinstatement of the system to full working order.

[fireftrm]

Peter - yes the call has happened but I would definitely not be 'cool' about it - that was the point.

[Allen Higginson]

Offending word now removed from post as it seems to have got in the way of my point.

[fireftrm]

Thanks Buzz, though sorry if you got the impression it took us off the subject.

I always insist that local premises have a responsible person for the FA and this should be a requirement for any where there is a life risk, the failure to reinstate the alarm could be catastrophic.

I do not have many occasions where the FA engineer causes an call to the FRS. However they do happen and the majority of engineers seem surprised to find that we consider it a highly irresponsible act. There are exceptions, but it is a shame that they seem to be just that rather than the other way round. Perhaps the BS should be more strongly worded, or the FA companies more stringent in the training of their staff, or maybe the FA being invoiced for all such calls might help remove these nuisance unwanted fire signals.

[Chris Houston]

Perhaps the BS should be more strongly worded, or the FA companies more stringent in the training of their staff, or maybe the FA being invoiced for all such calls might help remove these nuisance unwanted fire signals.

I suspect charging money for the attendance would be the most effective means.  Although, if the engineer accidentally summons the fire service, why don't they simply phone the FRS and cancel the call?

[Allen Higginson]

Thanks Buzz, though sorry if you got the impression it took us off the subject.

I always insist that local premises have a responsible person for the FA and this should be a requirement for any where there is a life risk, the failure to reinstate the alarm could be catastrophic.

I do not have many occasions where the FA engineer causes an call to the FRS. However they do happen and the majority of engineers seem surprised to find that we consider it a highly irresponsible act. There are exceptions, but it is a shame that they seem to be just that rather than the other way round. Perhaps the BS should be more strongly worded, or the FA companies more stringent in the training of their staff, or maybe the FA being invoiced for all such calls might help remove these nuisance unwanted fire signals.

Totally agree that the customer should have a responsible person on site but if it is a scheme with a warden call system then you can't nominate a resident.This is why we have recommended to this particular client to pay the likes of Group 4 or Chubb a fee for "keyholding" (as other associations have done).
In my experience it has been the ARC that has caused the brigade turning out - biggest problem being the contoller only putting the system on for a one-off test when you are doing a maintenance.This not only happens with a third party ARC but has been known to happen with an in-house ARC.So in these cases it's not the engineers fault but,yes,there are those (thankfully few) who hit the system without checking to see it it is monitored first. The brigade should,in this instance,notify their supervisor or contact the customer to make sure that the engineers are adequately trained and aware of the correct procedures.If a particular company or employee appears to be a repeat offender then further action should be considered.