Sheltered Housing fire warning and detection

[jasper]

Had a very strange scenario this week assessing a number of Cat 2 sheltered housing schemes. They all had L2 detection within communal areas and heats within the flat entrance halls all linked to the part 1 system, then part 6 heat detection in the lobby (which I see as correct). However, the company providing the pull cord systems has advised the client that (as well as the Part 6 detectors which is fine) to remove the part 1 system and in the communal areas and use their own push button alarms connected to an individual detectors so that upon activation they would now the precise location of the fire.
Am I loosing the plot or is this a serious non compliance? as the cables for their new part 1 system are not fire rated. Also, would it not have been easier to just put an interface to the old addressable system then monitor from a RMC?

[kurnal]

Presumably they wish to use the communications / intercom system to supplement the fire alarm system. One typical system is manufactured by Tunstall.

http://www.tunstall.co.uk/Uploads/Documents/Total%20Housing%20Solutions%202014.pdf

Whilst a fully compliant and monitored fire alarm system is offered, often contractors offer short cuts such as that described by jasper. There are some operational and cost advantages in doing this but some very significant and over riding disadvantages. One of which is that generally fire alarm signals do not take priority over other calls, the callcentre  just sees another call waiting and will answer in rotation. There will be no addressable information available if the alarm is raised outside a dwelling.  Response to a fire may be substantially delayed. There are case histories where this has happened.

My view is that if a part 1 system is a requirement identified by the fire risk assessment then a compliant 5839 part 1 system, with its own dedicated line and display in the call centre is a requirement. If a stay put strategy is appropriate and if a response team is in place then the proposal may be acceptable as an enhancement. Generally with systems like Tunstall there is no way of passing fire address information from a fire alarm system through the general communications link, and the integrity of the system is far below that required for a fire alarm system.