Fire alarm zoning in care homes

[Paul2886]

I often come across care homes where the zones are vast and follow no firm logical pattern. This may be where the home has been extended or additional detector heads have been fitted and just linked at a convenient point to the existing system. It is vital for care staff to ascertain the cause of any alarm at an early stage owing to the potential risk to the residents. To alter a system to ensure appropriate fire zoning would logistically be very difficult and of course be very costly. I know of homes that have a ground, first and second floors covered but only one zone. What do you other FRA's think the answer may be to this fairly common problem

[Graeme]

I had a system in a care home over 5 floors with the most bizzare zoning i have ever seen. Zones extended all the way through each floor,so if there was an activation on i.e zone 1 then certain rooms over five floors would have to be searched.

It also had no afd in the corridors.

[John Webb]

Surely BS 5839 lays down limits on the area to be covered by any one zone and usually restricts zones to only being on one level of the building? (I don't have a copy to hand so cannot check the precise wording.) But I do recall when assisting my boss to write this standard in its early days, that it was considered that any one zone should be searchable in 90 or 120seconds?

[Paul2886]

Hi John and yes I appreciate that standards regarding zoning are set in BS5839 but my point was about how other fire risk assessors view this problem when the standards are not met in care homes where early detection is vital. Do you look thoroughly at reducing the risk of fire and enhancing fire containment, because to alter an existing sytem may not be an option owing to the logistics and upheaval

[Graeme]

The site i mentioned was removed and replaced with a radio system becuase of the zoning.

[Paul2886]

But back to my point of could you justify requiring an upgrade of the zoning system on a fire risk assessment and if not what options are available, if any, to compensate

[jokar]

The control measures through the outcomes of the FRA should protect Relevant Persons.  Therefore, if it is decided that the premises require detection and warning to a set standrad then the information contained within that standard should be utilised.  If the current system does not afford proper protection to the releavnt persons then it should be recommended that an upgrade be undertaken.

[Graeme]

i have a few care homes that when i have done an inspection on the fire system come out with a list of non compliances as long as my arm.

I recommend an upgrade on the fact it is not a complaint system to the current standard and has some major non compliances.

Then someone else comes along and tells the customer that the system will work if needed regardless of all the items i have found.

They never upgrade as they have been told it's okay .

This site had battery operated smoke alarms in bedrooms,zones all over the place,multi core cable serving all zones and sounder circuit,panel as old as the hills with no mains indication  etc etc.

but it is okay........

[Paul2886]

Hi Graeme, Totally agree with your remarks. I have highlighted shortfalls on a number of occasions only to be told that the 'qualified' person has said things are ok. The problem with this is that somebody loses credibility in the eyes of the client and that person is often the one that may cost them money. Yes that's us.

[Wiz]

All anybody carrying out any sort of inspection of compliance or assessment of risk can do is to advise of any shortcomings. If the responsible person decides to disregard the information/advice they are given then it is entirely their choice. Obviously they run the risk of being punished if they are 'caught' or if something goes wrong.
When it does go wrong, the responsible person will be desperately looking to 'shift' the blame and as long as you have advised them of the shortcomings they can't say 'you didn't tell me about the non-compliance/risk so it is your fault.

[Graeme]

i agree with you always Wiz but it does make us look like fools or trying to make money in the customers eyes after they get the okay from the very people i asked the customer to go back to after my initial visit.

I have a very different opinion to what is an acceptable fire alarm system to someone looking at it from a non technical view.

for example the site i have mentioned.

yes if someone operates an mcp the sounders will go but what happens if Bob The Builder "accidentally" cuts the multicore cable as it's in his way of some work needed or mr Spark cuts the multicore cable and strips it out because being ELV 24v it does not register on his inductance tester..

result-no fire alarm system.

It gets frustrating beacuse the site had a  visit before me that saw there was a fire panel on the wall,detectors and call points with the customers say so that they work.

The detectors are about 20 years old,call points are modified hammer type(by series resistor) with no hammers and panel is from the Ark.

The customer gave my list daggers as the last person said every thing was ok. This was when i told them to take the list back to them and get their advice.

To date this carehome is still in the same condition and they think it's okay to phone once a year usually after an unwanted alarm from a 20 yo detector to have a service done with no contract.

[Paul2886]

Graeme, I have experienced the situation regarding your comments a number of times regarding care homes and detection systems. Another twist to this is the complaints from the owners claiming the CSCI inspectors are insisting that the recommendations I made have to be complied with. In the days when care homes were inspected annually by the FA it was, in most cases, just to test the fire alarm at a call-point and if it worked a tick was given. I am always in the business of giving the best advice regarding fire alarm systems but still occasionally sustituted by another risk assessor that 'doesn't find problems'. At the end of the day what's the point of having automatic detection if staff are unable to use the time given by an activated head owing to a poorly zoned premises

[Wiz]

I have been in exactly your position Graeme, so I understand your frustration. Your customer is putting themselves in a position that they may come to seriously regret. The other advice won't absolve them from ultimate responsibility.

You have done everything expected of you and you can't do any more, based on the way these things work these days.

What are your own suggestions as to how this sort of dilemma could be solved?

[Allen Higginson]

I'm not knocking electrical contractors in the main but a lot of this mis-zoning is due to a contractor getting a contract in relation to an extension and just adding on to the nearest or most conveinient point - lost count how often this has been the case!

[Paul2886]

That's exactly my point then along comes Mr 'bad guy' the fire risk assessor and highlights the problem. New build care homes, in my opinion, should be addressable sytems to ensure a fast response to a problem without the long winded search for an activated head or call point