Reducing excessive false alarms

[Neil G]

I would like opinions please on the suitability or validity of action I’m using to solve the problem of excessive false alarms. I am a FRS FSO and I have used the following method for a few months now but some colleagues are questioning its validity.

I should state that I start with friendly advice & support which has very successful results in about 80% of cases. A stubborn few tend to be premises run by managers who would really like to reduce their UFS levels but are not getting support from their head offices. I have not got as far as Enforcement Notices yet and have had no need.

1.   First I establish to what standard the fire alarm is maintained. They invariably tell me the British Standard (confirm BS5839 pt1:2002)
2.   then find out how many detector heads are fitted (BS allowance = 1 false alarm per 25 detectors…) to confirm excessive false alarms
3.   the British Standard, section 3: False Alarms states that if there are excessive false alarms then the system does not comply with that part of the British Standard,
4.   I send a standard letter on the basis that they do not comply with Article 17: Maintenance as the AFD must be maintained to an acceptable standard and as their false alarm levels are excessive they don’t comply with BS5839.
5.   In all cases so far their ‘head office’ has reacted promptly to solve the problem and the results are most satisfactory

[Jim Creak]

In my opinion your comment is totally valid, but the word should be to conform not comply. The requirement is to conform to Standard (Best Practice) to comply with legislation.

[Mr. P]

Excellent.  May I poach your methodology?

[kurnal]

The only concern I would have with an approach like this is that writing a letter quoting article 17 makes it a formal enforcement activity but one that sits on the margins of your normal enforceement protocols- is it goodwill  advice, an agreed plan of action or a formal  enforcement notice under article 30?

I also think that unless you include at least a very basic audit of other compliance issues before writing you may leave yourself open to criticism later if under a full audit you found loads of issues more significant than  unwanted signals. "Heres the letter I got from the brigade and the only problem was unwanted signals so why are you complaining about  ......... now? "
Personally I would prefer to see the unwanted signals issue as triggering a full audit of compliance.

[Neil G]

Excellent.  May I poach your methodology?

Yes - if this approach works; and it's not poaching - it's sharing!

[Neil G]

Hi Kurnal,

Yes this is supposed to be the first stage of enforcement in line with the concordat, the standard letter threatens further action (Enforcement Notice) if the problem is not resolved.

I fully agree with your point about this being part of a fuller audit. I was trying to get all the I/Os to print off a record of the premises' FADs for the previous 12 months before routine inspections so they could address this issue when relevant; in fact this was the question that started the debate and why I posted this question in the forum.

[johno67]

Hi Neil,
my concern with this approach is the fact that the Responsible Person only has a duty to take General Fire Precautions. I can't see how reducing the number of false alarms fits into that description (unless you are approaching it from the point of view that relevant persons will become complacent in responding to the fire alarm signal if it is sounding all the time). I read Section 3 of BS5839 as saying, that if there are excessive false alarms, then they aren't complying with Section 3 only (i.e. not the rest of the BS). Therefore, are we saying that if the fire alarm system has been maintained in accordance with BS 5839 1, and only the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms hasn't been complied with, we could potentially serve an enforcement notice under maintenance?
However, I am more than willing to shut up if the overwhelming number of people posting a response to this support your opinion.

[AM]

Hi Neil,
my concern with this approach is the fact that the Responsible Person only has a duty to take General Fire Precautions. I can't see how reducing the number of false alarms fits into that description (unless you are approaching it from the point of view that relevant persons will become complacent in responding to the fire alarm signal if it is sounding all the time). I read Section 3 of BS5839 as saying, that if there are excessive false alarms, then they aren't complying with Section 3 only (i.e. not the rest of the BS). Therefore, are we saying that if the fire alarm system has been maintained in accordance with BS 5839 1, and only the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms hasn't been complied with, we could potentially serve an enforcement notice under maintenance?
However, I am more than willing to shut up if the overwhelming number of people posting a response to this support your opinion.

I agree. To serve any kind of notice, there has to be a failure of the responsible persons duties under the order, and that failure has put one or more relevant persons at risk. If everyone evacuates safely each time, how is enforcement an appropriate measure?

The policy to reduce UWFS was put in place to reduce the burden on F+RS's and to reduce the risk to public when travelling under blue lights, therefore is not an FSO issue. There are other ways to reduce the numbers, and many premises will work with the brigades if there is a policy to alter the responses to fire alarms (999 confirmation required etc). I've used this threat to get a major supermaket to spend £120,000 on a new fire alarm, because their insurance premiums would go up if there was a reduced response.

[jokar]

I agree with posts 7 and 8, the BS is recommendation only and you do it or not.  The RR(FS)O is an Order and you can only comply or not comply with it.  If you use Article 17 what you are saying is that the equipment is not being maintained "in efficient working order and kept in good repair" and UWFS do not fit that category.  In most cases the system is doing its job which is reacting to the circumstances around it.

[Neil G]

Hmmm... interesting debate; so maybe I'm working under several misconceptions then.

1) I thought that if you had a safety system, such as a fire alarm, it had to be properly maintained and to be properly maintained it MUST be maintained to a recognized or appropriate standard. It does not have to be the British Standard but has to be a suitable standard. Playing devil's advocate then; the alternative is that the RP does not have to test or maintain their fire alarm system as long as when an IO asks for a demonstration the system operates?

2) Section 3 of BS5839 is part of the standard, since when did we now allow people to pick and choose which parts of a standard they conform with? Reasonable variations yes, but surely not to disregard a whole section and then still claim that it conforms?

3) AM wrote "To serve any kind of notice, there has to be a failure of the responsible person's duties under the order, and that failure has put one or more relevant persons at risk." - I've re-read Article 30: Enforcement Notices and I can see no reference to putting relevant persons at risk only failure to comply with provisions of the Order; have I missed something?

4) Jokar wrote "If you use Article 17 what you are saying is that the equipment is not being maintained "in efficient working order and kept in good repair" and UWFS do not fit that category." Quite possibly. If it's a system fault? - definitely yes. Inappropriate detector head for the risk? - probably yes. Incorrect siting of detector? - maybe. Not being maintained to a recognized standard? - surely!!!

5) jokar wrote "In most cases the system is doing its job which is reacting to the circumstances around it." which surely is the crux of the matter. A fire alarm system, if doing its job, should detect fire, it should NOT detect steam, dust, insects, etc. FADs cause unnecessary disruption and should not be tolerated by either the business or the FRS.  New developments in this field could virtually eliminate false alarms of this type.

[AM]

Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore,  if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with. I agree with you that the UWFS are a disruption and excessive ones should not be tolerated, and the F&RS's have reasonable grounds for altering the PDA to these premises if the false alarm numbers are outside of that tolerated by the BS - but this is between the Service and that premises. The FSO/enforcement notice is not the best way to deal with it as a lawyer could easily appeal it and have it overturned. What do you do then?

[Neil G]

Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore,  if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with.

I'm starting to feel a bit dim now - what am I missing?

I read that as saying that if the fire alarm is provided to safeguard the safety of relevant perons (i.e. life protection rather than property protection) then it must be "subject to a suitable system of maintenance", which is where the British Standard comes in.

If someone is NOT at risk I agree that the provisions of the FSO have been complied with...but surely then they wouldn't need a life protection fire alarm system either?

[johno67]

Look at it in this way:
Assume that the fire alarm is actually required.
If the requirement for reducing the number of false alarms was removed from the BS completely, would it place relevant persons at a higher risk from fire? I think you would agree that the answer has to be no.
If the fire alarm system was not maintained (serviced) at the prescibed intervals, would it have placed relevant persons at a higher risk from fire - I think you could and probably would argue yes.
If you agree with both of these statements, then you must agree that we could not enforce it using the Fire Safety Order because we are not having any effect on the General Fire Precautions, therefore we are accepting that they are at an acceptable level as they stand.
(This is in my opinion only).

[kurnal]

Is there a valid argument that a large number of unwanted alarms leads to persns becoming blase and reluctant to respond when it does sound, delaying their evacuation and placing them at risk if it is a real fire?
This is the argument used to justify heat detectors in hotel bedrooms.

[Fishy]

Neil,
Look at article 17: "Where necessary to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible persons must ensure that the premises etc..are subject to a suitable system of maintenance". therefore,  if someone is not at risk, the provisions of the order have been complied with.

I'm starting to feel a bit dim now - what am I missing?

I read that as saying that if the fire alarm is provided to safeguard the safety of relevant perons (i.e. life protection rather than property protection) then it must be "subject to a suitable system of maintenance", which is where the British Standard comes in.

If someone is NOT at risk I agree that the provisions of the FSO have been complied with...but surely then they wouldn't need a life protection fire alarm system either?

Absolutely correct.  The "Where necessary" applies to the provision of the alarm in the first place - not to it's maintenance.  Therefore, if it isn't maintained you are not complying with that part of the legislation.

In any case, by providing it you are held to have demonstrated that it is necessary in order for risk to be reduced so far as is reasonably practicable.  If you don't maintain it adequately you are therefore placing people at risk.