Reducing excessive false alarms

[jokar]

Sorry, the term where necessary applies to Article 17 maintenance as well.

[BB]

Neil
have a look in the guide "Small & Medium places of assembly Page 102, section 7.1...........
It states your records should be kept in a specified  place........and should include...............

....recording of false alarms.

Therefore the R.P. does have a responsiblity to log the false alarms which if common sense prevails by the R.P.?? ... They would take measures to reduce the number of false alarms within their premises.

But the key word is should are they bothered only when it starts costing them money.

I agree with previous comments i do not believe you could enfoce Article 17 on them.

[johno67]

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.

I believe that you would be on safer ground with this approach, but I think you would need some evidence that the false alarms were having a negative impact on relevant persons response to the fire alarm signal, such as the building not being evacuated when fire crews arrive (if indeed they respond to fire alarms nowadays).

I have no idea under which Article of the Fire Safety Order you would address it though; Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements; Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas; or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work?

This may be one of those that you need to push through to enforcement to see what happens, if you feel that strongly about it.

[johno67]

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?

Throwing another spanner into the works.

If the fire alarm system was designed and installed to BS5839 Part1:1988, where if I remember correctly there was no mention of reduction of false alarms, you wouldn't be able to say they were not conforming with relevant British Standard.

Therefore, if you had two identical premises, one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 2002 and one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 1988, would you consider the one with the 2002 spec to be breaching Article 17 and the one with the 1988 spec to be conforming?

Just a thought.

[Colin Newman]

Just to add my tuppence worth.  When we were drafting FPN 11 "Reducing unwanted fire signals in healthcare", we started with a considerable research programme into the main causes of unwanted alarms.  Unsurprisingly, cooking, contactors works and smoking featured highly. As a result, the argument was put forward that since the main causes of unwanted fire signals were derived from issues that need to be adequately managed in order to avoid a fire, a high level of unwanted alarms was indicative of poor fire safety management!

[Neil G]

Just to add my tuppence worth.  When we were drafting FPN 11 "Reducing unwanted fire signals in healthcare", we started with a considerable research programme into the main causes of unwanted alarms.  Unsurprisingly, cooking, contactors works and smoking featured highly. As a result, the argument was put forward that since the main causes of unwanted fire signals were derived from issues that need to be adequately managed in order to avoid a fire, a high level of unwanted alarms was indicative of poor fire safety management!

I agree. I've been working with businesses to reduce excessive levels of UFS for about 18 months now and the majority of actuations are due to poor management. Most businesses respond well  to advice, support, pointing out wasted resources, disruption, loss of productivity or trade, etc. There are a hardcore few though that can't be bothered and they need a little nudge... In some others it is down to persistent system faults, unsuitable positioning, inappropriate detector type, etc and it often seems that the manager of the premises claims he wants to solve the problem but it's the fault of head office...or the maintenance company.  An official letter (pre-enforcement notice) sent to the company secretary or chief Exec has been effective on every occasion so far - I let them decide whose fault it is!

[Neil G]

If the fire alarm system was designed and installed to BS5839 Part1:1988, where if I remember correctly there was no mention of reduction of false alarms, you wouldn't be able to say they were not conforming with relevant British Standard.

Therefore, if you had two identical premises, one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 2002 and one fitted with a BS5839 Part1: 1988, would you consider the one with the 2002 spec to be breaching Article 17 and the one with the 1988 spec to be conforming?

Just a thought.

1) If they used an acceptable standard which didn't refer to controlling false alarms then maybe we couldn't say that they weren't maintaining the system properly could we?

2) Every fire alarm maintenance company that I've come across so far claims in their CV (on-line, etc) to conform to BS5839 pt1:2002

3) Every company with excessive FADs that I've spoken to so far claim they maintain their system to the current British Standards

4) I'd consider enforcing Article 11: Principles of Prevention to be applied; Part 3, Schedule 1: Principles of Prevention, (d) adapting to technical progress

[Neil G]

It now appears that my Brigade likes this solution and is going to trial it so I’ll update this site with any outcomes if anyone’s interested.

There appears to be many different opinions out there; all welcome and all food for thought, thank you all. Some points have left me scratching my head though. Just to summarize my position:

The assumption: business premises, FSO applies, AFD required for life protection, excessive false alarms, ignoring advice and support, FRS decides to enforce;

1)   Article 30: Enforcement Notice.  The test is: If FRS of the opinion that RP has failed to comply with ANY provision of the FSO an Enforcement Notice can be served. This does NOT limit us to Article 4: General fire precautions (or Article 8, 9, etc) nor does it require relevant persons to be put at risk…

2)   Article 17: Maintenance “…subject to a suitable system of maintenance…”
Is BS5839 pt1:2002 suitable?  - Surely yes.
Can other standards be used? If suitable – yes.
I was taught that “where necessary” applies to whether you have the facilities, equipment or devices installed, if so then it is “necessary” to maintain them, if not then it’s “not necessary” to maintain them.
The bit about ‘to safeguard the safety…etc’ means that the “where necessary” bit refers to anything installed for the safety of relevant persons.

3)   BS5839 pt1:2002 states that excessive false alarms mean that the system doesn’t comply with that part of the standard, just as say sounders which aren’t loud enough don’t conform to another specific part of the standard.
The standard is a whole document and if we allow anyone and everyone to reject what doesn’t suit them on the basis that no-one is put at risk by ignoring it then we’ll be in freefall risk assessment or complete stalemate.
Let everyone choose a suitable standard that suits their needs, but surely they have to stick to it


Here’s another thought; if you don’t like parts of BS5839 and feel that you have to ignore some of it then it can’t provide a suitable system of maintenance can it? Therefore could the business be taken to task for choosing an unsuitable standard for maintenance?

Why would the BSI bother to write a whole section if their intention was to have it ignored? Where’s Colin Todd? I thought he claimed to have been on the committee that wrote this standard – could he tell us what the intention of it was?

What if the enforcement notice is challenged? Bring it on! Let a judge make a determination. It’s got to be better than us fumbling about in the dark discussing the meaning and interpretation of ambiguous legalese. At least we’ll be trying to solve a recognized problem that wastes everyone’s time & resources.

[PhilB]

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?

Sorry but that is not correct.

Persons must be placed at serious risk for an offence under article 32(1) (a) or (b) and article 32(2)(a).........there are however many other offences that may be committed without placing anyone at risk e.g. failing to comply with an enforcement notice or obstructing an inspector.

In my opinion if an alarm system is producing such a high number of false alarms, someone could be failing to comply with the following articles:

11. Fire Safety Arrangements;
13. Firefighting and Fire Detection;
15. Procedures for serious & Imminent Danger;
17. Maintenance;
22. Co-operation & Co-ordination.

Now if any of those failures have placed relevant persons at serious risk an offence has been committed. As Kurnal correctly points out, to prove that persons have been placed at risk may be difficult, but a building full of persons who have failed to evacuate on hearing the alarm, particularly if there was a real fire, would be good evidence.

If no persons are placed at risk, but the enforcing authority are of the opinion that some person who has control has failed to comply with any provision (article); the enforcing authority may serve an enforcement notice detailing the failures and requiring steps to be taken to remedy the failures. If those steps are not taken.......an offence has been committed by virtue of article 32(1)(d).

[johno67]

Neil,

Another issue with using BS5839 1:2002 Section 3 Limitation of False Alarms to address this problem as a maintenance issue is:

3.32 Definition of Maintenance - 'work of inspection, servicing and repair necessary in order to maintain the efficent operation of the installed system'

all of which is contained within section 6 of the standard i.e:

section 6 Maintenance.
44 Routine testing
45 Inspection and servicing
46 Non-routine attention

Limitation of false alarms does get a mention in section 6:

45.3c) 'The records of false alarms should be checked in accordance with 30.2i). The rate of false alarms during the previous 12 months should be recorded [see 30.2i)]. Action taken in respect of false alarms recorded should comply with the recommendations of 30.2j).

30.2j) says 'At least, a preliminary investigation should be carried out as part of the service work if any of the following apply:'
It then goes on to give the circumstances (number of false alarms etc).
It then says 'The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to determine whether any action should be taken to reduce the potential for false alarms;'
 
Therefore I would suggest that a RP could be seen as meeting their responsibility of maintaining the fire alarm system in an efficient state by referring to Section 6 only, and carrying out an investigation into the false alarms if required (i.e. not to put the problem right).

I totally agree that false alarms are a real drain on everybodys time and resources (apart from the alarm engineer perhaps) and that we should all be doing what we can to address the problem. I just think that there could be better ways of addressing it than through Article 17.

[Neil G]

I totally agree that false alarms are a real drain on everybodys time and resources (apart from the alarm engineer perhaps) and that we should all be doing what we can to address the problem. I just think that there could be better ways of addressing it than through Article 17.

what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?

[johno67]

what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?

What about Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements:
11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.

The words that interest me here are MUST, CONTROL, EFFECTIVE and PROTECTIVE MEASURES

As I stated earlier in the thread, if you have some evidence that Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm signal due to excessive false alarms occuring with the system (crews turning up and the premises not being evacuated, maybe a previous academic investigation into the problem if one has been carried out) would you have grounds for saying that they MUST CONTROL the false alarms to ensure that their PROTECTIVE MEASURES (in this case the fire alarm system) are EFFECTIVE? I think you probably could.


What about Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas:
The responsible person must—
(a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;

Again, if Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm, can the Responsible Person be said to be 'Giving Effect' to appropriate procedures? I think the answer could be 'no they are not'.


Or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work:
Every employee must, while at work—
(a) take reasonable care for the safety of himself and of other relevant persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;

If they are not responding to the fire alarm then are they taking care of themselves and other relevant persons (escpecially where they have been nominated for Safety Assistance under Article 18 or have been nominated to carry out evacuation under Article 15(1)(b) or have been nominated to carry out fire-fighting under Article 13(3)(b))?

I appreciate that this is probably not targetting the Responsible Person directly (although they may have nominated themselves to carry out the Safety Assistance role) but it may push them into getting the problem sorted out. Maybe starting to clutch at straws with this one!


I appreciate that none of the above may be the perfect solution or even applicable, but personally I would feel on safer ground trying to address it using the above methods (escpecially the first one) than through Article 17 Maintenance.

Again these are my personal opinions, they may be misguided, and they will probably be the last contributions I have to make regarding this matter (probably)!

[PhilB]

I think the most appropriate article here is 17 or 11, but as I said earlier all of the following articlea may be relevant

11. Fire Safety Arrangements;
13. Firefighting and Fire Detection;
15. Procedures for serious & Imminent Danger;
17. Maintenance;
22. Co-operation & Co-ordination.

I think enforcement action is a good idea, remembering that enforcement action includes educating and informing but if that fails serve an enforcement notice.

I think trying to pursue employees using article 23 is not the best way forward....you could not serve a notice on employees as they do not have control of the workplace, so the only option would be to prosecute them if their failure placed relevant persons at serious risk......a bit too complimicated in my opinion.

[Neil G]

what better ways do you have in mind? and which of those choices would prefer to see used?

What about Article 11 Fire Safety Arrangements:
11. —(1) The responsible person must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the size of his undertaking and the nature of its activities, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.

The words that interest me here are MUST, CONTROL, EFFECTIVE and PROTECTIVE MEASURES

As I stated earlier in the thread, if you have some evidence that Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm signal due to excessive false alarms occuring with the system (crews turning up and the premises not being evacuated, maybe a previous academic investigation into the problem if one has been carried out) would you have grounds for saying that they MUST CONTROL the false alarms to ensure that their PROTECTIVE MEASURES (in this case the fire alarm system) are EFFECTIVE? I think you probably could.


What about Article 15 Procedures for Serious and Imminent Danger and for Danger Areas:
The responsible person must—
(a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons;

Again, if Relevant Persons aren't responding to the fire alarm, can the Responsible Person be said to be 'Giving Effect' to appropriate procedures? I think the answer could be 'no they are not'.

As far as I am aware the problem premises ARE responding to the fire alarm actuation appropriately (got to rely on fire crew's reporting problems for that one as well!). What they are not doing is solving their excessive amount of false alarms

Or even Article 23 General Duties of Employees at Work:
Every employee must, while at work—
(a) take reasonable care for the safety of himself and of other relevant persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;

If they are not responding to the fire alarm then are they taking care of themselves and other relevant persons (especially where they have been nominated for Safety Assistance under Article 18 or have been nominated to carry out evacuation under Article 15(1)(b) or have been nominated to carry out fire-fighting under Article 13(3)(b))?

I appreciate that this is probably not targetting the Responsible Person directly (although they may have nominated themselves to carry out the Safety Assistance role) but it may push them into getting the problem sorted out. Maybe starting to clutch at straws with this one!

I agree with you there - you're probably clutching at straws...I can't see how this would work.

I appreciate that none of the above may be the perfect solution or even applicable, but personally I would feel on safer ground trying to address it using the above methods (escpecially the first one) than through Article 17 Maintenance.

Again these are my personal opinions, they may be misguided, and they will probably be the last contributions I have to make regarding this matter (probably)!

My plan might not be ideal, but you haven't convinced me that there's anything better - sorry

[johno67]

Neil,

fair enough, I tried.

Best of luck with this.

Can you keep the forum updated with how you get on, as I'm sure other Brigades will want to use this approach if it is successful