Unwanted Fire Signals

[MC]

I have recently been to a large hotel that has had a large amount of UWFS during the past year. The owners have contacted the fire alarm company who are responsible for instalation and maintenance, and they have been very helpful.  We have asked the company if they can programme a delay into the system (two stage) .  They have stated this is not a issue programming the system, however before they  can carry out the work they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority that covers the hotel in question.  Is this correct ?

Regards MC

[Wiz]

I would suggest that any fire alarm company should never make changes to a system that affects it's normal/original operation without instructions (written) to do so confirming that the relevant persons accept those changes and subsequnet effects. The relevant persons would certainly include the system user, the building owner and the insurer(s) and could also include others such as the fire brigade and any authority that may licence how the building is used.

[Graeme]

have you tried to address the cause of the unwanted alarms first?

[William 29]

I agree with Graeme, what is the cause of so many UWFS? Depending on the system the sensitivity levels of the detectors could be altered for example or detectors could be relocated as a starting point before introducing a delay in the system.

[val]

"...they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority..."

I think any fire and rescue authority would/should be reluctant to do this. The fire alarm company are trying to cover their backs because of the sections of the Fire Safety Order that could render them liable if their actions are linked to a offence/fatal fire, etc.

The onus is, as ever now, on the Responsible Person, taking advice from the competent alarm company, on whether their approach is lawful.

[kurnal]

Agree with all the above postings. Step one must be to investigate what is causing the unwanted signals and do whatever you can to eliminate them. Are the unwanted signals generated by the fire detection system or by malicious breakage of call points?
There are many measures that can be taken before resorting to delays. And if this is the final solution it needs to be fully thought through and accompanied by robust management procedures. All of this is the responsibility of the Responsible Person- the Fire Authority will neither sanction nor refuse the proposal but will insist on a thorough assessment of the risks and management system.

[slubberdegullion]

First - yes, of course, try and find the root cause of the problem and solve that if possible.

Second - if the most practical solution is seen as changing the system to a two stage one with an investigation time, I would back up what val says.  It's not the fire service that should approve the change, the fire risk assessment should be adjusted and this should demonstrate that the two stage system will continue to provide a safe building in the event of a fire.
The fire service will be in the loop but not in the way the alarm company see it.  
1.     They will be the ones to audit the fire risk assessment at some stage and so will be in a position to offer good advice at this stage.
2.     They will be aware of the speed and weight of response to the building (through the IRMP) and will be able to advise on any drawbacks that would be introduced with the change to a two stage system.

So, yes, talk to the fire service as they will be interested and will have relevant advice, but the alarm company should be looking for a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment that incorporates the two stage alarm as written confirmation that the system can be changed.

I'm assuming that the proposal is that the fire service do not get called until fire is confirmed or the pre-determined time limit is up (stage two).  Interestingly, the standard used to be for the fire service to get called at stage one and not, as is now prevalent in an effort to reduce UWFSs, at stage two.  Careful consideration needs to be given to the introduction of a two stage system, the risk assessment must examine all issues thoroughly.

Stu

[slubberdegullion]

Sorry - didn't see your post kurnal!

Stu

[Wiz]

"...they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority..."

I think any fire and rescue authority would/should be reluctant to do this. The fire alarm company are trying to cover their backs because of the sections of the Fire Safety Order that could render them liable if their actions are linked to a offence/fatal fire, etc.

The onus is, as ever now, on the Responsible Person, taking advice from the competent alarm company, on whether their approach is lawful.

If a fire alarm company is asked if something is possible, this is completely different from if a request is  preferable or advisable. They should tell the customer the truth of what is possible but then also advise them of any possible consequences or ramifications of carrying out the customer's request, where they may be aware of such. It is not really in the fire alarm company's best interests to deny a customer his requirements just because he might not understand or agree with them. In business, the customer is king - if you want to survive.  In all cases, a 'switched-on' fire alarm company would ask for any customer request to make changes to an existing system to be put in writing, so the customer cannot later deny they asked for the request and that the fire alarm company had made the change of their own accord. It is the customer's (responsible person) responsibility to ensure what they have, or what they want is suitable.

Furthermore, is it not correct, in respect of the request in the original posting, that the customer (responsible person} could make the change suggested without first consulting the fire service, and argue their position as being their considered solution to a particular problem at a later date, if necessary? I thought that the fire services had moved away from the responsibility from making these sort of desicions and now only dealt with the consequences of any such desicions made by the responsible person instead.

[Tom Sutton]

They have stated this is not a issue programming the system, however before they  can carry out the work they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority that covers the hotel in question.Regards MC

Furthermore, is it not correct, in respect of the request in the original posting, that the customer (responsible person} could make the change suggested without first consulting the fire service, and argue their position as being their considered solution to a particular problem at a later date, if necessary?

Wiz It was the alarm company who said they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority not the RP.

[Steven N]

It seems yet again that companies either blissfully ignorant of the implications of the FSO or willfully misrepresenting it to cover there backs. Not that i'm cynical at all....In my expierience most  Fire services will be more than willing to discuss reducing the UWFs from the premises but as others have already stated ultimately its the RP's decision whether to implement this advice.Of course if they dont then parts of the FSO order can be used to encourage them to reduce the numbers.

[Wiz]

They have stated this is not a issue programming the system, however before they  can carry out the work they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority that covers the hotel in question.Regards MC

Furthermore, is it not correct, in respect of the request in the original posting, that the customer (responsible person} could make the change suggested without first consulting the fire service, and argue their position as being their considered solution to a particular problem at a later date, if necessary?

Wiz It was the alarm company who said they would require written confirmation from the local fire authority not the RP.

I realise this. My last paragraph observation maybe shouldn't have specifically mentioned the original enquiry. I apologise for this confusion. My observation was in response to subsequent posts by various people. The last paragraph of my last post was in response to Val's last post that may have given the impression that the Fire Service has the ultimate sanction on what can and what can't be done on a system. I thought that this was no longer the case and, in fact, Professor Kurnal's last post also suggests this.

[Wiz]

It seems yet again that companies either blissfully ignorant of the implications of the FSO or willfully misrepresenting it to cover there backs. Not that i'm cynical at all....In my expierience most  Fire services will be more than willing to discuss reducing the UWFs from the premises but as others have already stated ultimately its the RP's decision whether to implement this advice.Of course if they dont then parts of the FSO order can be used to encourage them to reduce the numbers.

Stevo, I would suggest that fire alarm companies always try to keep everyone happy and could suffer if they didn't do so. If they say something can't be done because maybe the Fire Service (or others) may not like it, then the customer might go elsewhere and then the fire alarm company has lost a customer. All the fire alarm company can do is advise what is possible, warn of any implications that they are aware of, and then insist that the customers indemnify them by confirming what is to be done is the customer's responsibility and not because the fire company has suggested it as an entirely suitable solution to a problem.

In the original enquiry, we don't know all the background information, although subsequent postings have tried to ascertain this. What I noticed is that MC spoke about unwanted alarms rather than purely system false alarms. This could indicate a big difference regarding what is happening. Therefore the following scenario might be what is occuring:

The premises is used by mentally disturbed patients. They keep operating the mcp's for no reason. There is nothing wrong with the equipment or system function. The customer eventually asks if the fire alarm company can introduce a delay before sounding alarms to give the staff time to investigate the cause of any alarm. The fire company truthfully advises the customer that the equipment has the techinical ability to introduce such a delay, but advises the customer that some relevant agencies may not be happy with such a delay and advise the responsible person that the fire alarm company can only introduce the delay once the responsible person has confirmed in writing that the responsible person has the necessary approval for the introduction of the delay from the relevant persons. This would be a truthfull answer, warn the customer of possible implications and cover the fire alarm company for just doing what the customer has asked them to do.

[kurnal]

I think Dr Wiz you have it spot on. I see the role of the responsible person and the fire authority under the RRO exactly as you say, however it is blurred a little as the fire authority still also have a duty to give fire safety advice on a goodwill basis when requested to do so under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004.

Fire safety (1) A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of promoting fire safety in its area.
(2) In making provision under subsection (1) a fire and rescue authority must in particular, to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of information, publicity and encouragement in respect of the steps to be taken to prevent fires and death or injury by fire;
(b) the giving of advice, on request, about—
(i) how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property;
(ii) the means of escape from buildings and other property in case of fire.

Similarly other organisations may have a say in the matter- for example under the Care Standards Act National Minimum standards are prescribed, one of which is Health and Safety. CSCI  and /or the Healthcare Commission   would be be responsible for the enforcement of this care standard in some premises and the Responsible Person may also be wise to consult them before going ahead with changes to the system.

[Dragonmaster]

The problem with false alarms is twofold.

Firstly, they affect the credibility of the system with the building users, possibly leading to reduced responses from the occupants over a period. The second is the effect on the FRS. The safety of the public whilst driving at excess speed, the impact on employers if RDS crews are involved etc are all a factor. By introducing a call delay, you can start to take the FRS out of the loop, leaving the problem at the premises to be dealt with.

Irrespective of any call delay to the FRS, the premises emergency plan should be instigated immediately on activation of the alarm. Now whether that is to start the evacuation, or to alert staff to carry out an investigation is down to the FRA, but there should be no delay in doing something.

One point from the orginal post - is the panel addressable? If so, i believe that the sensitivity of detectors can be programmed individually according to environmental conditions. Being responsible for false alarm reduction, i would welcome any proposals to both reduce the number of activations and remove the FRS from the problem if it continues. We would then be back to the old discussion of whether the FRA was suitable and sufficient, and was the RP putting relevant persons at risk by continuing to let the system trigger false alarms. In my opinion Yes!