Unwanted Fire Signals

[Wiz]

The original question was if it was right for the service contractor to demand written instructions confirming the request to add a delay before sounders operating. I even assumed MC was a representative of the Fire Service  and was the originator of the suggestion to provide a delay and wasn't sure about being asked to take responsibility for the suggestion (obviously this is all supposition, but it is the way I read between the lines)

In this particular post it has not been determined that it is the equipment that is giving 'false alarms' or even because of 'unwanted alarms' caused by environmental conditions. We don't even know if the system has any automatic detection fitted.  I also feel that many replies have made the assumption that the problems are to do with the equipment and that the service contractor may not have dealt with this aspect properly. Since there has been no further responses from MC regarding any of this, my belief that MC might be from the Fire Service has increased.

......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.......

Not all addressable systems provide the facility to adjust the sensitivity of detectors. Even those that do should be used with extreme care. If the facility allows the detector to be less sensitive than the prescribed requirements of the Standards, then they may not operate properly during a real fire situation.

[Steven N]

Wiz MC stated it was a hotel, if the residents are as you say then the risk assesment would reflect the clients you refer to. My point is that whatever advice the RP takes ultimately he/she is responsible for the premises, if they are not sure of what to do then they may have to employ a consultant to advise & do there risk assement. UWFS I would venture include pure system false alarms.  Along with others advice here, first of all consider desensitising & possibly moving heads which may help & also maybe stoppers over call points. Then  MCPs in certain areas only .

[Steven N]

Sorry guys was writing as Wiz posted

[Wiz]

Stevo,
I think you have misunderstood where I was coming from. I was trying to explain that many replies to the original posting were making assumptions that didn't take into account causes of unwanted alarms other than equipment/system failure. My description of another way of looking at this type of situation was based on a suggested scenario. The scenario wasn't intended to relate to the specifics of the original post.
Obviously, I did not make this clear. Therefore please assume instead that the scenario is a hotel and it is the residents who constantly operate the mcp's for no reason. These 'unwanted alarms' are not a failure of the equipment to perform correctly. The service contractor is asked to include a delay before general alarm warning. The service contractor admits it is technically possible, advises the clients of the possible ramifications of introducing the delay, and insists on indemnification before agreeing to include the delay. Is the service contractor wrong to do so? This was the original question, and many subsequent posts have ignored it.

You suggest that, from the original post, 'the term UWFS includes pure system false alarms'. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If you mean it includes Equipment False Alarms, then I wonder how you established that. Maybe I am unaware of these terms.

BS 5839 Part 1 2002 recognises the following four categories of 'false alarms':

Unwanted Alarms
Equipment False Alarms
Malicious False Alarms
False Alarms With Good Intent

I couldn't decided which category UWFS fell into, but it seemed to indicate Unwanted Alarms to me and I therefore based an argument on this, instead of naturally assuming the service contractor was ignoring faulty equipment/system and also hadn't already taken all steps to identify and rectify causes, which so many other posts had assumed. I have tried to explain other circumstances that might apply and to concentrate the posts on the original question of whether he was right to ask for idemnification against the ramifications of what he was being asked to do.

To 'quote' a previous posting click on the 'QUOTE' button. It will be included in your reply. It can also be edited to include only those parts of the quote you want to highlight.

[Tom Sutton]

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 installation and maintenance, and they have been very helpful.  We have asked the company if they can programme a delay into the system (two stages).  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

In my opinion the answer to this question is, no, it is not correct. Yes the fire alarm company has a right to require written confirmation but that should come from the head honcho the Responsible Person. The RP can ask for guidance from other persons or organisations providing they are deemed competent under the Order and this would include the fire alarm company but the legal responsibility is on the RP shoulders.

[Steven N]

Thanks for the tip Wiz slubberdegullion also explained the quote system to me  =)

[Wiz]

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 installation and maintenance, and they have been very helpful.  We have asked the company if they can programme a delay into the system (two stages).  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

In my opinion the answer to this question is, no, it is not correct. Yes the fire alarm company has a right to require written confirmation but that should come from the head honcho the Responsible Person. The RP can ask for guidance from other persons or organisations providing they are deemed competent under the Order and this would include the fire alarm company but the legal responsibility is on the RP shoulders.

I agree, by the way the post is written, that it isn't, by the normal way of how these things work, the fire authority who should issue a written confirmation/indemnity to the service contractor for the suggested works. But someone should issue it! The service contractor is right not to accept verbal instructions from anyone to effect such an important variation to the system operation.

I still wonder if MC is possibly from the fire authority and had suggested the delay, but was suddenly concerned that the person who would have to physically effect the change had asked for someone to indemnify them against the possible consequences of effecting the delay. The service contractor might have asked the responsible person for the indemnity, the responsible person quite understandbly asked MC for same, and now MC realises he might be in a position of taking responsibility for the possible consequences and doesn't like it! Only a guess!

[Steven N]

Well Wiz it took some time but at least we agree-its not the Fire authority! I believe its the RP who should do that

[Tom Sutton]

Come clean MC as Joe Friday would say " The facts man just gimme the facts".

[Wiz]

Well Wiz it took some time but at least we agree-its not the Fire authority! I believe its the RP who should do that

It's strange how different people have different perspectives on what the meaning behind any particular question actually is. I have noticed this particularly on this forum where there are contributions from every side and every branch of 'the business'. I had never disagreed that it is the R.P.'s duty to make the desicion and take ultimate responsibility. I was always answering the question from the viewpoint that if the fire authority has suggested incorporating the delay as 'proper' good advice then they should have been prepared to put it in writing. This might have been what the service contractor was suggesting and MC querying. If fire Officers are going to give advice then, surely, they must be prepared to take responsibility for that advice?

[Tom Sutton]

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 subsequent 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.

Wiz the above quote is your first response to MC and you state the written instructions should come from the relevant persons (5) which include the FRS. This is were I disagree with you, the written instructions should come from one person the RP. If the RP requires a "Get out of jail" card then he should communicate in writing with the FRS to cover his back.

[kurnal]

Do you think we may be splitting hairs here?

Under the RRO the legal responsibility for the general fire precautions lies with the Responsible Person. But the RRO isn't the whole picture. The guidance points to good practice and lists British standards. Of course the guidance and BS are recommendations and not legally binding - but BS5839 has its own definitions of responsibilities- take a look at page 13.

Whilst again in BS5839 the buck stops with the user or purchaser of the system to ensure that consultation with all interested parties takes place, as a safety net  BS5839 places a duty on the installer to ensure that , to the appropriate extent, there is and has been consultation with all interested, relevant parties.

Perhaps the fire alarm contractor mentioned in the first post was only doing what BS5839 says he should?

[Tom Sutton]

Yes  Kurnal we splitting hairs but we do this often.

Is converting to a two stage alarm a variations from the recommendations of BS5839 (Section 7)?

However I do agree the fire alarm company should inform the RP in writing to ensure that there has been consultation with all interested relevant parties, and then this covers his back. I would also think this applies to all competent persons who give guidance to the RP.