Chrome fire extinguishers

[Paul2886]

Yours views please. Does the provision of chrome fire extinguishers accord with the current  colour coding. They are still being supplied by some of the big boys and just wondering what your opinions are on this.

[Chris Houston]

They do not comply with the relevant standard, but compliance with standards is not a legal requirement, people can make their own decisions on what fire extinguishers they want to use in their premises.

[Psuedonym]

Chris's reply is perfectly correct but I would also add-on: they are all claim the kit to be manufactured to BSEN3 standards - i.e. physically but not Kitemarked nor tested to a Standard. Therefore once the wording "Manufactured to etc" is seen on the advertising/quotes/literature and on the cans, Joe Public assumes they are literally manufactured to BSEN3 and buys with ignorance. Others of course buy because they like the aesthetics or in some cases the specifier simply likes the chrome effect and doesn't give a toss about Standards which can prove problematic once they move on to the next project.
Basically it's supply and demand - the same manufacturer produces both types thereby simply exercising their right to make money. Mind you, the service industry isn't bothered, it's just another unit to check.

[John Dragon]

Some of us in the service industry are bothered, we as a company refuse to maintain refurbished extinguishers as they are no longer kitemarked and have no fire ratings (chubb reprint fire ratings on theirs) and are often rather old.
If newish extinguishers are not kitemarked, this is brought to the attention of the client.
The client has a duty to ensure that reasonable quality equipment/service is provided; this is done by using third party accredited companies/equipment.

[kurnal]

Playing the devils advocate John is this a case of the industry enforcing good standards and therefore  to be applauded or is it a case of the industry taking advantage of the opportunity for a sale?

Is there any room for a  judgement call- recognising an refurbished extingisher of quality, knowing that in its first life it would have carried the kitemark and would have had a performance to match any of its peers, inspecting and  servicing it but advising the client of its technical shortcomings?

[fireftrm]

Reading John's post I would suggest avoiding companies like his. 'We as a company refuse to maintain refurbished extinguishers as they are no longer kitemarked'.well anyone who refused to equipment I had contracted them to would eb lookinmg for a new customer!  What an absolute loads of b*****ks. Worse still he goes on to be so arrogant as to state 'the client has a DUTY to ensure that reasonable quality equipment/service is provided'. No they don't the client is the client, that means it is the servicing company that has a duty to them, nto the other way round. It is up to the maintenance company to service to contract and that means carrying out such a task on every extinguisher which is suitable for use, BS5306 makes no distinction as to the markings (such as fire rating or kitemark) it deals with the condition of the item. I am absolutley astonished that any service company can be so obtuse and so conceited as to believe that it is the customers duty to provide kitemarked equipment for them to service!!!!!!!!!

I sincerely hope that his comapny are found out and safely disposed of by their customes and reputable, not neccessarily third party approved, other businesses found to rpelace them. No doubt these others will be cheaper too as they should treat the client as the boss and advise them appropriately.

[kurnal]

If I offend anyone it is usually unintentional, please be kind. If it is intentional I guess it will be clear!"

Personally fireftrm I think you are pushing the boundaries a little too hard on this one. I dont think we should condemn a business to hellfire and damnation for expressing an opinion on an open forum. After all look at the contribution Johns posts have made in the past- surely you can see hes on the right side of the fence? But like you I am interested in exploring the issues here because I dont see the need for hard and fast rules- I believe a competent adviser would point ouit the shortcomings, give advice as to the pitfalls and potential cost / benefit and leave it to the client to decide.

[The Reiver]

Can of worms time again

<-------- Likes the LLoyds stuff better. I mean they've got a proper EN3 approved test house and everything (unlike some I can mention, who've only got a 3 walls and no roof) :lol:

The above was a joke by the way (although factual). Far be it from me to bring into doubt the authenticity of the sacred fire ratings we all worship and fly kites for.

For doubts about re-furbished kit, have a look at this gem (4, 1.5 d. is interesting)

http://www.bafe.org.uk/common/Pdfs/Schemes/SP103%20Issue%203-August%202005%20Scheme%20Document.pdf

But anyways back to the original query:

Polished stainless steel and polished ali extinguishers are OK by me if there is a an EN3 EXACT equivalent design (minus the red paint) available from the manufacturer.
If their complete manufacturing process only falls short of powder coating the body then I cannot see any problem (unless you guys can).
It's those "one off" design ones I don't trust and won't sell. The ones that have no EN3 equivalent, all parts are unique to that extinguisher etc.

With that in mind I'm pretty limited to just one make. But I won't advertise.

[Wiz]

The sayings  'the customer is king' and 'the customer is always right' are often quoted, but surely we all know that they are not always right.
These phrases are definitely always right when you are a service provider who has no morals, scruples and want to make lots of money - do what the customer asks and take his money!
However, when things go wrong a customer will never say I chose the company who did what I told them to and I accept the consequences. Rather, they will say 'My service provider is obviously the expert, that is what I pay him to be, he never warned me of any potential problems, so the blame lies with him.

I don't know the particular ramifications of the query in question, so I can't express an opion. But I can see the underlying thought process of both sides of the opinions.

However, I believe a company has as much right to choose his customers as visa versa. I regularly get rid of customers who don't pay on time, who feel that by paying me they can be rude to me or are, in rare cases, just too stupid or obnoxious to deal with. This choice costs me a little bit of money but saves me a hell of a lot of hassle in the long run! Some people might call it 'The Basil Fawlty School of Business' but I have survived for nearly 30 years in a competitive market!

Finally, I would echo Kurnal's thoughts that we should all be allowed to voice our opinions on this open forum without fear of getting replies that state our opinion is an 'absolute loads of b*****ks' instead of saying 'I disagree with you, old chap' !!!!!!! :-)

[John Dragon]

Reading John's post I would suggest avoiding companies like his. 'We as a company refuse to maintain refurbished extinguishers as they are no longer kitemarked'.well anyone who refused to equipment I had contracted them to would eb lookinmg for a new customer!  What an absolute loads of b*****ks. Worse still he goes on to be so arrogant as to state 'the client has a DUTY to ensure that reasonable quality equipment/service is provided'. No they don't the client is the client, that means it is the servicing company that has a duty to them, nto the other way round. It is up to the maintenance company to service to contract and that means carrying out such a task on every extinguisher which is suitable for use, BS5306 makes no distinction as to the markings (such as fire rating or kitemark) it deals with the condition of the item. I am absolutley astonished that any service company can be so obtuse and so conceited as to believe that it is the customers duty to provide kitemarked equipment for them to service!!!!!!!!!

I sincerely hope that his comapny are found out and safely disposed of by their customes and reputable, not neccessarily third party approved, other businesses found to rpelace them. No doubt these others will be cheaper too as they should treat the client as the boss and advise them appropriately.

Seems like you have rage issues sir, do you still have a driving licence?

You seem to have ignored part of my first sentence i.e. "and have no fire ratings" are you saying that fire ratings are not necessary?

If you read my post properly you would have read "If newish extinguishers are not kitemarked, this is brought to the attention of the client".

If you see no need for kitemarking or fire ratings, what criteria do you use to establish any form of quality? Why not just have a bucket of water instead of an extinguisher.

I would also remind you that not too long ago it was a condition of being issued a fire certificate that equipment was kitemarked. I seem to remember that this condition was dropped 6 or 7 years ago? I do not have sufficient interest in your rantings to look it up!

If a client had no duty to the people dependant on him for their safety, anarchy would rule.
We as a company have a duty to the client to provide equipment that is fit for purpose, if this is not accomplished by using equipment that is approved by a third party, then what do you suggest?

Also all too often we are asked to service refurb CO2 extinguishers that have not been fitted with new valves.
We also come across "rag and tag" merchants who do our industry no favours at all, going by your comments above, i would guess that you are also in favour of these cowboys?

[Psuedonym]

The original post referred to chrome versus painted not refurbs.
We could fill these pages with refurb horror stories (Esp. Co2!!) but the issue was chrome.

Personally if it ain't kitemarked I don't buy it to pass on to a customer, i'm not interested. If it's already in situ it gets serviced accordingly as per BS.

[AnthonyB]

The vast majority of users couldn't give a fig it their kit was kite marked as long as it is cheap enough. And virtually no one seems to use fire ratings to determine extinguisher provision these days, which in normal situations (i.e. class A & electrical risks) is reasonable as the size of fire you would expect a basic trained person in the confines of a workplace with no PPE to fight is far far less than an extinguishers rated capacity & travel distance and risk suitability is more important. Flip side to that class B & F risks are far more dependant on rating/capability.

As for the red v chrome debate this has been done to death on another thread (link please!) so I'm not retyping everything I said again other than it not being an issue as long as common sense is applied.

Even Chubb still refurbish extinguishers (incidentally they now hydraulic test all extinguishers that are repainted - water, foam, powder as well as CO2).

One of our suppliers does a high quality kitmarked German product TOTAL and a cheap CE marked Chinese product from Delai Fire, and a lot more of the Chinese stuff sells  - this make is even used by some of the big fire companies as exchange units.

It is a bit Nu Swift in style not to touch anything not new and kitemarked unless you are clear to the client that the law doesn't require your stance, just your own quality control standards.

Yes it would be nice to use kite-marked kit that has a minimum benchmark of quality, but unless it becomes law price will rule.

[TallyHo]

They do not comply with the relevant standard, but compliance with standards is not a legal requirement, people can make their own decisions on what fire extinguishers they want to use in their premises.

I think that this no longer applies.  If a “wrongly coloured fire extinguisher” case ever ended up in a court of law, I think our learned friends would refer to the latest guides which state the following:

“Extinguishers manufactured to current standards (BS EN 3-7) are predominately red but may have a colour-coded area, sited above or within the instructions, denoting the type of extinguisher.  Most older extinguishers, manufactured to previous standards, have bodies painted entirely in a single colour which denotes the type of extinguisher. These older extinguishers remain acceptable until they are no longer serviceable.”

“New fire extinguishers should comply with BS EN 3-7. Guidance on the selection and installation of fire extinguishers is given in BS 5306-8, for maintenance in BS 5306-3, and for colour coding in BS 7863.”

In my opinion any responsible person or competent maintenance engineer who deviates from the above is batting on a very sticky wicket.

[Chris Houston]

DaveyH,

You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else, but the law of the land is quite clear in that it allows for an assessment of risk to be made and for people to reach their own conclusions.  The following of RECOMMENDATIONS contained within British Standards or Approved Documents is actually just one suggested route.

A sound risk assessment that concluded the chrome, luminous yellow or pink fire extinguishers was acceptable should, ought to and most probably would stand up in court, if the assessment has been done properly.

[fireftrm]

I would also remind you that not too long ago it was a condition of being issued a fire certificate that equipment was kitemarked. I seem to remember that this condition was dropped 6 or 7 years ago? I do not have sufficient interest in your rantings to look it up!

No it never was, the Fire Service could not specify this, they could recommend. What they could do was require extinguisher provision, that the equipment was kitemarked could not be required.

If a client had no duty to the people dependant on him for their safety, anarchy would rule.
We as a company have a duty to the client to provide equipment that is fit for purpose, if this is not accomplished by using equipment that is approved by a third party, then what do you suggest?

You have a duty to the client to provide fit for purpose equipment, as per the Sale of Goods Act, the client must provide safety equipment fit for purpose under HASAW, but they do not need to have kitemarked, fre rated, or third party accredited equipment. Nor should you be so conceited as to refuse to service any equipment, unless it does not comply with legal requirements. You must not impose your own dubious standards on customers, by all means try and persuade them to part with money for your [no doubt] expensive replacements of their equipment, but refusing to service them because they have no marked fire rating or kitemark is not professional.

Also all too often we are asked to service refurb CO2 extinguishers that have not been fitted with new valves.
We also come across "rag and tag" merchants who do our industry no favours at all, going by your comments above, i would guess that you are also in favour of these cowboys?

I am in no way supporting cowboy operators. Any refurbished CO2 must be fitted with a new, or fully refurbished, valve, that is part of the process. However it is not required to be new, the reason new ones are generally fitted is that BS5430 testing means that the work to fully refurbish a valve compared to the cheap replcement cost makes it uneconomical not to use new ones.


DaveyH Chris is entirely correct, that there is no legal requirement to comply with any BS recommendation and that the risk assessment would be all the court would require. All too often "legal requirement" is used by disreputable compnaies to sell BS requirements to customers. Let's hope some are savvy enough to see through that.