Detectors in B&B's

[dell678]

Hi all,
Can the FRS enforce the change of detectors from heat to smoke under the RRO? And it it ok to accept a Part 6 Grade D LD2 system for the smaller type boarding house or B&B?

[kurnal]

It would be most unusual for them to be as specific as this. They may say your risk assessment is unsuitable as you havn't identified a hazard or dealt with one in an appropriate way, and issue guidance that one way to correct the problem would be to change from heat to smoke.

Smaller B&Bs of up to 200 sq m floor area may be ok with LD2, but depends on the other risk factors as well.- height, layout, standards, nature of building and how it is used. If you are on the fringes you may need to upgrade to grade C or grade A- in which case a part 1 system may also be cost effective offering benefits such as addressible detection and multi sensor technology

[messy]

Dell. What reasons have they given for this proposal??

[Ricardo]

Hi all,
Can the FRS enforce the change of detectors from heat to smoke under the RRO? And it it ok to accept a Part 6 Grade D LD2 system for the smaller type boarding house or B&B?

I certainly wouldnt enforce changing just for the sake of it, anyone who has got heat detection in a guest bedroom would need to provide suitable evidence as they would with any other type of detector, that the device/s are tested and maintained, the  "benchmark"guidance for small premises providing sleeping accommodation in Scotland does specify a part 6 system either Grade A or D, LD2 is installed and that each bedroom has at least 1 smoke detector.

However, the medium to large premises guide uses an L2 category to part 1 as its benchmark, which of course allows heat, smoke, CO, multi sensor units to be installed in a room, of course we wouldnt want to see heat detection in the escape routes themselves, so if thats where they are located you may want to relook at your fire risk assessment.

Otherwise as many have said on other threads its the dutyholders assessment, they make the decisions as they are ultimately responsible for fire safety, if they can justify why heat is being used as opposed to any other type, and the overall fire strategy can be achieved and taking account of the service users, and  a suitable testing/maintenace programme is in place for the entire system, then heat may be suitable in your circumstances in the locations they are installed in.

[Dinnertime Dave]

It would be most unusual for them to be as specific as this. They may say your risk assessment is unsuitable as you havn't identified a hazard or dealt with one in an appropriate way, and issue guidance that one way to correct the problem would be to change from heat to smoke.

Smaller B&Bs of up to 200 sq m floor area may be ok with LD2, but depends on the other risk factors as well.- height, layout, standards, nature of building and how it is used. If you are on the fringes you may need to upgrade to grade C or grade A- in which case a part 1 system may also be cost effective offering benefits such as addressible detection and multi sensor technology

If I specify a Pt 6 system I aways specify a grade C or above. As I understand it you can only put call points on a grade A, B and C. I can`t think of many premises where you don`t want at least one.

[CivvyFSO]

There are some grade D systems available with call points. They are basically interconnectable detector/sounders and call points. To be honest, it doesn't take much for a company to have these systems described as grade C, all they do is put some form of control panel on the call point unit. (i.e. A test button, a silence button and a reset button).

To answer the questions: Yes, the FRS can enforce the change from heat to smoke detection. If they consider that heat detection does not protect relevant persons and that smoke detection is reasonably practicable in the circumstances then thay can and should enforce it. (Or alternatively get you to agree to install it without enforcement) It boils down to an argument that has been had many times, and it is whether smoke detection protects the person in the room of origin. (There are many old threads on this matter and I think all opinions are on there so lets not get into it today. Opinions differ, but the fact remains that a modern system would not be based upon heat detection in the the rooms.

If the FRS are listing a part 1 system with the notice, that cannot be part of the legal side of the notice. All they can tell you on the notice is that legislation you have contravened, and that is what you have to comply with to comply with the notice. i.e. Article 13, The premises is not equipped with suitable detectors and/or alarms. Anything else after that is advice and/or recommendations of one of more method(s) of complying. Many FRS will state a part 1 system because it is the preferred option, and it does the job of leaving the decision to you. i.e. Why should I as an enforcer take the responsiblity for saying a part 6 system is adequate? I will suggest a part 1, if you want to take the responsibilty of installing a lesser system then I won't argue. (I have never heard of an FRS enforcing an alarm system from a pt 6 TO a pt 1)

One final point though, if you install a part 6, I would suggest you do it with FP cabling and adopt the weekly test procedure.

[jokar]

The issue may be that a heat detector in a hotel bedroom may not save the life of the occupants.  In previous legislation and in the British Standard heat detctors are specified but init is accepted that the life of the room occupant may be lost as the legislation covered employees only.  However, under the RR(FS)O the guest becomes a relevant person and therefore greater protection may be required by yourself to ensure the safety of the occupant.  The choice of detector though is your choice or your alarm engineer choice, it could be a multisensor or a carbon gas detector.  They can not make you change just recommend that you do for a good reason, to protect you in law.