Unwanted Fire Signals policy document

[Controller71]

Having read the draft policy document regarding this matter my initial thoughts were that this covers only premises where no investigation is carried out after activation on the the AFAS and a direct signal is sent to an alarm receiving centre or the fire and rescue service. For those organisations that have 24/7 manning where all activations are investigated prior to initialising a 999 call the F&RS is this policy relevant?

[Dragonmaster]

Hi Controller71

I totally agree. I can understand why this has happened when you look at the explosion of monitored systems. The biggest problem i have is that many AFD systems are installed, particularly by the bigger companies (ADT for example), where remote monitoring is part of the package without the purchaser being aware of what it is or even that it is included. Remote monitoring should, in my opinion, only be provided in higher risk premises (residential care) or where proprty protection is a consideration.

I must admit i'm alittle perturbed to see that CFOA are stating that they 'require all FRS to adopt the policy'. A little forceful i fancy. Those FRS's using the Oxfordshire model would have, i suspect, little use for this policy.

[Controller71]

Thanks for your reply Dragonmaster,

My initial thoughts when reading the document was that because of the security in place at our premises and the procedures we have in place, we would not fall under the wings of this policy but as you quite rightly state they are asking for all to register their AFAS (with a fee entailed) with no apparent exemptions. The F&RS would not receive any notification from our security unless an assessment had taken place first to ascertain what the likely cause of the activation was therefore eliminately false alarms through malicious intent or faulty equipment or people error.

[John Webb]

.... Those FRS's using the Oxfordshire model would have, i suspect, little use for this policy.

Can you tell us if the Oxfordshire model is available via the web, please?

[Steven N]

I must admit i'm alittle perturbed to see that CFOA are stating that they 'require all FRS to adopt the policy'. A little forceful i fancy. Those FRS's using the Oxfordshire model would have, i suspect, little use for this policy.

We use the oxford model & yes for us this is a retrograde step. Also over the previous couple of days i have had worried calls from premises who have remotely monitered systems who have been leafleted about changes in the law regarding UWFS & being told to pay registration fees!

[Dragonmaster]

I must admit i'm alittle perturbed to see that CFOA are stating that they 'require all FRS to adopt the policy'. A little forceful i fancy. Those FRS's using the Oxfordshire model would have, i suspect, little use for this policy.

We use the oxford model & yes for us this is a retrograde step. Also over the previous couple of days i have had worried calls from premises who have remotely monitered systems who have been leafleted about changes in the law regarding UWFS & being told to pay registration fees!

I've just heard of this from another FRS. The company is shown as Trescray Ltd. The frightning thing for business is the use of the word 'required' and the threat of withdrawal of emergency fire cover.

[Controller71]

Having searched the internet i found a document that implied the initial scope was to cover AFAS that were linked directly to ARC's but that since this was successful it was now to include all AFAS and i believe from the document below it also indicates that it is to include domestic properties that are linked to ARC's. I am getting more confused the more i read the document! i can see the need for a significant reduction of UwFS and the benefits that may bring, but to include fire systems that are not linked where are we going next. Dragonmaster for your information it was Trescray that brought it to the attention of one of my colleagues but the link they provided showing details did not work.


www.london-fire.gov.uk/lfepa/reports/2007/P-PMC15.rtf

[Steven N]

I must admit i'm alittle perturbed to see that CFOA are stating that they 'require all FRS to adopt the policy'. A little forceful i fancy. Those FRS's using the Oxfordshire model would have, i suspect, little use for this policy.

We use the oxford model & yes for us this is a retrograde step. Also over the previous couple of days i have had worried calls from premises who have remotely monitered systems who have been leafleted about changes in the law regarding UWFS & being told to pay registration fees!

I've just heard of this from another FRS. The company is shown as Trescray Ltd. The frightning thing for business is the use of the word 'required' and the threat of withdrawal of emergency fire cover.

Thats another company scaremongering then. Its really not acceptable that these companies are blatantly misrepresenting like this. At the moment as soon as any concerned premises owner/rep contacts me to ask about the scheme I ask to be sent the literature provided. I then contact the company producing this literature to ask them to explain what legislation they are quoting. I then ask on what basis they are saying it is the fire & rescue service I work for's policy?

[Controller71]

Sorry Stevo (first post and all that)

Are you saying that the draft document by the LFB (in my last post) is not yet in force and that it is till only a proposal? There seems to be so little information around on this matter and i am unable to get a definative answer from any of my usual contacts

[jokar]

The CFOA Policy on Uwfs and false Alarms has been or will be published shortly.  As far as I am aware all FRS have signed up to the document although soem. such as LFB may well change some of the intentions to ensure that they accord to their own policies.

Withdrawal of fire attendance and the registration of Companies are part of this as well as the bit about informing your insurance company that the FRS will no longer attend.

False Alarms though are a fire safety issue and are to be managed by better maintenance and seek and search procedures whilst Uwfs are a FRS resource problem to be dealt with.

[Steven N]

Are you saying that the draft document by the LFB (in my last post) is not yet in force and that it is till only a proposal? There seems to be so little information around on this matter and i am unable to get a definative answer from any of my usual contacts

Hi Controller71 I cant speak for what London are doing but in my brigade we are not going down the URN line & nor to my knowledge are many other FRS. There was a CFOA document from a year or 2 back that talked about URN's as a way of reducing UWFS but hardly any brigade  touched it. CFOA are re-writing their UWFS policy but it is to my knowledge it is still a draft document. Also  it may not be adopted by everyone as parts of it are a backward step for services that have implemented UWFS policies.

[Controller71]

I thank you all for your responces in this matter i think i should contact the LFB and Essex F&RS to find out what their stance is regarding the pending policy.

The replies i have received regarding my origional post have made me realise how valuable these forums are and the depth of knowledge of some of those (me not included) whose take the time to respond.

[Steven N]

The CFOA Policy on Uwfs and false Alarms has been or will be published shortly.  As far as I am aware all FRS have signed up to the document although soem. such as LFB may well change some of the intentions to ensure that they accord to their own policies.

Withdrawal of fire attendance and the registration of Companies are part of this as well as the bit about informing your insurance company that the FRS will no longer attend.

False Alarms though are a fire safety issue and are to be managed by better maintenance and seek and search procedures whilst Uwfs are a FRS resource problem to be dealt with.

Sorry Jokar you posted as i was writing my post & as i'm a very slow one finger typer I missed yours. To my knowledge not every brigade will sign up to the CFOA document as it seems to suggest that there should be no call challenge/filter at all. They talk about using the FSO to reduce alarms but will anyone enforce for 1 or 2 UWFS that a risk asessed call challenge policy can elimate?

[jokar]

CFOA policy is available on their website.

[Dragonmaster]

The new document is only out for comments at present. I've been informed that full publication is due around June time.

Stevo: I support the use of the RRO to reduce UwFS, but there is no guidance yet explaining exactly how. LFB have produced some standard phrases they used on student accommodation, linking RRO articles to the risk numerous UwFS have on relevant persons - desensitisation to the alarm sounding etc. I'm currently trying to expand upon those, and will need to seek legal opinion before using them.

I agree that the URN process has little impact, and we will not be going down that route. I suspect the brigades with much larger numbers of false alarms will find some use for them, but i'm on first name terms with the vast majority of our offenders. I do think, however, that some of the CFOA document can be useful in providing an underpinning to reduction policies.