Failed prosecution re. upgrading a 240V fire alarm system

[TickityBoo]

I remember reading somewhere on this forum about a fire authority requiring an upgrade to a 240V fire alarm system for a place of work as it did not comply with H&S S&S Regs - no battery back up.  The judge accepted the duty holder's point that in a fire situation an evacuation would take place on activation of the alarm and that in the event of a power failure prior to a fire, work could not continue anyway and so it was policy to evacuate in this eventuality also.

I can't find the thread though.  Perhaps I've imagined it or got it wrong.  Is anyone able to point me in the right direction or able to tell me more about this? 

[Allen Higginson]

I remember reading somewhere on this forum about a fire authority requiring an upgrade to a 240V fire alarm system for a place of work as it did not comply with H&S S&S Regs - no battery back up.  The judge accepted the duty holder's point that in a fire situation an evacuation would take place on activation of the alarm and that in the event of a power failure prior to a fire, work could not continue anyway and so it was policy to evacuate in this eventuality also.

I can't find the thread though.  Perhaps I've imagined it or got it wrong.  Is anyone able to point me in the right direction or able to tell me more about this? 

Ahhh,judges - don't you just love them!
So what if the fuse that the fire alarm system is on fails due to a short on the system prior to any need to activate the alarm then many days down the line they need to use it in anger?

[AnthonyB]

..and what if the fire is electrical in origin (many are) and takes out the power?

Don't know of the case, but it couldn't have failed if brought directly under the Signs Regs (absolute duty), but that would have had to be brought by the HSE or LA as they are the enforcing body - the use of the RRO or FP(W) Regs (based on when this case was) gives a lot more leeway for the defence..

[colin todd]

The fire authority are the enforcing authority for fire safety signs and signals.

[Davo]

Colin

A swift look at the back of the Regs would reveal HSE/LA as enforcing authority

Spot on AB!

davo

[TickityBoo]

I've eventually found the post I was looking for...on another forum!  Oops!  The poster remarked:
I do however still foresee a problem - back in my old patch of central Manchester, we had numerous (sometimes badly) converted mills/warehouses that retained the 240v alarms and they had in many cases old OSRA or Fact Act certificates. We had one that was a problem and served notice to update the alarm. - The owner argued that the FS held the alarm system as ineffective as a mains failure would disable it...... BUT if there was a mains failure, then he said he couldn't work anyway with no lighting and would have to evacuate the premises until power was restored... so no problem, if there was a fire, then no one would be in the building . We lost in court - the judge held that the defence was adequate

[Wiz]

I've eventually found the post I was looking for...on another forum!  Oops!  The poster remarked:
I do however still foresee a problem - back in my old patch of central Manchester, we had numerous (sometimes badly) converted mills/warehouses that retained the 240v alarms and they had in many cases old OSRA or Fact Act certificates. We had one that was a problem and served notice to update the alarm. - The owner argued that the FS held the alarm system as ineffective as a mains failure would disable it...... BUT if there was a mains failure, then he said he couldn't work anyway with no lighting and would have to evacuate the premises until power was restored... so no problem, if there was a fire, then no one would be in the building . We lost in court - the judge held that the defence was adequate

This is the problem with laws, rules and recommendations in the U.K. They are made to be ignored and/or overuled! Whilst it is the legal system that might make the ultimate desicion, it seems judges can put any interpretation on anything and however as they see fit.

This is obviously a problem for 'codehuggers' who believe any law, rule or recommendation is written in stone. As soon as they say 'you don't want to do it like that, because I know the law,rules or recommendations and you don't', they set themselves up for a potential fall.

I'm not agreeing (in fact I personally disagree) with the desicion made in the case mentioned, but it just goes to show what can happen.

The best most of us can do is point out the laws,rules and recommendations to our customers and allow them to decide if they want to follow them.

Obviously, enforcement agencies have a different problem, but since it is not their money that they use to try and force their opinion/interpretation they probably don't care that much.

[AnthonyB]

I wonder how long ago the attempt at prosecution was and under which legislation - this may have an impact on the result.

I know of several of these Central Manchester Mills, but in the ones I dealt with they had upgraded to 24V conventional category M from their original systems - one of which still had elements in situ and was home made by the Mill's maintenance department (in the days of single occupancy) - it was a ring circuit of 240v wire with bells and heavy duty light switches wired in parallel - flick a switch, complete the circuit, sounds the bells!

Most (but not all) industrials & offices still with 240v systems have far more to worry about than just the alarm- these days when you walk in to do an FRA & see the old Gent call points and klaxxons printed 240 AC you know that it's going to be a long long day and a very long report...

BTW Which forum?

[SmokeyDokey]

Davo,

Colin is quite right. You need to read Regulation 7(b).

[Davo]

SmokeyDokey
Reg 7(b) refers to fire signs provided under Reg 4
Reg 4.3 and 4.4 only apply to signs provided as part of a risk assessment under the Management Regs ie HSE/LA

davo

[kurnal]

I will wager the arguments were made by  barristers and solicitors with no consideration of the effects of sub circuit failure.  But are we surprised by legal judgements when in the scheme of things  a number of  child rapists get non custodial sentences ( ref BBC news today)

[SmokeyDokey]

Davo, I think you'd better read 4(3) again. You'll note it reads:-

"Without prejudice to paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (4) shall also apply in relation to fire safety signs where they are required to comply with the provisions of any enactment (whether in an Act or instrument)."

So that's without prejudice to 4(1) (MHSW risk assessment), 4(4)(a) and 4(4)(b) (need to provide and maintain etc.) apply to any sign needed bcause of other legislation (e.g. the RRFSO or the old FPA 71 etc).

Which means the authority that enforces that other law enforces the safety signs and signals regs because of Reg 7(b).

[Davo]

SmokeyDokey
We are agreed are we not that the requirement for battery backup is in the Safety Signs Regs?
It is not anywhere else, I think, nor I think was it in FPA.

Therefore, the relevant provision of the enactment referred to in 7(b) and 4(3) is in fact those Regs,  made under the HSW Act 1974.

davo

[CivvyFSO]

But the 'signal' itself is required to comply with the RR(FS)O.

So since the signal is required by virtue of the RR(FS)O then the enforcing authority who would enforce the provision of the signal are the enforcers for the relevant parts of the S&S regs that apply to that signal.

[TickityBoo]

Having found out a bit more, this took place back in the Eighties in GMC.  I would hope that this would not happen now in light of the H&SSSSRegs which weren't out then.  In addition, there were issues of having deemed to comply under OSRA certs etc. which may have tied the hands of the fire authority to some extent like the old stat bar situation.

I would hope that in these enlightened times (?) of risk assessment and the principle of adapting to technical progress, as well as the existance of the Signs and Signal Regs, such a ruling would not happen again.

You can read the thread on the fireservice.co.uk "fire safety in the workplace" forum.