Passive protection advise

[alfi]

The  Carpark above some commercial premises have problems with vagrants/drug users loitering around. They continually tamper the break glass points which set off the fire alarm.

NCP are linked into the commercial tenants, however i'm not sure why this was originally done .this is getting to a point where tenants are loosing money due to having to evacuate their customers.

Can you advise what circumstance NCP need to be on the system or can be isolated. As the building is concrete and acts as a fire stop from ground to other levels NCP could in theory be isolated?, the carpark sits over the the other units, any comments to help prior to going to site, that maybe be used as alternative options?

[deaconj999]

The simplest option would be to put a sign above the call point saying someting like VIDEO Camera Surveillance is Active in this area, first of all.
Then progress from there.

[kurnal]

It is common not to use break glass call points in a multi storey car park for the very reasons you mention.  I cant remember off hand in which guidance this is discussed- May be 5839 or one of the old 5588s-  will check if time allows and update later.

Compartmentation, any shared means of escape, protection of lifts shafts, presence of sprinklers, service risers  etc  between the purpose groups will be key to your ultimate decision.

[nearlythere]

I do remember during my IO time there being specific guidance on enclosed car parks. Will have a look also if someone gave me a copy before I left.

[Phoenix]

kurnal, I think you're referring to 5839. 

This is not an uncommon problem.  Car parks are certainly buildings you should think carefully about before recommending the installation of break glass call points.  It's almost asking for trouble - like putting them on exit routes from pubs.

If NCP want to retain the call points, and they may if they have no other means for raising the alarm (which is reasonable), then it is unlikely that they need to be linked to the retail premises below.  You're almost bound to have good fire separation between the car park and the shops (I might be sticking my neck out saying that, with no knowledge of the building!) so (provided that the separation is adequate) why do the shops on the ground floor have to evacuate when there is a car fire a number of floors above them that cannot possibly interfere with their means of escape?  They don't. 

If the link between the shops and the car park is removed then there should, as a minimum precaution, be some means whereby the retail operators are made aware that there is a fire in another part of the building, albeit that it cannot immediately detrimentally affect their means of escape.  Perhaps, for example, there is on-site security who can oversee the incident and who have a facility to contact all shop keepers.  The shop keepers always have the facility to quickly evacuate their premises using their own alarm system if need be.

Stu

[ahmedh]

The simplest option would be to put a sign above the call point saying someting like VIDEO Camera Surveillance is Active in this area, first of all.
Then progress from there.

Not to be picky, but that would be illegal if no video surveillance is taking place.

It sounds like you have good separation. Is it a multistorey carpark? may explain the provision.

Is there roof space/voids between the carpark and the shops? If so detection in there would be nice and would make it easier to recommend taking the link out.

In terms of the MCP there are products such as squealers which act as deterrent or something more basic like a polymer shroud so that activation is still possible but takes a little more effort.

[nearlythere]

The simplest option would be to put a sign above the call point saying someting like VIDEO Camera Surveillance is Active in this area, first of all.
Then progress from there.

Not to be picky, but that would be illegal if no video surveillance is taking place.

Why?

[Tom W]

Why is it illegal to have no cctv?!

What law is that under?

[deaconj999]

The simplest option would be to put a sign above the call point saying someting like VIDEO Camera Surveillance is Active in this area, first of all.
Then progress from there.

Not to be picky, but that would be illegal if no video surveillance is taking place. I'm sorry, Just like Phoenix, I thought tonyfog mentioned NCP when he probably should have typed MCP. Anyway, why is it illegal ?

Just for further info - NCP are covered by CCTV they were one of the first, if not the first to use a blanket approach to security and also have a national control centre for security.

Tonyfog, are these NCP car parks !

[deaconj999]

Why is it illegal to have no cctv?!

What law is that under?

I think he means it is illegal to put a sign up without cameras

[nearlythere]

Why is it illegal to have no cctv?!

What law is that under?

I think he means it is illegal to put a sign up without cameras

Is it?

[deaconj999]

Why is it illegal to have no cctv?!

What law is that under?

I think he means it is illegal to put a sign up without cameras

Is it?

I don't think so, what I do know is that it is a legal requirement under the Data Protection Act to place signs to warn the public they are entering an area covered by CCTV. Therefore it all boils down to whether the car park owners (unidentified at the mo NCP maybe or not!) already have CCTV, if they do they will already have signs. However, it is permitted in extreme circumstances not to have signs, but this rule is subject to stringent conditions.

Let's wait for the answer to this conundrum.......... I thought a sign would be a good starter for a deterrent at least. Would it actually be a criminal offence to put up such a sign......take me down melud.

[ahmedh]

Why is it illegal to have no cctv?!

What law is that under?

I think he means it is illegal to put a sign up without cameras

Is it?

I don't think so, what I do know is that it is a legal requirement under the Data Protection Act to place signs to warn the public they are entering an area covered by CCTV. Therefore it all boils down to whether the car park owners (unidentified at the mo NCP maybe or not!) already have CCTV, if they do they will already have signs. However, it is permitted in extreme circumstances not to have signs, but this rule is subject to stringent conditions.

Let's wait for the answer to this conundrum.......... I thought a sign would be a good starter for a deterrent at least. Would it actually be a criminal offence to put up such a sign......take me down melud.

Book 'em danno   Apologies, bit of a typo on my part, plus didn't finish what i intended. I shouldn't make posts prior to intake of essential caffeine to jump start my brain in the morning:-[

My response was meant to be more about monitored vs un-monitored and suitable training and licences but looking at the rest of the thread, that isn't what was initially meant. "Not to be picky, but that would be illegal if video surveillance is taking place not to have suitably trained and licenced staff." I have left the original boo boo above.

it is 1. not illegal to put signs up (without CCTV). There are strict requirements around signage if 2. there is CCTV such as stipulating purpose of scheme, and details of Data Protection Act Controller. Which by its nature 1. cannot have.

Putting signs up without CCTV cannot be a breach of the DPA (where it applies) since no personal data is being recorded which is what the DPA governs.
Even if someone were to make a subject access request you would not need to declare that there is no CCTV just that there is no personal data pertaining to them.

Hope that makes things clearer.

[alfi]

Thanks guys some useful ideas, I'll update after my visit

[alfi]

Gents,

an update from the site. following a site visit it was obvious that the building had a change of use and where once upon a time the car park belonged and units and belonged to one company, now its 3 seperate companies and there is no need to have the fire alarm from NCP linked to the units below, the fire seperation is solid concrete ,  so a good result, thanks for comments gents