Sheltered Flats

[Midland Retty]

Either you can rely on something or you cant. You, like many other people, have lost sight of the ball as to why signals were to be relayed to an arc from the flats in the first place. It was NOT to save the individual in the flat of fire origin.  Sometimes you need to go back to basiscs. It worked for John Major (not).

Sir Todd you have totally misunderstood me squire (you loose several brownie points for that).

I'm talking about the standalone detectors inside a flat linked to an ARC, not the communal alarm system necessarily. The type of alarm links I've seen in S/schemes came about because the ARC link was already installed for other purposes - for example if a resident feels unwell he or she pulls an emergency chord to call for help - and so the smoke alarms were also linked as a matter of course.

I clearly said that comm/comms can not be relied upon for fire alarm monitoring and I have always known Sir Todd that detection is not there to protect the person in the flat of fire origin. That is not the argument I'm making here.

I was simply saying that under current standards standalone detectors don't have to be monitored. However if the standalone detector was already linked to an ARC then in my ficticious scenario  who is to say that the brigade wouldn't have been called much quicker, improving the residents chances of being rescued, as a point of debate. Subjective I grant you, and would of course depend on numerous factors.

The point I am making is this - if I came across an existing s/scheme where the standalone flat detector was linked to an ARC I wouldn't be asking for the detector to be  disconnected from the ARC. It may be of  benefit, maybe it won't, but eitherway there is almost by default a possible additonal level of protection there, in my opinion.And if the ARC staff are good diligent folk they could alert the emergency services very quickly to a potential problem.

Therefore to simply disregard comm/comms that are already in place I think is erroneous - they could offer some additional benefits over and above and the usual fire precautions. Im not saying it can ever replace those fire precautions.

Then there is the issue of the communal fire alarm being monitored, and whether that is a good or a bad thing. I'll debate that another time.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Col. If the flats own alarm gets connected to an arc or remote welfare centre as they often do for good knows what reason, proabably a sparky gleening some extra cash out of a job, it won't cause any harm, cos it aint breaking any code or standard. so why knock it. Even if it isn't a life safety fail safe method that can't be relied on. No one is relying on it so its a bonus measure.  if only on one occassion it means people at the arc know about a fire before anyone else does then surely its gotta be good. I see your point though wee man, connected to an arc or not the person in the flat thats on fire is probably gonna get barbequed anyway.  

[colin todd]

Retters/Clevers, you are both close to the point but not quite there.  I drive a car with good brakes, so I drive accordingly.  If someone sells me brakes that work sometimes but not others of course they are better than no brakes, but, if I think they can be relied on, I may be living in a fools paradise and get a shock when I want to stop one day.  The fact that the brakes worked on 9 other occasions out of 10 is little consolation to the person who I ran over when on the 10th occasion the brakes failed.

The connection from the smoke alarm to an ARC IS a legal requirement for new sheltered housing in effect becaue it is recommended by AD B, which is only concerned with life safety. AD B does not say put in something that might work some of the time because it is better than nothing. There is an inherent assumption that it will work and get the FRS there (which is its purpose) so that they can initiate an evacuation of other residents if necessary.

There are things that can be done to make the social alarm system  less likely to delay a fire alarm signal (just like the coroner has requested).  But until it is a requirement there is no impetus for the social alarm industry to enhance their systems. It is not even their fault.  They provide a system that is designed to help old dearies like Kurnal when they fall over. People have got them to connect smoke alarms on the commonly encountered philosophy of never mind the engineering feel the concept.  Sadly, no one ever thought to stop and evaluate the engineering or how the systems actually worked.  The fire safety profession needs to get its house in order and define why we want the connections, what we hope they will do and how reliable we want them to be.

[Midland Retty]

No Mr Todd we are at cross purposes here. I don't disagree with anything you have said above, infact I whole heartidly agree. But you are missing the point.

The monitored systems that go through to the ARC are, as you state, normally fitted to come to the aid of someone who needs assistance (normally medical).

So at present in existing s/schemes (not new ones) you should find a communal L2 fire alarm system and a Part 6 grade D detector in the individual flats. The Part 6 detector is there to warn the resident of that flat of a fire, in the hope they will be alerted, the communal alarm is there to protect everyone else.

No other form of warning or alarm is required - the L2 / Part 6 provision would tick the right boxes for appropriate fire warning and detection in an existing sheltered scheme.

Now most s/schemes I have been to have tunstall system, or similar, fitted so that if Mrs Tom Cobley falls over in her flat she can press her pendant and get help, or speak to ARC staff via a comms box on the wall. Most of the time I find that someone has had the idea to also connect her Part 6 detector to the ARC too.

But connecting that detector to an ARC isn't a recommended or lesgilsative requirement. If it was a legislative requirement (which as you say is by default the case now in new sheltered schemes) then your comments above would hold true.

But in existing schemes your comments are academic, because we haven't asked for the part 6 detector to be linked. Thus any such connection is surely a bonus, which may actually be worth its weight in gold, even though not designed, or certified as being part of the overall fire safety or fire warning procedures for those premises. No one is stating we are relying on that link, it is there for other purposes, but may actually serve as boon to poor Mrs Cobley in the event of fire, and I'm sure there are cases where this has happened in real life. The management of the scheme need to appreciate however that the ARC link isn't their for life protection in terms of fire safety of course.

[colin todd]

Retters, alas you are still not quite right.  As this is unlike you, I am prepared to come to Retty Towers as you have offeredin the past and put you right, while Mrs Retty fusses over us both and brings us food and drink. The concept of connecting the smoke alarm to an ARC is not new. It goes back to the earliest standards and was there for the purpose intended. The fact the you did not ask for it as an I/o is irrelevant.

[Midland Retty]

You're still not getting my drift Uncle Colin (my bestest friend in the world).

At the risk of boring you to tears let me put my argument another way.If that doesn't work I suggest we continue this discussion over a pint of Talisker.

You will agree that in existing premsies there is no legal requirement to connect any form of fire alarm or detection to an ARC. You can of course do so if you wish, and the relevant sections of BS 5839 Parts 1 or 6 tell you how it should be done properly, especially where life and limb relies upon it.

As long as the sheltered scheme has an L2 system fitted (plus the usual other fire precautions of course) the fire authority will be happy, and it cannot, of course, enforce the provision of a part 6 detector inside individual flats.

So no lawful requirement under the RR(FS) Order exists to link that detector, unless, according to the BS, the findings of a fire risk assessment identifies that one is required. Even then the fire authority can't enforce the requirement and it is perhaps subjective anyway, considering that we accept that the person in the flat of fire origin will perish. So long as the fire precautions protect everyone else then legally you have done everything reasonably practicable.

With that all in mind the job of the Part 6 detector is to warn the person in the individual flat of a fire occuring. And alas we know it may or may not be successful in saving someone's life The detector is required however under building regs, a link to a social alarm is not. So if I put one in, even if it is not the current BS have I commited a crime? have i made the situation anymore risky? or have i put something in that may actually flag up that there is a fire in Mrs Toms Cobley flat meaning that someone might, just might, raise the alarm quicker than the communal alarm is activated (or atleast quicker than other residents may call the fire service) and have I given Mrs Cobley a better chance of survival? The link won't necessarily warn her but it may result in the brigade getting to her quicker and effecting a rescue.

The answer is possibly. Just as the part 6 detector may possibly rouse someone who has fallen asleep of a fire occuring in the flat, who knows that link may also aid the situation. It does of course on several things, are SAS staff alert and well trained? Has the fire burnt through the link? but if we see such a link as a bonus, not a legal requirement, then what harm does it do?  

[kurnal]

Thanks for your points Midland but I do see where Colin is coming from too. Fact of the matter is this. Most flats have a tunstall or similar and since it has a pair of terminals marked smoke detector input it would be crackers not to use them. So they get used and deliver a huge non statutory benefit.

The problem is this though. And I hold my hand up to this which is what Colin was getting at.

If I already have a tunstall and a call centre then the temptation is to use it in lieu of any other arrangements for passing on fire alarms from the L2 system. Such other arrangements you might normally expect would be a responsible person on site or a fully secure redcare type interface.

Then I am on less secure ground and am perhaps unwise to rely on an unmonitored circuit to a busy call centre, especially if the L2 alarm only comes up in the control room  same way and with the same priority as all other social and domestic calls.

In the case I was quoting at least the call centre is directly owned and managed by the Social Housing provider, work only for them and meet strict performance criteria, together with a strategic response team with good performance standards. In giving advice we can recommend a back up such as a redcare link or auto dialler but the client decides at the end of the day. 

[colin todd]

Retters as always we are not far apart. Your problem is that having spent your formative years in the British Fire Service, you keep thinking of what legislation requires, what codes say and what is a legal requirement.  Consultants, like Big Al and I, on the other hand, are about keeping people safe from fire in buildings. Legislation is a major part of this. Codes etc are only used as guidance. 
Consultants are also sometimes concerned about their own liability.  Kurnal can carry on recommending connections via social alarm systems as a wee bonus..... until it all goes wrong and the barrister says  " Your name is Big al kurnawywyzywcav-ski and you are a self styled consultant.  Presumably, Professor kurnawwywyzyaxe, in recommending this alarm arrangement, you considered it appropriate for the protection of life? Can you tell the court what you know about alarm signalling and the reliability of the arrangement that failed so disastrously resulting in the sad death of Mrs Blenkinsop's dearly departed mother.  Oh , your view Professsor is that well, it was better than nothing. Is that the standard of safety to which you aspire for your clients Professor?? Did you bother to tell the housing provider that, sometimes the signals are blocked because an old dearie is feeling poorly in another part of the scheme?

Now, because I am Big Al's favourite nephew, I shall be his expert witness (though I will want more than a bottle of cheap Polish vodka for my trouble). I shall cite custom and practice and indeed probably say that I would have recommended the same thing at this point in time.  I shall say that Retters, who, having been in the fire service, is an expert in alarm communications systems, said that it would do.  But I will also say that I recognized a long time before that better than nothing is not good enough and am spending lots of time without pay to try to make it better. I shall say that, for no good reason, a BS committee dumped all the guidance that existed on the subject, notwithstanding that the FIA (as a result of Big Al and I working in their offices until 11.45 pm one night) tried to tell the committee that they were doing harm to the safety of the public but that, arrogantly, they took no notice and were more interested in promoting sprinklers that will not work when the electricity supply to the pump fails.  Then I shall visit Big Al when he does his eight months bird in Strangeways.

Now, about that Talisker...... Have Mrs Retty go to Sainsburys and get some roast leg of lamb and telephone my office at your earliest convenience to arrange the time and date, as I doubt I have anything more to add.

[Wiz]

Well I'll be in court supporting Prof. K. aka Big Al

I won't yet reveal, at this stage, any of my critical evidence that will prove the Prof. to be innocent of all charges against him, but it will be devastating!

[Midland Retty]

Thanks for your points Kurnal but I was discussing a slightly different issue.

I'm looking at this argument from experience. Many RPs out there aren't familiar with what the British Standard states with regard to monitored alarms. Instead there are very adhoc connections to Social Alarm Centres out there which are not "up to spec"- and then there is the issue of the SACs themselves.

I'm sure the SACs are very good at what they do, but they aren't necessarily geared up to, nor trained in monitoring or reacting to fire alarm signals in the way we, or the standards, would expect.

I'm asking how far we go as fire safety professionals in bringing such systems up to spec, and what incentivises an RP to do it when it isn't a legislative requirement?. If I am an RP why should I be forking out my hard earned wedge to upgrade a system which simply serves as a bonus measure - I might argue that it is better to have a system fitted, albeit sub-standard, rather than having no system at all. I could tell you that I don't rely on the SAC for primary protection, I rely on my L2 system, and individual part 6 detectors for that, but I do see monitored detectors as very useful additional measure.

And with regard to your court case scenario, who would be taking Prof. Kurnal to court? Wouldn't be the fire authority, I doubt it would be the housing authority, so whom? coroner? the family of the dead resident? On what basis would they be trying to nobble poor old Kurnal?

I totally accept as a competent fire consultant your responsibility is not just to consider what the law expects, but to actually make  "relevent persons" safer and going beyond those legal requirements .

You will be pleased, or perhaps shocked, to hear that I share the same view, having been a safety practioner in private industry in a former life. But what argument would you use to a your client to upgrade an existing sub standard SAC linked system?

Now regarding the Talisker. There is no current Mrs Midland ... I could ask the ex-Mrs Midland to wait on us hand on foot.  Alas I think we might get a negative answer - for example to 'go forth and multiply' isn't something I would normally do, except on saturdays!

[SamFIRT]

I'm sure the SACs are very good at what they do, but they aren't necessarily geared up to, nor trained in monitoring or reacting to fire alarm signals in the way we, or the standards, would expect.

How so very true ! Some are very good . Others ( Extremely )less so. As (Allegedly) proved to my team recently.

so whom? coroner? the family of the dead resident? On what basis would they be trying to nobble poor old Kurnal

The Coroners Rules 1984 as amended 2008

Rule 43 provides coroners with the power to make
reports to a person or organisation where the coroner
believes that action should be taken to prevent future
deaths.

Could be a very uncomfortable inquest if nothing else

[kurnal]

Well I'll be in court supporting Prof. K. aka Big Al

I won't yet reveal, at this stage, any of my critical evidence that will prove the Prof. to be innocent of all charges against him, but it will be devastating!

As ever I am indebted to you Dr Wiz for your generousity in deed and spirit. Indeed so grateful that you are welcome to share my cell for as long as you wish to stay. 

[colin todd]

Samuel, I have been trying to tell you that there already HAS been such an inquest.  Retters, I have no problem making the arguements, and already work with many social housing organizations.  Which is why we are trying to sort outthe mess.

Ok, I accept the point that Mrs Retters dumped you (though I am sure for no good reason and that she deeply regrets it.  However, please simply amend the instruction, such that you still phone to make the arrangements but order a carry oot on the occasion of my visit. I shall bring the Talisker though not one of the very expensive ones.

[kurnal]

Colin is the  inquest report in the Public domain? Can you signpost us towards it?

[Midland Retty]

...and did the inquest relate to the interlinking of part 6 detection to a social alarm centre or did it relate to the communal fire alarm being monitored remotely?

I do hear what you are saying Colin. You're saying that whilst interlinking detectors is currently optional at present (unless its a new build ) if it is installed then it should be done properly, to the appropriate standards - and I absolutely agree.

My frustration is that there is no mechanism, unless a good fire safety professional is brought in and clocks it, to get substandard systems brought up to spec. It's purely down to how good the RP is.

Therefore it probably won't be until there is a death that such inadequacies are highlighted in a coroner's court (which it seems has already happened from Colin comments above). But the Coroner doesn't sentence anyone. They establish  how someone perished and what circumstances may have lead to that death, but they don't physically prosecute anyone.

So who is going to prosecute Joe Bloggs if he installs and inadequate system? If it's so important why isn't there greater awareness of the standards, and perhaps legislation to cover it? Because unless the intervention of a good fire safety professional changes things, there is no incentives for RPs and installers to follow those standards, let alone be prosecuted if things went wrong). In other words at best RPs may only be vicariously liable. And if someone does get sued what stops other RPs in similar schemes removing the links from their schemes in fear of facing civil action if it all went wrong. Sounds like a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" scenario to me.

Hence why I was saying that perhaps sometimes something is better than nothing. I don't know - just thinking out loud!