Author Topic: Kent Guide  (Read 10623 times)

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Kent Guide
« on: July 20, 2012, 12:32:41 PM »
I have had a look at this and it seems to be another worrying step.

Yes I have attended my fair share of unwanted fire alarms caused by systems but this seems to be going too far, unless there is an ulterior motive.

I look forward to Kent's "Guide for irresponsible persons in charge of fire alarm systems"  ;D
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2012, 03:28:18 PM »

Mike, is this the document -

http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/your_business/latest_business_news/change_to_afa_policy.aspx

I have to say it is less onerous the policy of the fire service I work for.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2012, 08:44:32 PM »
It is still making property protection systems redundant as they are phasing out night time response.

It seems that if you need 24/7 early intervention to a fire for business continuity you should stop paying for an ARC and start paying round the clock security, unless your keyholder lives across the road.
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2012, 09:29:13 AM »
No, sorry I missed the link, try this: http://www.info4fire.com/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=536c84ed-06f6-45de-8235-0df3073d788f&groupId=10606

Yes I agree that it looks like the end of the road for ARCs and a boost for the Security Industry. However if I take a cynical outlook on this, how about a security firm plugging the idea that as the Fire Service will not attend an unconfirmed alarm, on an industrial estate the security firm will provide a security service which will also have a fire engine crewed by the security team. A number of large companies like Peurgot when it was in Ryton ran this system (by the way the company that did that was the famous G4S).

Am I the only one who is worried about what this could mean for the future of the fire service as we know it (or as we knew it). It seems like the death of a thousand cuts.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2012, 02:20:02 PM »
Reducing calls means reducing costs. False Alarms are a management problem and should be dealt with inhouse.  The Brigades do not want to attend false Alarms and they categorise them Uwfs, the costs are quite extraordinary when you add them up, labour and fuel costs etc.  Tough call though for the industry though.

I wonder who will be the first to say that they only have an AFD system connected to an ARC because a fire officer made them have it.

Offline Dinnertime Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2012, 05:22:26 PM »

We as a fire service have had some considerable success in reducing calls to UwFs, after receiving a call we make contact/visit and assist the company in how to put procedures into place in dealing with activations.

We give them a period of time to introduce the procedures (sometimes 3 months) during this time we still attend - Then once the procedures are in place we will only attend confirmed fires. If we then attend another false alarm we give a months notice that we will not attend calls from AFD from the premises. BUT we will attend confirmed fires.

Most companies understand what we are trying to achieve. Even some of the large retailers have worked with us and introduced the procedures nationally. Only had one manager had an "I want to speak to the chief" moment and felt that the policy would put 1000 employees in danger of death from a fire.

I pointed out that his fire risk assessment would not be suitable and sufficient if his means of escape was reliant on the attendance of the fire service.

Some exemptions to the policy are residential care, sheltered housing and domestic premises.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2012, 11:25:15 PM »
I'm all in agreement that false alarms cost services money and obviously pose a risk during the emergency response, but several services' policies penalise the innocent as well as the guilty. A poorly managed persistent offender deserves charging/reduced response once all attempts at education have failed, but why should the site that has invested money & time into good management, modern systems and quality maintenance face either ruin through fire loss or even more expense in staffing by an across the board policy?

Death of a thousand cuts? Well for years now Falck have provided public fire and ambulance services in several countries as a contractor to the state so private provision of front line emergency services is not unheard of...
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 09:22:23 AM »
As we are all very aware, for many years now fire brigades across the UK have had to make stringent cuts in services to meet the financial pressures placed on them by Government.  As part of this cost cutting pprocess we have had outsourcing, AssetCo, Babcock and soon Capita as far as London is concerned.  Uwfs place a strain on budgets as many calls, in their thousands are false alarms so there is a saving  in terms of attendance.  Of course the lower the call ratios the less the need, under IRMP, for fire appliances and with multi millions of savings for London and other Met Brigades in the next  2 fiscal year it is a bit of lets watch this space.  Other Brigade,s as noted on the FBUs website, are in turmoil over budgetary arrangements, the strange thing being that it is the CFOs driving the cost cutting whilst they increase their pay.  Are they now becoming the bankers of the fire service?

An interesting aside is could fire safety be hived off to an outside provider, would it need a change in legislation to accommodate the "enforcer" tag or could inspections take place under FRS 2004 with educate and inform and deficiencies notices and enforcement/prohibition and prosecution under the Order by a small group in any one brigade.  There. of course, is no inspection protocols in the Order only in the National Framework document and the 2012 version is now out and reinforces that process.

Offline Mike Buckley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1045
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2012, 02:51:50 PM »
On the other hand you could outsource the emergency response side of the fire service and just maintain the enforcement part within the Fire Authority. If I remember correctly all the Fire Service Act said is that the Authority must secure the provision of a fire brigade, it does not say that it actually has to run the fire brigade itself.

It is a scary thought, but now the government is selling off the college, it seems to be closer than before. Although the cost of attending UWFs is high, it is minimal in comparison with the cost of a fire brigade and if this is outsourced the problem of UWFs would now someone else's. As for the CFOs they would be made redundant or given early retirement based on their current salaries, as for the people on the pumps they have a choice be made redundant and rejoin the new 'brigade' at reduced pay and working conditions, or join the list of unemployed. ( I wish I was joking)
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2012, 03:10:34 PM »
I wonder if we will see a G4S or Assest Co. public fire service soon??!!!

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2012, 09:02:51 AM »
Mike, It is very difficult to move operational staff contracts but the TUPE system allows non uniformed staff to be moved to other organisations very easily.  Then after a year or so the job can be reevaluated and the person in post can apply for the lob they are doing and get it or not or be made redundant.  The employment conditions for unoiformed staff are still very good despite the best intentions of the FBU whereas those on other contracts, well.

AssetCo already run a fire service in the middle east and made sure that they held on to that in their dealingd with Lincolnshire and London.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2012, 10:52:20 AM »
AssetCo already run a fire service in the middle east and made sure that they held on to that in their dealingd with Lincolnshire and London.

Absolutely. Whilst they don;t yet trly run / amdinister a fire service in future I can see the whole lot being privatised, which would be a very sad day in my opinion, as I believe the focus will be on profits rather than lives. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

YOu then have to ask where that may end. Private police? Private military? ...

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2012, 11:38:06 AM »
or volunteers for the reactive bits as in some european cities.  I watched a tv programme where a representative of Chatham House the Government think tank was speaking about volunteer firefigters across the world and how efficient it is.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2012, 07:37:21 PM »
or volunteers for the reactive bits as in some european cities.  I watched a tv programme where a representative of Chatham House the Government think tank was speaking about volunteer firefigters across the world and how efficient it is.

Large swathes of the US use volunteer fire departments as well - efficient maybe, but is it effective?
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline SamFIRT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
  • Looking for the truth
Re: Kent Guide
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2012, 09:00:13 PM »
All this talk of privatisation of FRS reminds me a bit of the corporate security police in Robocop.

Very worrying I say.

Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. 

Not untill they are under attack or their A*se is on fire
Sam