Fire alarm servicing

[AnthonyB]

Has anyone else found that RP's (including many national chains of shops) are increasingly moving to only doing a single 100% service visit a year with only weekly call point tests in between and that fire services aren't too bothered?

I was at a shopping centre today and of the units that actually had any service regime (which was most for a change) I'd sat 80% + were using only a single visit.

[Golden]

Hi Anthony,

I've found a bit of a mixture to be honest and now as long as I can confirm on full servicing in any 12 month period I'm assuming everything is working OK. I have to say the BS keeps changing so often I don't wonder at the businesses not being able to keep up.

[Tom Sutton]

I fully except the standard says "The period between visits to undertake inspection and service should he based upon a risk assessment but the maximum period between visits should not exceed six months" and the weekly, also the 12 monthly service are necessary. However if the premises does not use vented batteries/generator what does the service engineer do on the monthly and quarterly service?

[nearlythere]

I fully except the standard says "The period between visits to undertake inspection and service should he based upon a risk assessment but the maximum period between visits should not exceed six months" and the weekly, also the 12 monthly service are necessary. However if the premises does not use vented batteries/generator what does the service engineer do on the monthly and quarterly service?

Not a lot Tom but some seem to think the quarterly quarter annual test means the system has to be anually serviced quarterly - if you follow me.

[kurnal]

Most contractors tend to do 50 % of the devices on the 6 monthly visits.

I find the same as you Anthony and one friends alarm company has lost the contract with a national chain because their quotes for 6 monthly visits were undercut by BAFE SP203 competitors who quoted for just an annual visit. Guess what- on one of my assessments at one of these places last week  I found the following notice stuck on a break glass call point " Do not use- defective- did not operate when tested during weekly test 22 March 2013" . Six months would have been better than a year. It had not been reported because the client did not want to pay the call out fee.

[nearlythere]

I would suggest that only a small percentage of fire alarm systems get the regular full works as per the code.
I would even suggest that most systems get nothing.
And then there are the ones which just get done when an inspection is due.
And then there are the systems which did not have to be installed in the first place.
And then there are those with perma yellow lights and silenced.
And then the dead ones.

[Mike Buckley]

Surely both kurnal's and nearlythere's comments point to another problem. The basic reason people get away with this type of thing is there is no fear of being caught. The bean counters work on the basis of cost. If they see the cost of being caught is less than the cost of taking action they will take the risk of being caught.

[Tom Sutton]

BS 5839 2013 says,

Tests/servicing to be done by the user,   
   • Weekly and Monthly.

Tests/servicing to be done by a Competent Person,
   • Quarterly if you have vented batteries.
   • Periodic inspection which is decided by a risk assessment, but should not exceed six months, and if these recommendations are not        implemented it is no BS 5839 compliant.
   • Twelve months.

So it appears these installations are not BS 5839 compliant.

[William 29]

BS 5839 2013 says,

Tests/servicing to be done by the user,   
   • Weekly and Monthly.

Tests/servicing to be done by a Competent Person,
   • Quarterly if you have vented batteries.
   • Periodic inspection which is decided by a risk assessment, but should not exceed six months, and if these recommendations are not        implemented it is no BS 5839 compliant.
   • Twelve months.

So it appears these installations are not BS 5839 compliant.

They may not be BS compliant I agree, however does that matter as if it goes pear shaped and the alarm has worked despite not being maintained in compliance with the BS? Has Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order been breached? See below from the CFOA Enforcers guide:

The requirement for maintenance is a three part test. The test consists of maintaining the equipment, facilities and devices:

In an efficient state;

In efficient working order; and

In good repair.

Using the example of a fire alarm system, the three part test would apply as follows. The fire alarm would have to be in working order i.e. when operated, the fire alarm is capable of raising a warning of fire (audible, visual etc. as designed and appropriate to the risk). Although working as it should it is possible the fire alarm system incorporates sounders hanging off the wall dangling by its cabling, call points are not properly fixed to the wall etc. In this case, although working as it should, the alarm is not in good repair. Having checked that the fire alarm is in working order and in good repair, it remains to determine whether the fire alarm is in an efficient state. Evidence of e.g. a weekly test being conducted tests circuitry from the operated call point to the panel and from the panel to the sounder or warning device. This test does not however check other devices associated with the system or all the cabling throughout the system etc. To satisfy the requirement to maintain the system, in this example, in an efficient state it is reasonable to expect a system of servicing to be in place, maintaining the system to some recognised standard (usually a British Standard).

I also see fire alarm companies doing 4 visits a year as standard policy in all types of premises.

I also advise on a common sense risk based approach where fire alarms are installed in converted flats, sheltered accommodation etc. and a large organisation is sending out a maintenance chap every week to test one call point a week over several hundred premises as per the BS. What about the same chap going out 4 times a year or even less but testing more call points? The same objective is achieved in my view over a 12 month period although not strictly in accordance with the BS.

[William 29]

Enforcing authorities cannot impose frequencies on maintenance (e.g. requiring that the fire alarm must be maintained annually) though a recommendation to this effect may be made. Where the fire alarm has been provided and installed to a British Standard; it is reasonable to expect that standard to be met by the responsible person, in terms of maintenance and recording systems etc, however there is no requirement under the Order for records of test to be kept. It should be noted that the enforcing authority cannot take action against the responsible person under this article for fire safety measures they do not have (e.g. a missing fire door cannot be recorded as a maintenance failure on the grounds that it is not there to maintain).

[Mike Buckley]

The issue in my mind is not the case when the fire alarm operates effectively in spite of the call points and sounders etc. hanging off the wall but when the fire alarm does not operate. The physical state of the fire alarm will reflect more upon the attitude of the RP more than its actual working capacity.

I would agree that there is no requirement to record testing, however it does make life a lot easier if something goes pear shaped and the item to be tested does not operate. It will also help in the scenario where the call points etc are hanging off the wall.

The problem of maintaining something that is not there in my view is not really an issue, it comes under the 'if the left don't get you the right hand will' scenario. No the RP cannot be prosecuted for not maintaining the door but they may be prosecuted for failing to provide adequate fire separation.

A final point is that although these issues may not be suitable for a prosecution under the RRO it could be gist for a case under negligence where the burden of proof is less than for a criminal prosecution.