Charges for Attendance at False Alarms

[idlefire]

LFB recently initiated a policy of charging for attendance at false alarms and West Yorkshire F&RS is set to follow suit in April 2014.
 
If my understanding is correct these policies are based on Section 18C (3) (d) of the Localism Act 2011 which prescribes that charges can only be made if “there is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.”

LFB definition of a “persistent problem” appears to be a flat rate of 10 false alarms within a 12 month period, yet WYF&RS appears to believe that a flat rate of 3 false alarms within a 12 month period is a “persistent problem”.

However, nationally recognised standards and guidance (i.e. BS 5839-1:2013 & HTM 05-03-H) offers guidance on “acceptable level of false alarms” based on the number of devices on a fire alarm system.

So, who’s right?
 

[Tom Sutton]

Check out http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6207.0 on this subject.

[Paul2886]

Well at least they'll turn up where as in Kent they won't unless its a confirmed fire or signs of a fire...even in care and nursing homes

[Dinnertime Dave]

LFB recently initiated a policy of charging for attendance at false alarms and West Yorkshire F&RS is set to follow suit in April 2014.
 
If my understanding is correct these policies are based on Section 18C (3) (d) of the Localism Act 2011 which prescribes that charges can only be made if “there is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.”

LFB definition of a “persistent problem” appears to be a flat rate of 10 false alarms within a 12 month period, yet WYF&RS appears to believe that a flat rate of 3 false alarms within a 12 month period is a “persistent problem”.

However, nationally recognised standards and guidance (i.e. BS 5839-1:2013 & HTM 05-03-H) offers guidance on “acceptable level of false alarms” based on the number of devices on a fire alarm system.

So, who’s right?
 

Well the definitive answer has to be BS 5839-1 or for hospitals HTM guidance. The others are policies from  individual brigades. I think many brigades are looking at those who are charging under the Localism Act and waiting to see if there is any sort of challenge.

We had a site that gave 300-400 calls per year. However, this site had about 50 different buildings. Before we took action we collected more precise information on which buildings caused the problems we were then able to take action on the correct building within the site, ultimately it was against the same RP but you have to go prepared.

[footieboy]

I think your confusion false alarms and calling the fire brigade when your alarm goes off. Have your false alarms don't waste the fire service time on them

[idlefire]

Sorry Footieboy, I don't intend to patronise but, it's not always quite as simple as you suggest.

HTM 05-03-B prescribes:

"It is essential that when an alarm of fire occurs in patient access areas, the fire and rescue service is summoned immediately".

and

"Avoidance of UwFS should never take precedence over the need for effective detection and early warning in the event of fire".

HTM 05-03-H prescribes that healthcare facilities:

"should ensure that a delay in calling the fire service only occurs for alarms generated in areas that pose no threat to patients".

It should also be noted that HTM 05-03-B also recognises that:

"Healthcare premises, predominantly hospitals, are often considered to be a major source of UwFS to which fire and rescue services are summoned.  This does not necessarily reflect on the standards of fire alarm systems in healthcare premises, or on the standards of maintenance and control that exist".

[Dinnertime Dave]

Sorry Footieboy, I don't intend to patronise but, it's not always quite as simple as you suggest.

HTM 05-03-B prescribes:

"It is essential that when an alarm of fire occurs in patient access areas, the fire and rescue service is summoned immediately".

and

"Avoidance of UwFS should never take precedence over the need for effective detection and early warning in the event of fire".

HTM 05-03-H prescribes that healthcare facilities:

"should ensure that a delay in calling the fire service only occurs for alarms generated in areas that pose no threat to patients".

It should also be noted that HTM 05-03-B also recognises that:

"Healthcare premises, predominantly hospitals, are often considered to be a major source of UwFS to which fire and rescue services are summoned.  This does not necessarily reflect on the standards of fire alarm systems in healthcare premises, or on the standards of maintenance and control that exist".

The HTM documents say a lot of things in them. If I quote some at the hospital fire officer I am told we don't need to do that it's only guidance. Face to face training springs to mind.   

[nearlythere]

HTMs are only enforced on the private sector.

[footieboy]

It is only guidance but has stood the test of time but some hospitals have been non co operative in reducing UwFS for years now. They need to look at their systems both AFA and management  and reduce their UwFS to a reasonable level. 

[idlefire]

I have to admit you have a point Footieboy, but what about hospitals that have successfully reduced their false alarms/UwFS?

Take for example a trust that employs 15,000 people and has well over 20,000 actuation points on their fire alarm system (excluding sprinkler heads).  Is West Yorkshire's 3, or London's 10, grace attendances really appropriate when both HTM and BS 5839-1 consider the rate of their false alarms to be at an acceptable level?

Last week I attended a minuted branch meeting of NAHFO at which a senior officer of WYF&RS (AM Ian Bitcon) conceeded that he expected that WYF&RS would enevitably be challenged in the courts, and inevitably lose, over this policy. 

At the same meeting WYF&RS took the stance that they would not agree, as required by HTM, to call filtering being applied to patient access areas in hospitals.

As a rate payer I have to question the wisdom of all this and wonder just exactly who advised the Fire Committee on this matter.

[colin todd]

The defintion of persistent is only part of the issue.  Who is going to determine whether the system has malfunctioned or been misinstalled.  I suppose a leading fireman in LFB who happens to be a world authority on electronic systems, nuclear physics, astrophysics biophysics and most other earth sciences.

[Mike Buckley]

No Colin, dead simple, no fire, no sign of fire, must be a false alarm. It is then up to the RP to sort out the fire alarm system. Simple, one size fits all.

[AnthonyB]

No Colin, dead simple, no fire, no sign of fire, must be a false alarm. It is then up to the RP to sort out the fire alarm system. Simple, one size fits all.

But from a charging point of view not necessarily always a false alarm due to warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.

If the trigger of the alarm is caused by phenomena similar to that a detector is designed to react to (which wouldn't always be a fire) and the detector type is appropriate to the area, then it's not malfunction or misinstallation.

If the burning toast doesn't trigger the (correctly) positioned heat head in the kitchen and triggers the (correctly) positioned smoke head in the corridor because the kitchen door was wedged to allow trays of drinks through, then it's not malfunction or misinstallation.

The malicious or accidental operation of a correctly located single action manual call point is not malfunction or misinstallation.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I have to admit you have a point Footieboy, but what about hospitals that have successfully reduced their false alarms/UwFS?

Take for example a trust that employs 15,000 people and has well over 20,000 actuation points on their fire alarm system (excluding sprinkler heads).  Is West Yorkshire's 3, or London's 10, grace attendances really appropriate when both HTM and BS 5839-1 consider the rate of their false alarms to be at an acceptable

I have had figures quoted at me of over 2000 heads over a large site that means we can have 19ish  false alarms. Having then sat down and looked at the system more closely it turned out that there were 3 systems - one had 950 heads, one had 750 and the other had 350. Unfortunately, the system with 350 were giving 90% of the activations.

The other points are that what actually happens in a hospital when the alarms operate. My experience is nothing at all, staff carry on as normal. I have never been to a ward where staff have prepared any patients for movement. Why? because they know it is the toaster that has set the alarm off and the management like that the fire service will come and give the all clear.

In one private hospital the procedure was that the senior person present would decide if an emergency ambulance was called to transfer anybody being operated on to the local A&E. They also called the fire service. The hospital manager was adamant that staff weren't qualified to assess whether there was a fire, but I asked how many times they have called a an ambulance to the 25 calls we had attended? None was the reply. The reason is the ambulance service will charge us and there wasn't a fire so we didn't need them. So why do they need the fire service?

[idlefire]

Dinnertime, good point well made.

Although, I do wonder if, at 3 o'clock in the morning, the LFB Leading Fireman that Colin intoduced me to in his earlier post will be competent enough (i.e. "has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities") to determine if the fire alarm is a single system or a number of systems all linked together.