Charges for Attendance at False Alarms

[idlefire]

AnthonyB,

When challenged with the exact same toast scenario the senior officer from WYF&RS, who addressed the NAHFO meeting I attended, suggested it would be chargeable as long as the toast was still edible God help us!!!  

[AnthonyB]

Oh dear....

But it's still not malfunction or misinstallation, lets hope some RP's have the bottle to take it to Court and get some common sense in place.

I'm not at all suggesting that non equipment causes of false alarms be ignored, but as the Act has been quite prescriptive in when charging is allowed then that's what the FA should stick to or get it changed.

[colin todd]

Idol, if you want someone who can count to 3 you will need a sub-officer. For second order differential calculus and Einstein's theory of special relativity it has to go up to a station officer. But guess which service the DO who actually taught Einstein all he knew came from??

[nearlythere]

Idol, if you want someone who can count to 3 you will need a sub-officer. For second order differential calculus and Einstein's theory of special relativity it has to go up to a station officer. But guess which service the DO who actually taught Einstein all he knew came from??

Ammmmm Firefighter?

[Dinnertime Dave]

AnthonyB,

When challenged with the exact same toast scenario the senior officer from WYF&RS, who addressed the NAHFO meeting I attended, suggested it would be chargeable as long as the toast was still edible God help us!!!  

When I became a Leading firefighter, sorry a crew manager. I asked the question of when does the burnt toast go from being a FAGI to an FDR1. The answer was if you get there and the toast is in the bin it's a fire. If the toast has been eaten then it is a False alarm with good intent. I have never worked in WYF&RS. If someone can give a better definition go ahead. 

[nearlythere]

Toast which is produced as a result of control burning in FAGI. That which was produced as a result of an uncontrolled burning is FDR1.
Bread which has been burnt is not toast. One can eat toast. One cannot eat burnt bread.
Now that is complicated a little as some people like their bread lightly toasted whereas some, like me, like toast well browned. So it is all down to the definition of when does toast become burn bread?

[Mike Buckley]

In one Brigade the instruction was where there's smoke there's fire. It did wonders for the number of fires the brigade attended which co incidentally was one of the measures for government funding.

[Dinnertime Dave]

In one Brigade the instruction was where there's smoke there's fire. It did wonders for the number of fires the brigade attended which co incidentally was one of the measures for government funding.

Your right, in the days of that perverse funding method it was if in doubt it is a fire. But from what I remember there had to be damage to something other than the item first ignited.

[Mike Buckley]

Minor detail, especially when money is concerned!

[idlefire]

Gents,

Back in the day when I was a lad, a fire wasn't a fire unless there was physical ignition involved; I seem to recall an FDR1 actually needed an "item first ignited" to be recorded.

Has this changed or are fraudulent FDR1's now common place to satisfy the politicians and their bean counters?

[Tom Sutton]

The FIA says "The incoming Localism Bill will give fire authorities the power to charge a commercial property owner if they consistently attend false fire alarms which have been set off by malfunctioning or "misinstalled" warning equipment.

Is the Oic able to decide that the false alarm was due to malfunctioning or "misinstalled" equipment?

[nearlythere]

The FIA says "The incoming Localism Bill will give fire authorities the power to charge a commercial property owner if they consistently attend false fire alarms which have been set off by malfunctioning or "misinstalled" warning equipment.

Is the Oic able to decide that the false alarm was due to malfunctioning or "misinstalled" equipment?

I would think the F&RS would Tom, especially if it had to persistently attend false alarms in a premises. I don't think the OIC would have to concern himself with the technicalities of the installation. All he/she would have to establish is that it did not operate because it was actuated by heat of smoke which is what he would normally do anyway.
If there were persistent false alarms and all or most were not caused by a fire then all the F&RS would have to do is charge on the basis that the cause must have been because of a malfunction or mis-installation. Doesn't matter which one as long as there was no evidence of actuation by heat or smoke.

[Tom Sutton]

NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,

Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned.  A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.

Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.

and I think he has a strong point.

[nearlythere]

NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,

Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned.  A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.

Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.

and I think he has a strong point.

One will never know until it is challenged in court Tom. Should the charge be £200 or so for the turnout is it likely that someone will challenge it through the courts? More likely to get someone it to check it over and sort it out.

[nearlythere]

NT I put the same argument to CT and his response was,

Tam, if challenged in court is that what they will say. I have no idea what malfunctioned your honour but I know it malfunctioned.  A false alarm is no a system malfunction, Tam, it is more commonly the case that the system functioned entirely correctly or as the technology was bound to perform , so there is nothing for the fire alarm engineer to work out.

Tam, the point is that very commonly it is not known if there was human intervention or an environmental cause or electromagnetic interference or steam that has long ago dispersed or someone having a cigarette illicitly, or an electrical storm in the area. Malfunctions of equipment causing false alarms are rare and often impossible to prove (unless you have been to lots of fires in England, and then you will be a world authority). But all these other causes such as human stupidity or lack of control of premises which is the cause of most false alarms cannot be charged for, so it is all so much hot air really.

and I think he has a strong point.

One will never know until it is challenged in court Tom. Should the charge be £200 or so for the turnout is it likely that someone will challenge it through the courts? More likely to get someone it to check it over and sort it out.

Not unless it has already gone through the appeal court?