Call point testing in flats

[hammer1]

Evening chaps,

Been a while since on this great forum to post exactly this query. Reading BS the main purpose of the weekly test is testing the circuit that links to the sounders (however not solely for this purpose to ensure ALL sounders are operational).........however in my experience I have seen the testers silence the sounders when doing the test for obvious reasons when at a residential (management/ communication/confusion issues), therefore compromises one of the aspects of doing such a test under BS.

Add the fact in regards to some residential you may only have x 1 manual break glass call point and in comparison to commercial buildings you may have 20 or even 100. Testing the one in residential, 4 times a month over the 12 month period??

BS Part 1 also states about (employees?) working out of hours that a monthly bell test should be included to ensure they are familiar with the sounders, so if we are going to stick by the book, are we going to have testes around 7pm when most folk are home in their flats as the current weekly at 10am, 70% folk are not in and at work??

If we are only doing it weekly to ensure it is alive, what about the 7 days in-between??

Also, I feel the BS Part 6 referring to Part 1 on testing/maintenance should have been looked at during the revision as the two can have very different scenarios in this regard.

Think we need to read section 44.1 on BS Part 1 as we should not miss the main purpose and goal of maintenance/testing.


Can I ask your opinions on what you would do in such sceneries if I was your client. i am talking about converted houses here pre 1991 building regulations with a communal fire alarm system, interlinked with flats which have a 'all out' policy and only x 1 break glass call point located by the main entrance door to the building.

Thank you in advance.

[hammer1]

So would you have an issue with doing the test monthly or quarterly then in flats or sheltered schemes where there are large numbers of premises if its just really to check if the system is alive?

You are going against a CoP William. But you can do the users checks when you like. It will be open to the court to determine if the frequency other than as recommended was adequate or not.

I totally understand this, however what about where you have portfolios of housing stock in the 100s which is the case in London, where sometimes a charity control such stock of normal converted buildings (usually Victorian/Edwardian) this blocks are unmanned and it is impossible to conduct a weekly check of all the stock?. Having a weekly test could cost thousands in which the charity really has not the money, however risk assessing the specifics and recommending monthly tests? would not be adequate?. For example the BS for emergency lighting recommends daily checks, are you saying the charity should employ some one to do a daily check of the housing stock ? surely anyone can see in the 'real' would not be practicable and is ever hardly done in the world of Managing Agents? Why is this not the same the weekly requirement?.

[AnthonyB]

You could argue that in a sleeping risk premises where the structure & lack of escape provisions is such that full simultaneous evacuation is needed the risk to life from any defect in a fire alarm system is far greater than that in normal commercial premises and if you were to move any sites weekly tests to monthly it would be the office block, not the flats.

Of course if it's purpose built or a conversion that has had the requisite features installed and the sounders are there because it's the done thing then you could isolate the sounders (as the system is an L5 to activate the smoke management) - but if you moved the testing to monthly as it's not really an alarm you would fall foul of not following the standard practice to test your smoke vents etc weekly.

An FRA could support a variation in testing, but would you be sure it would stand up in court?

[hammer1]

You could argue that in a sleeping risk premises where the structure & lack of escape provisions is such that full simultaneous evacuation is needed the risk to life from any defect in a fire alarm system is far greater than that in normal commercial premises and if you were to move any sites weekly tests to monthly it would be the office block, not the flats.

Of course if it's purpose built or a conversion that has had the requisite features installed and the sounders are there because it's the done thing then you could isolate the sounders (as the system is an L5 to activate the smoke management) - but if you moved the testing to monthly as it's not really an alarm you would fall foul of not following the standard practice to test your smoke vents etc weekly.

An FRA could support a variation in testing, but would you be sure it would stand up in court?

I understand, but if we look into the text of the BS and the reason behind the weekly test, it states employees, it states monthly out of hours tests all of which are not applicable for residential. As I say I have seen in most cases the tester silence the sounders for residential, no point having call points if the sounders don't work?. I see that we are cherry picking parts of the BS to enforce and parts not to enforce, why is that??

Is there any case studies where its gone to court where the RP had a quarterly test inspection and a monthly call point test?? I would hope a Judge would read the detail and the reasons behind the BS and that the RP is trying to ensure to the best of their ability the required testing/maintenance is in place, surely a RP with no testing/maintenance would be going to Court first.

I thought the point of risk assessing is to move away from prescriptive and assess each site individually? If we stuck to the book on all BS and building regs the world would come to a halt surely not?.

Like I say, where unmanned I have never seen the daily checks of E/L completed, but this is in the BS? why is that acceptable? and like on another thread, I am seeing more and more 100% fire alarm testing taking place. Buildings which have had visits from fire offices at various times.

What about have a monthly test, however instead of a quarterly 25%, you have a quarterly 100% therefore increasing the maintenance regime to compensate?

[nearlythere]

What we need is a national course of action say like everybody in the country carries out their weekly sound check for the full 59.9999 seconds all at the same time and cause a situation worse than fracking and blame the 5839 committee ie Dot  which will side a national petition breaking the 100K barrier for debate in the House and an end to this nonsense. On the otherhand just cover your ears.

[hammer1]

What we need is a national course of action say like everybody in the country carries out their weekly sound check for the full 59.9999 seconds all at the same time and cause a situation worse than fracking and blame the 5839 committee ie Dot  which will side a national petition breaking the 100K barrier for debate in the House and an end to this nonsense. On the otherhand just cover your ears.

No, just a bit of simple common sense would of done. But what can you say when it is fire alarm engineers, installation companies, scare tactics consultants (ensure work load does not drop) who form these committees, sort of loses the purpose and end goal of life safety, who are we to have common sense above business??......obviously a tongue n cheek look on things

[Fishy]

So would you have an issue with doing the test monthly or quarterly then in flats or sheltered schemes where there are large numbers of premises if its just really to check if the system is alive?

You are going against a CoP William. But you can do the users checks when you like. It will be open to the court to determine if the frequency other than as recommended was adequate or not.

I totally understand this, however what about where you have portfolios of housing stock in the 100s which is the case in London, where sometimes a charity control such stock of normal converted buildings (usually Victorian/Edwardian) this blocks are unmanned and it is impossible to conduct a weekly check of all the stock?. Having a weekly test could cost thousands in which the charity really has not the money, however risk assessing the specifics and recommending monthly tests? would not be adequate?. For example the BS for emergency lighting recommends daily checks, are you saying the charity should employ some one to do a daily check of the housing stock ? surely anyone can see in the 'real' would not be practicable and is ever hardly done in the world of Managing Agents? Why is this not the same the weekly requirement?.

The BS ENs are there essentially as a 'benchmark' of what ought to be acceptable; you don't have to follow them, but if you don't you would be best advised to argue why the alternative you choose and/or recommend offers an equivalent level of safety (risk) to that covered by the national guidance.  The test is what's "reasonably practicable".  As others have said, if you have sleeping risks in old/converted buildings (where the fire alarm provides a significant risk reduction measure) then perhaps there's an argument that the weekly test is more important than in 'typical' premises of the same type, rather than less?

Affordability or lack of funds is not an excuse - whether a charity is involved or not.  The law assumes that if you choose to undertake an activity, you have first determined you can afford to do it safely (otherwise you don't do it).  It's a bit like driving with bald tyres on your car - the excuse "I couldn't afford new tyres Officer..." won't go far.  Demonstrating you lack cash just influences the size of the fine!

[Dinnertime Dave]

There is also the argument often heard - " If you don't need them in the first place there is no need to maintain them"

[longjohn]

There is also the argument often heard - " If you don't need them in the first place there is no need to maintain them"

Was thinking that myself Dave, are they purpose built flats, some of them?

[hammer1]

So would you have an issue with doing the test monthly or quarterly then in flats or sheltered schemes where there are large numbers of premises if its just really to check if the system is alive?

You are going against a CoP William. But you can do the users checks when you like. It will be open to the court to determine if the frequency other than as recommended was adequate or not.

I totally understand this, however what about where you have portfolios of housing stock in the 100s which is the case in London, where sometimes a charity control such stock of normal converted buildings (usually Victorian/Edwardian) this blocks are unmanned and it is impossible to conduct a weekly check of all the stock?. Having a weekly test could cost thousands in which the charity really has not the money, however risk assessing the specifics and recommending monthly tests? would not be adequate?. For example the BS for emergency lighting recommends daily checks, are you saying the charity should employ some one to do a daily check of the housing stock ? surely anyone can see in the 'real' would not be practicable and is ever hardly done in the world of Managing Agents? Why is this not the same the weekly requirement?.

The BS ENs are there essentially as a 'benchmark' of what ought to be acceptable; you don't have to follow them, but if you don't you would be best advised to argue why the alternative you choose and/or recommend offers an equivalent level of safety (risk) to that covered by the national guidance.  The test is what's "reasonably practicable".  As others have said, if you have sleeping risks in old/converted buildings (where the fire alarm provides a significant risk reduction measure) then perhaps there's an argument that the weekly test is more important than in 'typical' premises of the same type, rather than less?

Affordability or lack of funds is not an excuse - whether a charity is involved or not.  The law assumes that if you choose to undertake an activity, you have first determined you can afford to do it safely (otherwise you don't do it).  It's a bit like driving with bald tyres on your car - the excuse "I couldn't afford new tyres Officer..." won't go far.  Demonstrating you lack cash just influences the size of the fine!

All converted (Victorian/Edwardian buildings), we have had to prioritise as 50% had no AFD system at all, so you can imagine the costs involved in just that so that has taken precedence, and also having quarterly maintenance  (25%) tests regime set up.

That is it, what is deemed as reasonably practicable, I am just looking into the text of why we have weekly tests in the BS document and it just does not link into residential. Surely seeing the amount spent installing and setting up maintenance to a good stating point in a Court Of Law if the RP is acting reasonable practicable?. I think there is more argument/justification extending the weekly tests than not.

I am aware there are very experienced assessors on here and I have dealt with many Charities, housing associations across UK and to be honest only a very small percentage in these types of buildings with similar AFD systems have gone down the weekly route, so I wonder have many have come across this issue in their work??

As I say, BS5266 state daily checks, in all my years have never seen this applied to unmanned sites.

[colin todd]

Daily checks were dropped from BS 5266-1 years ago.

[kurnal]

Nobody will tell you directly what you want to hear Hammer1. it doesn't work like that. none of us can see all the circumstances of the case .

If I were you I would make a bullet point summary in the form of a SWOT analysis or a GAP analysis, make my decision and be prepared to fight my corner on the basis of my decision, backed up by the notes held on file. You won't go wrong if you know and understand what  the COP says and why, then make a decent case for varying from that standard and doing all that you see as being reasonably practicable. The bs is guidance after all.

[hammer1]

Daily checks were dropped from BS 5266-1 years ago.

Thank God for that, next you be saying 6 monthly have been dropped??.....only jesting there. Shame no one has told the contractors

[hammer1]

Nobody will tell you directly what you want to hear Hammer1. it doesn't work like that. none of us can see all the circumstances of the case .

If I were you I would make a bullet point summary in the form of a SWOT analysis or a GAP analysis, make my decision and be prepared to fight my corner on the basis of my decision, backed up by the notes held on file. You won't go wrong if you know and understand what  the COP says and why, then make a decent case for varying from that standard and doing all that you see as being reasonably practicable. The bs is guidance after all.

Thanks for your feedback, was just raising the debate and playing devils advocate.

Cheers

[Fishy]

There is also the argument often heard - " If you don't need them in the first place there is no need to maintain them"

The old "Reverse ALARP" argument... http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr151.pdf