Fire alarm testing - Commercial Multioccupancy

[DavyFire]

Hi,
   I know fire alarm testing has been covered before, but mainly for blocks of flats/ living accom etc.
My query relates to commercial premises. It is a large former textile/ shirt making factory. It has been sub-divided and converted to offices, farm shop, cafe, indoor football arena etc.
One part which is compartmentalized separately has its own fire alarm and detection system. The remainder has a common fire alarm and detection system maintained and tested regularly, but not weekly, by the landlord.
The Fire and Rescue Service came for an audit of one of the offices occupied by a child support group with about 8 occupants. The inspecting officer checked the fire alarm testing record, pointed out it should be tested weekly. Fair comment,
The I/O insists that the tenant in this office tests their BGCP's on a weekly basis and only record this in their log book. My view is as it is a common system all the call points on the system are tested in rotation and this should be recorded in the main log book and the tenants log book. If all are tested in rotation and only the ones (3 in total) in the office recorded in the office log book, it would imply the system is only tested occasionally.
Any views please.

[Golden]

Davy, in my opinion you are right that the whole system should be tested by the landlord. Personally I wouldn't insist on the tenant recording the tests but would refer the IO to the building log book for the test records. The building management and tenant should be aware of the requirement to co-operate with others under article 22 in the case of a multi-occupied building.

[AnthonyB]

The clue is in the term 'common system'. The one office tenant does not have control of the system so cannot be responsible for testing - but should be asking the landlord to do this.

The only area where it would be expected for the tenant to test and maintain the system is in the separate compartment with it's own system where they have control of the system.

At least in the days of the fire certificate, for all it's many flaws, this would be clear cut and even if there was only an inspection of part of the premises they wouldn't be making mistakes like that.

If the tenant (as annoyingly happens) had put their own system in alongside the common one with the appropriate interfaces then it might be different.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with AnthonyB, it is the duty of the landlord to ensure that the common system is tested and maintained, where the tenant has put their own system in then it would be the duty of the tenant to test and maintain their system and if the system links into the common system, to ensure that the link works.

I tend to agree about putting a tenant's system into a building that already has a common system, simplest is usually best.

[colin todd]

Since the main purpose of the weekly test is simply to check that there has not been a catastrophic failure of the complete fire alarm system, the answer is obvious and as stated by everyone above.  The problem is that inspecting officers are not taught the fundamentals of why things are done, so don't really understand how to deal with situations as described.

[nearlythere]

This is where the co-operation and co-ordination regulation comes in.

When I have been asked for a view on this I always advise that the tenant carried out his portion of the weekly test relevant to the number of points in the building. If there are 10 CPs in the building and there are two in his bit he should advise the others of when his 2 test weeks out of the ten are and carry out his test regardless of whether the other do or not.

[kurnal]

Thats great NT provided the control panel is accessible in the communal areas. When its in another tenants demise its not so easy. Specially when the
Landlord and none of the other tenants show the slightest interest.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with Colin it comes down to the common sense of the I/O (or lack of). In a case like this the I/O needs to determine who is responsible for what and this comes down to the hierarchy of the Responsible Person and Co-operation and Co-ordination.

If, as in kurnal's case, if the panel is not accessible or the landlord and other tenants will not co-operate, then action needs to be taken against them not just against an individual tenant. The powers are there.

As has often been discussed on this forum it comes down to everybody doing their job properly and not treating everything as a tick box exercise.

[nearlythere]

Thats great NT provided the control panel is accessible in the communal areas. When its in another tenants demise its not so easy. Specially when the
Landlord and none of the other tenants show the slightest interest.

True and on one occasion I had the panel relocated to a common area. Are you able to take mail at the moment?

[kurnal]

Of course NT - but am out and about a lot. Call if you wish. I have been looking without success for the document you seek but have a suggestion for you to view it.