Independent annual audit of sprinkler systems

[colin todd]

Not sure how many people are aware of the new clause 21 of BS EN 12845, which came into effect on 1 January 2016.  It requires an independent annual audit of sprinkler installations, by people who it would appear cannot be the building owner, building occupier, maintenance company or the insurer, which begs the question where all these independent experts will come from and why people should pay for it.

The FPA put it on their website that the BS EN states that this is a LEGAL requirement (and offer to provide the service).  However, I see that the website has been amended to take out the reference to legal requirement, which clearly could never be stated in a BS/EN.  Interesting question is will insurers ever void a policy because of non-compliance with clause 21, will some numptie from the FRS try to enforce it... the implications are horrendous.

Even more interesting is that my understanding of CEN rules for European standards is that standards committees are not permitted to require 3rd party inspections or say who should not something-only what should be done.

A number of our clients have been informed that this is a legal requirement and that they will breach the Fire Safety Order if they do not comply, a matter I have raised with CFOA.  I think I might raise it with the Fire Minister and my MP.  Surely has implications for the benefits or otherwise of being part of Europe?

[kurnal]

Here's a link to the bafsa website with a presentation detailing the changes in the 2015 update.

http://www.bafsa.org.uk/pdfs/news/3/00002023.pdf

The annual inspection referred to by Colin has all the hallmarks of a standards committee creating work and income for its members once again, so common these days. Vested interests prevail. This causes a total loss of credibility and does the standards organisations no good at all. Can you imagine the workload  and cost involved? Has anyone ever seen a sprinkler system that is fully compliant, in my experience there are always a myriad of variations that have to be engineered and agreed with the AHJ.  Do these variations become invalid as a result of the annual review?

At least a compromise has been reluctantly accepted within the standard  for over height ceilings in high hazard storage, mirroring the German VDS standards.  

[colin todd]

Big Al, the technical issues you raise are spot on.  I am changing my intended vote to Brexit.

[wee brian]

Dont forget that membership of CEN and membership of the EU are two different things. This is an example where being in or out of the EU makes no difference.

I think BSI have produced a "what if" document on the referendum. I've no idea if they have it right or not.

As far as I can see the 3rd party inspection clause is outside the BSI and CEN drafting rules - so it needs to be taken out.

[Fishy]

Also a similar recommendation in 19.2 re: completion certificates.

I was under the impression that under BSI / CEN rules you couldn't insist that anyone performing a function recommended within a standard possessed any third-party accreditation or certification (so, for example, you couldn't recommend certification by BAFE, FIRAS, Certifire etc, etc).  Seems to me slightly different from simply recommending that someone other than the designer/installer inspects the kit (if that's what "third party" means in the context of the standard - vague, isn't it)?

[colin todd]

Its no good you trying to lobby me Wee B.  My mind is made up.  Like clause 21, the UK should come out of it all. And Big Al is with me on this I think.  After all when did they last get a French tourist in Bathmat Lock anyway.

[colin todd]

For further information (and to avoid misinformation promulgated by others unknown), CFOA have informed me that (and I quote):

"......it would be inappropriate for Enforcing Authorities to look to enforce this clause on the basis that they are failing to adequately maintain their fire safety measures to ensure the safety of employees and/or relevant persons".