AFD in purpose built block of flats -advice welcome!

[SuzannaC]

If there is AFD installed in PPBF and it is not required, is it ok to leave the system panel showing a fault  indefinitely?

[kurnal]

Is there a risk of creating confusion if there are break glass points that will not work? If the system is definitely not required, eg for controlling vents, it would be better to disconnect it from the mains, remove the batteries and mask the panel and call points to avoid confusion. And first make sure the fire risk assessment accounts for and justifies the changes made.

[Tom Sutton]

What does "PPBF" mean, if it is not a standard abbreviation write it in full the first time and then abbreviate, it helps dummkopfs like me. 

[Fishy]

The discussion about whether it's "required" or not aside, having fire protection kit present but failing to maintain it is inviting enforcement action, & (particularly if there were a fire) potentially a criminal prosecution.

If the RP is convinced that they achieve a higher level of fire safety without it than with, then as a matter of good practice it should be properly decommissioned and (ideally) removed.

[kurnal]

And of course informing / educating all involved of the new stay put procedure.

[AnthonyB]

What does "PPBF" mean, if it is not a standard abbreviation write it in full the first time and then abbreviate, it helps dummkopfs like me. 

I'm guessing 'Purpose Built Block of Flats".

Usually it's the call points and sounders that aren't required, the detection and panel are usually interfaced to smoke control which is required.

Although I have seen a (confirmed in strategy and construction) stay put block with full detection, call points and sounders that wasn't part of the smoke management system as the vents and shaft doors had their own AFD...

If it's there it should be in good working order, if it's not needed at all  it should be correctly decommissioned and not some confusing half way house.

[SuzannaC]

Thank you all for the reply. I was on the same page so I will take appropriate action

[William 29]

If a fire alarm is provided then under Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order is should be maintained in an efficient state, even if it is actually not needed as the flats are purpose built and suitable for a stay put policy. The fault on the panel would/may indicate the fire alarm is not functioning correctly?

[nearlythere]

I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.

[William 29]

I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.

Fully agree with you re the unnecessary reasons as to why AFD goes into to PB flats and we regularly recommend them to be removed or disabled, particularly if they are only fitted to the common parts. My point is, if a system is installed, whether required or not the RRFSO is quite clear that any such system should be maintained, in an efficient state and good working order.

[David Rooney]

I disagree William.
Many AFDs are installed because many don't know when they are not required so whack it in just in case. I blame building designers and enforcement authorities, as well as quite a few Fire Risk Assessors, as being responsible for the saturation the building stock with unnecessary FA Systems which, I will also contend, in some cases, can expose occupiers to harm from other risks from the installation of unnecessary systems.

Spot on .....  Either there are a lot of lazy people who don't read the regulations or the regulations are made too complicated.... probably a mixture of both.

But it is very frustrating for companies like mine that end up having to do the work of some lazy XXXX consultant that's being paid ?1000 a day to put his name to a design that we inevitably end up doing.

 

[Tom Sutton]

Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."

Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?

[William 29]

Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."

Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?

Ok, practical example. Large housing client with many 2 storey, small PB block of flats. All have emergency lighting installed, but they are not maintained or tested and there are no plans to do so due to cost. No requirement to install EL in the common stair when the blocks were built (1970s) or under the current ADB. At some point EL was installed but decision was taken not to test/maintain.

So, is said client in breach or Article 17 or not?

[Mike Buckley]

The other issue with the AFD in blocks of flats is that quite frequently if it is not maintained or there are no suitable arrangements for resetting it there are a lot of UWFS, occupants don't evacuate, and the FS starts sending nasty letters saying they aren't going to turn up to the fire alarm.

[nearlythere]

Art 17 says "provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment."

Art 13 says "Where necessary," so if the if the sounders and call points are not necessary have they been provided in respect of the RR(FS)O or any other enactment and subject to art 17?

Ok, practical example. Large housing client with many 2 storey, small PB block of flats. All have emergency lighting installed, but they are not maintained or tested and there are no plans to do so due to cost. No requirement to install EL in the common stair when the blocks were built (1970s) or under the current ADB. At some point EL was installed but decision was taken not to test/maintain.

So, is said client in breach or Article 17 or not?

To me, yes they should, if the FRA considered it necessary, even if it wasn't a requirement under ADB in 1970s.