OP
accordfire
Well let's see if I'm getting what you're saying right - you're saying that anyone at all should be able to take responsibility of the maintenance of a critical life safety system? Is that it?
I think I've made if fairly clear that I have nothing against ANYONE with the relevant experience and knowledge maintaining fire alarm systems. My criteria is that is is done properly, within the guides set out in the current BS5839.
Further what I am saying (and you have this a little wrong) is that thanks to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order of 2005 the client currently DOES HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY for checking the qualifications of the persons maintaining ANY aspect of his fire safety.
The legislation covering Scotland is, just for the hell of it, a little different, given that it comes under the scope of Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland)Act 2005, as amended, and the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006, as amended. It still leaves responsibility with the client as the RRO does, however.
So, providing the "Electrician" you mention has the relevant skills and experience, there's no reason why he can't maintain the fire alarm as a side line - just in the same way, presumably, you wouldn't mind any fire alarm technician with the relevant skills and knowledge to come in and rewire your house, as a side line - as I understand you're saying qualifications are irrelevant so long as it's a sideline business, yes?
Just as a final point, all we currently really have IS a six week wonder course (though you can do all the modules in around two) - because the powers seeing fit to enforce legal Acts evidently do not believe fire safety, in particular fire alarm work, needs an actual qualification.
Really, the problem is there are far too many six week wonders currently carrying out fire alarm maintenance "as a sideline" which is why cases like the one that started this discussion happen, at least in part. There was nothing at all stopping the guy doing what he did, or is alleged to have done, as realistically, the client - the one who initially had the responsibility for the proper operation of that system had no idea at all, we are to believe, of what constitutes proper maintenance of a fire alarm and what does not. We would assume, by reason, that is why he entrusted the task, and in turn the responsibility under the RRO, to the individual in the dock.
My argument, as it seems your REALLY is - is that its ALL about the experience and skill - but that needs a way to be checked and verified by less knowledgeable individuals, just like today's electrical industry does. And because it doesn't have that, and the law places responsibility for that in the hands of people who are in no way expert in matters of fire propagation, we have the very situation you mention above - whereby that someone SAYS they can maintain it, therefore they can.
The flip side of all this, of course, is how that guy in the dock feels today, knowing his negligence (if indeed it was his - that is not yet proven, only suspected) has cost the life of another human being. It does, however, finally highlight one important aspect of the law in both Scotland and in England and Wales - that responsibility under the law will remain with the guy calling himself expert (by way of signature on the certificate), and not just the supremely unqualified owner or responsible person.
Can I ask how you'd feel if it happened as a result of work you carried out - as a sideline? I know how I'd feel, and that's why I employ experts in each of the fields my business operates in, and why none of what we do is a side line.
I'm sorry - I'm not meaning to take your words and use them against you - more to indicate that the prevalence is for an attitude of "its only an electrical system" to override the actual matter of it being an electrical system with the specific purpose of being a last line of defence against the loss of life due to fire. That, for me, is not something that should ever be taken lightly, or treated as a side line.
I've quoted statistics elsewhere lately - but suffice it here to say that around 50% of systems we take over, having been maintained by others, have problems within them significant enough that no certificate should ever have been issued. We come across around one in three, 33% of risk assessments which simply, are not fit for purpose - and may as well have been completed in wax crayon - some outrageously so - and allegedly completed by experts, all of them.
Of course, we see the other extreme too - from over engineered systems to hyer----- risk assessments - because every building really does need a full arson proof, fire extinguishing letter box (yes, they really do make them) - those account for around one in fifty jobs we go to. I'd rather have those statistics the other way round, wouldn't you?
Ultimately - so long as you, and your customer, are confident you can maintain the system in line with current standards, keep it fully operational, and update it as required, such that it continues to perform to its design specification, there is no reason at all why anyone, much less me, would have any problem with it, whether you be an Electrician, brain surgeon, or street sweeper.
I just care about fire safety being done properly.
