Fire officers

[2na]

Hi All,

Just had a discussion with one of the local fire officers in our area regarding one of the hotels we look after.

He told me that when we service fire alarms in any buildings, they have to be unto the current design standard or they fail the inspection. The hotel alarm was installed by a bunch of cowboys a few years back, (previous owners choice) and parts of it were wired in LSF T&E. I mentioned this to the inspector 2 years ago, and he assumed it was ok as we did not design it, as long as any additional points were installed to current standards.

Does this mean that when testing buildings we are to fail them if a detector wired 40 years ago is too close to a light fitting? Or the cables installed 20 years ago do not comply to current standards? Or there are not enough detectors to make it a current L2 system or what is advised in BS5839 P1?

The reason I am asking is because I thought when testing we are responsible for checking the current fire alarm system works and we can only advise on what should be done, which is then left to the fire officer to decide the final verdict on if they have to have it upgraded?

Nearly every block of flats we go into has many things wrong in the walkways alone, and who knows what is inside some of the flats! One of the schools we service in Lancing only has call points and one detector in the kitchen, but has passed every fire safety inspection for the last 25 years!

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

[Guest77]

Hi All,

Just had a discussion with one of the local fire officers in our area regarding one of the hotels we look after.

He told me that when we service fire alarms in any buildings, they have to be unto the current design standard or they fail the inspection. The hotel alarm was installed by a bunch of cowboys a few years back, (previous owners choice) and parts of it were wired in LSF T&E. I mentioned this to the inspector 2 years ago, and he assumed it was ok as we did not design it, as long as any additional points were installed to current standards.

Does this mean that when testing buildings we are to fail them if a detector wired 40 years ago is too close to a light fitting? Or the cables installed 20 years ago do not comply to current standards? Or there are not enough detectors to make it a current L2 system or what is advised in BS5839 P1?

The reason I am asking is because I thought when testing we are responsible for checking the current fire alarm system works and we can only advise on what should be done, which is then left to the fire officer to decide the final verdict on if they have to have it upgraded?

Nearly every block of flats we go into has many things wrong in the walkways alone, and who knows what is inside some of the flats! One of the schools we service in Lancing only has call points and one detector in the kitchen, but has passed every fire safety inspection for the last 25 years!

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Not sure of the current regs, but only bells had to be wired in Fireproof cable at one time, tazz is your man.

 

[Newbyspark]

I would question him on it and ask for second opinion. Their usually pretty good, but sometimes get it wrong.

 

[tazz]

The basic design of BS5839 part have not since 1979, detector spacing, sounder/bell requirements are still the same. Only new technology in detection, monitoring and battery back up has moved forward.
The hotel complies to the standard, requested and required when it was installed. Copy of which will be available from BC along with original fire officers report. And thus still does.
On saying that, never has T&E cable been accepted on bell circuits, and would have failed then.
And new laws concerning Disabled discrimination, would request visual indication in bedrooms and toilet areas.
On taking over any maintenance, I full variation report should be conducted to indicate your findings and non compliances. Taking into account not just BS5839 but DDA and the customers latest risk assessment. Its then upto to customer to comply. Always issue your findings on every maintenance visit, to cover yourself.
So conclusion....yes it complies, if fitted correctly at the time.....but DDA and or requirements may affect the installation.
Sorry its long winded, and hope this helps

 

[2na]

The basic design of BS5839 part have not since 1979, detector spacing, sounder/bell requirements are still the same. Only new technology in detection, monitoring and battery back up has moved forward.
The hotel complies to the standard, requested and required when it was installed. Copy of which will be available from BC along with original fire officers report. And thus still does.
On saying that, never has T&E cable been accepted on bell circuits, and would have failed then.
And new laws concerning Disabled discrimination, would request visual indication in bedrooms and toilet areas.
On taking over any maintenance, I full variation report should be conducted to indicate your findings and non compliances. Taking into account not just BS5839 but DDA and the customers latest risk assessment. Its then upto to customer to comply. Always issue your findings on every maintenance visit, to cover yourself.
So conclusion....yes it complies, if fitted correctly at the time.....but DDA and or requirements may affect the installation.
Sorry its long winded, and hope this helps

So You think they should chase up the company which originally designed and installed it? They know who it was, the company is still driving round in vans today.

I just think it was strange that the last fire officer passed it without a problem, and then two years later another has failed it miserably and then passed it onto us to sort it out. We're talking about thousands of pounds worth of work to be completed by April.

I personally think hunk they should get the company back that installed it and question there work, but that was around 10 years ago and that probably wouldn't hold up to much now.

would I be right in thinking though, that a system can be passed even it has recommendations or is it a flat out fail? The obvious reason is people usually don't have the money to get it sorted asap.

 

[tazz]

Well it sounds good work for you, nice new addressable system to install. Why let the old company take work from you.
It still complies, but not with T&E cabling, and any other faults you have found.
The DDA is the main other issue.
Some fire officers don`t have a clue, and some know the systems inside out, and it becomes luck of the draw....I put so many complaints in about some fire officers, with BC even backing me up. I personally here would be asking the question, why has it passed previously..?

 

[2na]

Well it sounds good work for you, nice new addressable system to install. Why let the old company take work from you.
It still complies, but not with T&E cabling, and any other faults you have found.
The DDA is the main other issue.
Some fire officers don`t have a clue, and some know the systems inside out, and it becomes luck of the draw....I put so many complaints in about some fire officers, with BC even backing me up. I personally here would be asking the question, why has it passed previously..?

I agree, sometimes the fire officers have such varied opinions on what is needed. I will get them to ask the question about previous passes, I think that is the most valid point here.

the main problem is, a new system would almost certainly bankrupt them. They lease the building and I doubt they could cover a new system, with decorating afterwards. they would have to shut the building for around 4 weeks and the losses of that alone would be huge.

sometimes I feel when doing EICRs and Fire alarm inspection reports I should write, "don't shoot the messenger" on the top of the report.

 

[tazz]

Always write everything down...saves comebacks...
In situations like this...I would advise upgrading in stages, without closure. Change the panel to addressable, connecting up original zones on din monitors....and install new system in stages per loop.....Customer will be alot happier, as to stage payments and no closure. Where you keep a system running 98% of the time, and work load spread out. Fire officer happy, as works are in progress.

 

[2na]

it would still cost a huge amount done like that, and I know money is tight for them because of staff redundancies. At the end of the day, this isn't my problem, I just really wanted to know where I stood on the satisfactory/unsatisfactory part. Recommendations go on the sheet but if it still works, I can't be responsible for saying its a failure and all insurances are void can I? Then again, I'm sure I would be responsible for saying its a pass if someone is hurt.

you can't win, I should have been a plumber!

 

[tazz]

You can only do what the customer wants, but covering yourself with reports and non conforms.
As a maintenance engineer, you have tested the system to the best of your ability and reported any defects you feel need issuing. You can not do any more. I would say, if H&S were involved after a fire, they would point out the same.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Didn't they fairly recently bring out a requirement for smoke detectors in voids that are a meter or more high?

 

[tazz]

The 800mm void advice has been active since I can remember pre 1985......I do say advice, as a risk assessment would state whether a ceiling void detection would be required.....Good example of this is the loft space in a house, being low risk, Part 6 never covered it, unless is formed a risk, such a straw or a thatched roof..... Now with solar panels and invertors installed in loft spaces, the risk has changed again.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Worked on a fire alarm install in a bank just before Christmas last year.
Prior to that was sometime before 2005.
At the bank, I was given the impression that it was now 1m, and compulsory?
Don't do a lot of fire alarms, so I tend to just go on what I'm told rather than obtaining a copy of the standard.