Old Fire Systems Whats Acceptable

[JohnCunningham]

Hi All,

Looking from some advice from old hands. I have been inspecting and installing fire alarms (panel and mains ) for about 7 years now but in what I call a squeaky clean environment. I work for the HMO Landlord sector who have to present their safety inspections yearly to the council man (who is a little strict in my area). It doesn't matter what I inspect whether it be an electrical installation or a fire alarm the only proviso the council give to their approved contractors is don't ever give them a safety cert with comment for upgrades or non compliance. In their eyes it passes to current regs or it doesn't . No codes 1-4 on the certs. To be fair it works for me as most of my work is inspections and upgrades.

When I work outside my sanitised environment I often feel I am being a little harsh on what are quite serviceable fire systems. My question to all is what do you think is acceptable to obtain a satisfactory pass on a inspection report. For instance what if a system is approaching 20years old only on a single zone over 3 stories (above the 300m2 rule) but has been serviced on the dot, detectors are current, and works well, just doesn't fully comply to the 2002 regs. Are you happy to say satisfactory but code 4 does not comply.

What if everything is fine apart from one stud wall that is built too close to a detector or the painter has hit the detector with his roller.

In part 1 it says that many values and statements are guidance only and judgment should be used to say how strictly the guidance is adhered to.

What is everyones thoughts? Does it fail unless it is to the letter of the code or how lenient do you go.

All comments appreciated.

John

[luggsey]

Hi All,

Looking from some advice from old hands. I have been inspecting and installing fire alarms (panel and mains ) for about 7 years now but in what I call a squeaky clean environment. I work for the HMO Landlord sector who have to present their safety inspections yearly to the council man (who is a little strict in my area). It doesn't matter what I inspect whether it be an electrical installation or a fire alarm the only proviso the council give to their approved contractors is don't ever give them a safety cert with comment for upgrades or non compliance. In their eyes it passes to current regs or it doesn't . No codes 1-4 on the certs. To be fair it works for me as most of my work is inspections and upgrades.

When I work outside my sanitised environment I often feel I am being a little harsh on what are quite serviceable fire systems. My question to all is what do you think is acceptable to obtain a satisfactory pass on a inspection report. For instance what if a system is approaching 20years old only on a single zone over 3 stories (above the 300m2 rule) but has been serviced on the dot, detectors are current, and works well, just doesn't fully comply to the 2002 regs. Are you happy to say satisfactory but code 4 does not comply.

What if everything is fine apart from one stud wall that is built too close to a detector or the painter has hit the detector with his roller.

In part 1 it says that many values and statements are guidance only and judgment should be used to say how strictly the guidance is adhered to.

What is everyones thoughts? Does it fail unless it is to the letter of the code or how lenient do you go.

All comments appreciated.

John

If it was up to standard when installed and no changes are made to the building or the system it is still legal as I understand things.

[esp-protocol]

forgive my ignorance but what are codes 1 - 4 ??

good question too...

anyway, for starters I would suggest the following....

1. Technically you are duty bound to inspect systems in accordance with the current standards and therefore highlight any and all variations from those standards on any documentation you produce.

2. It is up to the responsible person to consult with all interested parties and decide if these variations (that may have been acceptable under an older code) are negligible and can therefore become agreed variations from the current standard. Your example of a partition being too close to a detector is a good one.... there is a very good reason detectors should be minimum 500mm away.... therefore i could never suggest that as variation.

3. There are however certain major non compliances as detailed in the BAFE guidance etc that should not be considered as variations.

4. Who ultimately is going to court if someone dies, cos that would seriously affect my report !!??

The question is, are you producing a report for someone else to make decisions on, or are you the man they are looking to make decisions and put forward answers?

In which case, it begs the question..... are you suitably qualified and competent to carry out such a risk assessment and make a decision to recommend accepting a fire alarm installation that possibly doesn't comply with current standards??

Cos if you do end up in court I can see the "no win no fee" brigade having a field day.....

[esp-protocol]

If it was up to standard when installed and no changes are made to the building or the system it is still legal as I understand things.

Technically you're right i believe, except that the RRFSO has now made, lets just say "the owner" responsible.

So the owner, not the brigade, may need to stand up in court and justify not improving a system (or accepting variations) to meet current standards....

We have this problem in a few small B&Bs, 5 years ago they had a fire certificate saying all was rosy with there 20 year old system. Suddenly we say now that the owner is responsible for fire safety... would you like to keep your 20 year old single zone zettler heap of **** with twin and earth for detection zones or upgrade to a modern system and show a bit of due dilligence if you ever go to court.... !!??

[JohnCunningham]

Hi,

Codes 1-4 as on NICEIC type fire inspection paperwork.

1 Urgent attention

2. requires improvement

3. requires further investigation

4 . Not to 2002 regs.

As I have said for most of my clients its the letter of the regs and no deviations. If there are problems they are rectified before I write out a report to save expensive paperwork and also because the man at the council wants a clean report for multiple occupancy properties. NIC inspector always looks funny at my clean reports (how can you have a clean report?) until he sees the invoices and notes stapled to them. I have a property company also and I only work in the rental sector so my office is awash with clean reports. Or fault laden reports, invoices, and then clean written reports. Odd I know...

I am the reporter not the answer man. The answers come from the Regs and the fire officer or equivalent. I report what I see and if it is upgradeable to current spec I do the necessary. Generally if it is more than maintenance it has to be cleared by the powers that be much to the annoyance of customers who generally don't want to ask the powers that be as they will go for the full monty expensive solutions.

As you say it is all about responsibility and who goes to court.

Back to the original question in the real world not my clean report world if the 1 zone issue came up would you say it doesn't conform and hence I won't pass it or do you say it is a code 4 but works ok so I'll give it a certificate for another year.

Good answers so far, appreciate your time and experience.

John

forgive my ignorance but what are codes 1 - 4 ??

good question too...

anyway, for starters I would suggest the following....

1. Technically you are duty bound to inspect systems in accordance with the current standards and therefore highlight any and all variations from those standards on any documentation you produce.

2. It is up to the responsible person to consult with all interested parties and decide if these variations (that may have been acceptable under an older code) are negligible and can therefore become agreed variations from the current standard. Your example of a partition being too close to a detector is a good one.... there is a very good reason detectors should be minimum 500mm away.... therefore i could never suggest that as variation.

3. There are however certain major non compliances as detailed in the BAFE guidance etc that should not be considered as variations.

4. Who ultimately is going to court if someone dies, cos that would seriously affect my report !!??

The question is, are you producing a report for someone else to make decisions on, or are you the man they are looking to make decisions and put forward answers?

In which case, it begs the question..... are you suitably qualified and competent to carry out such a risk assessment and make a decision to recommend accepting a fire alarm installation that possibly doesn't comply with current standards??

Cos if you do end up in court I can see the "no win no fee" brigade having a field day.....

[luggsey]

Technically you're right i believe, except that the RRFSO has now made, lets just say "the owner" responsible.

So the owner, not the brigade, may need to stand up in court and justify not improving a system (or accepting variations) to meet current standards....

We have this problem in a few small B&Bs, 5 years ago they had a fire certificate saying all was rosy with there 20 year old system. Suddenly we say now that the owner is responsible for fire safety... would you like to keep your 20 year old single zone zettler heap of **** with twin and earth for detection zones or upgrade to a modern system and show a bit of due dilligence if you ever go to court.... !!??

20 year old? That's almost new round here for a B&B!!

Try the old Wormald 17 volt sustems, or even an unmonitered PSU manual+heats system still fitted in many local schools.

I always compare the regulations to anything with cars, sounds daft but if a car is made before air bags are introduced and is sold to a customer who stuffs it into a wall and smashes his face is he going to sue the garage because the car didn't have the latest safety features? Course not, it would be a clever lawyer that could pull that one off. If however there was a "known" fault with the system/car then liability starts to creep in. If for example you service an old system and report it as unsatisfactory due to age and condition then it later fails during a fire and someone is killed you may see the owner looking at a manslaughter charge, if however you just said it was not up to recent standards and should be upgraded it would be legal to carry on using it I think. It's all in the wording and it's important to get it right, something like "due to the age of the system reliable and satisfactory operation cannot be guarenteed to a satisfactory level" that should cover it!

I must comment on the use of twin and earth for detection systems, nothing wrong with it what so ever in my opinion, I think we should still be able to use red T&E for small conventional systems, how many times have I seen surface jobs with firetuff cable kinked at 90 degrees in trunking, loads!

[esp-protocol]

Hi,

Codes 1-4 as on NICEIC type fire inspection paperwork.

1 Urgent attention

2. requires improvement

3. requires further investigation

4 . Not to 2002 regs.

oh... sorry the BAFE scheme doesn't recognise the NIC certification (well it didn't used to)....

Re the 1 Zone issue... i think its a bit too vague a question... you have to take all the circumstances into account... eg if its a two storey building with four flats and there are remote indicators out side the flats but the panel isn't monitored for short circuit fault then I could see a reason for accepting it (noting the variation from current standards).

However, a lot of HMO's notoriously don't get tested weekly and therefore the lack of correct fault monitoring (that might extend to detector head removal) could be a very big factor and reason to upgrade the panel...!!

I think you have answered your own question really... you can't say it complies to current standards if it doesn't therefore it would be a code 4.

There can be cases for compromise... ie. upgrading systems over a period of time rather than "all at once". I think its a case of the landlords being seen to be acting reasonably.

Trouble is these landlords (your customers) never appreciate you are working in there best interest until it hits the fan.... then they'd pay you anything you want to keep their neck out the noose....!!

[JohnCunningham]

Thanks for your answers.

You are right HMO's notorious for bad maintenance and even worse testing.

Customers look for a get out of jail cert and cheap as possible. Council man asks for a annual inspection cert only. Landlords treat this suggestion as in stone. I try to encourage the landlords to do periodic inspections and testing and record false alarms etc but it never happens. They just call when the alarms go off and they can't reset them.

Too many new investment landlords about that don't understand the laws. You wouldn't believe the amount of times I ask to make sure all of the right docs and log book is available on site as they should be. Log books???? never had one of those. or I have it here in my draw I am based 250miles away.

I guess it is because I work in the disorganised, quick buck world or investment props rather than organised ish companies. Only way of getting false alarms recorded or random servicing to get noted in my regular customers is if I put an eyelet in the log book and screw it to the wall. Any one with any other suggestions how to ensure the log books are kept at the property would be appreciated...... and before anyone says it quoting the regs at a customer. It doesn't seem to work.