First Fire Alarm Engineer To Be Prosecuted

[james.wilson]

well the name inspires confidence

[norman]

lol

[9651]

I found one wired in bell wire

[Rulland]

Update peeps.......

Fire alarm contractor sentenced under Fire Safety Order

24 December 2010

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, a fire system contractor has been convicted under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Christopher Morris, 56, of Llandudno, a former retained firefighter, appeared at Manchester Crown Court yesterday and was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £6,000 costs.

Last week at Trafford Magistrates Court, Mr Morris pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to maintain a fire detection and alarm system at a care home in Trafford, Greater Manchester, and failing to inform the owners of the deficiencies in the system.

Magistrates heard that enforcement officers commissioned a specialist examination of the fire alarm panel after a fire at the care home in May 2009. Among the deficiencies found were:

•A blown fuse overridden with a piece of wire

•An electronic component suspended between two terminal bocks instead of being attached to the circuit board

•An alarm silence/fault warning buzzer missing from the circuit board

•The fault warning light on the front face of the panel had been almost covered by paint

According to the prosecution, Christopher Morris, an electrician who had taken over the maintenance of the system in 2006, had issued several annual certificates of worthiness to the care home owner.

Deputy county fire officer, Jim Owen, said: “Whilst many owners have been prosecuted under the Fire Safety Order, this may be the first time a fire and rescue authority has prosecuted someone contracted by the owner of a property to maintain a fire alarm. Taking on such a contract extends the requirements of the Order to the fire alarm engineer. Anyone we find who doesn’t carry out their work to recognised standards is a danger, and we won’t hesitate to take action.”

[james.wilson]

Excellent

[Guest Oxo]

•A blown fuse overridden with a piece of wire

•An electronic component suspended between two terminal bocks instead of being attached to the circuit board

•An alarm silence/fault warning buzzer missing from the circuit board

•The fault warning light on the front face of the panel had been almost covered by paint

Dire.

And a retained one at that.

Should have been fined more.

[james.wilson]

none of that would of stopped it working though. I assume there is more to it?

But does show how those that think they are doing the customer a favour by turning blind eyes etc are not in reality

[PeterJames]

none of that would of stopped it working though. I assume there is more to it?

But does show how those that think they are doing the customer a favour by turning blind eyes etc are not in reality

Im guessing the alarm was silenced, and the warning buzzer and light were the bits stopping anyone from knowing, would the alarm still activate if it was silenced?

[james.wilson]

if conventional and the zone that was silenced was the zone that detected the fire then no.

But it would be showing its fire led's all the time.

Dont get me wrong this guy shouldnt of given that system a 100% test pass. The thing i dont understand is the device hanging by its wires? What would that be a relay?

[Rulland]

Unfortunately I have seen that sort of thing on numerous occasions, and whilst working for an NSI gold co who looked after fire alarms as well, engineers had literally no training, worked on council/government buildings etc.

I was asked to 'certify' as working a nightclub system that was being temporarily being let out in Telford-every heat detector tested in the stage type areas just sent the panel in to fault (around 12)-all heads had been wired wrong, the system was installed in 2000-no paperwork, no record of any tests, no record of installation company-so I assume it's been like that for ten years-obviously I didn't give any sort of certification.

The bloke who asked me to look at it had been asked via the council to get the system checked/certified before he could carry on using the place as a nightclub-My question is why had it been allowed to go ten years-what exactly had occured or not occured during those ten years as far as the council were concerned?.

I gave my recommendations and approx cost to adhere to the regs-he declined (or the landlord did),he also promptly declined to take the nightclub on as a full time concern-the place is still up for let at this time!.

Richard.