First Fire Alarm Engineer To Be Prosecuted

[james.wilson]

A former firefighter is set to become the first fire alarm engineer to be prosecuted under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Christopher Morris, who lives in Llandudno, north Wales, is being charged with failing to maintain an alarm system in a care home for the elderly, reports Fire magazine.

The failings of the alarm system came to light after a fire in the Trafford care home last year, in which one woman died.

Jim Owen, deputy county fire office, told the news provider that he hoped Mr Morris's conviction would act as a warning to others in the fire safety industry, that they can be prosecuted if they fail to do their job.

"Anyone we find who doesn’t carry out their work to recognised standards is a danger and we won’t hesitate to take action," he said.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 says that a Responsible Person can be prosecuted if they fail to do their job in relation to fire safety and regulations. The law has previously been used to convict business and property owners.

The FIA believes that this prosecution story reaffirms the importance of third party accreditation schemes, which ensure that the products, systems and services provided by a company are fit for purpose. The FIA firmly advocates that these schemes also demonstrate competence as referred to in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.In order to become a full member of the FIA every business must adhere to a strict criteria, which includes third party accreditation.

From

[james.wilson]

unfortnatly most people would put their trust in that over a qualified fire engineer

its a bit like all coppers are intruder alarm expects, same with fire

[arfur mo]

"The FIA believes that this prosecution story reaffirms the importance of third party accreditation schemes"

oh! dear, i feel a touch of familiarity comming over me .

Arfur

[james.wilson]

Oh well

Happy Christmas

[PeterJames]

Good post James

Goes to show all the while any man and his dog can fit Fire alarms there is a real danger, puts a whole new take on "playing with fire" role on 2013 BAFE approval

[james.wilson]

Agreed

[jb-eye]

I did a survey at a school last Tuesday. Irrelevant but it was to extend our existing intruder alarm. The school is LEA funded with special religious status which loosely means its funded by the council but does whatever it wants.

The buildings are now FOUR blocks. Before our involvement there was TWO small blocks both had standalone MCP systems. The TWO newer (1996 & 2001) phases are large grand affairs and we installed TWO single loop addressable systems and class changed all four buildings together.

We lost the maintenance about 2005 as we were to expensive to add smoke detection to the smaller blocks. After an incident in 2006 we were asked to rectify the abomination and were reinstated as maintainer.

In 2009 a false ceiling was placed down a corridor and a Fire Officer insisted the detectors were lowered onto the ceiling. We were deemed to expensive and on maintenance noted that the idiot had duly complied, our MICC was unfixed laid on the ceiling and smokes popped out through round holes.

This year we lost the maintenance contract and during my survey i noted that Both our addressable panels are now joint boxs and each has a c-tect 4 zone panel mounted next to them. i further noted that all our SD were undone and that next to each of these is a battery smoke detector.

Of course i gloated. Apparently the electrician cant get the new system to work because WE wired it as a ring main. Watch this space.

[alterEGO]

I did a survey at a school last Tuesday. Irrelevant but it was to extend our existing intruder alarm. The school is LEA funded with special religious status which loosely means its funded by the council but does whatever it wants.

The buildings are now FOUR blocks. Before our involvement there was TWO small blocks both had standalone MCP systems. The TWO newer (1996 & 2001) phases are large grand affairs and we installed TWO single loop addressable systems and class changed all four buildings together.

We lost the maintenance about 2005 as we were to expensive to add smoke detection to the smaller blocks. After an incident in 2006 we were asked to rectify the abomination and were reinstated as maintainer.

In 2009 a false ceiling was placed down a corridor and a Fire Officer insisted the detectors were lowered onto the ceiling. We were deemed to expensive and on maintenance noted that the idiot had duly complied, our MICC was unfixed laid on the ceiling and smokes popped out through round holes.

This year we lost the maintenance contract and during my survey i noted that Both our addressable panels are now joint boxs and each has a c-tect 4 zone panel mounted next to them. i further noted that all our SD were undone and that next to each of these is a battery smoke detector.

Of course i gloated. Apparently the electrician cant get the new system to work because WE wired it as a ring main. Watch this space.

I must admit i am surprised you continue to deal with them (in any way), kind of goes against your usual attitude.

[whistle]

LoL @ ring main and addressable..... go on sparky work that one out.

[jb-eye]

I must admit i am surprised you continue to deal with them (in any way), kind of goes against your usual attitude.

In this instance you are correct. Im now happy to walk away. After 15 years and annual revenues of about £3k falling to £1k im happy to leave. If they accept my quote of £750 to add a keypad to the alarm (alowed 4 hours) then i will of course retain the buisness until next November. By which time some SSAIB company will jump in and spoil any proffit by slagging off a 15 year old instal

by a NACOSS installer.

I exspect a visit from the local fire officer. I exspect a call of desperation around march when the school runs out of warning time. I exspect a new fire alarm install superviced by the LEA because they will be picking up the tab for a failing school. Sheez i even exspect an upgrade to the intruder.