Industry attacks ‘confrontational’ fire service policy on alarms - News-content | Fire safety news events and jobs - info4fire

Industry attacks ‘confrontational’ fire service policy on alarms

26 January 2012

The Fire Industry Association (FIA) has branded the decision of a fire service not to attend unconfirmed automatic fire alarms as ‘confrontational’.

FIA chief executive Graham Ellicott said the decision by Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service not to attend some automatic fire alarm calls was ill-conceived and potentially could lead to injuries or death.

He went on to slam comments by Merseyside’s chief fire officer, Dan Stephens, who told the Liverpool Post:

“Fire alarm monitoring organisations immediately pass the call to us, but what they should be doing is ringing up the premises and asking if they’ve checked. Every time (the alarm goes off) they should be evacuating, but that might not be happening either. We could prosecute for that, but that would be prosecuting an awful lot of people and that would be disproportionate.”

Writing on his blog, Mr Ellicott responded:

“These reported comments about the alarm monitoring firms are ill-considered, as the fire alarm monitoring organisations are akin to the postman who delivers the mail, and it’s not for them to read the mail and interpret which bits are fit to be read!

“In my opinion, this type of confrontational attitude...is no way to constructively deal with the false automatic alarm signals problem and...could lead the alarm monitoring organisations to consider whether dealing with fire signals is a worthwhile business. Should they choose to discontinue this business then this would be a disaster for fire safety and would most likely reflect badly upon the proud reputation of the fire and rescue service.”

In almost all cases, he added, false alarms from automatic fire alarms are caused by poor building management.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service defended its new ‘risk-based’ approach to automatic fire alarm response, saying the decision had been taken to reduce the 5,800 calls it receives from systems a year – up almost 14% over the past five years.

“95% of automatic fire alarm responses are to false alarms, and that takes appliances and firefighters away from being able to respond to real emergencies, carrying out risk critical training and providing community prevention services,” said Mr Stephens. “There is also a significant and unnecessary risk to firefighters and other road users from attending false alarms under emergency response conditions.

“We have tried numerous approaches to reduce this type of call but they have continued to increase.”

The fire service estimates that the new response policy will reduce the number of calls by 4,200 a year.
 


     
RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

P Roberts
Why is it that fire authorities want to see L1 systems in certain premises, but then say they won't respond to AFA's and want to see a reduction in false alarms? Surely, it is the responsibility of the building owner (or duty holder) to risk assess their premises, determine the level of detection necessary and manage the system effectively.
How does the decision of Merseyside stack up against the findings of the Rosepark Fatal Accident Inquiry about staff checking for a fire?

Posted on 27/01/12 15:52.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
stephen burrage
As an ex fire service officer I understand why the Fire Service has taken this decision, (league tables again!), however as I have spent the last 30 years telling people that it is important to respond immediately to an alarm, I cannot agree with a policy that will cause any delay to calling 999. This decision clearly involves a calculated risk between costs and the chances of not responding to a call when a rapid response is needed . As more authorities follow suit it will eventually go wrong

Posted on 10/02/12 13:03.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Ron hedger
If the alarm monitoring organisations are passing calls direct to the F&RS control rooms without checking, what service are they providing? The same could be achieved at much less cost, by an automated dialer.
Until F&RSs are allowed to charge for false calls (after an initial allowance?) there is no viable business case for a premises manager and hence the monitoring organisation) to check first, as he will not save any money by preventing the fire crew from arriving.

Posted on 10/02/12 13:03.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
S Leece
I echo P Roberts remarks and I am awaiting with interest for the first legal determination when a Fire Authority does not respond/delays response to an AFA which leads to loss of life...........................should make interesting reading

Posted on 10/02/12 13:03 in reply to P Roberts.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Richard Hyland
What a short sighted view from Merseyside . It is a similar attitude in Warwickshire.It is all very well suggesting the ARC contacts the site where the alarm has come from, but if they have evacuated the building who's going to answer the phone? The way to reduce alarms is to consult the end user about their operations and design a system to suit. There are many ways false alarms can be reduced using software, multi-sensor detectors. We need to stop electrical contractors putting in the chepest

Posted on 10/02/12 13:03.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 5 results.

Related Content