Like for like replacement of fire alarm components

[newusername]

I work in facilities management and I'm looking to clarify the rules for replacing fire alarm components like call points or door magnets.

Could someone considered 'competent' to carry out like for like replacement of normal electrical fixtures do similar work on alarm systems?

 

[telectrix]

would think so but..... if there were to be a fire and the alarm did not function a it should, it's youse in front of the clown with the funny wig and the Batman cape.

 

[Phil L]

^^^ As above like for like replacements should be O.K if addressable systems it may be different as the call points could be soft or hard addressed, if you are competent and have tested after replacement and are happy to sign for it, crack on

 

[Mike Johnson]

After carrying out the work, test the system and issue a "satisfactory" certificate, then you are covered no matter what Marvel hero you stand in front of.

 

[westward10]

A fire alarm Modification Certificate doesn't really cover like for like replacement however there is no reason why one could not be issued. Any competent electrician should be able to do this but if you are concerned about ramifications then use a specialist fire alarm company who you would assume to be competent in such matters and would advise if any Certification is required.

 

[newusername]

Thank you for all the prompt replies. It's given me a few useful points to consider.

I might not have explained the situation very well in my first post.

Although we call our maintenanc staff technicians, handymen might be more accurate.
Their 'competence' is based on previous experience and on the job assessments by their supervisor rather than formal qualifications.
Currently they are only allowed carry out simple task such as replacing the glass elements in call points, blowing dust out of smoke heads etc. (And like for like on our standard electrical installations)

Recently the hold open magnet of an automatic fire door needed replacing at quite considerable cost and I've been asked why we are unable to do this work type of work in house. On the face of it I can seen the companies point, a like for like replacement of basic components should in theory be quite a simple task and because of the nature of reactive maintenance we often have slack hours in our facilities team.

My concern is how to prove the work has been carried out correctly and where to find suitable training material for our existing staff.
Of course if there is a regulation prohibiting anyone unqualified from carrying out this type of work, I can give the company a very straight forward answer.

Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[loz2754]

Part of the problem with using partly skilled operatives to carry out skilled tasks is producing proof of competency. This is important not only from an insurance standpoint, but obviously with a safety service like fire alarms, it can literally be a life and death situation.
That's not to say we shouldn't be able to train an operative to do certain tasks within a defined scope, and document such training in the personnel file. But that documentation would need to be very specific as to the level of training given, and which tasks are included/excluded within that scope.

 

[Mike Johnson]

This could be a good start: Become an Aico Expert Installer - Aico - https://www.aico.co.uk/become-an-aico-expert-installer/

 

[Lister1987]

Chapter 46 of 5839-1 deals with non-routine maintenance. Throughout 5839-1 competency is referenced.

A logbook entry should be made so there is record of the maintenance. A modification certificate should be completed on line with 46.4.2g

ETA; door retainers have Thier own requirements and standards; BS 7273-4

At this point I would consult a specialist company

 

[loz2754]

Chapter 46 of 5839-1 deals with non-routine maintenance. Throughout 5839-1 competency is referenced.

A logbook entry should be made so there is record of the maintenance. A modification certificate should be completed on line with 46.4.2g

And this brings into focus another factor- the BS5839 referred to by @Lister1987 is a very expensive document and anyone installing or maintaining any part of a fire alarm system would need to have access to this document, and be fully conversant with its content.
Otherwise, how could a partly skilled operative know whether a particular maintenance task can be done without inadvertantly causing a problem in another part of the system, and what course of action would need to be followed if a mistake was made that, for instance, blew a fuse in the panel? Food for thought.