Observing fire detection shortfalls on EICRs

[loz2754]

Coding for deficiencies in a BS5839 would only be covered by a full inspection and test of the fire detection and alarm system. As such, there is no place for coding C1, C2 or any other code for such a system, other than what is covered by BS7671.

 

[Lister1987]

Coding for deficiencies in a BS5839 would only be covered by a full inspection and test of the fire detection and alarm system. As such, there is no place for coding C1, C2 or any other code for such a system, other than what is covered by BS7671.

Unless you have sufficient knowledge and can back up your coding, even if only as a C3 (to bring it to user attention) with the relevant clauses. Example;

Property has mixed styles of Manual Call Point; both older style with for circular break glass and newer BS EN 54-11, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2a

Property has call points lacking protective cover, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2b

and so on.

Obviously if you don't have knowledge of 5839-1 (and any of the standards in 560.x) then you shouldn't be coding those item, in which case you are working within the limits of your knowledge and understanding. If you were to find such issues then you would strongly recommend that the client seeks the advice of a trained and competent person to undertake a system audit, inspection and maintenance program.

I'm seen 1 where the EICR was done, flagged several C3s for 1838/5266 & 5839 shortcomings then accompanying the EICR was a full diagnostic report of systems, shortcomings and recommendations to improve complaince.

I'm not saying it's for everyone but we should always look to better ourselves, our skillsets and services offered to drive value for money and to seperate us from the beasts....and by beasts imwan DIY Dave and Bodge-it Brenda.

 

[Lister1987]

I would like to know how you would handle a commercial EICR with a BS5839-1 system installed
Also how many BS5839-6 systems have you coded with a C1 or C2 while doing EICR's

TBH a lot of these videos are not worth a watch and are not even worth the bandwidth they take up

In answer to your question; none because I have yet to undertake a single one and so it's all hypothesis until such time I'm competent enough to under such works.

Grade F system (battery only - Fixed or replaceable), if any detectors found to be dead then I would C2.

Grade D System where, mains is present and working bit alarm is past battery expiry date I would C3 if other detectors were on the same level, otherwise if the next functional detector is above/below the current level then I'd C2 as you're losing the early warning that an alarm on the same level provides.

If the same system (Grade D) had faulty mains but working battery, again I would C2 or C3 depending on any 'local' backups.

MIs would also influence the coding as the BS EN standard would dictate exactly how that alarm should perform on mains and/or battery and if that manufacturer can't guarantee if Thier items will work with 1 or the either power sources missing.

With regards to -1 systems, in comparison with -6, I would code along a similar vain, I would also pull on the FSRRO and cite from that as you're then talking statutory duties, as opposed to a non-statutory product standard. You'll find they tend to sit up when you start bringing EAWR/FSRRO into your report as THAT is what most commercial/industrial entities will be familiar with, most tend to have a dedicated SHE manager or department, which if any good, would welcome your forensic analysis of not only BS7671 but also any overlapping 5839/1838/5266 observations.

That's me anyway, probably over the topby some judgements bit I'm satisfied with it.

 

[loz2754]

Unless you have sufficient knowledge and can back up your coding, even if only as a C3 (to bring it to user attention) with the relevant clauses. Example;

Property has mixed styles of Manual Call Point; both older style with for circular break glass and newer BS EN 54-11, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2a

Property has call points lacking protective cover, contrary to 5839-1 Clause 20.2b

and so on.

Obviously if you don't have knowledge of 5839-1 (and any of the standards in 560.x) then you shouldn't be coding those item, in which case you are working within the limits of your knowledge and understanding. If you were to find such issues then you would strongly recommend that the client seeks the advice of a trained and competent person to undertake a system audit, inspection and maintenance program.

I'm seen 1 where the EICR was done, flagged several C3s for 1838/5266 & 5839 shortcomings then accompanying the EICR was a full diagnostic report of systems, shortcomings and recommendations to improve complaince.

I'm not saying it's for everyone but we should always look to better ourselves, our skillsets and services offered to drive value for money and to seperate us from the beasts....and by beasts imwan DIY Dave and Bodge-it Brenda.

Of course I agree that we should always work to better ourselves, but I don't agree that we should be mixing up 2 different standards into 1.
By this I mean BS5839 and BS7671.
If a landlord is responsible for the maintenance of both the fire detection and alarm systems, and at the same property, the general electrical installation, then that landlord should be aware of the need to employ competent people who are skilled in both disciplines. And that such people should also have the full knowledge required, along with the correct forms of certification required for each type of system being inspected and tested.

Which may mean getting 2 different contractors in, ie a fire alarm engineer, and an electrician.

In some cases (though in my experience, not many), both tasks could be accomplished by the same contractor. But as I said before, there will be 2 different, distinct, forms of certification and/or reports, with very little crossover between the 2.

In my opinion....

 

[loz2754]

I should probably have said that I'm referring to BS5839 part 1 in the above post.

If it's a case of a handful of interlinked smoke alarms to BS5839 part 6, I'm quite happy to produce a Fire Alarm Inspection Report from within Easycert.

But note that this too is separate and distinct from an EICR, and is a chargeable extra to the customer on top of the EICR.

 

[Lister1987]

Of course I agree that we should always work to better ourselves, but I don't agree that we should be mixing up 2 different standards into 1.
By this I mean BS5839 and BS7671.
If a landlord is responsible for the maintenance of both the fire detection and alarm systems, and at the same property, the general electrical installation, then that landlord should be aware of the need to employ competent people who are skilled in both disciplines. And that such people should also have the full knowledge required, along with the correct forms of certification required for each type of system being inspected and tested.

Which may mean getting 2 different contractors in, ie a fire alarm engineer, and an electrician.

In some cases (though in my experience, not many), both tasks could be accomplished by the same contractor. But as I said before, there will be 2 different, distinct, forms of certification and/or reports, with very little crossover between the 2.

In my opinion....

I get what you're saying. If the person undertaking THE EICR doesn't have knowledge of, or familiarity with 5839 etc then obviously there is less chance of any of those systems being codes as part of an EICR.

I can see why the codes (560.x) are there but they do require additional knowledge.sayibg that 7671 says itself that it may be supplemented with additional standards and documentation so I guess that also helps bring in other standards to the ballgame, whether they should be included on an EICR is a different matter but I am enjoying the discussion.

 

[loz2754]

Indeed it's interesting to see how others interpret things.

I think we're in agreement @Lister1987 that anyone undertaking any kind of inspection and testing ought to be competent and experienced in whatever it is they're inspecting and testing.

And although it's correct that BS7671 does refer the inspector to several different standards and regulations outside of BS7671 that may also be applicable, and in some cases, supercede BS7671, I don't take the intent of that statement to mean that we as electricians are expected to be fully conversant with any of those other regulations. But rather that it may be necessary to advise that other specialist contractors may have to become involved in some installations, even in the Domestic sector.

I guess it depends on the nature and complexity of the installed systems, in this case, fire detection and alarm systems, as to whether the inspector is competent and equipped to carry out such inspections.

But I make the same point, just for emphasis, that an EICR is not the correct form to be noting such things. (Other than where they connect to the mains wiring).

I suspect I'm beginning to ramble now. Time for bed. ??

 

[UNG]

In answer to your question; none because I have yet to undertake a single one and so it's all hypothesis until such time I'm competent enough to under such works.

Grade F system (battery only - Fixed or replaceable), if any detectors found to be dead then I would C2.

Grade D System where, mains is present and working bit alarm is past battery expiry date I would C3 if other detectors were on the same level, otherwise if the next functional detector is above/below the current level then I'd C2 as you're losing the early warning that an alarm on the same level provides.

If the same system (Grade D) had faulty mains but working battery, again I would C2 or C3 depending on any 'local' backups.

MIs would also influence the coding as the BS EN standard would dictate exactly how that alarm should perform on mains and/or battery and if that manufacturer can't guarantee if Thier items will work with 1 or the either power sources missing.

With regards to -1 systems, in comparison with -6, I would code along a similar vain, I would also pull on the FSRRO and cite from that as you're then talking statutory duties, as opposed to a non-statutory product standard. You'll find they tend to sit up when you start bringing EAWR/FSRRO into your report as THAT is what most commercial/industrial entities will be familiar with, most tend to have a dedicated SHE manager or department, which if any good, would welcome your forensic analysis of not only BS7671 but also any overlapping 5839/1838/5266 observations.

That's me anyway, probably over the topby some judgements bit I'm satisfied with it.

If there is no physical wall to mount a call point or to run cabling (chased or containment), consider a freestanding self contained job.

View attachment 84379

A note of caution; I have been able to find no information regarding this products compliance with BS EN 54-11, possibly because it's not really a call point but I wouldn't be happy unless I had something in writing from the manufacturer - That said if you read the datasheet/manual they basically say we take no responsibility whatsoever as to whether the product will work or not, to me seems a bit underhand, I know most have something similar but they seem very specific with it.

A bit embarrassing then when you post this in another thread as a solution to a problem what would you code that as

 

[GBDamo]

Unless the fixed wiring tests show faults and/or the fixed equipment is damaged to the point it breaches IP ratings then it none of my business.

Same with emergency lighting, gas shut off systems, panic alarms and a plethora of other safety systems attached to the fixed wiring.

Coding/noting comments on an EICR just muddies the waters, if a business owner has a legal duty to have all these systems installed then they have a legal duty to have them maintained and tested.

So, say you note a none functional smoke detector on your EICR and the landlord replaces it, two days later the house burns down, all in the house die, as the radio link failed.

The landlord uses your EICR as proof he had been maintaining and testing his system. The court looks to you?

Leave well alone and concentrate your attention on the the things you are responsible for.

 

[Ian1981]

The purpose of regulation 560.10 is to make you aware that you install a fire detection system to the correct British standard , in this case BS5839 part 6, not to use it as a regulation number for out of date smoke detectors