Greetings, Ali. Under the Fire Safety Order (FSO), those things that are reasonable and necessary to ensure the safety of the relevant persons are to be implemented. These are generally taken to be means of escape, alarms, emergency lighting and firefighting equipment but a Fire Risk Assessment might identify additional measures according to the hazards within the building (e.g. under DSEAR). I have seen some enforcers require PAT to be undertaken: this is incorrect under the FSO. It is, however, good H&S practice and would tend to show a good H&S culture rather than compliance with the FSO. Unless there is a specific hazard that renders the building susceptible to damage to lightning in such a way that would impede the escape of relevant persons in the event of fire (NB: we are either joining 2 hazards i.e. a simultaneous fire and lightning strike [that would not be covered in the FRA] or considering that a lightning strike would inevitably cause a fire that would impede escape [that implies a highly-specific that might need to be considered]), I would doubt that lightning strikes would justify consideration in the FRA. However, it may be considered in the Business Continuity Plan but I suspect that it could be placed in the "very unlikely but potentially serious" category and resources allocated accordingly. The FRA will consider whether the alarm system is appropriate to the risk rather than whether it complies with a particular standard. Don't forget that the BS 5839:1 Life systems are designed to protect the means of escape so that they can be used rather than offering protection to the occupants. The L2 system is usually quoted as being adequate to (e.g.) hotels; however, it is simultaneously assumed that, if a fire starts in a room, the occupants of that room will not survive if heat detectors are fitted - as is permitted in a Life system. Therefore (notwithstanding the determinations in respect of hotels' alarm systems), I would suggest that the usual recommendation of alarm system (L2) with heat detectors is often not compatible with the duty of care imposed by the FSO. To answer your question, if it is reasonable to consider that the alarm system is appropriate to allow occupants is escape the effects of fire before conditions become untenable, there is no reason why the system should not continue to be used; however, if a FRA indicates otherwise, advice should be taken to determine the appropriate outcomes rather than compliance with a particular type and grade of system. I would often recommend an L5 system i.e. a system of mixed capabilities according to the risk likely to be present in the areas. If smoke detection was not placed in rooms, this would include Part 6 local smoke detectors in rooms in addition to the required L1 heat detector. In this way, general false activations caused by the activities can be avoided while still observing the duty of care to each relevant person. I hope this helps. Regards Steve

Chris, One point of clarification. The blanket statement that, "If an alarm works, it's OK," may have been fine under the Fire Precautions Act. The FSO requires the alarm to be appropriate to the risk it covers - so simply maintaining what is there may not be enough if you haven't completed a FRA or you haven't acted on the SFs.

Yes, Chris, I am! Just as with the Leicestershire determination (when the protection of the means of escape was deemed to be more important than the protection of relevant persons), it may be that, particularly when dealing with sleeping risks and with mobility or sensory imparment, systems fitted under the FPA may not be up to the mark. There is a difference in ideology between BS5839:1 and the FSO. The FSO implies an equal duty of care to all relevant persons whereas 5839 perpetuates the "permission" to lose the occupants of the room of origin. In the commercial sector, one of the ethical debates we are going to have in the next few years will concern whether we protect everyone in a building or just those not in the room of origin. Personally, I think the argument may be swamped by the inevitable rise in fire deaths because of the combination of an ageing population, the promotion of "independent living" and (potentially) the standard of construction in reduced-redundancy, sustainably-built premises.

John, happy to help. Regards Steve

Chris, Ethically, I totally agree - and that is what most Fire Safety enforcers have tried to push. However, that has proven not to be the case in the determination. I don't think the sector has got to grips with the disparity between the intention of the FSO and the design of the mechanisms cited to (apparently) meet the duty of care. Too many premises owners will still go with the minimum permissible system and, until the law is clarified one way or the other, the debate will continue. As suggested before, it is part of a wider debate about, when we get down to brass tacks, how much a life is worth. In harder economic times, the actions of businesses and the enactments of government would suggest that a life is worth less than when times are good. We can all do our bit and I suggest that those who can influence the design of alarm systems look at the purpose and outcomes rather than rigidly applying the Standard. After all, 5839 is a guide - and Colin Todd stated that no two alarm systems should be the same because no two premises risks are the same. You can't get a much clearer statement that a "one size fits all" interpretation is inappropriate.