Rank: New forum user
|
If the fire extinguisher has a 5 year guarentee does it still need the annual inspection, discharge test and tagging by a competent person?
|
|
|
|
Rank:: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Please could you tell me why?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why don't you read the terms of the guarantee, it will probably require all services as recommended by manufacture otherwise guarantee will be just like a chocolate fireguard.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Duffy
The previous answers have been a little short on content.
Lets clear up one aspect of your question; a discharge test is not carried out at the annual maintenance, it's usually at the 5 yr point for water/powder extinguishers and the 10 yr point for CO2.
BS 5306-3 (I think it's currently at 2009 version) details the inspection/maintenance regime for portable appliance, so not a legal requirement, but best practice. The RRFSO of course just requires a 'suitable system of maintenance', so if/when the FRS come calling, they would expect the BS recommendations to be followed.
So it comes down to the Fire Risk Assessment. If you can show that you have a suitable inspection/maintenance system in place, irrespective of the requirements of the BS, then it's up to you.
For example, there is one manufacturer that I know of which makes extinguishers that have an entirely different maintenance cycle.
I don't know if this forum will accept the link, but if it doesn't, then search for Britannia P50 : http://www.britannia-fir...uk/product/britannia-p50
As to your mention of a 5 yr warranty, compare it to buying anything else with a long warranty. You might get a 6 yr warranty of a new car, but it would require you to have it dealer serviced every year or specified mileage.
I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thank you route 66, very helpful.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Guys. Further to the very good information above, the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006 state,
16.—(1) Where necessary in order to ensure the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm
caused by fire the person with duties under section 53 or 54 must ensure that the relevant premises
and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the relevant premises under these
Regulations or, subject to paragraph (5), under any other enactment, including any enactment
repealed or revoked by, under, or by virtue of the 2005 Act, are subject to a suitable system of
maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
Therefore, the suitable system of maintenance is governed by legislation in Scotland and it would appear that it is a subjective decision as to the extent of the regimen to be implemented. I am aware of annual inspections of equipment in most establishments as this appears to be the standard expected by Community Fire Safety Officers during audit.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Gerry
I think the Scotland requirement of 'are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair' is no different from the England requirement.
Insomuch as neither legislates as to what maintenance has to be done, only that a 'suitable system' is employed. It comes down to the FRA, so for example, if you had the extinguishers that I linked to above, the requirements would be different from having other more conventional designs.
If I were a RP and had a premises equipped with those extinguishers and a FSO tried to insist that I still required an annual maintenance, I'd tell them quite firmly where to stick their requirement. My FRA, my decision, based on manufacturer's recommendations. I'd happily go to court to defend that one.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Fire Ext can be, depending on actual condition use, a Transportable Pressure Vessel, an item of Pressure Equipment, or an item of workplace equipment.
The 5 years almost certainly relates to the hydraulic test required under ADR [which is what actually governs the design & Maintenance of TPVs] - it's not a guarantee!
Other than the hydraulic test, the actual period for inspection or test is not fixed in UK law, but by the BS's used to demonstrate that "best practice" has been used to maintain the extinguishers [and all other FE] to a defensible standard. The BS's usually quoted are not called up by UK law in the context quoted by Duffy. You can use any other defensible alternative so long as you can defend that against an enforcers review of your FRA.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Route66 wrote:Hi Gerry
If I were a RP and had a premises equipped with those extinguishers and a FSO tried to insist that I still required an annual maintenance, I'd tell them quite firmly where to stick their requirement. My FRA, my decision, based on manufacturer's recommendations. I'd happily go to court to defend that one.
I agree with (and share) this attitude 100% and applaud Route66 for -IMHO- getting it right . The Fire Safety Order (and it's Scottish & NI equivalents) are supposed to provide absolute flexibility for the RP to provide fire safety requirement based on bespoke FRAs. British standards are not law, but unfortunately many enforcement authorities use a very rigid approach when determining suitable and sufficient, and (in the interests of consistency) tend to apply a one-size-fits-all attitude when applying the law.
This is completely contrary to the spirit of the RRO which should have seen the end of ridiculous prescriptive requirements - such as involved with the FP Act and fire certifications. With cuts to fire service budgets, it make commercial sense for them to cut fire safety inspectors training, which would allow them to apply the law as intended. But instead they seem to let them loose with a 'tick box' audit approach. I was a fire safety inspector in a previous life and some of my ex colleagues - as lovely as they were - had next to no competence. It is fair to say others were excellent, but its a lottery which one turns up at your doorstep
Steps off soapbox :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Totally agree with mssy.
My apologies to Duffy for now deliberately going off-track from the original question.
Just to round this off and in time to head for the bunker for the weekend:-
The FSO has no requirement for fire extinguishers to be provided at all! And
If you allow the FE provider to decide what FEs will be provided and where; you have allowed them to undertake that very important part of YOUR FRA [but you'll never be short of FEs] without it being integrated into the FRA that you must defend! And
Why is so little attention paid to ensuring that unavoidable dead-end conditions are adequately protected and provided with appropriate FEs to enable anyone to get past a foreseeable fire that blocks their only exit?
This is bit like knowingly being the 1st one out of the trench!!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.