The BS doesn't have that special status conferred on ACoP by the HASAWA.
In the eyes of the law then, a BS must be viewed as something less than ACoP, therefore more akin to guidance.

Toe,
We're on the 17th now btw! ;)

However, yes, Law, Regulations, ACoP, BS, Trade Body Guidance, in that kind of descending order of "authority" as I understand things.
OK, my terms are not "totally" correct, but they are designed to portray the general way of things.

As far as BS7671 goes, it has been deemed irrelevant by one Court unfortunately.

However, it does carry an introduction by HSE that states, compliance with BS7671 will probably result in compliance of your fixed electrical installation with EAWR.
Again, a generalisation, and a use of more colloquial terms.
However, I that is the gist of the statement.

It's true. BS are guidance.

Most standards committees are substantially self-appointed. You can't have a self-appointed committee creating law or even pseudo-law. Where the law adopts something in a BS it always specifies precisely the standard and the revision, to avoid the committee revising the standard and thereby revising the law.

Yep totally dominated by industry representatives all making sure the standard fits their products and generates work.

Agree with most posts - BS standards are not law, just 'persuasive' evidence of best practice.

Also as other shave indicated, sometimes they can be 'called' into law, to be complied with. Although I think this is pretty rare - the only examples I am aware of are to do with the manufacture of fireworks and also children's push chairs.

As for full compliance with BS standards - the fire alarm example being quoted - if out of compliance by a small amount (however you measure that) - I would argue reasonably practical concerns etc, not to fully comply.

Even in engineering design, BS standards are followed - but often with a 'flexible' view on how standards should be followed and interpreted - otherwise costs rise and clients complain.

As regards vested interests of BS committee members - quite agree. People where I work are on various BS committees, who work into standards conditions/points etc that are likely to lead to more consultancy work.

The bottom line is, if you risk assessment says you need a L1 - then you do. However, as BS's aren't law, you can apply variations where those can be supported by a further RA (or within your FRA)

We have extended a staff search time past the BS recommendation at one site as its works for the specific case presented

On another site we get troublesome clients at a public reception. We have removed manual call points to prevent unwanted fire signals, and like many pubs do, justify it by the fact there's a clear line of sight from the reception and a MCP behind the counter

Coming back to your fire alarm issue. L1 coverage is usually associated with high risk occupancies such as care homes, hospitals etc, rather than offices. I would not be brave enough to seek any variation with a premises where vulnerable persons sleep

But you say this is an office?? Is there a complex fire strategy based on a engineered solution or is the building more bog standard.

There is no way I can assess fro here, but take care if your AFD coverage is being led by installers with bank accounts in Monaco :)

In a former life I was a fire safety inspecting officer covering a part of London with numerous multi occupancy office buildings, many with single staircase conditions, some with a MOE via the roof to next door and others with a MOE thru another demise within the same building.

Very few had any more than L2, and most had L3 coverage. There were a couple of overheight (6&& floors) single staircase with only the stairs as a MOE that had L1 to support staircase pressurisation etc

It seems to me if YOUR FRA says you dont need L1, but the Landlord still wants it, you may wish to allowing him access (under Article 22) but let him pay for it!!

Definitions of categories here http://www.wardandwilson...-alarm-categories-30.htm