I made an enquiry to the fire servcie in my area re what their call challenging policy means. they say that on receipt of a call and identification of an address Fire Control will ask “Is the actuation a false alarm?” If the response is yes, the Fire Service will not mobilise. However if there are doubts or the caller is confused, attendance will be mobilised. And obviously, likewise if a fire is confirmed. But the 'challenge' is to confirm a false alarm, not to confirm a fire: they assure me they will not demand the caller to visually confirm a fire.

Does this mean the local fire brigade are asking us to re- enter a building, once a fire has been identified?

Surely this contradicts all previous information to get out and stay out. Is this a written edict - can someone please send a link. Therefore, as I understand it, we should now actually send someone into a building that has an automatic system which has reported a fire, to check a sysyem is working correctly and that by law is checked regularly - what is the point of an automatic system in this case? If we should enter a burning building would a fire risk assessment have to reflect this? Or am I missing a trick somewhere - confused I am.

Tomorton has pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding operation of call challenging, it is a method of reducing unwanted/false calls to fire services, thus reducing the need for crews to be put themselves and the general public at risk responding on blue lights to an accidental operation. Also usually restricted to premises where the system causes a problem, i.e. regular false activations. In response to tigers post, the intent is not for people to enter a burning building, but to have a suitably trained person i.e. a fire warden check for evidence of a fire without undue risk to themselves as pointed out by O'Donnell54548 and Wood28983.

Call challenging has been around in North West England for about several years, and been the subject of considerable discussion, some of it based on misperceptions. As TDS1984 suggests above, I understand that it tends to be applied to premises which have false alarm activations on a fairly regular basis. Also, such buildings tend to be occupied when the alarms are activated. Therefore, it makes sense for an organisation to have an appropriate system for the occupants of its building/s. i.e. If an occupant activates a 'break glass' call point, he or she should evacuate along with others and then let the building supervisor (or whoever else takes charge) know of the fact. If a building's fire alarm control panel is an addressable one, i.e. displays the location of whichever call point or detector has been activated, it should then be fairly quick and easy for the supervisor to match the occupant's information with what's displayed. The same procedure should apply if any occupant (including those who sweep-search areas after the alarm sounds) thinks they can smell or see smoke. The aim is for the supervisor to promptly receive as much relevant information as possible in order to decide if there is a real emergency or just a false alarm. Sometimes problems can arise when call points or detectors are activated in error, e.g. a the corner of a trolley being moved accidentally knocks a call point, or dust from drilling by a contractor triggers a smoke detector which hasn't had a shower cap placed over it temporarily. In these circumstances the people involved, if they realise what has happened, are likely to feel sheepish or fear some sort of disciplinary action, and therefore keep quiet about the activation. As for persons willing and designated to go into and check round a building after an alarm has sounded, it's important that they know the building layout, understand its compartmentation design and their actual role, i.e. to check for possible fire/s and report back - not to fight any fire they find. It seems that many people have little understanding about fire and think that all parts of large or sizeable buildings are somehow liable to be rapidly engulfed by fire and smoke despite fire doors and other forms of compartmentation. Perhaps the misperceptions are fuelled by dramatic but very unrealistic fire and smoke scenes in Hollywood style films!