Mixing Manufacturers fire alarm devices

[Midwest]

At my place of work, some of the properties have D2 smoke & heat detectors. They link into a warden call system via relay base. We need to replace one of these bases, as it’s faulty. This particular alarm manufacturer has discontinued their relays. I found out that some of these bases were replaced during the development , so we have two different manufacturers devices operating together.

Are there any regulations against this in a BS or similar?

 

[Baddegg]

Don’t quote me here mate but I seem to remember some years back a manufacturer telling me that they wouldn’t honour warranty insurance etc, but then they would wouldn’t they!.....

 

[Midwest]

Don’t quote me here mate but I seem to remember some years back a manufacturer telling me that they wouldn’t honour warranty insurance etc, but then they would wouldn’t they!.....

Yep I've already muted the litigation factor. Company responsible for our main fire alarm system, sending one of their domestic engineers to site to have a look.

The current system we have, uses alarm with 9V batteries, which are all starting to come to their end of life. Almost full time job replacing them.

 

[Baddegg]

Yep I've already muted the litigation factor. Company responsible for our main fire alarm system, sending one of their domestic engineers to site to have a look.

The current system we have, uses alarm with 9V batteries, which are all starting to come to their end of life. Almost full time job replacing them.

Sounds like it might be time for a complete new system anyways then?....

 

[Midwest]

The company has got short arms and deep pockets.

 

[UNG]

The company has got short arms and deep pockets.

There comes a time when the bullet has to be bitten

If there is a fire and a mix and match part fails to operate as expected who takes the hit as you can be certain someone will be down for taking the blame and the consequences in which case replacing the system could be a lot cheaper than the lawyers bills

 

[Midwest]

Its a large corporation and they are risk averse. However, they will only authorise such works, if its back up with some technical risk or regulation. They would not carry it out, on my guidance alone, if you see what I mean.

 

[UNG]

Its a large corporation and they are risk averse. However, they will only authorise such works, if its back up with some technical risk or regulation. They would not carry it out, on my guidance alone, if you see what I mean.

From what you have said they are clearly not risk averse if they will continue the way they currently are doing

 

[Midwest]

I contacted the various manufacturers, and all said they could not guarantee their products would work with other manufacturers devices. So no surprises there. Past this information on upwards.

So now I’ve been told, a large national company want to quote to take over our fire alarm system, along with our warden call system, using their products.

This is gonna be expensive, and a long process.

 

[UNG]

I contacted the various manufacturers, and all said they could not guarantee their products would work with other manufacturers devices. So no surprises there. Past this information on upwards.

So now I’ve been told, a large national company want to quote to take over our fire alarm system, along with our warden call system, using their products.

This is gonna be expensive, and a long process.

I suppose the costs will depend on the who the national company is and whether the systems they propose to install use open or closed protocols, if it's a closed protocol they can dictate the ongoing costs once installed as it makes it difficult to move the maintenace contract elsewhere without even more cost. If the choice of a replacement system is left to someone without the technical knowledge to dissect the quote I see an interesting time ahead

 

[Midwest]

I suppose the costs will depend on the who the national company is and whether the systems they propose to install use open or closed protocols, if it's a closed protocol they can dictate the ongoing costs once installed as it makes it difficult to move the maintenace contract elsewhere without even more cost. If the choice of a replacement system is left to someone without the technical knowledge to dissect the quote I see an interesting time ahead

Be interested if you can expand on that?

 

[Phil L]

The downside if using one of the big boys like ADT or Chubb or the like is they will undoubtedly install there own kit (Protocol), the initial installation costs will most likely be in line or favourable in comparison to others but the sting in the tale will come when it comes to ongoing maintenance or repairs, you will without doubt be paying a premium for the jobs as they know they are the only ones that can Access the systems,

it’s the same principal with the £299 fully fitted intruder alarm where your locked in for years and pay massive service and reactive costs,

Best way forward would be to look for a local firm that will install an Open Protocol system that will be competitively priced and much easier to maintain.

 

[Midwest]

We are already lock into them, with the alarms in the main building. Understand what you chaps are saying, but it would be simpler to have them to be responsible to manage these other alarms. We have a duty of care for these buildings alarms & residents. Should something go wrong, we can just refer that over to them.

 

[UNG]

Be interested if you can expand on that?

Phil L looks to have covered that in much the same way as I would

We are already lock into them, with the alarms in the main building. Understand what you chaps are saying, but it would be simpler to have them to be responsible to manage these other alarms.

I would have thought it would be better to put the whole lot up for competitive tender with a nunber of companies rather than go with a single tender from one but obviously not knowing the full circumstances it is difficult to judge the long term outcome

We have a duty of care for these buildings alarms & residents. Should something go wrong, we can just refer that over to them.

Two sentences that are quite often used where the purchaser (duty holder) believes by paying over a sum of money will absolve them from blame when something goes wrong and the contractor will be wholly to blame no matter what the cause of the failure.
I had it a few times were intruder alarms failed to operate when there was a break in, on one site a print out of the log placed the blame back at the customer as the alarm had only been set properly 4 times in the previous 6 months

The principal duty holder should always carry out due diligence of any contract that is placed and any ongoing performance monitoring as they are ultimately responsible for any incident that occurs during the term of the contract.
PAT is a prime example what does the duty holder think they are getting for 50p / appliance tested yes it ticks a box for them but can they really expect a proper check of the appliance and the acceptance of blame by the contractor if an incident occurs where someone is injured

 

[Midwest]

I understand the duty of care and due diligence; ultimately it is my employers responsibility. However, at the moment there is no regular maintenance or testing. We do not have the resource or time to carry out any sort of regular testing, something we acknowledge and need to rectify.

As said, we currently have a company to maintain our current main system. If there is a change on how things are managed, it will probably go to them. Doesn't mean they will always be our contractor, that side of things is organised by our parent company, well above our area of responsibility.

This one will take some time, with specification, pricing etc.

 

[Midwest]

Just as an update, the company have started to replace the comms link between the low voltage smoke alarms & relays, to the warden call system.

However, they are not replacing the different manufactures smoke alarms and relays.

Reg 134.1.1 (BYB) previously used to say 'Electrical equipment shall be installed in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the equipment', now along with 510.3, just says 'take account of instructions'.

Can anyone tell me when 134 was changed to just take account?