Blog

Good looking fire protection products!

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Part of the extensive Dorgard Range

Dorgard – Fire Door Retainer We’ve all seen or done it before! A fire door wedged open on a hot sunny day or the fire door propped open so that people can easily pass, however it is illegal and dangerous to do this, in fact it is a direct contravention of Fire Safety regulations in the UK. In the event of a fire, this hazardous practice will result in the fire spreading quicker, causing more damage and putting people’s lives at risk. Dorgard enables you to legally and safely keep fire doors open, by allowing the door to close when the fire alarm sounds preventing the spread of fire and smoke. Installed onto the bottom of the fire door in under 5 minutes, Dorgard is listening for a continuous fire alarm of 65dBA or higher. Features: Wireless unit with fail-to-safe technology Improves access throughout buildings in line with the Equality Act 2010 Complies with BS EN 1155 and accepted by the Fire and Rescue Service Available in a variety of colours and finishes Automatic night-time release facility Complies with BS 7273-4 category B Adjustable sensitivity CE marked Inexpensive to buy, Dorgard fire door retainer requires no wiring as the unit is battery operated and is fitted to the bottom of the fire door using 4 screws. Dorgard can also be leased, the cost of which includes installation, annual servicing and full warranty for the term of the contract. As with all fire safety devices, a Fire Risk Assessment should be carried out prior to installation. Please contact us for a quote or for more information on our wireless fire door retainer.

Notifiers Pearl in the crown for 2012

Saturday, December 3rd, 2011

1-2 Loop 64 Zone digital protocol panel

2012 will see the launch of the new Notifier Pearl Panel

This is Notifiers most advanced system yet and boasts some impressive statistics from the 1 or 2 loop launch panels;

  1. 318 devices per loop (Split between modules and detectors), this could save
  2. Full utilisation of the Notifier innovations such as the Smart 3* and Smart 4** detectors
  3. Backwards compatible with older CLIP devices and impressively the ID3000 networks
  4. Loop powered remote indicators, these can be wired anywhere on the loop and be programmed to operate upon the activation of any detector

Installation innovations

For first fix, the Pearl’s innovative mounting system gives the installer easier access to terminate wiring to the back plate before the panel is even installed.

Smart Detection

The principle behind Notifiers ‘Smart’ detection is not immediately obvious, the products run along side the normal optical and combined optical-heat detection, however the Smart technology introduces some additional elements to the ‘normal’ smoke detector and from numerous tests you can see the obvious benefits.

* Smart 3 – This detector includes an additional flame detection element to the device and uses all elements of the detector together

*Smart 4 – This detector has all of the features of the smart 3 with an added element of CO2

Fire safety convictions

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

Fire safety convictions
Friday 08 July 2011

Business owners and companies contracted to provide Fire Risk Assessments to businesses are being advised to pay greater attention to Fire Safety legislation following the sentencing of two Mansfield men at Nottingham Crown Court today.

David Liu, who runs The Dial Hotel and Market Inn, both in Market Place, Mansfield, was jailed for 8 months and ordered to pay £15,000 costs after pleading guilty to 15 Fire Safety offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

John O’Rourke, who runs Mansfield Fire Protection Services, Mansfield, was also jailed for 8 months and was ordered to pay £5,862.38 after he pleaded guilty to two breaches of Fire Safety requirements in relation to the inadequacy of Fire Risk Assessments he provided for Mr Liu’s hotels.

The Judge said that the time had come to send out a message to those who conduct Fire Risk Assessments and to hoteliers who are prepared to put profit before safety.

Fire Protection Officers from Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service had visited both premises and found that the fire precautions which should have been provided to protect residents and employees in the event of a fire were inadequate. This presented a serious risk to the lives to Mr Liu’s customers and staff, so they issued prohibition notices preventing any further use of both premises as hotels until suitable improvements had been made.

Mr Liu was prosecuted because he was the responsible person for both premises, and failed to make sure they were safe for customers staying there. Mr O’Rourke was prosecuted because he carried out Fire Risk Assessments at both hotels, but those assessments were wholly inadequate.

Today Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is reminding all owners and occupiers of buildings of their legal responsibility to protect their customers and staff against the risk of fire and warning them that, where necessary, action will be taken against anyone found to be in breach of Fire Safety regulations.

Ian Taylor, Fire Protection Group Manager at Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, said: “It is a legal requirement for places of work to have a Fire Risk Assessment. Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment and Fire Safety measures appropriate for different types of premises are available on the Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service website and also on that of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The guides are to assist employers to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment.

“If employers are unsure about their own ability to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment within their premises they should seek advice from a competent person. In ascertaining someone’s competence to provide Fire Safety advice I would encourage people to ask for references, be aware of what Fire Safety training and qualifications they have and check to see if they are registered or accredited with an appropriate third party body.”

Further Fire Safety advice and guidance upon all types of premises is available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/

FireCell is the new standard!

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

The new generation of radio system

FireCell is a fully analogue addressable fire detection system with a set of features making it one most advanced fire detection systems available – all without the need for cable.

The standards changed in March 2011 and although the Firepoint 5000 remains in service for additions and temporary solutions, the new FireCell uses the new EN54 868 frequency which is required to comply with the incoming standards, what this means for the user is that the best selling radio solution in the UK has;

  • Highly developed in the UK  and as a consequence has improved speed of operation and synchronisation of sounders
  • Comes as standard with wired loops with the control panel meaning that the system is now more flexible for the user
  • The system can now run a combination of wired and wireless devices all reporting back to a single control point
  • Improved range of sensors with addition of Apollo (The UK based industry leader in smoke and heat detection manufacturing) devices to the range
  • Retains the use of Alkaline batteries – which makes commercial sense not just for the price but the sheer availability for the customer providing choice and not tying the customer to limited providers
  • All manufactured in the UK, with the manufacturer supporting the radio surveys and with a massive 5 year product warranty

EN54 Compliance in one complete system

The systems incorporate industry standard sensors and each device is powered with an alkaline battery pack. The devices communicate with the controllers using secure, fully compliant, dual frequency signalling.

The system consists of the following components:

analogue addressable fire sensors are based on industry standard devices.

The sensors have no visible aerials and are low profile, aesthetically pleasing designs. Each device is powered by an alkaline battery pack.

Providing reliable fire detection solutions for most applications the comprehensive sensor range includes:

Smoke Heat and Multisensors

  • Optical smoke
  • Heat
  • Multi-Sensor, combining both smoke and heat
  • Combined Sensor with Base Sounder or Voice Sounder, available with either smoke, heat or multi-sensor heads
  • Combined Sensor with Base Sounder or Voice Sounder, available with either smoke, heat or multi-sensor heads and an LED strobe

Radio Connection Diagram

The rules have changed – Essex Fire & Rescue service

Sunday, February 13th, 2011

Did you call?

From the 28th February 2011, Essex Fire and Rescue service will no longer be responding to un-confirmed automatic alarms from some premises.

What does this mean for sites with monitoring?  Well as with all headlines its never just that simple, the rules have changed with regard to some properties however, for example; premises that have a sleeping risk then the ECFRS (Essex County Fire & Rescue Service) will be attending following an automatic signal.

The details of the changes are on the ECFRS’s website however for ease of information I have added an exctract below;

The following text has been taken directly from the ECFRS website.

The following information is provided to answer questions posed to the
Service following the decision not to attend certain types of premises when a
fire alarm actuates.

Under section 7 of The Fire Services Act 2004 a responsibility is placed on Fire Authorities to make provision for fire fighting and not to attend premises to ascertain if a fire exists. This duty lies with the person whom has responsibility for the premises.

The table below summarises responses to some recent questions that have been raised.

Business premises


Office, Shops, Factories

Sleeping risks (Hotels, Hospitals, Care etc)  Schools etc
Question Answer Answer

When will the new procedure start?

28th February 2011

NA

Will the Service respond to non confirmed fire signals from Alarm Receiving Centre’s (ARC’s)?

NO

YES

If NO should we remove the ARC process? No, the ARC should be directed to contact the key holder to attend the premises to confirm the situation

NA

We will be attending confirmed fires at all times regardless of premises use, however as detailed in our letter dated November 2010 from 28th February we will only be attending premises as detailed above.

In commercial premises, 99.8% of actuations are false alarms. This meant that firefighting action was only required in 0.2% of the time (11 Calls) of which less that half required no more than a fire extinguisher to extinguish the fire.

We will not be attending actuations of Automatic Fire Alarm systems which are not supported by a phone call to confirm a Fire Service attendance is required (some Fire Alarm systems may be capable of carrying out this function, more details will be available shortly)

This may mean you need to review your management policies and procedures to ensure during normal working hours any actuation of the fire alarm is investigated and fire situation confirmed prior to the Fire Service being called.

For periods, out of normal business hours arrangements will need to be made for an employee / company representative to attend the premises to ascertain if a Fire Service attendance is required and place a 999 call (a safe system of work needs to be in place to ensure anybody attending e.g. local key holder can quickly and safely make the decision without undue risk to themselves, a specific risk assessment is recommended to be carried out).

Magic Pens go live!

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Last week our engineers underwent the Destiny pen training and we launched straight into the trial of the new digital engineers forms.  So far it has been a great success and apart from a couple of user errors has lived up our expectations.

Magic Pen

Magic Pen

For those of you who are unaware of these ‘magic pens’ I will explain below;

The pen is a normal ball point pen with a twist, it has a camera inside, when the pen is used to write on the special engineers sheets they use software and a matrix of tiny dots to reproduce an image of the written document which is then passed to the engineers phone via bluetooth and emailed straight to our service desk for processing.

Customer Benefits

  1. Digital copies of the witten work sheet, whilst still providing the paper copy for evidence meeting statutory requirements
  2. Vastly improved speed of transfer of information, i.e. a written report to enable our technical services manager to accurately provide reports and quotations for urgent remedial works
  3. Quick invoices for the work carried out, no longer having to wait for the sheet to be returned to the WFP office for processing as this process starts as soon as the data is transfered from the engineers phone

WFP have worked hard to improve the speed of service whilst retaining the quality of the information provided, the use of the magic pens is just another step on the road to our stated goal; ‘To be your trusted professional advisors for Fire & Security’

HM Gov serve fire safety enforement notice on itself!

Monday, June 7th, 2010

07 June 2010 – Enforcement notice details wide-ranging fire safety breaches at CLG headquarters

It has been revealed today that the London headquarters of Communities and Local Government – the government department that steers fire safety policy in England and Wales – has been served with an enforcement notice under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

CLG Office SW1

CLG Office SW1

In a damming critique of the building’s fire safety arrangements, an inspector from the enforcing authority, the Crown Premises Inspection Group, states:

“The concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon those persons under the Order, appear not to be understood within CLG premises”.

The notice, served on 16 February on the then secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, John Denham, details numerous shortcomings in fire safety measures and management at CLG’s Eland House premises in Victoria. It lists alleged breaches of 13 of the 15 Articles of the Fire Safety Order that impose duties on the CLG, as the responsible person, including:

•Introducing a fire load in the atrium which was not considered in the building’s fire engineered design, by installing a cafeteria which, it is said, may lead to “uncontrolled fire spread throughout the building”
•An unsuitable and insufficient fire risk assessment
•Failing to nominate competent persons to help the responsible person discharge his duties
•Failure to adequately maintain the fire alarm system, interconnections between fire safety systems, and smoke vents throughout the building
•Lack of evidence of adequate training and provision of essential fire safety information to staff

In an apparent reference to other CLG premises, the inspector goes on to say: “At present there is a lack of national policy, guidance and ownership of fire safety management across the CLG estate.”

 
The fire engineering at Eland House had been compromised in the atrium

Details of the inspection and the enforcement notice have come to light under a Freedom of Information request made to CLG by an individual linked to the fire safety industry.

“Unacceptable” policy
Other deficiencies found include an “unacceptable” policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building; the inability of the building to support the phased evacuation strategy; no adequate arrangements to ensure visitors and contractors are accounted for in an evacuation; and shortcomings in the means of escape for the number of people likely to occupy the building.

Although Eland House is categorised as Crown premises, it is still subject to safety legislation including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, and enforcement procedures are similar to those of other premises. However, Crown Immunity means the responsible person cannot actually be prosecuted for offences.

The enforcement notice also reveals that the contracted facilities company, having some control of the premises, was sent a copy of the notice. However, it makes it clear that although the company is considered a ‘nominated competent person’, they had not been provided with sufficient means to undertake this role.

Responding to the revelation of the enforcment notice, a CLG spokesman said:

“Following the remodelling of parts of the interior of Eland House, the Department requested that the Crown Premises Inspection Group (CPIG) audit the facility to review the impact that the changes had on the fire safety of the building. The CPIG made a number of recommendations in the form of a Crown Enforcement Notice which was issued on 16 February 2010. The Department has accepted these recommendations which are now in the process of being fully implemented.”

The enforcement notice is dated 16 February 2010 and relates to a fire safety audit which was carried out on 26 November 2009. Ironically, the Crown Premises Inspection Group comes under the remit of the government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, whose unit is itself based at Eland House.

In January, it was revealed that the Fire Service College – an executive agency of CLG – had not carried out a valid fire risk assessment at the time of the fire which destroyed an appliance bay at its Moreton in Marsh premises.

The Co-op receives near-record fine for fire safety failings

Friday, May 21st, 2010

May 2010

fire-officers

One of the largest fines to date has been issued to the Co-operative Group for having caused ‘a potential death trap’ at one of its premises.

Described as having demonstrated ‘a lamentable approach to fire safety’ His Honour Judge Barnett ordered the Co-operative Group to pay £210,000, including costs in excess of £28,000 – one of the largest fines ever under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for its failings in fire safety.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (prosecuting) took into account six breaches of fire safety, which came to light following inspections at the company’s Shirley Road premises in Southampton in September 2007.

Pleading guilty at Southampton Crown Court last month, the Co-operative Group was found to have committed six serious breaches of fire safety law, namely:

· failing to keep the rear emergency exit doors unlocked for use in an emergency

· fitting a lock requiring a security code on an emergency door between the retail and storage areas, which could not be easily opened in an emergency

· obstructing a fire alarm and call-point in the storage area – thus potentially delaying fire alarm activation and early warning to building occupants

· a lack of suitable and sufficient fire safety instruction and training for the store manager

· a fire alarm system that was not regularly tested

· having no means of early detection of fire in the retail area and thus not providing early warning to the occupants of the manager’s office for safe evacuation

In addition, the court heard of three other fire safety offenses which occurred at the company’s premises in Montague Avenue and Bassett Green Road in Southampton, and its Kingston Road store in Portsmouth.
A spokesperson for the Manchester-based Co-operative Group, said that it ‘deeply regrets the breaches’ explaining that as a responsible retailer, the company ‘takes health and safety issues very seriously’.
According to the Co-op, at the time of these incidents, the Group was introducing substantially more stringent health and safety procedures, investing heavily, both in time and money, in all aspects of fire safety.

Commenting on the prosecution, Hampshire’s chief fire officer, John Bonney, said that the fire service strives to work closely with businesses to help them with their duty to comply with the Fire Safety Order but when companies fail to take their responsibilities seriously, the service will consider prosecution.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue has discovered a number of common fire safety failings in premises throughout the county, to include:

· blocked or locked exits

· poorly maintained fire escape staircases

· a lack of staff fire training

· storing combustible materials in boiler rooms

· a lack of fire alarms, emergency lighting and fire doors

· a lack of suitable fire risk assessments

Landlord jailed for 30 months after young woman suffered severe burns

Monday, May 17th, 2010
11 May 2010

Building on Fire
This is a news story taken from the FSE journal and is a chilling reminder of what can happen.

A landlord has been jailed for two and a half years after pleading guilty to a number of fire safety, health and safety and gas safety offences at Norwich Crown Court.

The court heard how a fire in one of his properties left a young woman so badly burned that doctors thought she was unlikely to survive. Layla Skalli suffered 80% deep tissue burns on almost all the skin below her neck.

The fire broke out on 14 April 2009 in Ms Skalli’s bedsit, part of three adjoining houses in multiple occupation above retail premises in Magdalen Street, Norwich. Miss Skalli was unable to escape because her sash window could only be opened by 4 inches and the staircase was blocked by thick black smoke. Firefighters used a ladder to smash the window and climb inside, where they found Miss Skalli unconscious on the floor with her hands covering her face – the only part of her not burnt by the intense heat.

Other tenants were either rescued by firefighters or had to climb down a drainpipe to escape.

The joint prosecution was brought by Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service and the Health and Safety Executive. The court heard how Mr Billings failed to provide a working fire alarm, an adequate number of fire doors, and adequate means of escape. In addition, gas appliances in the properties had not been serviced or properly inspected.

Mr Billings pleaded guilty to breaches of article 8 (duty to take general fire precautions), article 13 (firefighting and fire detection) and article 14 (emergency routes and exits) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for each of the three neighbouring properties, and was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment for these offences. The rest of the sentence was for offences under section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 and regulation 36(3)(a) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

The HSE’s John Claxton said: “This is the most distressing case I have worked on during my 31 years as an HSE inspector. The injuries and pain suffered by Miss Skalli were horrific. It is testament to her huge character, spirit and determination that she is still alive today.

“Michael Billings failed in his basic duties as a landlord and those failures nearly cost the life of a young woman. As it is, Layla Skalli has been left with both physical and emotional scars that will never completely heal.”

Notifier’s OPAL enters the digital age

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Today (Monday 15th February 2010) Notifier launched the ground breaking digital protocol of automatic detection called OPAL

Notifier's OPAL detection range

Notifier's new OPAL digital detection range

The product is a revolution for the Notifier brand and is in fact two protocols in one, the traditional CLIP protocol and the new digital OPAL protocol.

What does this mean for the users?

The new range can be used on the existing Notifier systems as CLIP protocol and in the newer panels can fulfil the potential that the OPAL range has to offer including;

The new protocol will provide up to 318 devices per loop (On the new panel range), increasing the loop loading capacity, built in loop isolators and advanced fault finding capabilities designed to speed up troublesome wiring issues during the ever pressured commissioning stage of the new installation.

The use of intelligent systems in the UK has seen some changes throughout the history of automatic fire detection and alarm systems and now WFP are pleased to be able to offer this new and powerful digital protocol to our customers.

Please call our office and ask how the new digital system can provide a fire detection and alarm solution for you.  0845 481 0307.