The cost of this wasted time for both business and the fire service is estimated to be well in excess of £1 billion per year, in part as a result of downtime from groundless evacuations. In the last five years this position has not appreciably changed.
What’s more, false fire alarms from automatic alarm systems due to poor maintenance are on the increase.
As to the ratio between real fire emergencies and false alarms, regrettably in England a sustained trend for the past five years shows the number of false alarm call outs actually exceeding real primary fire call outs by a significant margin, which is in itself a damningly cautionary finding. In London this ratio is, exceptionally, two to one (and currently reflecting a slight increase in unwanted calls against target aims).
These blue light responses, then, to automated unwanted fire alarm signals (UFAS) represent a grave menace, hindering services that could be needed at a genuine emergency or even interrupting critical front-line training for ‘first responders’.
Beyond such considerations as this needless burden on the FRS authorities, business disruptions that lead to a loss of productivity, the reduced confidence of the general public, and even the environmental impact of inessential emergency appliance movements all need to be taken into account.
Hospitals have been identified as responsible for the vast majority of the false alarms that the capital’s firefighters are called out to
And this persistent malfunctioning of fire alarms is even more glaringly highlighted when you stop to consider the recent deliberations by the UK government on the creation of multi-agency Strategic Command Centres embracing the ‘blue light’ emergency services – Fire, Ambulance and Police. In the view of some analysts, this new configuration of the services is likely to spark debate about multiple call outs and the cost implications of all three services responding to incidents, when so very often a reported event can be a false alert.
It’s a concern foreseen and amplified by the Chief Fire Officers Association, one of whose chief officers comments: ‘Until an event is attended and confirmed as a false alarm it will always be treated as an emergency and responded to by the appropriate service or services.’
The National Police Chiefs’ Council also anticipates an enhanced collaborative response arising from the Tri-Service Control Centres: ‘We welcome any opportunity to enable the blue light services to work more effectively together in the public interest . . . They can concentrate expertise, save money, help deal with crises and share best practice.’
So, in short, this proposed drive towards a more joined-up response to emergencies intends to coordinate front-line services to yield more efficiencies in time-savings and management of personnel, with joint decision-making aimed to prioritise blue light call outs concentrated on inter-operable control rooms.
Yet the question remains, will these new efficiencies be reciprocated by risk management in a renewed commitment to defeat false alarms in their communities by improving the functional integrity of the Automatic Fire Detection and Fire Alarm Systems (AFDS) on which the public rely?
New Joint Command Unit: bespoke mobile operational command vehicle commissioned by Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue and Northamptonshire Police
Since the London Fire Brigade (LFB) introduced its penalty charging scheme for excessive false fire alarm call outs in January 2014, the potential for the LFB to collect £millions in penalties from the worst culprits in the capital has remained a possible outcome (at present, for 2017, the scheme is suspended for review).
Hospitals have been identified as responsible for the vast majority of the false alarms that the capital’s firefighters are called out to. The LFB’s figures from before the scheme’s inception show that firefighters were called out, overall, to over 400 locations annually (each more than ten times) in response to false fire alarms, costing the brigade about £800,000.
This frequency equates to a false alarm every 15 minutes in London. Overall, false alarms from automatic systems still account for around 40,000 call outs for the LFB every year, set against call outs of around half that number to real fires.
The very latest LFB figures for cost recovery for non domestic premises generating 10 or more calls a year, continue to record a potential recovery value on average of approaching £500,000 in charges every 12 months.
Unwanted Fire Signals that ‘cry wolf’ in this manner place a vast burden on Fire and Rescue Services by unnecessarily tying up fire engines and firefighters on needless call-outs, when they may be needed at a genuine emergency.
Sophisticated predictive technology reduces the problem by resolving potential problems before they arise
That is why the pressure on risk management and, more particularly, Responsible Persons to cut the risks of false alarms is intensifying. What’s more, by tolerating a ‘norm’ of frequent needless fire alarm annunciations, negligent premises management can create a dangerous mood of apathy among staff that could very easily lead to widespread irresponsiveness should a real fire break out.
For responsible risk management, current best practice – conditioned by ecological concerns – seeks to reduce the impact on the environment that potentially arises from the life cycle of a fire system.
Today, fire prevention is an essential element of Building Management Systems (BMSs) integrated with an IT infrastructure purposed to fully exploit Intelligence Convergence, allowing direct integration into intelligent buildings via any device capable of establishing an internet connection, granting risk management instant access to review the system, including the status of fire detection devices in real time.
Current solutions encompass smart security systems such as access control/ID systems, video surveillance/analytics, intrusion detection, and life safety . . . all extending the capability for remote diagnostics that confer the ecological benefits of increased efficiency yielded by fault-free systems. For example: servicing, maintenance and false call outs all contribute to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere leading to changes in global environmental conditions.
These hazards can be significantly reduced by the use of sophisticated predictive technology, reducing the need to travel by allowing potential problems to be resolved before they arise.
Predictive technology can include the management of fire and security servicing inspection routines, false fire alarm interrogation and diagnosis, or the scheduling of system maintenance call-outs.
At the same time, these examples of Intelligence Convergence can benefit users with the capability to support a full audit trail for traceability and regulatory compliance.
Prominent, up-to-date fire alarm zone plans should accurately match building layout
As the latest statistics suggest, a number of remedies to stimulate behavioural change can be derived from analysis of common shortcomings at malfunctioning sites:
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
One of the things that I have come across especially in recent research, is that despite the availability of what you describe as ‘comprehensively monitored configurable Automatic Fire Alarm systems’ and ‘multisensors’ which can avoid these problems. Many of the chief culprits seem to be operating with aging badly serviced systems. The problem that suppliers address tends to be ‘How can we make our systems less likely to generate false alarm call outs, but the real problem is really how do we get building managers to take responsibility to ensure that they have a well maintained up to date fire… Read more »
I see a need to blame and sell new products , have yet to hear from designers when their systems are seen as not upto the job, management love change , the ability to alter and give their views . Today we are told testing is done wrong , maintenance is poor people behave badly, it seems the risk assessments failed to consider this but the management still pass their ISO audit in management ??