Fire monitoring doesn't get specified by Insurers to the same level as Intruder monitoring - is this a UK issue?
The following was a question posed by a leading security industry expert from the UK:
Over 67% of fires happen when a commercial property is vacant (or in the 'closed' state) only 5% of fire systems are monitored; most of those are by digital communicator. Most fire and rescue services are obliged to attend fires if there is a threat to a loss of life (I can see why this is important). Many fireman will describe themselves as 'fire watchers', ie. If there's clearly nobody in the building then they will not risk their lives entering an inferno and will do their best to contain the fire etc. Again, perfectly reasonable. If an Insurer had an early warning of the fire -via signaling - then in most cases their claim exposure would be lower. The quicker you get to a fire, there's more chance of impeding its progression. So why is signalling not specified as standard? Is this just a UK issue?
Steve Nutt from IP Alarms was the first to reply with: I'm really surprised that only 5% of fire systems are monitored in the UK, I think it is a fair bit higher than that in North America. I have never once heard anyone mention fire alarm monitoring in Australia, so maybe it is a similar or lower percentage down under. I've seen lot's of conversations flying around about new IP fire alarm communicators over in the US and actually received an email about one this morning. There are so many regulations surrounding fire monitoring that I didn't even bother to read the email. There are a few guys on here that are experts on fire monitoring, so hopefully they will add their 2 cents soon.
Well, it turned out to be two pence worth as a UK based security industry enthusiast responded: Some fire brigades are trending toward not attending fire alarms passed to them by monitoring centres... more and more we are getting a "we will only attend if the premises confirms an actual fire" response from fire dispatchers. I don't know if this is formal policy of the brigades or just them conserving limited available capability.
I think the brigades would resist insurers specifying monitoring. I dont know the false alarm statistics for fire alarms but experience says its going to be high and more monitored fire alarms is going to mean, exponentially more false alarms brigades will end up attending.
Monitoring does not in any case indicate a speeder response, Even if the fire brigade get to a premise within a short period, inevitably, they will have to wait for a keyholder (if contactable and who doesnt have response time targets to achieve) to turn up to give them access unless of course there is some indication apart from the fire alarm that there is a fire at the premises.
An ARC Manager agreed: we're receiving notification from Brigades that they will not attend an AFA notification unless there is a follow up 999 from the premises confirming there is a fire in progress (Suffolk FRS, Essex FRS). Hence end users and specifiers are asking what's the point? It's a real shame as it's potentially a huge, untapped market to move into now that Intruder is stagnating.
Another control room manager also agreed stating: there's been a big change in the fire brigade policies over the last 12 months towards them requiring confirmation of a fire in progress before they will attend - regardless of time of day/night. Not all the brigades have yet gone down this "extreme" route but more and more are following the examples set by Notts, Suffolk etc.
A System support manager commented: The new CFOA policy calls for the ARC to make every effort to confirm the activation as genuine before passing to the local fire service. Some brigades are taking this to the extreme as others have commented and will only attend if someone has visual confirmation that there is in fact a fire. Personally I can only see two possible outcomes, 1. It will not aid the fire and security industry sell monitored fire alarm systems, why pay for an ARC to do this when an auto dialler gives the same response i.e. keyholder only & 2. The fire brigades reluctance to attend will result in loss of life or a significant loss to property.
The original thread starter commented: I understand and empathise with everyone's view regarding fire response and the interaction from an ARC. We need Insurance companies to specify 'proper' signalling to provide a reliable, trusted alert. Preferably confirmed (visual, audible, sequential or even a 999 call). If the fire is confirmed and clearly visible then I would disagree that a fire and rescue service would just sit there and warm their cockles! Like so many standards and procedures it's subjective and open to interpretation ... Dare I say agnostic. I would like to know why an Insurer/underwriter treats an Intruder signal more seriously than a fire, threat to life or not, it's still a risk ... Your money or your life? Buildings costs millions, premiums rise, insurance ratios change and eventually pays. This cycle could be short-circuited by insurers getting on-board. If CFOA were never interested, why the insistence of sprinkler systems? We all know these protect expensive building infrastructure not content. Time is money.
Someone added: Thats a good point - I wonder why fire systems are not being set up for confirmation - visual would probably be the best. I wouldn't have thought that this would be too difficult to set up.
The systems support manager advised: It's not difficult to set up but people start to get very nervous about using confirmation when protecting life.
The thread started continued: Agreed. A reliable video confirmation would be a start. Jamie, I'm more nervous that some fire services don't respond unless it's confirmed, life at risk or not. If there was a unified policy from CFOA that stipulated a response conditional with Insurer insistence for signalling offering a confirmed fire signal then we have an improved situation - it's never going to be utopia but a step forward.
A further comment was: When this policy first surfaced I had the same nervous feeling but if you look at it from the Chief Fire Officer perspective it makes sense. He has to work with a limited and lets face it, a shrinking resource and he has to provide an essential emergency service to the entire community not just those fortunate enough to afford alarm monitoring.
As an industry surely we also have a social responsibility to ensure that what we do does not impact negatively on society? As I have previously stated I dont know what the false alarm statistics are for monitored fire alarms are but my experience says it is going to be high. The link between false alarms and risk to society is greater with fire alarms than intruders. It is all very well if the FB get to a premises and there is a clear indication that there is a fire I agree with you I dont think the FB will just stand about and break out the marshmallows but If they get there and there is no clear indication of a fire they have to wait for a keyholder to give them access so they can investigate the cause of the alarm. Just yesterday day I had a fire crew chief on the phone asking an eta for keyholders as they had been waiting 45 min. We all saw what happened in London when the fire service gets to stretched.
Someone from Canada added: I don't think we can compare false alarm rates of intruder-type systems and any policy to verify alarms with the fire alarm industry (with special exceptions noted). It seems as though this discussion has changed into a false alarm discussion. Better inspections, plan review, better installations, more qualified installers and service person, systems commissioning with the owners objectives clearly addresses, education for all parties, on and on. these things will ultimately provide better, more reliable and less false alarm prone systems and no hesitation for responders.
The Discussion is ongoing. If you have something to contribute, then why not apply to join the group today?
