The implications for the changes to the RRO/FSO and the introduction of SP203 in January 2007 will have an impact of how installers view the linking of fire alarm systems to alarm receiving centres and as such there are a number of areas of consideration both for the installer and the end user of the building that need to be addressed to ensure that neither party is compromised in the event of a fire condition at the protected premises.

Currently where the proposed site may have both Intruder and Fire protection the common theme has been to “piggy back” the fire signalling onto channel 1 of the intruder STU to simplify matters and utilise a single line to the ARC.

When considering the RRO and also the issue of best practice and due diligence for the end user this is a very sticky wicket indeed as there is no opportunity for fault monitoring or accurate false alarm statistics (a requirement when URN’s come in for fire) plus the potential risk to the intruder URN if the fire alarm causes false alarm problems.

In addition the level of battery reserve is likely to be well short of that required to cover lengthy periods when the building may be unoccupied, for example during bank holidays and the like (Easter, Christmas etc) and again this will go back to the RRO issues over who has deemed it acceptable to operate on this basis.

As such therefore for all future fire systems where the risk assessment makes signalling a prerequisite, a dedicated separate path is a must for the protection of all parties if you are to both demonstrate your policy of “best practice” and dialogue with the end user as to what is really in his long term best interest, and, under the expectations of SP203 to have shown a competent understanding of the issues and risks that a shared STU will bring.

The pending implementation of the RRO and the revoking of the previous legislation, whilst not retrospective does place a level of responsibility on all parties to ensure that whatever decision is reached over the signalling path it can be justified both by the landlord in their risk assessment and installer in their own site review and appreciation of the customers requirements.

One of the likely effects of the RRO will be that the insurance industry will expect a greater degree of diligence from the accredited installers not to allow or to aid short cuts that have a likelihood of compromising the system working to its optimum level and as such twinning up the Redcare will most definitely fall into this category.

Therefore the outcome that is most likely is that where an installer shortcuts “best practice” and allows the signalling path to be compromised by a shared STU, in the event that this action either reduces the brigades response time (and as such extends the brigades response time or worse still the system fails and there is no response at all) the installer will be pursued through the courts by the insurance provider and the customer for the consequence of these actions and as such therefore a very sticky end for all concerned is guaranteed.

It is likely that in most cases your customers insurance provider is oblivious to the fact that the STU is acting for both systems and where they have been installed and are being maintained by different service providers this only adds to the risks for all concerned.

In the longer term it has also to be considered that the CFOA will want to follow the ACPO route as far as response is concerned and as such therefore and only a little further down the road expect to see both ARC’S and the brigades introduce a system that they can measure the performance of the customer/end user and this will likely be in the assessment of false alarms and the compilation and use of statistics – in particular with systems that have a shared STU

This will allow them to identify those sites where false attendance is most likely and then introduce a series of penalties for false alarm attendance, as this is likely as not to end up back on the installers desk it is essential that measures are in place to both educate the end user and mitigate the risks to all parties from the beginning of 2007.

Whilst the changes will not be retrospective, this current “flux” period should be used to gently bring to the attention of your current customers who have a shared STU that whilst it has for 10 years been a legitimate “cheat” it is no longer and as such they may want to re address this issue along with their insurance provider who should be made fully aware of the fact that the STU carries more than just the intruder alarm system with a view to installing a 2nd line and a dedicated STU for the fire alarm to avoid either compromising the other at any time and with the very obvious consequences mentioned earlier.

In addition the use of “digi’s” and “auto diallers” has also been an issue and whilst from an engineering view they will function, neither can be considered as fit for purpose on a fire alarm for the same reasons, they are also 12v not 24v and as such any risk assessment that sanctioned the use of inappropriate equipment with no failsafe would be an easy target, both from the view point of audit and also performance against risk appreciation

There is also, from the installers point of view an up side to this issue and that is, revenue generation from the ongoing signalling costs charged by the ARC and your fitting of the dedicated STU, also you will have the ability for track and action false alarm situations as part of your internal procedures and this will therefore hopefully be standard practice by the time it is a mandatory requirement ( expected 2008) added to the fact that you can clearly demonstrate to your customer that (whilst cost is an issue) your primary concern is the best possible protection of their business and its assets in the long term – statistically 70% of commercial businesses that suffer a major fire loss, fail to recover due to a compilation of factors including a lack of emergency planning and inadequate insurance cover so the need to ensure that the fire alarm system is fitted and maintained correctly and that it operates at its optimum at all times is vital, a point that will not be lost on the insurance provider is they are asked for a view.

For those of you who do not have a current dedicated signalling arrangement for your installations and a such do not have either overall control of the system from the point of view of breakdown’s and top to bottom maintenance, I will be happy to act as a conduit to facilitate this, the benefits for the installer to have his/her own signalling arrangements are clear in so far that you can demonstrate an ongoing understanding of any issues a site may have ( breakdowns & false alarms) plus dialogue with the end user over the necessary remedial action, plus of course the ongoing revenue generated from this seamless connection from installation to ongoing service and maintenance, and, this will underpin your relationship with them and again act as a clear demonstration of best practice and due diligence to them and their insurance provider.

On an ongoing basis it is also considered good practice to advise those current customers of the changes and whilst they may not be retrospective, the revoking of the previous fire certificates makes it incumbent upon them to review their position and as such will be hard pushed to justify this for the future protection of the building and the business of the employer, therefore a mail shot to appraise them of the changes is appropriate and will/should not be considered as ambulance chasing, more a softly approach to an issue that they need to address and which will create an ongoing revenue stream for the installer.

The insurance industry will be making similar noises as they look to tighten their housekeeping with their clients to mitigate any future potential claim and as such this same message will be coming to them from a variety of sources and will therefore have a greater impact.

In summary the continuation of a shared STU goes against all that the RR0/FSO and SP203 will stand for and as such should be discontinued with immediate effect and action taken to advise both existing and new clients of the need for a separate signalling path, thus enabling both installer and end user to meet any risk assessment requirements they may now face with the fullest confidence that you/they have acted correctly with due diligence to the risk factors specific to your customer and his property.