OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

--
Adam

On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:03 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into
4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped
up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

Implying that the Land Lord didn't check the detector as part of any
"pre delivery inspection".

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

Which depending on the buildings construction (and modifications)
might be a good thing... However such a system has to be fairly
immune to false alarms from burning toast, or the smokes will get
disabled. If the kitchen opens into the hallway the chances are it
won't be immune to false alarms. A hallway detector needs to be a
smoke based one not temperature.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:07:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:03 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into
4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped
up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

Implying that the Land Lord didn't check the detector as part of any
"pre delivery inspection".

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

Which depending on the buildings construction (and modifications)
might be a good thing... However such a system has to be fairly
immune to false alarms from burning toast,


An alarm from burning toast is not a false alarm but the detector
doing its job and alerting the occupants that it has detected the
products of combustion (not necessarily smoke).

or the smokes will get
disabled. If the kitchen opens into the hallway the chances are it
won't be immune to false alarms. A hallway detector needs to be a
smoke based one not temperature.

Therein lies problem, Mrs Smith is a bit forgetfully and often singes
the bacon or overcooks the toast. Mr Jones the student doesn't
understand that letting the baked beans sit on the hob for 60 mins
will write off another saucepan and set off the alarms. Mr Williams
who works nights is seriously ****ed off by being constantly woken by
these events so whacks the detector until it stops making a noise. Mr
Abdul smokes a Hookah which regularly sets off the alarm because some
well meaning idiot put a detector in the lounge.etc. No one has yet
discovered a reliable "Hey this really is a fire you need to do
something!" alarm.

On 24/11/2018 17:49, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:07:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:03 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into
4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped
up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

Implying that the Land Lord didn't check the detector as part of any
"pre delivery inspection".

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

Which depending on the buildings construction (and modifications)
might be a good thing... However such a system has to be fairly
immune to false alarms from burning toast,


An alarm from burning toast is not a false alarm but the detector
doing its job and alerting the occupants that it has detected the
products of combustion (not necessarily smoke).

....but only of interest to the owner of the toaster, not the entire
building.

--
Max Demian

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 17:49:47 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:07:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:03 +0000, Max Demian wrote:


However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into
4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped
up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

Implying that the Land Lord didn't check the detector as part of any
"pre delivery inspection".

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

Which depending on the buildings construction (and modifications)
might be a good thing... However such a system has to be fairly
immune to false alarms from burning toast,


An alarm from burning toast is not a false alarm but the detector
doing its job and alerting the occupants that it has detected the
products of combustion (not necessarily smoke).

it's a false alarm because there is no fire, no reason for the occupants to evacuate.

or the smokes will get
disabled. If the kitchen opens into the hallway the chances are it
won't be immune to false alarms. A hallway detector needs to be a
smoke based one not temperature.

Therein lies problem, Mrs Smith is a bit forgetfully and often singes
the bacon or overcooks the toast. Mr Jones the student doesn't
understand that letting the baked beans sit on the hob for 60 mins
will write off another saucepan and set off the alarms. Mr Williams
who works nights is seriously ****ed off by being constantly woken by
these events so whacks the detector until it stops making a noise. Mr
Abdul smokes a Hookah which regularly sets off the alarm because some
well meaning idiot put a detector in the lounge.etc. No one has yet
discovered a reliable "Hey this really is a fire you need to do
something!" alarm.

Yes they have. They're called heat alarms. The reason we also use ionisation & optical detectors is because they detect real fires much earlier in the process, giving much improved odds of survival. The downside is false alarms.

Perhaps the way forward might be a building-wide heat alarm system with local ionisation alarms that only warn locally. Maybe.

The other somewhat obvious thing is to position the alarms correctly, something many simply don't do. Advice to do that even got deleted from the wiki. Even an ionisation alarm doesn't false alarm in a kitchen if positioned well.


NT

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:42:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 17:49:47 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:07:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:03 +0000, Max Demian wrote:


However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into
4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped
up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

Implying that the Land Lord didn't check the detector as part of any
"pre delivery inspection".

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

Which depending on the buildings construction (and modifications)
might be a good thing... However such a system has to be fairly
immune to false alarms from burning toast,


An alarm from burning toast is not a false alarm but the detector
doing its job and alerting the occupants that it has detected the
products of combustion (not necessarily smoke).

it's a false alarm because there is no fire, no reason for the occupants to evacuate.

or the smokes will get
disabled. If the kitchen opens into the hallway the chances are it
won't be immune to false alarms. A hallway detector needs to be a
smoke based one not temperature.

Therein lies problem, Mrs Smith is a bit forgetfully and often singes
the bacon or overcooks the toast. Mr Jones the student doesn't
understand that letting the baked beans sit on the hob for 60 mins
will write off another saucepan and set off the alarms. Mr Williams
who works nights is seriously ****ed off by being constantly woken by
these events so whacks the detector until it stops making a noise. Mr
Abdul smokes a Hookah which regularly sets off the alarm because some
well meaning idiot put a detector in the lounge.etc. No one has yet
discovered a reliable "Hey this really is a fire you need to do
something!" alarm.

Yes they have. They're called heat alarms.

Neither fixed point trigger nor rate of rise heat alarms are adequate
for protecting occupants from common causes of fire. They belong only
in kitchens, utility rooms and garages where fires are likely to
start quickly and other detectors cannot be used. Rate of rise
detectors can also suffer nuisance alarms if for example they are
positioned above oven doors where the out rush of hot air when the
oven door is opened can cause them to trigger.

The reason we also use ionisation & optical detectors is because they detect real fires
much earlier in the process, giving much improved odds of survival. The downside is false alarms.

Neither optical nor ionisation detectors detect fires. Both detect
products of combustion. Quite often victims of fires are found away
from the source of the fire. Very few people burn to death, the fumes
(Carbon Monoxide in particular) kill them first and the influence of
heat is of minor importance.

Perhaps the way forward might be a building-wide heat alarm system with local ionisation alarms that only warn locally. Maybe.

Heat alarms trigger at about 60 deg C (fixed point) or for rate of
rise detectors by about 8 deg C per minute rise. Neither are useful
for life protection in common areas because by the time the fire is
sufficiently developed to trigger temperature alarms it will already
be producing lethal levels of fumes. Hence their only use is in small
confined areas such as kitchens where fires are likely to start and
either ionisation or optical alarms will routinely produce
unacceptable numbers of nuisance alarms or become compromised over
time by atmospheric contamination.

The other somewhat obvious thing is to position the alarms correctly, something many simply don't do.
Advice to do that even got deleted from the wiki. Even an ionisation alarm doesn't false alarm in a kitchen if positioned well.

Positioning is important but unless a kitchen is only used to warm
food and nothing will ever get burned an ionisation alarm is wholly
unsuitable in a kitchen no matter where it is installed. In a normal
two story construction the critical sensor is the one placed on the
ceiling at the top of the stairs. That will trigger first in about
80-90% of cases no matter where the fire starts. Even quite badly
placed alarms will work in most cases, just not as quickly as they
could.

Unfortunately fire protection by combustion detectors is one of the
fields where too many people believe that more = better and fail to
understand that if there are too many (and too many is a small number)
nuisance alarms then occupants will both ignore and later disable the
alarms. "I've put lots of sensors in so its much safer" often really
means "I've put lots of sensors in so its much less safe but I've
created a really good illusion of safety".

I don't think he said they are. Often it depends on the construction of the
building. Some blocks are designed so any fire in one flat is isolated by
the doors and windows of that build. IE what should have happened at
Grenville but was cocked up by the refurbishers.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.

--
Max Demian

On 22/11/2018 20:50, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke
in the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at
the smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY
themselves to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up
and shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed. Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

If they are linked burning toast in one flat will set them all off.



No. Not interlinked. These are mains powered smokes in the flats
internal hallway. One smoke per flat.

The communal hallways are a different matter. ie they DO have
interlinked mains powered smoke alarms. A pity that they all have low
voltage batteries and the smokes are above the new suspended ceiling
that was installed 12 months ago. All you can hear when you walk down
the corridor is the smokes bleeping.

I will soon be installing a new 60 detector 8 zone bi wire fire alarm
system for the communal hallways.



--
Adam

On Friday, 23 November 2018 18:35:25 UTC, ARW wrote:
I will soon be installing a new 60 detector 8 zone bi wire fire alarm
system for the communal hallways.

I wasn't sure if it was all in one building. As it is, has the landlord considered a full building fire alarm system with C-Tec Hush Buttons in each flat?

https://www.c-tec.com/fire-alarm-anc...-protocol.html

Provides an individual HMO dwelling with its own 2-minute silence facility (to BS 5839-6/12.2b) & 15-minute isolate facility (to BS 5839-6/12.2a).

Effectively stops the tenants permanently disabling any detectors as any faults will show up on the panel (and if the panel has an autodialler the landlord can be informed immediately and take appropriate action).

Unless fire compartmentation supports a 'stay put' policy then a full building fire alarm is probably required to get everyone out.

Sounder volume at the bedhead is likely to be an issue with a communal-areas-only system too.

Owain

On Thursday, 22 November 2018 19:14:09 UTC, ARW wrote:
I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

I don't know how much smoke detectors have changed, but my five never have false alarms. I have to go around testing them intentionally.

Or perhaps my cooking's got better.

Owain

On 22/11/18 21:37, wrote:
On Thursday, 22 November 2018 19:14:09 UTC, ARW wrote:
I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

I don't know how much smoke detectors have changed, but my five never have false alarms. I have to go around testing them intentionally.

Or perhaps my cooking's got better.

Owain


The only thing that sets mine off is plumbing soldering. Or very
occasionally if I griddle-pan chargrill several chicken breasts and
forget to open a door for the duration.

--
Email does not work

On 22/11/2018 21:45, Tim Watts wrote:
On 22/11/18 21:37, wrote:
On Thursday, 22 November 2018 19:14:09 UTC, ARWÂ* wrote:
I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

I don't know how much smoke detectors have changed, but my five never
have false alarms. I have to go around testing them intentionally.

Or perhaps my cooking's got better.

Owain


The only thing that sets mine off is plumbing soldering. Or very

Yup same here...

and all 4 are interlinked. Fortunately I fitted a mute/test/identify
switch next to the CU, so I now have people programmed to mute them when
I am plumbing! (it keeps them muted for about 10 mins as well)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:45:22 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

I don't know how much smoke detectors have changed, but my five
never
have false alarms. I have to go around testing them intentionally.

Likewise, though I just put my ear defenders on (they are painfully
lound) and press the test switch on the Locate/Test/Silence switch
box and walk around rather than poking each one with a stick.

Or perhaps my cooking's got better.

The only thing that sets mine off is plumbing soldering. Or very
occasionally if I griddle-pan chargrill several chicken breasts and
forget to open a door for the duration.

Hum, kitchen ones ought to the "rate of rise" rather than "smoke"
detectors.
--
Cheers
Dave.

On 23/11/2018 14:27, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:45:22 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

I don't know how much smoke detectors have changed, but my five
never
have false alarms. I have to go around testing them intentionally.

Likewise, though I just put my ear defenders on (they are painfully
lound) and press the test switch on the Locate/Test/Silence switch
box and walk around rather than poking each one with a stick.

Or perhaps my cooking's got better.

The only thing that sets mine off is plumbing soldering. Or very
occasionally if I griddle-pan chargrill several chicken breasts and
forget to open a door for the duration.

Hum, kitchen ones ought to the "rate of rise" rather than "smoke"
detectors.



Domestic kitchens would normally be fixed temperature heat detectors and
not smoke alarms or rate of rise heat detectors.

--
Adam

On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants. I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thursday, 22 November 2018 21:40:58 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants. I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.


I suspect it's one of those systems that false alarms too frequently for the tenants to tolerate it. There are such systems out there. Last one I saw they had difficulty accessing the 'turn it off' function too. People get seriously fed up & detectors get disabled.

The companies that put systems in don't always do it adequately in this respect, leaving an LL that doesn't know how to solve it. Some systems are genuinely not livable with.

I'd ask the tenants about it and maybe flag this as a likely explanation, recommending it be made livable.


NT

On Friday, 23 November 2018 01:27:56 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 22 November 2018 21:40:58 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants. I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.


I suspect it's one of those systems that false alarms too frequently for the tenants to tolerate it. There are such systems out there. Last one I saw they had difficulty accessing the 'turn it off' function too. People get seriously fed up & detectors get disabled.

The companies that put systems in don't always do it adequately in this respect, leaving an LL that doesn't know how to solve it. Some systems are genuinely not livable with.

I'd ask the tenants about it and maybe flag this as a likely explanation, recommending it be made livable.


NT

Frequent false alarms lead to people ignoring them too.
Years ago ISTR an incident where people in a tower block ignored the fire alarm for this reason, it was a real fire and someone was killed.

On 23/11/2018 07:04, harry wrote:
On Friday, 23 November 2018 01:27:56 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 22 November 2018 21:40:58 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants. I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.


I suspect it's one of those systems that false alarms too frequently for the tenants to tolerate it. There are such systems out there. Last one I saw they had difficulty accessing the 'turn it off' function too. People get seriously fed up & detectors get disabled.

The companies that put systems in don't always do it adequately in this respect, leaving an LL that doesn't know how to solve it. Some systems are genuinely not livable with.

I'd ask the tenants about it and maybe flag this as a likely explanation, recommending it be made livable.


NT

Frequent false alarms lead to people ignoring them too.
Years ago ISTR an incident where people in a tower block ignored the fire alarm for this reason, it was a real fire and someone was killed.


The fire alarm went off on Monday when I was changing an emergency light
at a hotel. Everyone ignored it as they thought it was me that had set
the alarm off!!!!!!

Not one person (other than me) looked at the fire panel. Burnt toast in
the staff room was the cause.

--
Adam

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 19:32:06 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 23/11/2018 07:04, harry wrote:
On Friday, 23 November 2018 01:27:56 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 22 November 2018 21:40:58 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:


OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and
shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed.
Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants. I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.


I suspect it's one of those systems that false alarms too frequently for the tenants to tolerate it. There are such systems out there. Last one I saw they had difficulty accessing the 'turn it off' function too. People get seriously fed up & detectors get disabled.

The companies that put systems in don't always do it adequately in this respect, leaving an LL that doesn't know how to solve it. Some systems are genuinely not livable with.

I'd ask the tenants about it and maybe flag this as a likely explanation, recommending it be made livable.


NT

Frequent false alarms lead to people ignoring them too.
Years ago ISTR an incident where people in a tower block ignored the fire alarm for this reason, it was a real fire and someone was killed.


The fire alarm went off on Monday when I was changing an emergency light
at a hotel. Everyone ignored it as they thought it was me that had set
the alarm off!!!!!!

Not one person (other than me) looked at the fire panel. Burnt toast in
the staff room was the cause.

which indicates that they've stopped taking the system's (many false) alarms seriously.

On 22/11/2018 21:40, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2018 19:14, ARW wrote:
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke
in the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at
the smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY
themselves to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4
weeks ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up
and shoved into the ceiling as well as the battery having been
removed. Almost certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.


It's a sad reflection on both landlord and tenants.Â* I can only hope the
EICR is for a new owner/agent who wants to do better and not just 'cos
the insurer wants one.



Both would get the same report.



--
Adam

Weird indeed. Seems people will do anything to save a few pounds rather than
worry about safety.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
OK so not DIY but some here do find such info interesting.

I am doing an EICR on a block of 38 rented flats all owned by the same
company. One and two bed flats with just a single mains powered smoke in
the hallway (as per regs when they were built in 1994)

Out of the 16 I have tested 8 of them have either had the MCB to the
smokes turned off and the battery removed, the mains disconnected at the
smoke and the battery removed or the smoke heads have been removed.


I accept that the tenants have probably done some of this DIY themselves
to save buying a new battery.

However the most disturbing one is a flat that a tenant moved into 4 weeks
ago. The mains had been disconnected from the smoke, taped up and shoved
into the ceiling as well as the battery having been removed. Almost
certainly like that when she moved in 4 weeks ago.

--
Adam