Management of Calls
to Automated Fire
Alarms (AFAs)
Fifth London Safety Plan
Supporting document No.6
Consultation draft
March 2013
Management of Calls to Automated Fire Alarms (AFAs)
Introduction
The Brigade categorises calls to fire where, on attendance, there is found to be no fire as ’False Alarms’ These
include calls from individuals which may be genuine but turn out to be incorrect (these are recorded as ’false
alarm, good intent‘) or malicious (recorded as ’false alarm, malicious’). There is a third category of false alarm
calls which is those that result from automatic fire alarm systems from both non-domestic and domestic
premises (AFAs). In 2011/12, the Brigade received a total of 40,839 AFA calls, 27,863 of which were to nondomestic premises.
Some fire alarm systems are monitored by a remote alarm receiving centre. Some of these organisations
operate call filtering policies of their own before they determine whether or not to call the Brigade. Others
simply pass the call straight to the Brigade. AFAs can also arise when a member of the public calls on hearing
an alarm from outside a building. There are no longer fire alarm systems which have a direct line to Brigade
Control. If the call is to a non-domestic premises, and the caller is unable to confirm that there is a fire, Brigade
Control mobilise an initial attendance to the fire alarm, usually of one fire appliance. Once at the scene, if the
crew discover a fire, they may request additional resources depending on the size of the incident. Of the calls
that the Brigade receives to an actuating fire alarm on non-domestic premises, 2.2% turn out to be caused by a
fire.
The Brigade recognises the value of fire alarms in protecting people from fire and reducing the numbers of fire
deaths and injuries. However, the Brigade’s objective is to encourage proper use and management of these
systems to ensure those responsible have the right system and the right management processes in place, so as
to reduce the number of false alarms caused by these systems. Fire alarms which actuate when there is no fire
can be an indication of poor fire safety management on the premises and those false alarms that result in an
attendance by the Brigade have a significant impact on the use of operational resources.
Scale of the problem
A fire brigade attendance at a false alarm due to an automatic fire alarm (AFA) is the most frequent attendance
made by the Brigade. All AFAs account for around 35 per cent of all operational attendances. This volume of
activity impacts both on the Brigade’s ability to attend other emergencies, on operational readiness training
and on the ability to deliver community safety work.
Most AFAs (70 per cent) happen in non-domestic buildings. These property types include hospitals and care
homes as well as commercial buildings and offices. It is these types of property – where there would be a
‘responsible person’ for fire safety management – that have been the focus of the Brigade’s activities to reduce
unwanted calls.
The table below shows where AFAs happen by property category.
Property Category
Non Domestic
Domestic
Other
Total
2009/10
31,764
12,972
72
44,808
2010/11
29,960
13,157
51
43,168
2011/12
27,863
12,929
47
40,839
3yr Avg
29,863
13,019
57
42,938
%
69%
30%
0.1%
100%
Since 2005/06 (the year with the highest number of AFAs in non-domestic buildings), the number of attended
AFA incidents has reduced by 23 per cent. This reduction is due to the efforts to engage with Responsible
Persons as part of the reduction strategy which is explained further in this report and should be seen in the
context of a significant increase in the number of alarm installations across London.
Page 1
2011/12
2010/11
27,863
29,960
31,764
2009/10
32,960
2008/09
35,567
2006/07
33,537
35,956
2005/06
2007/08
35,253
32,621
2003/04
2004/05
31,654
2002/03
The chart below shows the number of AFA incidents attended in other buildings over the past ten years.
Where AFAs happen
The table below looks at the top ten property types within the non-domestic property category.
Top 10 Property types
Hospitals and medical care
Offices and call centres
Retail
Education
Entertainment and culture
Warehouses and bulk storage
Food and Drink
Transport buildings
Sporting venues
Public admin
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
3yr Avg
%
5,331
4,620
3,462
2,977
1,387
769
647
819
667
686
4,569
4,415
3,716
3,118
1,340
720
755
662
635
607
4,358
4,257
3,327
3,035
1,221
756
779
675
643
541
4,753
4,431
3,502
3,043
1,316
748
727
719
648
611
11%
10%
8%
7%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Repeat attendances
More than 30 per cent of AFA attendances are to locations that we attend 10 or more times in a year. There are
nine locations where 100 or more AFA attendances were made in 2011/12
Number of attendances
>= 100 AFAs
>=50 and <100 AFAs
>=20 and <50 AFAs
>=10 and <20 AFAs
>=2 and <10 AFAs
1 AFA
Totals
Locations
9
19
75
300
4,166
4,900
9,469
%
0.1%
0.2%
0.8%
3.2%
44.0%
51.7%
100%
Page 2
num AFA
1,264
1,312
2,155
3,816
14,416
4,900
27,863
% AFA
5%
5%
8%
14%
52%
18%
100%
The nine locations with the most repeated attendances (100 or more) are:
Location
Number of AFAs 2011/12
St. Georges Hospital, Blackshaw Road
Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill
Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway
Ealing Hospital, Uxbridge Road
Hillingdon Hospital, Pield Heath Road
Queens Hospital, Rom Valley Way
St Thomas Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road
Homerton Hospital, Homerton Row
Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road
SW17 0QT
SE5 9RS
EN2 8JL
UB1 3HW
UB8 3NN
RM7 0AG
SE1 7EH
E9 6SR
E1 1DB
169
163
161
159
143
131
126
112
100
While hospital sites make up all of the top nine locations with the most repeat calls, that isn’t to say that all
hospitals are in the same position. Through successful alarm management processes, some hospital sites have
made impressive reductions in unwanted calls.
An example of this is St Mary’s Hospital (Westminster), which is part of the Imperial College Healthcare Trust,
where AFA calls have reduced from more than 100 in 2009/10 and 2010/11 to only two in 2011/12. Other
hospitals owned by the trust – which includes Charing Cross Hospital and Hammersmith Hospital – also have
very low numbers of AFA calls.
Prevention action taken to date
The Authority approved the introduction of ‘call filtering’ from 2009 (Report FEP 1281). Call filtering means
that the caller is asked if they can provide additional information to enable the Control Operator to mobilise the
correct response, which in some circumstances may result in no mobilisation at all. Call filtering is in plac e
between 0600 hours and 2100 hours, every day of the week. Unless the caller can confirm that there is not a
fire we attend every call we receive to a fire alarm. Where the caller is able to confirm that the alarm is
sounding in response to a fire, the full attendance for those premises is mobilised immediately, rather than the
initial attendance that would have been sent in response to just a call to a fire alarm. In 2011/12 just over 1,500
AFA calls (3.6% of the total number of AFA calls) were not attended, as the caller was able to confirm that the
alarm was not actuating in response to a fire.
The policies approved in 2009 also included the adoption of the Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA)
national “Policy for the Reduction of False Alarms and Unwanted Fire Signals”, which covers all fire detection
and fire alarm systems including those in domestic premises and not just those which are remotely monitored,
and is consistent with the terminology, processes and procedures of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order
2005. The policy clarifies the relationship between premises managers, the fire alarm service provider, remote
monitoring service providers and the fire and rescue service and was developed in close co -operation with the
fire alarm industry and other relevant bodies. It also assists in the identification of poor fire safety performance
and ensures that a consistent approach to enforcement activity is taken.
The CFOA policy supports three levels of response to an AFA:


Level 1 response (an emergency response of at least one pump);
Level 2 (non-emergency response); and
 Level 3 (nil response until fire confirmed)
No use has been made of level 2 or 3 responses by London Fire Brigade, although some other brigades have
policies which include non-attendance until fire is confirmed.
Page 3
Current policy seeks to identify problem systems and provide the necessary guidance to improve management
and thereby reduce risk at premises. The aim is to promote the adoption of on-site filtering practices where
this can be carried out safely and managed appropriately and to promote the use of remote monitoring as a
means to protect unoccupied premises, or as a failsafe for when premises are occupied.
Infrequent AFA actuations (less than five a year)
The first opportunity for intervention and education is when crews are in attendance at an AFA. They are likely
to be able to identify the cause and can provide basic guidance and advice to ensure the premises manager
understands the action that they should be taking to improve fire safety and reduce the inc idence of false
alarms on site.
Various training packages and support have been provided to operational staff to enable them to take on this
role, and this will be developed further.
Repeat AFA actuations (more than five a year)
Further work to reduce the volume of AFAs is carried out to educate and encourage proactive and/or
improved fire safety management practices. This approach of offering advice and guidance can be extremely
successful, as demonstrated by the work that has been done in partnership w ith Hilton Hotels. This has
resulted in a joint memorandum of understanding and improved fire safety practices which have led to a
reduction of approximately one quarter of both AFA calls to the Brigade and fire incidents in their premises
across London.
Fire Safety Regulation also work closely with external partners across the fire alarm industry to help promote
the right messages and management controls. Fire Alarm Monitoring Organisations (FAMOs) is the collective
name given to those organisations which provide alarm monitoring services for premises and/or individuals.
There is a Code of Practice for FAMOs which recommends the introduction of appropriate filtering measures
before calls are passed to emergency services. Nevertheless, not all FAMOs follow this Code and nearly 45 per
cent of our AFAs come via these organisations. There is clearly scope for further reductions. This could include
recommending the introduction of connection contracts for all monitoring organisations which would
introduce a consistent, controlled approach to alarm monitoring in London.
This combination of efforts has had a significant impact on the numbers of AFAs, resulting in improved
understanding, better management, and reduced fire risk. However, given the introduction of new charging
powers for fire and rescue services in the Localism Act 2011, recovering our costs from persistent AFAs would
be further encouragement to Responsible Persons to improve fire safety management at their premises.
Cost recovery
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) fast tracked the commencement of the
general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011. These powers came into effect on 18 February
2012 for all principal local authorities and fire and rescue authorities in England. As a result, fire and rescue
services may now, under Section18C of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, charge for reports of fire
where:
(a) The report is of fire at premises that are not domestic premises;
(b) The report is false;
(c) The report is made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment having malfunctioned or
been mis-installed, and
(d) There is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or
indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled
Page 4
Efforts were made independently by the Brigade, but also with the Local Government Association and CFOA,
to ensure that the Bill specifically permitted charging where persistent problems arise from mis-management
of non-domestic alarm systems. However, assurances were provided by the Department for Commuities and
Local Government (DCLG) to the effect that “’malfunctioned’ (faulty or abnormal functioning) is sufficiently
broad to encompass cases of mismanagement and/or misinstallation…” . It is intended to rely upon this
assurance.
Whilst the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the RRO) enables the use of enforcement powers to
tackle mismanagement of fire safety arrangements in non-domestic premises, enforcement action cannot be
taken solely for persistent false alarms. However, the power to charge for false reports, as set out in the Fire
and Rescue Services Act 2004 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011), can be used independently to recover
the cost to the fire and rescue authority of attending the premises and should not prevent or preclude the
provision of appropriate advice to the Responsible Person. If introduced, cost recovery would be part of a
wider approach to tackle mis-management of fire alarms, alongside the provision of advice and guidance, fire
safety audits and enforcement action under the RRO.
Multiple repeat AFA Actuations (more than 10 a year)
With the power to charge for persistent AFAs, consideration should be given to introducing a cost recovery
regime for those locations where multiple calls are attended each year. The levy of a charge will be part of our
wider approach to fire safety management. This approach has already been successful where it has been
applied to non-emergency shut-in-lift incidents; a regime that was introduced in November 2009. The effect of
the shut-in-lift cost recovery policy (alongside similarly scaled prevention interventions) has seen attendances
reduce from over 12,000 in 2009/10 to less than 7,500 by the end of 2011/12; a 40 per cent reduction.
The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 provides for recovery of costs only. Charging would be applied on that
basis and is likely to follow the standard special service charge.
The introduction of charging may result in unwanted consequences, such as premises owners shutting off
alarms to avoid charges, or removing/covering up detectors. Where we find evidence of poor fire safety
practices such as this, the Brigade will take appropriate action under the RRO.
Cost recovery proposal and exemplification
The proposal for cost recovery would follow the same principles as the regime first introduced for shut-in-lift
incidents. The tenth AFA incident in a rolling 12 month period would trigger a charge to the responsible
person for the premises. Once a premises has become chargeable all subsequent AFAs would generate a
charge. If, at a later date, the number of AFAs at a chargeable location reduces to nine or less in the previous
12 months and the owner has set up suitable fire safety arrangements then the Brigade may waive that
particular charge.
Charging will be administered by the Brigade’s central fire safety regulation team and the invoicing process
will be aligned with that for shut-in-lift calls, as it is possible we will be invoicing the same organisation for both
types of call. The administrators will use data supplied by the Head of Information Management to identify
which locations should be charged. The Incident Management System (IMS) will be the source of this
information.
Data from January 2011 has been used to calculate a likely level of cost recovery, which is estimated to be in
the order of £1,318,200 in a full year.
Page 5
The following table illustrates how the charges would be distributed amongst different property types in the
first year of charging.
Type of property (top ten types)
Number of
charges
Amount
2,683
£697,580.00
Student Hall of Residence
432
£112,320.00
Airport - terminal
246
£63,960.00
College/University
201
£52,260.00
Hotel/motel
167
£43,420.00
Hostel (e.g. for homeless people)
129
£33,540.00
Purpose built office
115
£29,900.00
Nurses'/Doctors' accommodation
103
£26,780.00
Other medical establishment (including surgery)
87
£22,620.00
Care Home
81
£21,060.00
Hospital
However, there is no intention to levy charges against care homes: sheltered housing would not be charged as
they are categorised as domestic premises. We continue to attend a number of fatalities in care homes, places
where people should be safer from the risk of fire than they would be if they were otherwise unsupported.
Consequently, whilst the quality of fire safety management in care homes remains in doubt, we would wish
this to remain the focus of our risk reduction activities.
Legal position
Under Section 18C of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 the Authority has power to charge for reports of
fire where:
(a) The report is of fire at premises that are not domestic premises;
(b) The report is false;
(c) The report is made as a direct or indirect result of warning equipment having malfunctioned or
been mis-installed; and
(d) There is a persistent problem with false reports of fire at the premises that are made as a direct or
indirect result of warning equipment under common control having malfunctioned or been misinstalled.
This wording may not capture all causes of persistent AFAs. Accordingly, there is a risk under the proposed
policy that the Authority could issue invoices which may be challenged. Ultimately it would be for the courts to
decide whether the Authority has the right to charge in circumstances where the legislation is unclear.
Page 6