From bad to worse

I have been in the electronic security industry for over twenty years. In that time I have seen excellent technical advances to reduce false alarms and system failures. The introduction of DD 243 with confirmed signalling was a positive development. With correct specification, installation and good products there has been a dramatic reduction in police call outs to my clients. Although there will always be companies who under specify and do not follow regulations correctly, DD 243 under BS 4737 at least represented a level playing field, and was relatively easy for installer and customer alike to understand.

However the last couple of years have seen major upheavals in all aspects of our work with the introduction of new regulations for fire and intruder systems, Part P, additional health and safety regulations and so on ad infinitum. It is clear to me that the overall situation is now bad and getting worse.

The ongoing introduction to EN50131 is nothing short of a complete disaster with badly worded documents, risk factors and grading that are being totally ignored and equipment from manufacturers that is not up to the task, resulting in inevitable misunderstanding at the specification/tender stage. The introduction of European standards has given the industry a complete new vocabulary and a whole raft of technical and design alterations and risk assessment guidelines that are largely pointless as they are generally ignored.

Let me give you a few examples of where, in my view, the industry is just not getting it right.

Risk Assessment

The grading criteria as outlined in EN50131 indicate that the grades of performance required are based on the knowledge the intruder is likely to have of the system, and the tools they are likely to possess to circumvent the system. In our company history, we have never had an incident where the intruder had the specialist knowledge required to seriously attempt to circumvent a system. Therefore if the standard is followed to the letter, nearly all domestic applications would be Grade 1, and most office/light businesses would also be Grade 1 with the occasional Grade 2. Grade 3 would be reserved for high risk commercials such as High Street jewellers, off licences etc. Grade 4 would only ever apply to very high risk sites such as bullion dealers, arms depots etc. However, regardless of risk assessment, common sense and what the standard actually says, we are being told by major insurers and the NSI that commercials should be generally Grade 3 and residential should be Grade 2/3 depending on size/status of occupier – which completely ignores the criteria laid down by the standard! Why should an installer spend time and money conducting a correct risk assessment when the grade is thus predetermined by other parties anyway?

Up until now, we have been conducting risk assessments In accordance with EN50131/PD6662 using standard forms and asking the appropriate questions. We follow the insurance/NSI directed route and therefore pointlessly over-grade. Most of our new clients are not at all happy with the intrusive disclosure of personal information to the extent that some surveys have not proceeded beyond the enquiry stage. In addition, the percentage of non-referral clients secured has reduced since the introduction of PD6662 with higher costs being a major factor in their decision to use another company – a company who is presumably largely ignoring the regulations. Who can blame them?

New Wording

Changes to known acronyms and names and introducing unnecessary new ones has resulted in confusion for both engineering staff and clients. Some examples are "Zone" to "Input", "SAB" to "WD", "Central Station Monitoring(ARC)" to "ATS", "Alert" for signal/indication etc etc. What can possibly be the benefit of introducing a completely new language?

Design Proposal

We now have to include statement upon statement within the 'Design Proposal' (rather than 'specification') with environmental detail, grade of component, grade and notification (another pointless new term), provisos, and so on and so forth. This adds to the client's frustration and ignorance of what's being installed. What used to be a simple specification is now an almost unreadable barrage of unnecessary terminology. If you are an approved installer, it should be good enough to simply state the grade of system with notification. You wouldn't fit a standard internal PIR outdoors as it would cause you a problem. Why is there a need to state every word of the blindingly obvious?

Technical issues

Grade 4 equipment isn't even available, yet some insurers and companies are either specifying or claiming to install such systems! Grade 3 anti-masking is causing all sorts of false signalling problems due to inadequate design of equipment and complicated installation procedures. The insistence of treating a mask event as an intruder signal is just sheer stupidity.

Why didn't the powers that be within the industry wait until installers could actually try anti-masking in live environments with real people and real situations to iron out the flaws before making it compulsory?

Understanding regulations

The introduction of EN50131 has already provided countless memos and NSI/BSIA documents in fruitless attempts to explain it. PD 6662 was supposed to make it all clear, which it certainly doesn't. We have interpretations of the interpretations, but no one has produced an easy to read, simple document to put in simple terms what is expected of installers – and they can't, because it is all so ambiguous.

Such incompetence is difficult to imagine in any other regulated industry. To compound this, there are amendments to the existing documents and new ones dealing with detectors, SABS (sorry, “WDs”) so on and so forth. It’s a terrible mess. One has to feel sorry for poor NSI inspectors who simply can't know all the answers. The result is that they misinterpret or interpret the standards differently depending on whether it's a full moon or not. It all adds to the confusion.

Official views

Some parts of the industry are kidding themselves that all is well and that most companies have got their heads around these issues. Lots of people talk the talk and claim compliance. The powers that be need to wake up. They need to go out to companies without notice to spot check surveyors and engineers and speak to the end users to see if they truly understand it.

Any company can claim they are doing it right, but based on my experience on talking to clients and other installers, conducting surveys, asking for insurance details etc, the industry has not 'got it' at all – not by a long way.

The Insurers

In the main, they are completely ignoring security grades. They are just not interested. On the very rare occasions when they do specify a grade, insurance assessors think they know better on technical design than the professional installer. We have had insurance requests that tell us precisely what is required – the specification, signalling type, grade etc.

When we then attempt to speak to the assessors, they are not interested in our input at all, even when they are clearly wrong. We have not complied with some requests, stating that it either contravenes a specific standard or it needs to be implemented a different way to avoid false calls. Unsurprisingly, this results in non-acceptance of the proposal. We are throwing business away. Our industry appears to be going down a route that the insurers are just not geared up to, or interested in.

Police response to alarms

Some police divisions have changed their procedures in that they will no longer automatically attend alarms, whether or not they are filtered and confirmed.

Their policy is to phone the site and try to establish whether or not there is any need for them to attend. In essence they will no longer attend any incident unless they have independently established that there is an operational need to do so, wholly irrespective of DD243 and alarm confirmation.

This decision renders DD243 and the concept of sequential confirmed alarms almost worthless. If the police no longer accept DD243 sequential confirmation as adequate reason to attend, then there is no point to it.

Architects/builders

Too many jobs are being specified by non-qualified individuals, completely beyond our control. Far too often, the architect or builder/electrician will specify the system and the main contractor will then get an "alarm company" to install it accordingly. Risk assessment and security grading is irrelevant to them. This happens all the time. What efforts are the insurers and industry governing bodies making to put a stop to this? What can they do about it? I suspect very little. We are not going to turn this business away, and it makes a mockery of all we are trying to achieve.

In conclusion, and bearing in mind I am trying to run a business, I have now instructed my surveyors to do what others are clearly doing – specify Grade 2 as a matter of course with an option to go up to Grade 3 if the client/insurer deems it strictly necessary. Risk assessment is still carried out, because we are compelled to, but there is no point in trying to base the final specification on the risk factors, or what EN50131 states they should be. The whole thing is farcical. I've stopped raising issues with the NSI and in essence do what the insurers and/or clients want, whether or not I agree with their proposal. In this competitive industry, I have no choice.