I agree with article – the grading system is unworkable

Having read the article from Carl, I can honestly say that in my opinion he has got it just about right. I would, however, like to expand on the technical issues he touched upon.

My main concern is with the extremely poor reliability of currently available dual technology anti-masking movement detectors. Due to the DD243 standard, installers are not allowed to have overlapping single technology detectors in one area. This means that to provide effective sequential confirmation installers are reliant on having dual technology detectors in each area that needs a confirmation facility.

Since last October I have overseen a number of Grade 3 systems in which anti-masking dual technology detectors from several manufacturers have been fitted. Significant problems have been encountered with all the different manufacturers’ detectors. These problems have consisted of random false mask activations, random false alarm activations and, of most concern, detectors that go to sleep. The latter problem is compounded by the fact that in Grade 3 systems the walk test lights have to be disabled. Unless the customer carries out a daily walk test (highly unlikely) they could have what is supposed to be a higher grade system that is actually less effective.

I have voiced concerns on this point with both NSI and several insurers. NSI although acknowledging that there is a problem, seem to feel that this problem will be solved by the new technical standards for detectors, that have just become mandatory. Having now fitted brand new "TS" rated detectors in a Grade 3 system just a few weeks ago, I know different. As regards the insurers, they do appear to be sympathetic and in a number of instances have agreed that it is better to have a 100 per cent reliable Grade 2 system with Dual Path monitoring, than an unreliable Grade 3 system just to get the benefit of anti-masking. Incidentally, when speaking to insurers it became clear that many had a misunderstanding of anti masking, as they thought that this would prevent furniture or stock being left in front of detectors, which in effect it does not. This has resulted in a number of already installed Grade 3 systems being down rated to Grade 2 with full agreement from the respective insurers. Unfortunately the message still does not seem to be getting back to the top of the insurance world.

Having already suffered financial and reputation damage it would be self destructive to recommend any more Grade 3 systems until the detector issue is solved. I have already challenged one manufacturer to provide me with a Grade 3 anti-masking dual technology detector that could be relied upon in a warehouse with rodent activity. The reply was that it was unlikely that there is anything on the market at present that could fulfil this requirement.

This surely re-enforces Carl’s statement, that at present, the grading system is unworkable. NSI knows that insisting on an installer fitting sub standard equipment, would ultimately be detrimental to their reputation as well. It appears that so long as the installer makes it clear which grade they are offering and that a statement is made on the proposal requesting that the client gains insurance approval, then this is acceptable to NSI, irrespective of the result of a risk assessment.

I do not believe that any company that is currently installing Grade 3 systems to correct specification, has not had significant problems. It appears that Carl’s company has now adopted the most sensible approach, in not recommending Grade 3 systems at this time. I can only hope that the people that make the rules will eventually listen to those that are at the sharp end and then adopt a more sensible and informed approach.

David Hawkins, Technical Director

Capital Security Systems Ltd