No, I stated no such thing. They can be used in appropriate locations. The fact remains that for the majority of locations they are not the correct alarm type to select. Bedrooms are about the only sensible place for them.As they say, “hope springs eternal”
Are you saying that ionisation alarms do not meet the relavent standards? Should they be banned?
That may well be true.I believe some makers are moving away from them because of the particular radioactive component within. Not because of their effectiveness.
Does the standard actually say that in black and white though?No, I stated no such thing. They can be used in appropriate locations. The fact remains that for the majority of locations they are not the correct alarm type to select. Bedrooms are about the only sensible place for them.
Largely because of a fire in 2014 where 12 people were killed and the subsequent "Findings" of the CoronerThat may well be true.
At least until relatively recently, the advice from seemingly fairly authoritative sources (like the major reputable manufacturers) talked about the pros and cons of ionisation and optical detectors in such a way that I, for one, could never really work out which were preferable for where in my house (regardless of considerations of cost).
I also have to say that I've always found it rather odd that the ionisation ones are the cheaper - since, if you had asked me to guess, I'm sure that I would have said that they were probably appreciably more expensive than optical ones.
Kind Regards, John
I’m sure that the landlord will fit whatever is economically attractive for him/her.
For more than 2 years the landlord cannot be faulted. And this time it’s no different as he has already arranged for a spark to update all smoke alarms. Mind you, at £1500 a month for a 1 bedroom flat you would expect good house maintenance. Or at least I would.I would hope he would fit what is required to comply with BS 5839-6:2019, rather than simply what is "economically attractive".
Not necessarily.The existing alarm appears to be of the interconnected type. So expect that requirement is already covered.
That is why I said “appears to be”. I based my assumption on there being three conductors on the connect cable. The white being the interconnect. It can only interconnect to other alarms if the wiring is in place to do this.Not necessarily.
In fact, almost certainly not.
Smoke-Alarms physically interconnected together in a "dwelling" are usually interconnected via a "conductor" associated with the (one) circuit supplying them.
This may not be at all possible in a multi-unit dwelling, or even in dwellings which exist side-by-side, since there is no commonality between the "smoke-alarm" supply circuits in different dwellings.
Further, each "dwelling/unit" may be on a different 240 V phase to the adjacent "dwelling/unit".
Wireless connection would make this easier - but I believe that we "know" that that is not so in this case.
That's a familiar sort of story these days, but may be an example of the only-too-common bureaucratic knee-jerk in response to a single event (or smallnumber of events) - maybe like the (in my opinion, potentially dangerous) requirement for metal domestic CUs in the UK.Largely because of a fire in 2014 where 12 people were killed ....
"From 1 January 2027 .... All existing private homes, townhouses and units will require photoelectric interconnected smoke alarms.
... Any existing smoke alarm being replaced from 1 January 2017 must be a photoelectric-type alarm ....
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local