Hi All
First Mutley R.
All statistics point to the fact the not one person has been killed in a house fire that has had Fire sprinklers installed
Second SimonG
Yes I think your right and probably because of the first statistic (seems an eminently good way of preventing death and when installed as new build would cost a fraction of a post build system, in my reckoning it would add maybe £2-3000 to the build cost of the house)
Third Lame P and Simon J
Have already paid them less the cost of some screw ups they caused (foot through ceiling, 3" screws through 1 1/2" wide joists in floor void, using blunt cutting skill saws causing burning of wood flooring! and a few other issues that I cant remember at this time) So final invoice was paid then they should have released the final documents which they never did (but I never specifically asked for these documents as part of the final payment because I thought it would be a no brainer that I would get the O&M's.)
Lastly Zeb
No clauses in contract for handover. (whats CDM and whats an F10) However, the requirement to have a sprinkler system installed is part of the building regs which states that any building over three stories high (i.e. I am converting my loft to create a fourth floor must have a separate external means of escape, (i.e. external steel escape stairs just for the fourth floor), a second protected internal means of escape for all floors (i.e. a second internal staircase up through the house) or any other equivalent means of protection for the occupants (i.e. a whole house sprinkler system)
So the path was clear and installation had to be done by a suitably qualified person/company.
Said company met the criterion so was instructed by me to also include a thing call an ATACS panel (automatic test and communication system) which, I was told, would mean lower maintenance costs due to its automated self test and diagnosis ability and the fact that it would send a signal to a remote point for monitoring which came for free for the first year.
Also I was told that provided I had the system maintained to the manufacturers recommendations the non mechanical parts of the system (pipework and heads one would presume) would have a 50 year warranty. The system came with the first years service and remote monitoring provision as part of the cost of installation
At the end of the first year I got a pack inviting me to renew the service and monitoring package for a cost of (I think) £150/year
I thought that that was a bit too much so I decided to seek a third party so I could outsource this.
However I would clearly need the maintenance manual now so I could do the recommended maintenance to keep the 50 year warranty going, also I was told that if I did not renew the service contract then the ATACS panel would go into hibernation thus rendering it useless (no self test then and no automatic pump test to make sure the bearings did not seize, I have a pumped system)
System was tested and commissioned got hose sheets therefore system was pass by building control and got the certificate, so no probs there.
However whats the point of an ATACS panel that they will not let me monitor myself and saying that if they don't maintain the system then they will not honour the 50 year warranty - which they are now claiming is only offered as an option if you have the system maintained by them for a fee of £120 per year which includes remote monitoring and a tri annual service and inspection.
I do not want them to do the service and maintenance, I want a different (qualified/competent) third party to do it, surely they cannot hold a gun to my head like this?
So small claim it seems to be
BTW, for what its worth I can publish the companies details as long as I tell the truth because I cannot be held liable for libel or slander as long as I only publish true facts.
So as this story unfolds I will be naming and shaming
Russ
