Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unbelievable
#11
(28-04-2018, 04:13 PM)tc(two cup) Wrote: I think the bubble wrap is to somehow insulate the batteries to make them last longer. Never come across that before..surely they should just replace the fittings and get paid, simples..
3 hour lights, tested once a year for 3 hours. A lot of my customers still prefer 1hr & 3hr on a six monthly basis, even though they know that one 3hr test is all that is required.

Except the one hour test isn't good for the batteries and is a cost. 99% of my clients drop it when they realise it's an unnecessary cost that can shorten fitting life.

They also often drop the contractor when they realise they've been stiffed for 14 years on un-necessary testing - whilst some sites keep the 6 monthly as an informed choice, most are only doing it because they've been made to believe it's a current requirement.

Doesn't help you see EL logbooks with BS5266-1:2016 on the front, but still reprinting the pre-2004 test schedule including the 6 monthly.

As for rubbish LED fittings, I know of one contractor that refuses to fit the bulkheads unless the client insists on it as they are fed up of constant failures and consequent free of charge replacement visits under warranty.
Anthony Buck
Fire Safety Technical Lead @ BAFE SP205 accredited company
Extinguisher specialist

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/anthony-buck/22/957/36b
Reply
#12
(28-04-2018, 11:03 PM)JAnthonyB Wrote:
(28-04-2018, 04:13 PM)tc(two cup) Wrote: I think the bubble wrap is to somehow insulate the batteries to make them last longer. Never come across that before..surely they should just replace the fittings and get paid, simples..
3 hour lights, tested once a year for 3 hours. A lot of my customers still prefer 1hr & 3hr on a six monthly basis, even though they know that one 3hr test is all that is required.

Except the one hour test isn't good for the batteries and is a cost. 99% of my clients drop it when they realise it's an unnecessary cost that can shorten fitting life.

They also often drop the contractor when they realise they've been stiffed for 14 years on un-necessary testing - whilst some sites keep the 6 monthly as an informed choice, most are only doing it because they've been made to believe it's a current requirement.

Doesn't help you see EL logbooks with BS5266-1:2016 on the front, but still reprinting the pre-2004 test schedule including the 6 monthly.

As for rubbish LED fittings, I know of one contractor that refuses to fit the bulkheads unless the client insists on it as they are fed up of constant failures and consequent free of charge replacement visits under warranty.

I’ve told all my clients that they only need an annual 3 hr test on the emergency lights, but quite a few ,mainly managing agents (blocks of flats) still ask for six monthly tests. Most of them don’t do monthly tests.
I'm not the messiah,i'm a very naughty boy!!!
Reply
#13
(27-04-2018, 06:54 PM)tc(two cup) Wrote: A site I look after had 5 emergency lights fitted on the external escape route (must have been a cheaper quote than mine!). I carried out a 3hour test, 2 failed in 1 hr and the other 3 failed in 2hrs.
I reported this to the customer and they have refused to pay the sparks until they replace them.
The sparks said they are only required to last 1.5 hours and they don,t last 3 hours because they were installed in the winter.They have been back and put bubble wrap in the fittings to make the lights last longer!!!. Now they are threatening to take my customer to court and charge interest if the bill is not paid. Scare

Let them take him to Court, it will cost them time and money.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)