ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Les Dawson used to say "as one door closes, another bugger shuts", and there are times when we can all commiserate with him, such as right now in our industry when we are still reeling from the introduction of DD243 and the "knock-on" effect of a steep rise in insurance prices following September 11.

So what do they do? – They drop the bombshell of the new Euro-Standards coming in on the 1st September this year. It is a masterpiece of cause and effect timing, but as usual all is not what it seems and there are implications for the installer that go far beyond the obvious. Let's just say that if you don't get your head round these implications the consequences could be dire!

As I understand it, it is CENELEC who are proposing to introduce a whole batch of Euro-Standards and they have bigger things to worry about than DD243, so the juggernaut rolls on. Morally, the British Standards Institute is obliged to fall in line, hence the changeover on Sept 1st.

The problem is that it takes years for a whole industry to get into a new mode of thinking and new ways of doing things and we have only been given months – or have we? The Euro-Standard BS EN 50131 has been around since 1997 and I know that all inspectorates have been informing the installers of the impending change. But have we fallen into the same trap of assuming that there would be a lot more time allowed when the crunch came?

The conversations I had with the installers went on the following lines: "Are you aware of the new Euro Standards?"

"No" (so I would explain about them). "How soon do I have to start working to them and how soon do I have to buy them?"

I reply:"Well, you can buy them now or you can wait until they give us a start date. They will probably give us about two years to get our act together so don't go worrying too much, as long as you are aware of them!"

I was wrong, and I am not on my own.

Let's face it, BS 4737 is long overdue to be replaced, but we have been waiting 16 years for the new Euro Standards to be agreed across the continent, and that's like trying to catch a black cat in a coal-hole at midnight. So here we are with an introduction date for a Standard that is not yet complete. But the powers that be reckon we have waited long enough and we go with the 1997 version of BS EN 50131- 1 (and probably 6) plus 50136 and what we need to dovetail in from the existing BS 4737. The rest will be withdrawn on the same date.

There is currently a series of articles in this magazine (see page 41– Ed) written by non other than the SSAIB boss Geoff Tate and Martin Kane giving the nuts and bolts of the new standard and I am sure that a variety of training establishments including the NSI Support Services Ltd will be running workshops and seminars etc. so let's leave the technical bit to them. I have to say the articles couldn't be in better hands, Martin Kane is a well-known (and in my view an excellent) technical writer and Geoff Tate is the UK convener for CENELEC and the new standards.

Putting that aside for the moment, let's cut straight to the underlying implications and that is that the onus for the fitting of an appropriate system will now fall more than ever on the installer ... and if you get it wrong you will carry the can. So my advice is to check that your Efficacy insurance (against wrongful advice and failure to operate) is up to date.

Just like your Levis!
The new BS EN 50131 (if you have difficulty in remembering the number think of the Levi jeans adverts for "the new 501s" the rest will pop into place!) now specifies what has to be fitted for a certain risk level. For example, there is a whole table full of requirements for bells, now called a WD, (Warning Device) and/or communicators, now called an ATS, (Alarm Transmission System), so if an insurance company specifies a "Class 2" system it has GOT to have both an ATS and a WD. And seeing as how the insurance companies do not appear to be planning to specify the Class 1 system then we are looking at no more 'bells-only' systems. This is good news for the inspectorate guys and bad news for the others and with any luck it will sound the death knell for the £199 cheapo system.

The real upshot of the new standard is that you, the installer, will have to tell the customer that he has got to have a communicated system even if he doesn't want one or he is not covered. Ideally, the insurance companies want to be able to look at a list of factors involved with a risk and then specify the class of system required without moving from their desks. They will then expect you the installer to fit a system that fills the requirements – and sod what the customer thinks or wants. This may sound harsh but it has some good points. For a start, who is the expert in this case? You are.

Very few customers have the knowledge or expertise to argue with the installer, but they do, and they argue with the aid of a big stick – money! "I'm paying so I will have what I want and if you don't give it to me I will take my business elsewhere." We have all fallen foul of this kind of pig-headed attitude in the past and there have been some real balls-ups fitted as a result of it. We are all well aware of it and so are the insurance companies who have to pick up the bill. 50131 could be how the insurance companies can solve at least part of their problems.

The real upshot of the new standard is that you, the installer will have to tell the customer that he has got to have a communicated system even if he doesn't want one!

Then there is risk assessment. The police have already introduced this with the new ACPO policy and it does make sense. I am convinced that risk assessment should be for an expert and, once again, the expert is you – at least for the installation side. This means that you should now talk to the owner of the property before producing your specification, or shall we give it the proper title of Proposal, (as in – this is what I propose to fit – the specification is what finally got fitted). This in itself has implications. It may mean the end of selling over the phone for small communicated systems and it will give those of us who are engineers trying to sell systems a better chance against the non-technical pure salesman because you are going to have to talk and discuss with a potential client his needs and requirements. The more you talk, the more he is going to suss out those who are selling a product that they fully understand and those who are flying by the seat of their pants and proposing the X system because that is all they know. If the new standard takes a hold, as I am expecting, then ours will be a more professional and a more expert industry, and the prices should reflect this so once again the "professional installer" should be able to make the kind of profits he deserves and should have been making for years if it hadn't had to compete with the non-regulated £199 mob.

I have a further hope on that point, if, as Geoff and Martin pointed out in last months introductory article, there will be a requirement for the installer to be "qualified" instead of just being competent then once again we are making it hard for the "cowboy element" to just go out and undercut standards as well as price.

To all intents and purposes the introduction of 50131 is welcome and very long overdue, so why should I campaign against it? Let's lay out the facts: The proposed date for the introduction of the new standard and throwing out the old is 1st September this year when they are proposing to introduce BS EN 50131 parts 1 and 6. Part 7 will be available provisionally but downgraded to a technical Specification. Parts 2,3,4,5 are not yet completed, and after 16 years of discussion and effort they are still not visible over the horizon. Mind you, what do you expect when they are trying to cobble together a mixture of the best of the standards of a dozen different countries? There are bound to be rows and arguments as all fight for what they believe to be the best practice.

Recipe for disaster
Let's throw another spanner in the works. BS EN 50131 is now five years old and up for review. CENELEC is now going to start taking in comments and suggestions from all points of the compass between March and August this year. They will review the comments and, hopefully, in about two years time, publish the "new revised" 50131. So we are going to be asked to start working to a standard that is already out of date and we cannot put our spoke in because the deadline for comment has passed before we can put the first version to the test. As a recipe for disaster it's a cracker.

The qualifications bit is much on the same lines. SITO have been offering this package and that package and yet another package and still very few people are getting qualifications because it is too cumbersome and just too downright expensive. True, there have been some good results from the various co-operatives like the one in London run by George Mullaly and his team. Even then it has only succeeded because George has a big company and waves a big stick in the industry and has cheerfully driven his Bentley through the mountain of red tape to get things rolling. To introduce a standard that requires qualifications when the vast majority of the installers are unqualified is a good way to commit industry suicide.

The timing is another factor. Here we are with the dust just settling on DD243 and we toss the whole lot over another precipice into confusion. The manufacturers are worst off because they have just spent £millions on research and new products and now they are having to start all over again. Prices will have to go up to pay for all the research and it doesn't come cheap. The SSAIB lads are going to find it extra difficult because they are just coming to terms with the whole new concept of UKAS accreditation and all the extra paperwork that goes with it. The NACOSS companies have no problems on that score because they have been UKAS accredited for years but they have the extra problem of revising their procedures to meet the new ISO 9001-2000 deadline in November so they are in a similar boat.

To recap, it is proposed:

• To bulldoze in a standard that is not yet complete;

• To bulldoze in a standard that requires qualified people that we haven't got;

• To bulldoze in a standard in just nine short months when we need two years;

• To bulldoze in a standard that requires new products that the manufacturers have not yet designed;

• To bulldoze in a standard before we have got our heads around our current problems like DD243, UKAS and ISO 9001-2000.

My personal thought is that it is too early. Yes, I want to see the new standards and, yes, I want to see the swing away from the cowboy and towards the professional. But all we are likely to see is yet another opportunity for the non-regulated sector to steal our work whilst we struggle and have to put our prices up ... and that will hit the small SSAIB companies the hardest. I cannot understand why Geoff is not leading the "delay it" campaign on behalf of his companies.

It's time for action! If you believe, like I do, that we should wait for another two years until they have published the first revision, and then have a two year lead-in time, it's time for you, installers and manufacturers alike to collectively get off your backsides and write in to the BSI and complain. Don't forget to send a copy to Geoff Tate. If enough people write in then the BSI and Geoff will have to act on our behalf and delay the date of introduction until we are ready to cope with it. Remember to send a copy to the Editor at Security Installer and he'll print it. We need a structured approach not total confusion, so speak now or forever hold your peace.

It is propopsed to bulldoze in a standard that is not yet complete, requires qualified people we haven’t got and products the manufacturers haven’t yet designed

How did I get home?
If you've ever been called from a pub to attend an alarm (on foot of course!) you may wonder how the job got finished in that particular fashion. Could it be that you used a beer scooter? (I am indebted to Mike Pepper for the following): How many times have you woken up in the morning after a hard night drinking and thought "How on earth did I get home?" As hard as you try, you cannot piece together your return journey from the pub to your house.

  The answer to this puzzle is that you used a beer scooter, a mythical form of transport, owned and leased to the drunk by Bacchus the Roman god of wine.

The beer scooter works in the following fashion: The passenger reaches a certain level of drunkenness and the 'slurring gland' begins to give off a pheromone. Bacchus detects this pheromone and sends down a winged beer scooter. The scooter scoops up the passenger and deposits them in their bedroom via a Trans Dimensional Portal.

This is not cheap to run, so a large portion of the passenger's in-pocket cash is taken as payment. This answers the second question after a night out: "How did I spend so much money?"

Unfortunately, beer scooters have a poor safety record and are thought to be responsible for over 90 per cent of all UDIs (Unidentified Drinking Injuries).

The nature of Trans-Dimensional Portals dictates that time will be lost, seemingly unaccounted for. This answers a third question after a night out: "What the hell happened?'

Bacchus opted for the REMIT (Removal of Embarrassing Moments In Time) add on. This automatically removes, in descending order, those parts regretted most. Independent studies have also shown that beer goggles often cause the scooter's navigation system to malfunction thus sending the passenger to the wrong bedroom, often with horrific consequences.

Bacchus also made an investment in a scooter drive-thru chain specialising in half eaten kebabs and pizza crusts. For the family man, beer scooters come equipped with flowers picked from other people's garden and Thump-A-Lot Boots designed in such a way that no matter how quietly you tiptoe up the stairs, you are sure to wake up your other half.

The CTSGS (Coffee Table Seeking Guidance System) explains the bruised shins.