Blimey! What a dog's dinner!!! I though I had the monopoly in finding this sort of nonsense to spoil my day
In fairness, Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order does say '
where necessary' a suitable maintenance system is required - and if the manufactures/installers say no maintenance, then in theory (I stress, in theory) one does not need a maintenance system as they say its not necessary. But this is not any path I would tread as I would dispute that 'no maintenance' could ever be defined as a 'suitable system'.
This would be one for the Courts to decide, and I cannot see how a life safety system comprising of water under pressure and a host of moving parts could not subject to some kind of maintenance in any circumstances.
Compare this with the term '
maintenance free' when used in connection with the Britannia P50 fire extinguishers.
Maintenance free in this context is in fact a marketing term and not a literal one as regular inspections and valve resets are required by the owner and 10 year professional servicing (or disposal) is required. Let's not forget this regime is for a bit of kit arguably less life risk critical than sprinklers. Fire services have accepted this system - and some even use the P50s operationally
The contractors are wrong. The system does not need to be BS compliant to satisfy the Fire Safety Order. We have a system installed in 1998 to the US NFPA standards and I'd fight anyone who tried to say that wasn't a suitable bit of kit. But it is maintained regularly.
In your case, I would be minded to write the system off as a life safety system. Not necessarily just because the design is not BS compliant, but that you cannot give any reasonable reassurance with will operate when/if needed due to lack of any Article 17 compliant systems. I assume this is residential???
Please do let me know how you get on with this job
For the benefit of others reading this, Article 17 (maintenance) of the Fire Safety Order is available on the link here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005 ... le/17/made