NEWS Which? investigation highlights smoke alarm failures
ACCORDING TO the consumer watchdog, certain smoke alarms on sale to the public ‘don’t work or are too slow to sound’, presenting a ‘potentially lethal’ situation for UK consumers. In the investigation that it carried out, Which? tested five smoke alarms in accordance with the British standard BS EN 14604, using fires involving wood, cotton, plastics and solvents, which were tested with two different samples of each model. The company noted that the investigation had ‘again highlighted the safety risks of cheap imported alarms available online’, with one – often listed as the SS-168 but also ‘often unbranded’ – failing to detect smoke in seven of eight of the tests. The alarm’s first sample did
not detect smoke ‘in any’ of the four tests carried out, while the second sample failed to sound in three tests. Which? also warned that some of the products tested ‘falsely claim to comply’ with the standard, finding in June that 98 of the cheapest listings for smoke alarms on eBay featured the SS-168. Having notified eBay, the site has removed 100 listings for identical looking alarms, but ‘dozens’ of other listings of the same units have been added since then. With this a ‘growing issue of concern’, Which? cited its investigation in June that ‘led to dozens of unbranded and dangerous carbon monoxide alarms being removed’ from Amazon and eBay after failing safety tests, but even models available in high street stores ‘struggled’ in testing. Specifically, the Honeywell XS100 unit ‘failed to sound’ in two of the eight tests, despite it having the Kitemark safety label. This unit’s first sample did not sound during the wood test, and its second sample ‘sounded too late’ when responding to the plastic test,
6
and as a consequence Which? has listed both the SS-168 and the Honeywell XS100 as ‘Don’t Buys’. In testing undertaken in 2017, the Devolo Home Control Smoke Detector was also made a ‘Don’t Buy’ after a sample tested failed to sound in both the plastic and solvent fires. Among other findings that
the recent test identified were the fact that there were ‘serious concerns’ about the time taken by some alarms to detect smoke, with two samples of the FireAngel SO-601 unit detecting smoke and sounding in all four test scenarios, but ‘both were incredibly slow’. In the wood test, this unit was ‘more than five minutes slower’ than a Nest Protect unit certified ‘Best Buy’ by Which?, and in the cotton test it was two and a half minutes slower. Despite this particular unit meeting BS EN 14604, Which? added its belief that the testing performance ‘demonstrates how the current standard continues to reward slow-reacting alarms in almost all fire situations’. Which? has also recently joined the smoke alarms standards committee, with the aim of ‘pushing to strengthen the requirements needed for the products to be sold in the UK’.
Findings from the tests have been passed to the Office for
OCTOBER 2018
www.frmjournal.com
Product Safety and Standards, with Which? requesting that the office ‘investigates the unbranded smoke alarms that falsely claim to meet safety standards, and those that didn’t detect smoke reliably in the tests’. The consumer group believes it is ‘crucial’ that the office takes ‘immediate and effective steps’ to tackle the ‘widespread availability of unsafe products on online platforms’. This would include taking
a ‘more active role in market surveillance’, so that it can ‘identify products that pose a potential safety risk and remove them from sale before they enter people’s homes’. Alex Neill, managing director of home products and services at Which?, said: ‘Smoke alarms that quickly and loudly alert people to a fire are vital in keeping people safe from danger, so it’s shocking that some of the products we’ve tested are either far too slow or don’t work at all in some circumstances. ‘Anyone who has one of these alarms should replace it straight away. We think the safety standards need to be strengthened and the Government must take action to prevent products that falsely claim to meet safety standards from entering people’s homes.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
