We’re supporting Gas Safety Week: is your home gas safe?

Hi George – Thanks for passing on the information. I’m a bit disappointed because if information is essential it’s important to put it on the first page and it does not really matter if it is duplicated. I really do appreciate what you are doing on our behalf.

The standard for CO alarms is BS EN 50291-1:2018. Section 5.11 “Labelling” says:
“The apparatus shall carry durable label(s) or markings that carry the following information:
….
h) indication of the maximum lifetime recommended for the apparatus.
…
The marking shall be clearly visible with the apparatus in a typical installed position.”

So your CO monitor does not comply with the standard and, if CE marked, should not be on the market. I hope when Which? recommend products that they do check against the relevant standard that the product complies. We all know about fake products and fake markings.

If you would like to take this up with the manufacturer (Sprue) I am referring to First Alert Model CO410 Digital Carbon Dioxide Alarm, Type B. They are marked BS EN 50291-1:2010. “Replace alarm 6 years from date of purchase” is on the back, and there is a warning label on top, giving instructions about what to do if the alarm sounds. Mounted as suggested, that’s out of sight too. They were purchased from a shop, probably B&Q. I have marked the installation date as 12/12/14 and the lifetime as 6 years on the battery covers.

If we are to have standards then they need to be monitored for compliance.

Hi @wavechange thank you for your comments. This is a really pressing subject and we are doing all we
can to make as many consumers aware of the risks of not having a CO alarm, but also having a CO alarm that is not fit for purpose. Our product testing teams have recommended that this does not interfere with response time – as long as you follow the guidelines for where the alarm should be placed, how far away from the appliance and not above steam.

https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/gas-safety-week-which-trusted-traders/#comment-1546079

I’m sure you could do this 🙂 . My services do not come cheap. However, here is a bit for free:

Sprue Aegis plc (renamed FireAngelSafety Technology Group plc).

FireAngel Safety Technology Limited
Phone: (024) 77-717-570
E-Mail: technicalsupport@fireangeltech.com
FireAngel Safety Technology Limited registered in England and Wales with Registered No. 3641019.
Registered Office: Bridge House, 4 Borough High Street, London SE1 9QR.

However Sprue does not seem to be one of the brands owned by Newell Brands that include First Alert.

Contact for EUROPE for First Alert

Newell Rubbermaid UK Limited
Halifax Avenue
Fradley Park
Lichfield
Staffordshire
WS13 8SS
United Kingdom
1. Phone: 0800 389 3921
2. Email: FirstAlertEurope@newellco.com

“If we are to have standards then they need to be monitored for compliance.” We do have standards, and very good ones. I have been commenting for a long time that standards, like laws, are only of use if they are properly policed, to weed out the offenders before they cause too much damage.

Which? can help with this, as we have seen with Amazon and ebay. But officially this task is delegated to Trading Standards, who have been deprived of the funds necessary to fulfil that role.

Would you support a campaign by Which?, as part of “protecting consumers” to “demand” that the government restore adequate funding to allow proper policing of consumer products?

Which? could and sometimes does point out problems but it is not their role to monitor compliance with standards. I suggest the organisations setting standards should be looking at compliance problems to better inform their work.

My carbon monoxide alarm is obsolete, but having installed the same model purchased by a friend, I know it’s not just mine that has concealed labels.

When Which? checks products and assesses them as worth buying I would have thought they would do some basic checks, particularly compliance with relevant parts of standards. They put the CO alarms through, apparently, all the testing required by BS EN 50291-1:2018 and part of this requires compliance with instructions and marking. Maybe they should be more thorough.

Standards organisations prepare standards. Policing compliance is a totally different function. That is assigned to particular organisations in each EU state, in our case Trading Standards, and they should be either funded properly to do this work or replaced by another suitably resourced public body. BSI is not a public body but even if it were considered for this role (highly unlikely) it would still need equivalent funding. It is about money and resource.

I do hope that Which? looks at compliance issues such as product labelling and adequacy of instructions when reviewing products, but there is no statutory duty for Which? to do this. Without organised study of the design and deficiencies of products offered for sale I don’t see how standards organisations can be as effective as they could be.

Those involved in the preparation of standards will have in depth knowledge of the products they deal with. Many will be directly involved in their design, production, research development, testing as well as others with relevant specialist knowledge and skills. For products that are certified (e.g. Kitemarked) they will be independently audited from time to time, as will companies who are certified to ISO 9000 series. The producers are policed in this way – effectively from my experience.

However, there are delinquent manufacturers who pretend to have certification, pretend to make compliant products, stick on false CE marks, and essentially set out to sell fraudulent products, as we’ve seen with CO and smoke alarms for example. Standards bodies have no involvement with such companies and organisations. This is where the main thrust of policing should be.

My carbon monoxide alarms are Kitemarked and manufactured by a well known company. They were not cheap ones and I chose them because they had a display. I expect I referred to the Which? tests before purchase but cannot be certain.

The alarms were manufactured to an earlier version of the standard, which may not have specified that information should be readily visible to the user.

The earlier version of the standard (2010) has exactly the same requirements for marking as the latest (2018) edition. They claim Kite Mark certification and, if Which? wanted to pursue it (they are on the relevant committee I believe) they could check who tested it and whether the certificate is valid, in view of the marking.

This was interesting:
“The The First Alert CO410 may not be suitable for UK Landlords because although it conforms to American standards (UL 2034), it has not been shown to meet BSI standards and neither is it CE certified.”
http://www.carbonmonoxidedetectorplacement.com/uk/first-alert-co410/

Thanks for checking. I’m happy to take a photo of what is on the back of the alarm – which has both a CE mark and a Kitemark – and send it to Which? It looks like the one in your photo but has the model number CO410 below CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM.

What standard number does it quote by the kitemark? I’ve looked up an even earlier standard – 2001 – and the labelling requirements are still the same. This seems to be a US product, UL certified, and the instructions I’ve seen refer to a label on which you write the date and stick it in a position presumably marked on the alarm.

As I said before, it is marked BS EN 50291-1:2010. There is no mention of UL certification, just a Kitemark and CE mark. There is a Gloucester address on it.

As it still seems to be on sale I’d ask Which? to look into the certification.

I’ve not had a lot of success in getting Which? to act on information I have sent, Malcolm.

Here are photos of the alarm (in test mode):

It’s disappointing that within a few years in a clean atmosphere the plastic has yellowed.

Good photos. I’ve looked at the UK Instruction leaflet and it confirms the Kitemark and license number. It makes no mention of any label to write the installation date on; the US version did.

Which? should help. You could ask George to pass the request to Which?’s BSI committee member, or you could email the BSI Committee yourself via the contact here https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/committees/50002209. The committee is FSH/12/2.

I took these photos to send to BSI, as a member of the public, expressing my concern that important information about replacement and the warning label were concealed when the unit was mounted on the wall. I did say that I understand that there is a requirement for information to be visible.

When I express my concern to an organisation I generally explore how an ordinary member of the public with no special knowledge is treated.

It’s now a week since I sent these photos to BSI and I have not even had an acknowledgement of my email.

Thanks for that, wave, the link seems to be the authoritative (and up-to-date) source on the subject. So, I’m surprised that it expresses the view I believed last year – i.e. I (a private owner-occupier) can refuse to allow the gas to be turned off. The engineer doing my 2018 annual inspection/service was quite clear – that the gas supplier could now switch off the gas without ny permission, if the installation was “at risk” in this way!

In any case I would like to be safe and the auto-shut off CO detector would be my preferred way to go.

Is this the relevant entry? https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/Product-Directory/Product-Directory—ResultsNew/?license=KM+86596&productid=41621

Well done wavechange. Didn’t appear when I looked. Perhaps should have used Ei not Aico. I’d suggest Which? discuss their findings with the Fire Dtector committee at BSI – FSH/12 I think – of which they are a member. I