No cause for alarm? Safety Technology International on managing false alarms in UAE buildings

With unwanted fire alarms shaping evacuation behaviour, Safety Technology International looks at how BS 5839-1:2025 reframes false alarm management across UAE residential and public buildings

Across the UAE’s high-density and public-facing buildings, updated guidance in BS 5839-1:2025 places greater weight on false alarm investigation, manual call point design and practical measures that support consistent occupant response.

Alarm fatigue as a behavioural pattern

Alarm fatigue develops through experience.

When people encounter repeated fire alarm activations that do not lead to a confirmed incident, their response changes over time.

Initial compliance gives way to hesitation, informal checks and reliance on reassurance from staff or neighbours.

Eventually, the alarm sound itself loses urgency.

In the UAE, this pattern carries particular relevance.

Residential towers, mixed-use developments, shopping centres and entertainment venues operate at scale and often around the clock.

These environments bring together residents, visitors, contractors and staff with varying levels of familiarity with the building.

In that context, repeated unwanted alarms influence shared expectations about what an activation means.

This dynamic has appeared in real incidents.

In Dubai, residents of a high-rise tower reported that frequent false alarms had shaped their response during a later fire, with some occupants delaying evacuation because they expected another unwanted activation.

In another widely reported incident, an alarm in a major retail destination was activated when an emergency button was broken unintentionally, illustrating how accessible devices in busy environments can be triggered without a fire condition.

These examples matter because they show how behaviour evolves in everyday settings.

Alarm fatigue does not emerge from a single failure, but from repetition.

Why unwanted alarms continue to occur

Unwanted fire alarms arise from a mix of technical, environmental and human factors.

Among these, interaction with manual call points remains a consistent feature in many high-occupancy buildings.

Manual call points are intentionally designed to be visible and easy to operate.

They are positioned along escape routes and near exits so that occupants can raise the alarm quickly when a fire is suspected.

In busy environments, those same characteristics increase exposure to accidental knocks, misuse, confusion with door controls or deliberate operation without cause.

In public areas, call points may sit alongside access control hardware, emergency door releases or wayfinding signage.

In crowded conditions, or where occupants are unfamiliar with the building, this visual overlap can contribute to unwanted operation.

Over time, repeated activations linked to the same locations reinforce the perception that alarms are routine.

This is where alarm fatigue begins to affect evacuation behaviour.

What BS 5839-1:2025 adds in practical terms

The BS 5839-1:2025 guidance provided for this article addresses false alarms through specificity rather than broad instruction.

It differentiates between types of false alarm, links causes to particular premises types and points towards targeted responses.

The Standard identifies that malicious false alarms occur more frequently in premises used by large numbers of the public, including shopping centres, places of entertainment, sports facilities, car parks and educational establishments.

It associates these incidents primarily with the operation of manual call points.

For buildings where this pattern exists, the guidance points towards reviewing call point locations and, where appropriate, introducing additional actions required to operate the device.

At the same time, it states clearly that false alarms raised with good intent cannot be prevented in the same way and that occupants should always feel able to activate a call point if they suspect a fire.

This distinction matters operationally.

It allows building teams to respond to repeated unwanted alarms without changing the fundamental expectation that alarms should be raised quickly when risk is perceived.

Investigation and record quality

BS 5839-1:2025 also places explicit importance on investigation.

It links effective investigation to the quality of false alarm records, stating that records should capture the category of false alarm wherever this can be accurately determined.

For UAE building operators, this supports a practical workflow.

Instead of treating false alarms as isolated events, teams can identify patterns across time, location and cause.

A call point that activates repeatedly during peak footfall hours suggests a different response from one linked to maintenance activity or environmental factors.

This approach supports proportionate decision-making.

Changes to system design, signage or protection can be justified by evidence rather than assumption, which is particularly relevant in complex sites with multiple stakeholders.

Manual call point protection and placement

Within this investigation-led approach, BS 5839-1:2025 sets clearer expectations around physical protection for manual call points.

The extract provided states that all manual call points should be fitted with a transparent protective cover that is moved to gain access to operate the device.

It also states that where existing systems experience frequent unwanted operation, protective covers should be fitted.

The guidance also addresses placement.

Manual call points should avoid locations where they are likely to be exposed to accidental damage from normal building operations, such as the movement of trolleys or equipment.

Where placement in these locations is necessary to meet other recommendations, impact protection is advised.

In practice, this supports a combination of location review and physical protection.

Where relocation is feasible, it can reduce exposure.

Where it is not, covers and guards support continued accessibility with greater resilience to everyday use.

Applying protection in occupied spaces

Protective measures are most effective when they fit naturally into how a building is used.

Transparent call point covers introduce a deliberate action while keeping the device visible and recognisable.

That additional step can reduce casual interference and accidental activation without affecting the ability to raise an alarm quickly.

STI’s Stopper range includes manual call point covers designed for this purpose.

Some models incorporate a local audible alert that sounds when the cover is lifted.

In busy corridors, lobbies or public circulation routes, this draws immediate attention to interaction with life safety equipment and supports staff awareness at the point of activation.

Used alongside investigation findings, these measures align with the BS 5839-1:2025 emphasis on targeted responses rather than blanket restrictions.

Alarm fatigue and the wider life safety environment

Alarm fatigue connects to more than alarm panels and call points.

It is influenced by how consistently life safety systems perform and how visible their integrity is to occupants and staff.

Emergency exits provide one example.

In some buildings, exit doors are used for convenience or unauthorised access, particularly in retail and public venues.

Over time, this affects confidence in escape routes and evacuation planning.

Fire doors present a similar challenge.

Their role in compartmentation relies on them remaining closed when not in use.

In operational settings, doors may be held open to support movement or ventilation, which reduces their effectiveness during a fire.

STI’s Exit Stopper and Fire Door Alarm solutions are designed to bring immediate awareness to these actions through local audible alerts.

Rather than relying on policy alone, they support day-to-day compliance by making safety-critical behaviour visible at the point it occurs.

Fire extinguishers also contribute to occupant confidence.

When extinguishers are missing, relocated or misused, trust in on-site safety provision diminishes.

Alarmed retention approaches support availability while signalling interference when it happens.

Why this matters in the UAE today

In the UAE’s high-density and mixed-use buildings, evacuation performance depends on trust.

People respond quickly when they believe the alarm signal is meaningful and reliable.

That belief is shaped by everyday experience.

BS 5839-1:2025 provides tools that support this outcome through clearer categorisation of false alarms, stronger expectations around investigation and practical guidance on manual call point protection and placement.

When applied with local evidence, these measures support consistent occupant response without changing the fundamental principles of life safety.

By combining investigation, proportionate design choices and targeted protection of vulnerable equipment, building teams can reduce avoidable activations and reinforce confidence in the system.

Over time, that confidence supports the behaviour every fire alarm system relies on: prompt evacuation when the signal sounds.

This was originally published in the January 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Lancashire fire service addresses thousands of false alarms in five-year period

Over 26,000 false alarms reported in Lancashire since 2019

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service has responded to over 26,000 false fire alarms in the past five years, as reported by Personal Injury Claims UK.

The data, which covers the period from April 2019 to April 2024, reveals that the service attended 26,069 false alarms, equating to an average of 14 incidents per day.

The annual number of callouts varied between 5,000 and 6,000, with the lowest figure recorded in 2019/20 at 4,807.

Following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions, false fire alarm callouts reached 5,505 in 2022/23.

However, this figure saw a decline in the past year, with 4,943 incidents recorded in 2023/24.

Causes of false alarms identified

Several factors contribute to the high number of false alarms, including faulty equipment and poor user training.

Other common causes include fumes from cooking, steam from showers, dust from building work, and aerosols used near sensors.

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service commented on the issue of false alarms, stating: “Automatic Fire Alarms (AFAs) can provide early warning in the event of a fire, but they are also the cause of false alarms, known as Unwanted Fire Signals (UWFS).”

They added: “These unwanted fire signals can divert essential resources from genuine emergencies and drain public finances and resources.”

National impact of false fire alarms

Across the UK, false fire alarms represent a significant proportion of fire service callouts, accounting for 38% of all incidents attended.

According to a study by BRE Group, false alarms cost the UK approximately £1 billion annually.

The repeated nature of false alarms is not only disruptive but also affects the overall efficiency of emergency services, potentially impacting response times to genuine emergencies.

It has been noted that continual false alarms can lead to complacency among staff, reducing their willingness to take action when alarms are triggered.

Personal Injury Claims UK offers support

In addition to highlighting the financial and resource strain caused by false fire alarms, Personal Injury Claims UK offers support to those affected by fire-related injuries.

The organisation provides free advice and assistance to individuals who have suffered from incidents involving faulty appliances or products.

A 24-hour helpline and an online claims form are available on the organisation’s website for those seeking assistance.

Personal Injury Claims UK continues to raise awareness about fire safety and the risks associated with defective equipment.

Lancashire fire service addresses thousands of false alarms in five-year period: Summary

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service responded to over 26,000 false alarms between April 2019 and April 2024, as revealed by data obtained by Personal Injury Claims UK.

The annual number of callouts ranged from 5,000 to 6,000, with the lowest recorded figure of 4,807 in 2019/20.

False alarms stem from various causes, including faulty equipment and poorly trained users.

Nationally, false alarms account for 38% of fire service incidents, costing the UK £1 billion annually.

Personal Injury Claims UK provides support to those affected by fire-related injuries, offering a helpline and online claims service.

London Fire Brigade reviews response to false alarms to boost community safety

London Fire Brigade is launching a consultation aimed at reducing its response to false alarms

In a recent announcement, London Fire Brigade (LFB) has commenced a consultation focused on its response to false alarms.

Automatic fire alarms are devices designed to detect potential fires and notify occupants or connected alarm companies to contact emergency services.

The consultation suggests that during the day, the Brigade might not attend automatic fire alarms in non-residential structures, such as offices or industrial areas, unless there is also a call from an individual confirming the presence of a fire.

Tackling genuine emergencies

London Fire Brigade emphasises their commitment to always respond to 999 calls reporting fires anywhere in London.

Moreover, they will maintain their response to alarms from residential settings, like homes.

Interestingly, less than one percent of automatic fire alarms indicate real fires.

This means that a staggering 99% of them are false alarms, which unduly strain the Brigade’s resources.

Last year, the Brigade responded to approximately 60 false alarms each day from non-residential properties, consuming nearly 23,500 hours of firefighters’ time.

False alarms: Addressing the real impact

With a reduction in attending false alarms, firefighters can allocate more time to fire prevention and community safety enhancement.

Activities they can engage in include fire safety assessments in homes and commercial establishments, and valuable operational training.

Interestingly, all but four fire and rescue services in the UK already implement similar practices.

Considering exemptions in the proposal

However, the Brigade’s proposal mentions they would continue attending automatic alarms in areas where people might be asleep or where hazardous substances are stored.

Significant public buildings like heritage sites would also still receive a response.

Deputy Commissioner Dominic Ellis voiced his views: “We are here to keep London’s communities safe, and we want to do this as effectively as possible.”

“We spend thousands of hours each year addressing false alarms in non-residential buildings.

“Minimising our attendance at these instances will allow us to concentrate on our main goal: community safety. Remember, we will always be there if you call us during an emergency.”

He also expressed the Brigade’s desire to gather feedback from businesses and stakeholders before making a final decision.

Conclusion of the consultation

Feedback from this consultation will shape the Brigade’s strategy regarding automatic fire alarms.

For more details on how to participate in this consultation, interested parties can visit the Brigade’s website.

The deadline for input is set for 25 October 2023.

The main proposal highlights include:

  • LFB might not attend non-residential alarms from 7am to 6pm.
  • Buildings with sleeping risks, such as houses, flats, hospitals, and student accommodations, will still receive emergency responses.
  • High-risk sites with dangerous substances and significant public buildings will also continue getting an emergency response.

Participants in the consultation will be asked a series of questions, including their concerns, suggestions for other exemptions, and ways LFB can assist organisations to prepare for the change.

IFSJ Comment

The move by the London Fire Brigade to reconsider its attendance at false alarms underscores a broader trend in the firefighting community to optimise resources and enhance community safety.

By focusing on genuine emergencies and allocating time to preventive measures, there’s potential for a more efficient and proactive approach to fire safety.

It’s crucial for stakeholders to engage in this consultation to ensure a comprehensive and balanced perspective is adopted.