if I had discretion and spare money to spend on fire safety in a HMO, it wouldn’t be on AFDDs. However, tempting as it might be, I think you would be foolish to omit the devices and cite the omission as a deviation. 
Imagine wakening up one morning to news that the HMO suffered a fire which the fire brigade watch commander in attendance thinks was caused by an electrical fault. Whether the cause was or was not electrical or whether or not an AFDD would have made the slightest difference would be of no matter should the local press get wind of the fact that the electrical installation recently installed by AMK was not compliant with the wiring regulations. Nuances do not get a fair hearing in the public domain and your reputation in the local community would be in tatters.

The electrical equivalent of big Pharma have got us nailed by our own fears and the invidious nature of 421.1.7. 
Fight back has to be by dumping the malfunctioning issues squarely back on them. As more of us suffer the problems highlighted by Stuff, perhaps by standing together, we might have a chance in removing the burden on caring, considerate, individual contractors.

I think the caveat here is that the consumer REQUIRES a BS EN 62606 compliant fault to meet with their AFDD's operating metrics.That alone should give plenty of rise for concern.

The test standard requirements are interesting insomuch that they actually require the presence of carbon to simulate damage. If the fault has to develop to such a point whereby burning is, or has already been present, then surely it's too late even if the AFDD actually trips.

Should the scenario you describe above whereby the omission of devices contributes to a fire, I would be calling a very expert witness to give the actual reasons why. I suspect that they would flounder in the witness box at this first hurdle.

I think the caveat here is that the consumer REQUIRES a BS EN 62606 compliant fault to meet with their AFDD's operating metrics.That alone should give plenty of rise for concern.

The test standard requirements are interesting insomuch that they actually require the presence of carbon to simulate damage. If the fault has to develop to such a point whereby burning is, or has already been present, then surely it's too late even if the AFDD actually trips.

Should the scenario you describe above whereby the omission of devices contributes to a fire, I would be calling a very expert witness to give the actual reasons why. I suspect that they would flounder in the witness box at this first hurdle.