AnthonyB

If they have been changed to doors that were never fire doors even to older standards then this is one of the few circumstances where new doorsets (frame, door, ironmongery, etc) would be appropriate. Mike has linked the guidance I quoted from - here is the guidance that says in many cases the original doors, if fire doors to the standard of the time, are often acceptable - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022-fire-door-guidance/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022-fire-door-guidance

If your conversion is in line with Approved Document B to the building regulations (which as a designer/developer you should read anyway) you do NOT need a common fire alarm - just smoke detector connected to your AOV (unless as a small building you are claiming the exemption allowing an OV then you don't even need that) Don't let a fire alarm engineer or a general electrician fool you into spending money on a pointless alarm system you don't need and a risk assessment would tell you to remove or butcher anyway if installed. If your design does not follow AD B (e..g no smoke control) and you wish to use an engineered solution incorporating simultaneous evacuation then you will need a communal alarm system which MUST extend inoto each flat with detection & sounders in addition to each flat's domestic alarms.

You can go as far above the minimum legally acceptable standard as your budget and desire requires. The common system is NOT there to warn the flat of fire origin so as long as there are sufficient sounders in each flat then the single detector suffices - the local part 6 system is the one to save the people in the flat of fire origin and if already LD1 or LD2 exceeds the minimum & provides that extra edge you desire.

That is compliant - BS5839 allows sprinklers to be used as heat detection plus if you put smoke detectors in a car par they would go off all the time - usually where detection is added it's point heat or linear heat cable although you could, depending on the type of system, use a multi sensor such as the Discovery Optical/Heat in response mode 4 (less sensitive) but you don't gain too much plus the car parks, being usually open plan even where enclosed, don't usually warrant the speed of smoke detection as people would quickly be aware of an incident developing.

Depending on the type and condition of the original flat doors there may have been no need to replace the three that have been done - there is no 'legal' requirement or 'new regulations' requiring existing flat front fire doors to be replaced wholesale in smaller blocks, the Government recently re-iterated this in a guidance note as too many flat owners were being ripped off with work not actually required. This is the current guidance on composite doors from the Government: Composite flat entrance doors Composite flat entrance doors are a relatively modern innovation (dating from the 1980s onwards) and have become popular because of their attractive appearance and low maintenance. A typical composite door comprises a thin layer of glass reinforced plastic (GRP), or thermoplastic material, with a core (which can comprise various materials, such as phenolic foam) to provide the fire resistance. In older blocks of flats, they will be found only as replacements for original timber doors. However, composite fire doors should not be confused with non-fire resisting uPVC doors, which have no fire-resisting core, but are sometimes installed by leaseholders. These doors should be replaced with fire-resisting doors and frames to ensure adequate protection. It is reasonable to assume that composite flat entrance doors manufactured after late 2018 have adequate fire resistance. However, this may not be the case if the doors were manufactured before this time. After the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, a composite flat entrance door installed at Grenfell Tower achieved only 15 minutes’ fire resistance when tested. The door was manufactured by Manse Masterdor (a company that no longer exists), and a number of the company’s composite flat entrance doors, although designed to provide 30 minutes’ fire resistance, failed to do so when tested. This led to tests of a range of manufacturers’ composite fire doors by Government. It was found that, depending on the manufacturer and the model of door, the fire resistance of these doors ranged from eight minutes to over 30 minutes. Common points of failure were letterboxes and glazing (e.g. as a result of manufacturing defects, such as in the means of securing the glazing). Where the point of failure was the letterbox, remedial work can often be carried out by the manufacturer or a specialist contactor on site. This might also be possible in the case of the glazing. In case of doubt, advice of the manufacturer should be sought. A further issue is that the fire resistance of many composite doors was found to be different according to whether the door was tested from what would be the “common parts side” or the “flat side”; this was because, when originally tested, the doors were only tested from the “flat side”. If it can be confirmed (e.g. from documentation or liaison with the manufacturer/supplier) that the doors were supplied after late 2018, there should not be an issue, as the composite door industry doors are now tested from both sides. In the case of doors manufactured before 2018, you should seek further information regarding their likely fire resistance. The Government have published the results of their tests on specific manufacturers’ products,[footnote 10] and information can be sought from the manufacturer or supplier of the doors. In the case of these “legacy” doors, it is normally acceptable for adequate fire resistance to be provided from the “flat side”, as it is not expected that there will be a serious fire, of the severity used in fire resistance testing, within the common parts. Provided that the doors would have been purchased as 30 minute fire-resisting doors, from the perspective of risk and compliance with fire safety legislation, no immediate action is normally necessary, provided the fire resistance of the doors is, at least, around 15-20 minutes; the doors should be replaced over time as part of routine maintenance. If you are in doubt regarding the adequacy of the fire resistance of composite flat entrance doors, you should seek the advice of a specialist, such as a third-party certificated fire risk assessor or fire safety consultant.

Envirograf have been trading since 1983 & are the leading provider of passive fire protection products for the upgrading of legacy walls, floors & doors where rebuilding/replacement is not an option (such as heritage properties). They (& to my knowledge no one) do not make a fire rated film for glazing as such a product does not exist - there are protective films for decorating/construction to keep glass clean that are fire resistant so as not to spread flame but do not increase the overall fire resistance, similarly there are films to upgrade glass safety for impact safety with similar properties but nothing to upgrade the overall performance that I'm aware of. Usually with glass that cannot be replaced (e.g. heritage stained glass) it's more common to fix a panel of FR glazing over it using a purpose built frame: https://envirograf.com/product-category/glazing/

See Approved Document B Volumes 1 & 2...

Having the requisite fire resistance should suffice.

More than one person - each tenant is a Responsible Person under the legislation as an employer having control over part of the premises and/or any other person having control of the premises (under a lease). So each tenant is required by law to carry out and record (regardless of staff or other numbers) a fire risk assessment and within their demise to provide what general fire precautions are required by that assessment, which would include extinguishers, signs, emergency lighting, etc. The landlord is only responsible for any areas where there is no other Resonsible Person such as a communal stairway, plant room, etc. or they have control over a common feature (e.g. a common building wide fire alarm). So a three storey building with, let's say, three tenants and a common access stair, lift motor room, electrical intake and toilets would have 4 Fire Risk Assessments, each RP providing whatever is needed in their area. There is, in addition, a requirement for Responsible Persons to share information & coordinate fire safety between them where they share parts of one building. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/people-with-duties-under-fire-safety-laws

Your fire alarm service company, if competent, can arrange this. Protec are capable, but obviously are failing in the customer care side of things

No - it's outside and is a single private dwelling so outside the legislation. Worth getting rid of anyway as it could be an arson target

The final exit (door to the outside) does not normally require to be a fire resisting door set so would not need checking beyond that to see it opens freely and the internal opening mechanism works (which if everyday use would be quickly identified by residents.) The general public use the term 'fire door' in a colloquial way to describe the final exit doors from a building (often not fire resistant unless an external stair or similar passes by) rather than the fire resisting door-sets inside buildings protecting stairs, corridors and enclosing high fire risk areas

Unless you are going to have more than 60-100 people all checking the same area and needing that exit I wouldn't worry! Securing the doors is more important to prevent trespass that can lead to arson or accidental fire by squatters (commercial premises don't have the same protection that domestic premises now have against squatting so can be more popular as it's not criminal in these premises)

If complying with the guidance to establish a defence against an allegation of non compliance then yes - if willing to chance it in court (along with the assessor) then they need to ensure the FRA gives a reasoned argument as to why a lesser standard than the guide still provides an adequate level of safety and keep the status quo.

The issue is that two different legal regimes are in play - Building Regulations, which aren't retrospective and fire safety/health & safety regulations which are if the risk is too high. If an old way of meeting H&S regulations will still be tolerably safe based on the hazard, likelihood, occupancy, etc then it can continue in place, but if it's obsolete to the point of being unacceptably dangerous then it needs to be modernised. If the H&S Risk Assessment deems the glazing hazard too high (e.g if a child falls against it and risks being seriously cut) then that would be their justification and to take this to an FTT would be a 'battle of the experts' issue