AnthonyB

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

Is this a gate from an external yard? The key words are RISK ASSESSMENT as oppose to auditing against perfect world text book scenarios and based on the measures already in place it shouldn't be too hard to find a risk assessed solution to meet both fire & safeguarding needs

It will operate a simultaneous evacuation policy where a detector will activate well before an escape route is affected and everyone be out in about 3 minutes. The single exit route is 'protected' from the effects of fire for up to 10 x this period and is intended to be free from combustibles, obstructions or significant ignition sources. People are expected to take some personal responsibility and the only threat to this protection are the occupiers themselves - if they choose to prop open fire doors, store and e-scooter in the stair, etc, etc then that is their issue. The design is not stay put as it is a single house, not a block of flats so built differently with different fire protection measures

Ideally not although it isn't 'prohibited'. You should check with the fire stopper to see if it could affect any warranty they may have given.

Nothing wrong with wired glass, it's still used today, just less common than before for aesthetic reasons. It is however not as good as modern glass for safety on impact and whilst perfectly legal in existing buildings it is good practice to consider replacing depending on who is using the area and the resultant risk and of course if the glass location needs to meet safety standards at all (it's location dependant)

Yes, many doors of this type have local Power Supply Units with batteries to keep the lock energised to power failure. For emergency purposes the power is still cut by the fire alarm and manual release device (green break glass point) to override this

Someone is either completely unaware of how the legal regimes for both fire safety & building regulations work and shouldn't be writing reports or someone is angling to make a lot of money out of unnecessary works. It's only recently the Government had to issue updated guidance as too many leaseholders were being ripped off with unnecessary work (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022-fire-door-guidance/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022-fire-door-guidance). You have two choices: - Pay the s20 charge for the works - Pay for a decent independent evidence based assessment and take the case to a First Tier Tribunal, leaseholders have won a good number of these in recent years, I've helped one in a similar situation with erroneous work being charged for (they won against the freeholder & Council).

Empty buildings could adopt a risk based approach to testing, otherwise there would need to be a dedicated technical & statistical case to justify changes (like Sainsbury did when justifying a change in stores from weekly to monthly testing)