AnthonyB

You need the fire door report, the fire risk assessment specifying the required spec and then reference to this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-in-purpose-built-blocks-of-flats and this https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022-fire-door-guidance to see if the recommendations made are actually required at all. Whilst sometimes doors do need replacement there are far too many being replaced with no actual legal basis due to a proliferation of both ignorance & profiteering in the fire door and risk assessment sector. The First Tier Tribunal is your go to if you suspect the requirement is excessive - I've helped people win cases against excessive fire safety works in the past - however without a lot more information I cannot give an opinion as to whether these works are needed - in a 15 year old building it's unlikely but possible (although often repair is possible) For example No fire door certification sticker, unmarked hinges and non intumescent letterboxes are often used to bring on expensive works and whilst there are many situations where this can be correct there are many more where it isn't.

Better to get a supply quote & application instructions direct from the experts as there are requirements on how many coats are required to get the desired performance https://envirograf.com/product/benefits-of-intumescent-paint-for-wood/ It can't just be any old fire rated paint or it won't actually do anything - make sure that it has been tested for upgrading use. Also often the donor door has to be of a type suitable for upgrading.

There is risk it could be left ajar after use or not held enough on the latch to resist the pressures caused by a developed fire,both rendering the door ineffective. The keep locked shut designation is in place of having a self closer on the door - if the locking is no longer convenient then fitting a self closer will keep the door effective.

They are rarely used outside of ships and vehicles in the UK as they aren't recognised as an acceptable means of fire protection, you see them used more in Ireland and Spain and similar, so there isn't loads of guidance out there. Based on various sources I can find and the linked, it's mounted above the hazard at a height from the floor in the range of 1.5 - 3m https://www.emme-italia.com/sites/default/files/librettotecnico/13069-3_13129-3_Technical manual.pdf

It sounds classic latent defect, it's very common to find with blocks with lots of shortcomings that Building Control happily have let past as 'it's the developers responsibility to comply not ours'

It's all determined by who is a Responsible Person as per the definitions in the law: - For the commercial unit it would be the tenant as they are both: a) An employer having a degree of control over a workplace; & b) A person having control of part of a premises for the carrying on of an undertaking (because they have a lease) - For the flats it would be the person having control of the areas in common which would usually be the freeholder (although depending of the extent of their control the managing agent may be part of the mix in addition, but still 1 FRA either instructed by the agent or the freeholder direct) So TWO FRAs with a legal duty to share relevant fire safety information and to account for all relevant persons If the retail unit was vacant and thus back under the control of the freeholder then it could in theory be one building wide FRA, but as soon as a tenant moves into the unit there will be both changes to the premises and Responsible Person so you are back to TWO again

There is a guide and template to allow small blocks of flat to be self assessed, however it doesn't apply to conversions unless fully compliant with post 1991 Building Regulations guidance, so the inference is you use a registered professional (listed here - some providers join a fire related trade or advisory body like the FPA & pass it off as 'approved' when they don't vet or register assessors https://www.firesectorfederation.co.uk/fire-risk-assessment/fire-risk-assesment-directory/ ) It's been law for many years so your original solicitors should have mentioned this. The key issues with your arrangement are: - level of fire separation between flats - external wall fire risk (but only a trivial factor in a building this small really) This will determine if the current set up (assuming it's stay put in the flat not on fire) is tolerable or whether it should be an evacuation block requiring installation of a fire alarm system that covers the common landing AND both flats (not just a smoke alarm in the common landing). From experience not all require the 'nuclear' option of a full alarm system and can stay as is with minor works and production & issue of resident fire safety information - but this can only be determined by a proper FRA (that does look in the flats to some extent)

Are you a qualified and time served joiner or equivalent? If not an online course for a very practical task seems inadequate, especially as it appears not to have even taught about routing and routing depths for seals? Sounds like the employer has tried to save a few quid but let you down in the process.

Does sounds rather like a DoLS situation or a lockdown provision but very out of the ordinary if not a secure unit/PRU (even then it's not usually individual classrooms with that level of extra security when occupied). I'd ask for justification & what the FRA uses to mitigate it.

The door blank would have a FD30 sticker regardless of if it's in a FD30 or FD30S doorset as it's the addition of cold smoke seals to the frame (or door blank) that make it 's' Do you actually have cold smoke seals on the door? Even if you do the gaps seem excessive and it's unlikely the seal will fill the gaps to touch the frame edge either.

I had this issue at a more modern (80's) flat build - research is such that a standard 4" solid glass block is usually acceptable for 45 minutes fire resistance, which as the protection for a small full evacuation block would only need to be 30 mins makes them sufficient. https://glassblockblogger.com/2015/09/03/glass-blocks-and-fire-safety-codes/ If you needed a greater level of fire resistance there would be a traceability issue as in these cases the blocks are specially made to have greater FR but that's not needed here.

Yes, in essence it's built as a care home or residential (other) as not stay put - the roof voids should follow the compartment lines of at least each PHE compartment boundary & preferably every bedroom. Improper compartmentation in roof voids helped kill 14 people at Rosepark Care home. Unfortunately too many developers and their Building Inspectors seem to use semantics to get through inadequate safety standards in design by classifying a premises as something it clearly won't be when operational

Part 6 Grade A including flat cover- yes. Part 1 L5 for common areas smoke control only - no (not a fire warning system)

It depends on the numbers involved and whether that requires panic proof exits - the law simply says "(f)emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;" so in some cases you see Redlam Bolts used with push bars or access control maglocks linked to the fire alarm. These do move away from accepted guidance, but have been justified in some fire risk assessments. Incidentally panic bars were invented after a fatal crush of children over 100 years ago - putting bars too high up defeats the main reason they were developed.

Does the lower ground have an exit to open air, e.g. the building is on sloped land? Usually it's counted as a storey making it 3