Jump to content

AnthonyB

Power Member
  • Content Count

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Fire Safety

Recent Profile Visitors

8,474 profile views
  1. Lipping/rebating doors predates modern methods of sealing fire doors - it used to be common because it was the only way to get some form of flame, heat & smoke seal. Whilst it had some effect compared to a door without the rebate the performance is nowhere near the same as a door with intumescent seals and cold smoke brushes. The acceptability of an 'older' method of fire safety joinery will depend on the situation and the performance requirements of the door-set in question - in some situations such as heritage premises and certain existing premises (based on other factors taken into account) it may be acceptable, but not if current standards are a requirement.
  2. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/01/perception-of-doors/ https://www.property118.com/dispute-certification-fire-doors-going-court/
  3. Many manufacturers give a recommended shelf life of 5 years, although this is more of a 'best before' than a 'use by' in most cases as long as the powder remains sealed, free from moisture and still free flowing. Performance wouldn't be guaranteed by the manufacturer after their recommended age.
  4. Ownership has no bearing on whether an action is desirable or required - if this is a required action then it would suggest (& the report should clarify this) that either the internal compartmentation or external cladding (or both) is inadequate and a full evacuate solution is required as mitigation until resolved (or permanently if it can't be). A lender would be very reluctant to lend on a premises in this condition and for valuation the properties would be zero valued. If it is of such a condition that it requires such an extensive change in strategy and precautions failure to do so would be considered a breach of the legislation and be enforceable against the freeholder/TMC. It's possible (& has happened) in the worst cases a premises (including dwellings) can be served a Prohibition Notice and everyone has to move out. The Housing Act applies to dwellings and can be used against individual dwelling owners to enforce actions required for fire safety - it's most commonly used to get unsatisfactory flat front doors changed & I've experience of sites where we've used that to get enforcement notices against leaseholders who wouldn't change their doors in a tower block.
  5. To be fair any domestic fire small enough to be safely tackled by an untrained occupier would be within the capabilities of a 1.4L Water Mist extinguisher, one per landing (3l if you really want, but costly) If you can't put a garage fire out with 2kg Powder you should be leaving it to the brigade. A 3l foam would be similar performance but cleaner and easier to see. All are available from the forum sponsor Safelincs.
  6. That's OK, I can answer then - it's similar to a situation I have across a few sites. Traditionally the approach was to extend detection & sounders from the common system into every flat to facilitate full simultaneous or phased evacuation of the whole block - this was based on most ACM or HPL blocks being completely covered in the material. Some blocks however only have selected strips of ACM only potentially linking a small number of flats, the greater part of the block being non combustible (e.g. brick) faced. In these there is an understandable reluctance to expand the system building wide (with the resultant cost to the flat owners on top of the already high remediation costs) when most flats remain both externally & internally structurally safe to retain a 'stay put' approach. In these proposals have been put forward to only put a temporary wireless linked system in each strip of flats with an ACM exterior with cover to the exterior facing rooms and the hall ways so that only the set of flats liable to be affected by an externally spreading fire that originated in one of them need to evacuate. This has been accepted and allowed a removal of the (very costly & unreliable) waking watch. It's important the FRA and resultant mitigation strategy clearly defines which route is required and why.
  7. Depends on the lender - if not down as legal requirements it's up to their opinion. Of course some findings in an FRA are required to met the functional requirements of the law, a good FRA will make clear which are required and which are just desirable.
  8. Sometimes you need to use two parties - one to do the intrusive work and make good (often a passive fire protection company) and then a risk assessor to take their findings into the FRA and determine what remedials, if any, are required. Tenos can do both aspects in house.
  9. I think, that based on layout, all this may be unnecessary, however without seeing the premises (or accurate plans) I can't be sure. The date of build makes me think it's going to be fine as it is, builds of this era do not usually have non compliant layouts, just service penetration fire stopping/door issues. Due to the age there should be a design fire strategy that formed part of the mandatory building information that should have been handed down on completion to whoever is responsible for the common parts, it's worth getting hold of. Sadly there are a lot of FRA assessors that don't understand the differences between commercial & residential.
  10. It might not be used bu anyone else, but it is not your stair to use, it belongs to the freeholder or TMC so they are in their right to ask you to remove it even if there were no H&S reasons. As per my previous answer the management have clearly adopted the zero tolerance approach so unless a case can be made for managed use and more importantly the agent be persuaded to adopt it then you are stuck. Also even if they do not obstruct they will burn and the principle of communal circulation areas in flats is that they do not contain anything that can burn.
  11. Yes you need a Fire Risk Assessment as the common areas are subject to the Fire Safety Order (assuming you are in England or Wales) and the Fire Safety Bill passing through Parliament at the moment will increase responsibilities under this legislation in flat blocks. You will need to re-examine your fire-risk assessment if you suspect it is no longer valid, such as after a near miss and every time there is a significant change to the level of risk in your premises, you would also need to review whether the measures detailed in it are being maintained correctly & precautions still in place. There is no set (yet) time for reviewing an FRA, however annual reviews are often recommended - but that's not doing the whole thing again every year unless indicated. You need to be competent to carry out an FRA - here is the guidance you would need to apply, I leave it to you to determine your ability to use this: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/fire-safety-purpose-built-04b.pdf
  12. AnthonyB

    MS

    If built as stay put to Building Regulations you wouldn't expect any call points (or alarm sounders) - whilst you might have seen them in other purpose built modern blocks they aren't actually required.
  13. If your premises were built for stay put you would not expect to see call points or even alarm sounders. However the configuration of your system sounds like one designed for a premises where a full evacuation is required and as such call points would normally be required - this is also the case in sheltered housing (more commonly called over 55 or retirement villages as it sounds better) where it is stay out other than for the common areas or flat of fire origin.
  14. It's not normal to do this, usually lift doors are only FD30 - lifts usually open into lobbies with FD30S doors to provide the smoke protection or a self closing fire door used to be put across the lift opening in the past under old legislation as a lot of older buildings couldn't lobby the lifts and/or had lift doors that were not fire resisting or even open in nature.
×
×
  • Create New...