AnthonyB

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)

The one fire door function that is non negotiable in any size of flats with respect to fire doors is the ability to self close. Missing or non functional self closers were the main contributor to deaths at Grenfell with respect to the doors, not the general age & condition. If the block was moved to simultaneous evacuation (with the appropriate fire detection and alarm system fitted) with smoke control to common areas that might be an alternative, however even so the effect of an open front door to a flat fire may still not give an achievable safe evacuation time, especially not sprinklered.

Usually the top floor would also be lobbied if it was required, not just the lower floors (not lobbying the top floor is a principle for non residential buildings not flats) Your layout could well comply without the partitions completely as in this example from the official guidance "A guide to making your small block of flats safe from fire" Without seeing the actual premises and carrying out an FRA I can't be 100% sure but there is a possibility that the doors are not required - also changing hinges does not apply retrospectively either - a common mistake (& money maker for those who remedy it). Also in small blocks retrofitting of strips & seals, whilst desirable, is also not always required.

Usually 6 months unless high traffic otherwise 3 months. A less thorough check is usually recorded as part of weekly or monthly basic fire precaution/housekeeping checks (obvious things like wedged or not shut in the frame or grossly damaged) that is not a thorough examination. If they want a more frequent regime in order to have a higher level of safety then they are of course free to do so.

Do you have to pass the cupboard to escape or is escape possible in other directions? If you have other escape routes then none of the work is required. If you do have no alterative you should have FD30 doors but in any case they are trying to take a cut of the works with all sorts of unnecessary stuff - the total cost is at least 4 times what it should be.

It sounds like a completely inadequate FRA (even a Type 1 should have entered the flats to fully examine the front doors) by someone who doesn't understand the guidance. If they've never been converted they can't be s257 HMO which requires them to be: buildings or parts of buildings converted into self-contained flats, AND The conversion did not comply with building standards and still doesn't, AND Less than two-thirds of the flats are owner-occupied. Even then unless the local council has additional licensing in place for that postcode it doesn't really require much. With your premises, even though they do require an FRA they generally require no special precautions or additional fire safety measures. The dwellings only need Grade F Category LD3 (legal minimum, recommended is Category D Grade LD2) if rental under landlord specific regulations. Notional 30 minutes structure and front doors (self closing) and an enclosed or metal distribution board is usually all these need.

You can't - there is no 'magic barrier' - either apply a solution from above or below. Or install a full BS5839-1 (not domestic) fire alarm system to the ground floor with call points, sounders and detection that also has sounders in the flat and operate a full evacuate policy for the whole building.

If the flats each have suitable fire separation then there is no need for a common alarm of any type where the communal space is a small ground floor lobby (the block can 'stay put'). I've assisted in a case with a similar set up to yours where the freeholder wanted to install a smoke alarm and emergency light for a ground floor lobby which also necessitated getting the Distribution Network Operator to put in a new supply as there was (understandably) no existing communal electricity supply. The leaseholder cost implications were horrendous, however as the flats had suitable separation then none of this was required. If there is a serious concern with fire separation then a common system would be needed but it would have to extend into each flat to support a full evacuation policy. Such a system can be Grade D (domestic mains alarms with battery back up) in a building of up to two storeys, above that is Grade A (commercial grade fire alarm) - it's based on storeys not whether they are common or not. Their duties under the Fire Safety Order don't go away - they have to implement the findings and if they intend to both ignore their responsibilities and let one of the flats then this would be a matter for the fire service in respect of the common issues and the local authority in respect of the rental property. The FRA of course could be wrong in which case it needs rewriting, but there is also every chance it's spot on - I can't be sure from a computer keyboard!

You'll not find anything specific detailing this, the law itself is very broad and functional with the risk assessment giving the detail based on a variety of sources of non binding guidance. Some stuff like this is also though to be so obvious and intuitive as to not need a detailed note requiring it!

1. Correct, no CE mark by itself is not a reason to automatically require replacement 2. Smoke control doors were a thing way before 2003, your FRA should determine what doors are expected, but for the size and age you'd expect FD30S 3. Your fire door inspector should have been able to tell if an intumescent letter box was in place. A spy hole is so small your risk assessor should determine in line with a competent fire door specialist if it's proportionate to investigate further. The biggest unnecessary overspend in existing blocks of flats relates to fire doors and in an ideal world a competent fire risk assessor and a competent fire door inspector would meet together and with the client to assess on a risk based approach as per the legislation what must be done promptly, what can be done over time progressively and what really isn't necessary. The most important thing is that the doors are all self closing flush in frame. A lot of places have taken advantage of fire door inspection requirements so have trained staff on a pass/fail modern standards basis only whereas the legislation & it's official guidance does allow a risk based approach - this means you need to choose carefully your fire door inspectors & risk assessors.

Unfortunately signing off of a building has no relevance as to whether the work is to a suitable quality or effective standard as they aren't carrying out inspection to any level of detail - the liability always rests with the developer. The biggest example is Grenfell Tower which got it's refurb signed off. I wouldn't buy anything from the last 25 years or so due to all sorts of common defects, particularly a house. Intumescent strips and FD30 doors (where a dwelling size and layout requires any fire doors in the first place) are not a new thing and it's a long time since 'FD20' doors (often an FD30 door with no seals after purpose built FD20 doors were no longer made) were a thing: https://www.thefis.org/2022/05/30/fire-door-safety-alert-clarification-around-fd20s/ Third party certified doors aren't explicitly a legal requirement, but how else can you be sure they are compliant and it's usually expected for new installs. Intumescent seals don't stop smoke detectors working as they don't stop smoke and only swell up to fill the door gap until the fire is very hot and well developed

I wouldn't, it usually only leads to unnecessary hassle & delay, just call it maintenance and not making things worse than original. If it's a hospital subject to the BSA you have no choice. That's the honest answer although you will get the BCI's in here making a fuss about it!

Is that really the only way in & out of the building? Or does the stair lead to a normal main entrance which in most single stair flat buildings would be the only designated exit?

That's rather excessive - you don't need fire exit signs in simple single stair single exit buildings & glazed framed pictures and plant pots (as long as the plants are kept watered and alive) are not usually a real hazard (I'm usually happy with them). Smoking signage is an explicit legal requirement with no get around - however the requirement for it to be at least A5 with specified text was dropped (in England) years ago so a simple 75mm or 100mm no smoking pictogram by the entrance would suffice Other signage can and also should be sympathetic - for a typical plant room or meter cupboard there are two ways of signing them that are compliant - one of which is less institutional

You shouldn't need to ask this as your risk assessment & assessor should automatically have updated you in the last two assessments. Practically if no physical actions are outstanding and you have the right maintenance in place for fire door inspection, emergency lighting, smoke control, etc you are probably OK with the building, the biggest change is to resident information (which has to be annually provided to each resident & whenever a new resident moves in). Currently you should be providing the following info, the bold italics being the newest stuff that many RP's aren't up to speed with yet: Information that must be provided to residents includes: • any risks identified in the fire risk assessment and what fire safety measures have been enacted to address this • your name and UK address, the identity of anyone who assisted with doing or reviewing the fire risk assessment, as well as the identity of anyone who has been appointed to implement firefighting measures • how to report a fire to their local fire and rescue service • information on how to understand the ‘stay put’ strategy, and the action to take should they discover a fire in their own flat or in the common areas • being made aware of the importance of maintaining their flat entrance doors and their self-closing devices where appropriate including that they should not tamper with them. That fire doors should be kept shut when not in use and that any faults or damage to the door should be reported immediately

You are outside the scope of "A guide to making your small paying-guest-accommodation safe from fire" which would not require self closers as you have both 3 storeys and the stair opening into a habitable room rather than direct to exit or exit via a hallway. Principles in the main guidance would see a protected stair and self closing doors and either exit via a protected corridor creating or an alternative exit route or suppression. As this is potentially too far an extreme in the other direction you need a happy medium, which as it's outside the guidance, is best done by a professional risk assessor with sector experience as your fire risk assessment will have to justify why the premises layout is acceptable despite being outside the guidance.

Usually at least 1kg, preferably 2l/2kg. ABC Powder is the traditional go to as it's cheap, yet is still powerful compare with other agents mass for and is (almost) multipurpose. However it is messy and can damage surfaces and equipment (especially if warm or hot) and isn't pleasant to inhale. It's also ineffective on cooking oil fires. A more expensive but handy alternative is water mist, which is non damaging and effective on the main domestic fires of solids materials, electrical equipment and cooking oils https://www.safelincs.co.uk/1kg-abc-dry-powder-fire-extinguisher-ultrafire https://www.safelincs.co.uk/2kg-abc-dry-powder-fire-extinguisher-ultrafire/ https://www.safelincs.co.uk/britannia-2kg-powder/ https://www.safelincs.co.uk/1-litre-water-mist-fire-extinguisher-ultrafire/ https://www.safelincs.co.uk/britannia-p50-2ltr-water-mist/

They should, but as you have found out, enforcement is so 'hands off' & lax these days it has to be something horrendously bad before they will do anything.

That depends on the design of the system, it's not a given. Usually the only time there are airflow gaps around fire doors is part of a pressure differential smoke control system as oppose to standard extract, but that's not to say it's not possible, although inlet air from the stair is usually by opening the door.

In theory it could be both - unfortunately security almost always overrides safety it seems, the security risk should usually be high enough to justify from not having the required failsafe's in the direction of escape.

It depends how small the cupboard is in order to fit a detector and barring that as an issue then it's down to the Category of fire alarm system required for the premises - If it's L1 or L2 then the cupboard should always have been covered.

As I assume you are talking about a commercial fire alarm system, then the NFCC advice is not applicable. 10 years is used to get people to replace equipment based purely on a single manufacturers recommended life span and warranty period. The appropriate British Standard for fire alarms has no lifespan as long as the equipment passes service. An independent scientific study where the Government were a stakeholder concluded (based on extensive tests and experiments) that, dependant on type, a detector can remain serviceable for 25-30 years. As the system is approaching these limits it would be advisable to start gradually replacing the detectors now, thus spreading the cost of replacement over several years. A fire marshal is only trained to assist in the evacuation of a building in a fire (after anything from just 30 minute to 6 hours training) and not in fire risk assessment so there is a risk anything they produced could fail to be suitable and sufficient for the purposes of the legislation. It is possible for Responsible Persons to do their own FRA, but they need to be in line with the accepted guidance - I would urge you review your in house assessment to ensure that is in line with the appropriate guidance which is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-risk-assessment-small-and-medium-places-of-assembly If it follows this and meets the guide then it should be OK - remember the risk assessor is legally liable in addition to the premises Responsible Person if the FRA is substandard, however the fire safety legislation does state that if you have followed the linked guide you can be deemed to have complied with the law. If you do decide to use an external specialist ensure the actual assessor are registered here https://www.firesectorfederation.co.uk/fire-risk-assessment/fire-risk-assesment-directory/ and is not from a fire protection company to avoid a conflict of interest.