AnthonyB

In older UK fire doors, the purpose of a rebated frame (where the door stop is machined directly out of the solid timber frame rather than being a separate "planted" stop) was to create a deeper, interlocking, and more robust barrier against fire and smoke. Key Purposes Longer Flame Path: The stepped edge (rebate) forces flames and hot gases to travel through a tortuous, overlapping path rather than a straight line, slowing down fire penetration. Structural Integrity: Machining the frame from a single solid piece of dense timber provided better stability under extreme heat, reducing the likelihood of the door stop warping or burning away as quickly as a small, nailed-on wooden strip. Inherent Seal (Pre-intumescent era): Before modern chemical intumescent strips (which swell up in heat) became standard, older fire door designs relied on the physical depth of a heavy timber rebate—sometimes 25mm or more—to mechanically block smoke and fire around the perimeter edges. (Information from AI, but with reference links that were genuine sources so not AI hallucination)

Not if the escape route for other flats passes right by it with no alternative.

It's basically the Welsh version of the English Building Safety Act primarily regarding the design and build of new in scope buildings & the management of existing in scope buildings, it's more a Building Regulations style of document and does not alter the Fire Safety Order. What it will do in future (once the relevant sections are enacted) is bring in specific requirements relating to FRAs in HMO's.

I'd assume it's a manufacturer plug as it doesn't match either old roundel or newer tree type plugs in main colour.

The 'no door' or windows solution for an inner room is so the inner room occupier will quickly notice a fire developing in the access room - far less likely if the inner room is on another floor (until it's too late) so that would also make the 'no door' solution untenable to remove an unmitigated inner room. As Mike says you have AFD which is the more modern solution to the issue

How close is the path to the building & what width is it?

They will be treating the board and base as separate components & expect labels to each.

Are the boards already in non combustible housings (e.g. metal)?

Depends where they are used - a quick check of manufacturer's data shows Compressed sheep's wool insulation typically carries a Euroclass E fire rating under standard EN 11925 ignitability tests making it combustible and limiting considerably it's use: It couldn't be an exposed lining and you would need to investigate if it could be used as an insulating layer of a wall/floor system where the surrounding layers are suitably rated.

You could indeed, I'm sure they would be interested to hear about it

You would still preferably need a formal monthly check, recorded to prove it's done, just to check the LED status & identify failed units, but not much else.

They can ask, but that doesn't make it right! Usually a waking watch is required to cover such instances, usually by an outside contractor, but in exceptional circumstances residents have rallied round to provide it to save costs.

In which case it wasn't - by then BS5839-1 required compliance with BS7273 where the fire alarm is used to actuate other fire protection systems and BS7273-4, which covers doors, doesn't allow it in Clause 10.1 as silencing the alarm should not de-actuate any release mechanism (i.e. return electrically held-open fire doors to the held-open state) which means they can't be off the sounder circuit.

Zero tolerance is 'easy' for an end organisation but as a fire risk assessor I take a more pragmatic approach, particularly in older buildings or locations where it's obvious a top up heating solution is needed and look more at the type of heater, it's location, the surrounding materials and processes and the PPM regime. It's quite possible to use them safely.

They usually require detection too, but not smoke as it will false alarm all the time and instead recommend heat detection - it's not there to save the occupier of the bathroom, but protect the adjoining areas so heat would be acceptable despite reacting slower than smokes.

If your Fire Risk Assessment states that original notional fire doors are OK (which in can in several circumstances in line with official guidance) then as long as they are maintained in working order they should be OK

I've dug out data from the 1951 fire door standard and even back then the normal fit for a fire door was a gap of up to 3mm with the door closing on a stop of 25mm (no intumescent back then). To say the gaps don't matter because it's a pre BS8214:1990 (first edition date) door fails to appreciate there have been fire door standards for 75 years which were also very specific on measurements

The fire risk assessor should be able to answer this and should also have access to the relevant guidance & standards. Is it signed as a fire exit? What does the fire strategy state (if modern enough a fit out to have one)? Also bear in mind that human behaviour is such that regardless of availability of other exits & signage to them customers will all try and use the normal entrance/exit unless it is blocked by a fire & so it would be sensible to have the right features in any case. If the power to the doors is fine the sensor will ensure the doors open in relation to the exit flow even in lieu of a fire alarm interface to put it in the 'always open' mode. In case of power failure they should ideally e power to close doors that will spring open on power failure (certainly if a required exit) unless they have a local back up PSU. As the sliding doors should be subject to competent planned maintenance the last service report should detail the type of opening - similarly a competent fire alarm maintenance provider should know if they are linked (as they should be providing the i/o on at least 1 service visit)

'Stay put' is a shorthand reference - what it mean is that unless you are directly affected by fire or smoke you should be safe to remain in the building due to it's construction & safety. It doesn't mean you must stay put either. If you are aware of a fire in the building call the fire service and if you wish to you can evacuate. Due to the size of the building there should be by law a resident engagement process where you can raise concerns and receive suitable updates on safety in the building. If you have serious concerns about safety not being addressed through the engagement process you may need to consult the fire service & the Building Safety Regulator

How far back do you want to go? At least 26 years, I'd need to do out my 1988 & 1980 copies of BS5839-1 to check earlier

I use the old school plastic rectangles that have a mirror to check for top edge labels and seals - I'm not doing the PPM of the doors, just an indicative check for FRA purposes, so it doesn't need to be calibrated to the nearest micrometre. However if carrying out a full formal inspection of a door set I'd expect the examiner to use something more accurate & calibrated

Many of the fatalities at Grenfell were due to their flats doors not closing, allowing the central stair & landings (remote from and not directly affected by the cladding) to be rapidly filled with heat, smoke & toxic gases from the flats being consumed by fire. This why working self closers are the most important issue in flat front doors (& why in some blocks older standard doors are acceptable as long as the closers are suitable). Common sense goes out of the window in a fire and if none of the 239 people in the Tower remembered to shut their door behind them when escaping you can bet no one in your block will. The common sense attitude only works until it doesn't - with a fire being a reason for it not working. RP is being lazy and the flats probably need Air Conditioning instead.

Flat internal doorways (other than toilet/bathroom) have to be fire doors (FD30 and in the old days FD20 when such doors existed) even as single private dwellings, they just do not need self closers. P50 extinguishers are not maintenance free, that's sales talk - they require annual maintenance, but rather than using an extinguisher service company the owner of the equipment can complete it themselves - https://www.britannia-fire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/How-to-maintain-the-P50-.pdf

You need to elevate this to a First Tier Tribunal as it sounds excessive and not justifiable. Your FRA and F Door Inspection seem to side with you as does the official Government Guidance. If this isn't enough to overturn the s20 replacement you may need a report detailing what compliant repairs in line with the FRA are viable, but this cost is dwarfed by the amount you will all have to pay. Leaseholders can and do win Fire Safety FTTs, I have been involved in these before, it's worth a try. The agent will benefit from a full replacement through the s20 management fee process so they are bound to prefer it- after all its not their money!

If it's provided in a premises to which the FSO applies the law clearly states in Article 17 it must be subject to a system of maintenance. If it doesn't apply because its now a private dwelling again it doesn't but from a liability point of view it might be wise to dump it other than the fire blanket