AnthonyB

Plenty of houses exist without back doors at all and only the front and are perfectly fine. The door configuration appears a poor design though. I'd check on the council planning web site to see if the extension passed Building Control.

The assessor is correct in principle, however it may be adequate instead to expand the existing system to provide the correct cover. Regardless of whether it's done by one system or two separate systems the minimum cover would be (as has been for decades including when this would have been fitted. - Common system has detection to common stairs and hallway of each flat - 85dB at the bedroom doors from a common sounder (usually this means a sounder in each flat but you could always do an audibility test from the existing sounder location to see how loud it is when the sound gets to the bedroom doors) - If the common detector in each flat hallway is a heat (usually is but not always) then each flat would need a standalone smoke alarm in the hall. I'd extend the existing system with a couple of detectors (& if needed sounders) to achieve the physical cover above, which should be cheaper than ripping it all out and starting again. Whilst it isn't then a mixed system it provides the required level of protection - the only difference being an increased false alarm risk due to the common system having smokes in the flats.

The current definition of small is: • single premises of ground floor, or ground and first floor, providing sleeping accommodation for a maximum of 10 persons, with no more than four bedrooms on the first floor, such as houses, cottages, and chalets • individual flats (whether within a purpose-built block of flats or a house that has been converted into flats), other than unsually large flats (e.g. as often found in mansion blocks in London) The extra floor would make the larger premises guidance an applicable benchmark.

There are a variety of potential risks - fire, shock, mould from the resultant damp, etc. You are getting the runaround - further guidance here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/repairs-in-rented-housing/

If your Fire Risk Assessment states a Category L1 fire alarm system is required then this is correct. The official government guidance (also referred to by Enforcers & Courts) points to care homes needing an L1 system if they are larger, particularly those accommodating more than ten residents above the ground floor, or where a significant proportion of the residents are dependant upon staff assistance to escape in the event of a fire. Other smaller lower risk homes can have an L2 system where there is more risk based flexibility as to the use of detection in certain rooms.

1. Yes - notwithstanding the fact they were already a requirement even back when the block was built, self closing flat front fire doors are a requirement now for all ages of block. The only difference is what standard of door is accepted based on age, number of storeys and layout of the block. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-your-small-block-of-flats-safe-from-fire https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-in-purpose-built-blocks-of-flats 2. No, but they have legal duties under the Housing Act (& several subsidiary regulations) regarding the minimum condition & fitness of rented properties which includes fire safety, whilst a bit dated (& under revision) the guidance used by Council EHO's is: http://www.cieh.org/library/Knowledge/Housing/National_fire_safety_guidance_08.pdf The common areas FRA should always have considered flat front doors and spread between flats, but was so ignored by freeholders and risk assessors further legislation and guidance was introduced in the last couple of years to leave no doubt as to the requirement.

If you need a shop link you will need a Grade A system. A wireless system may be an option as cheaper to install. For the size of building you shouldn't need a big expensive system, a simple conventional system would suit. Due to the owner occupancy you can't be required to licensed, but that's a separate issue (& legislation) to the actual practical fire safety issue. If your risk assessment would tolerate only Grade D equipment AND the enforcers would accept that (even tough it's against guidance) you would be fine, but it's not guaranteed.

Number of detectors has no connection with the required Grade of system. Where a Grade A system is required it essentially uses the same equipment as a commercial system to BS5839-1 with just some slight differences in system design The categories and types come from here The lay person gets understandably confused by referring to flats as HMO's. They are not HMO's in the traditionally recognised sense (House of bedsits or bedrooms with shared kitchen and living room) but are houses (or similar) converted to flats but not to the standard required by post 1992 Building Regulations. As a result these are high risk premises and where the flats are majority rented a Council can choose to license it under s257 of the Housing Act using the HMO licensing scheme. It's not mandatory licensing so not all Councils require s257 flat conversions to be licensed. From a Fire Safety Order point of view the risk is the same even if a flat conversion is majority or exclusively owner occupied (& thus not eligible for licensing under s247) so risk assessors and enforcers will apply the same fire safety requirements as set for those that do fall under the s257 system if it does not follow modern building regulations (& thus requires a full evacuation policy not stay put). Of course you imply you are in Scotland. If this is the case there are no modern fire safety regulations protecting flats and residential premises beyond the recent smoke alarm requirements as the Scottish equivalent of the Fire Safety Order specifically excludes these premises - you don't even need a FRA like you do in England & Wales. So in theory as long as you meet the basic smoke alarm regulations which you state you do you are fine whereas in England & Wales you would need further work.

Difficult to say without seeing it or the design fire strategy that should have been produced if it's a legal conversion. It doesn't sound right - you should ask for the Fire Risk Assessment - from October you have legal rights to receive far more detailed information than ever before on the property. If you are really worried the fire service are the enforcers you could ask them to check.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-your-small-block-of-flats-safe-from-fire gives a measured approach. If the only thing wrong with a doorset is it doesn't have a certiifcation plug or sticker then it's not always proportionate or necessary to replace.

What type is the existing system and where are the sounders and detectors fitted? How many floors is the property over? The assessment is saying the right sort of things, but without more info I can't say for sure if it's proportionate or not.

It's up to the lender. If they feel their investment is potentially at risk they will not lend for fear of not getting their money and interest back. Different lenders will have different approaches.

Contact Council Environmental Services regarding the garden (They do have powers over private gardens with regard to statutory nuisances) and Council Planning & Building Control over the garage

If it's an existing older house that hasn't undergone relevant building work where current standards would be applicable then no.

It is vague, but gives you an aspiration, I would suspect it would be interpreted similarly to 'best endeavours' in 11m+ buildings, that you should try to get round them all annually. Ultimately the Responsible Person has to decide how they want to approach this and take their chances!

Yes, s156 of the Building Safety Act requires the risks & protective measures detailed in the FRA to be made available to residents and for other information to be provided to and FRAs aligned with other Responsible Persons. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-section-156-of-the-building-safety-act-2022/fire-safety-responsibilities-under-section-156-of-the-building-safety-act-2022

As said, depends on numbers and types of person that could be using them.

In which case the painting is probably OK - https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/technical-blog/tech-update-painting-over-intumescent-strips As for flat internal doors it's been in Building Regulations for decades that they be fire doors (other than bathrooms/toilets, just that they need not (any more) be self closing.

Seems a bit OTT if it's integral staff accommodation and operating a simultaneous evacuation policy with a suitable alarm system. Such separation can't be retrospectively applied as it's not required in existing premises FRA guidance, nor would any sensible risk assessor require it in their FRA. Approved Document B is only for Building Regulations purposes so only kicks in for new builds or relevant 'building work' and would then bring in the 60 minute requirement as whilst it says "Compartmentation is not needed if one of the different purposes is ancillary to the other." it does say that if that ancillary use is a flat it must always be treated as a separate Purpose Group. ADB is not law, Building Regulations are and it is permitted to propose alternate solutions that would afford suitable safety such as BS9999 (which would allow 30 minutes where the floor of the upper storey is not over 5m) Sounds like you need to find a fire authority with experienced and enlightened staff & set up a Primary Authority arrangement with them!

The Guide linked to by Neil states: Six-monthly: • Check all fire doors, other than flat entrance doors, to ensure that they are undamaged and are effectively self-closing Annually: • Check all fire doors in the common areas to ensure that they remain in good condition and fit well in their frames • Ensure that self-closing devices fitted to flat entrance doors and doors in common areas remain in working order and close the doors effectively in their frames The guide has s50 status which means in respect of compliance with fire safety legislation: "1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)— (a)proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and (b)proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention." Which essentially means that it would be wise to follow the regime in the guide!

Are you in the UK? This is absolutely not a user replaceable part!

Is this a seal that includes a smoke brush or fin or just a flat seal?

Are these separate flats or sleeping accommodation ancillary to the pub for the manager or licensee? Makes a difference!

Technically one central test switch meets the relevant standard (BS5266-1) as all it says is: "8.3.3 Test facility Each emergency lighting system should have an appropriate means for simulating failure of the normal supply for test purposes (e.g. manual isolatingbdevice or automatic testing). The test facility should be able to be used for both monthly short tests and annual full duration tests. The test facility should be protected from unauthorized operation. The test device should not interrupt power to any other electrical equipment that could cause a hazard." However for convenience and to avoid the monthly function test duration going on too long (with consequential longer recharge times and greater risk of battery damage) it's common in better installations to have multiple test points, sometimes one for each floor, sometimes one for each room & section of corridor!

No, it's been a key principle in guidance since 2011 that the self closers are fitted. Many deaths at Grenfell were attributed to missing or non working self closers allowing the internal escape stair (not directly affected by the cladding) to become impassable as it quickly filled with smoke from all the open doors. The guidance when it comes to residential is increasingly more than just a suggestion as it now has special legal status: (1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)— (a)proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and (b)proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. If you don't follow the guide you have proven your guilt! The guidance is quite generous in smaller blocks allowing older fire doors to be retained but will not move on self closers - too many deaths associated with open doors (even before Grenfell) There are lots of options to make a self closer less burdensome - delayed action closers, swing free closers, etc