AnthonyB

Compartmentation survey by a specialist company - although some would be obvious and easy to check if the assessor actually tried to look.

Insurance is nothing to do with legal compliance, which often sets a lower bar. An insurer needs to protect their premiums received from claims so as to stay in business and make a profit. As such insurers will set higher requirements in order to prevent, contain and supress fire - which will include suppression systems in kitchens. As they are the ones taking the risk they are entitled to set whatever criteria they wish regardless of minimum legal requirements (which don't require them as a matter of course). The UK is notorious for low standards in many fire safety areas - if you were in the US all your clients cooking food would have had to have had suppression systems to meet the minimum legal requirements there for over half a century. There are multiple manufacturers of suppressions systems in a variety of designs for different sized kitchens - they should shop around rather than just be quoted for 'Ansul' systems, which are the most well known.

https://www.thefpa.co.uk/training/passive-fire-protection-training/understanding-fire-doors

You really need a copy of BS7273-4 or an industry guide to it - too much to post here!

It isn't contradictory and full complies with BS5499-4 Code of practice for escape route signing

Could the fire spread from the cupboard into the building and thus be a risk to people? If so no storage. If not then it's bad practice, may upset your insurers and could lead to further damage in the event of a fire but could arguably not be a breach of legislation. It's still preferable to keep it clear though.

As you have found out. If your procedure for ensuring doors are unlocked from the out of hours fastenings falls short you will be breaking the legislation, whilst it works you are fine.

1. Would the lock fail to safe and release the door if the cable is burnt through or otherwise affected by heat? If so, it doesn't have to fire resistant 2. No, this is the old method from the last century and is deprecated 3. You should have a copy of BS5839-1:2017 & BS 7273-4:2015+A1:2021 if doing this sort of work, these are the standards professionals should work to and are judged against in court - these would answer all your questions.

No. Calculations for horizontal evacuation are separate from those for vertical. Stage 1- assess escape from the room Stage 2- assess escape from the floor Stage 3- assess escape from the building All seperate

That's still a property dispute, the lease should determine the boundaries, and go from there.

Yes, but it must be the correct type for the premises. BS EN 14604: 2005 & BS 5446-2 smoke and heat alarms for a BS5839-6 alarm system for dwellings only EN54 smoke & heat detectors, call points, sounders and control panels for a BS5839-1 system for buildings other than dwellings.

Where the evacuation of a disabled person may slow evacuation such as to case a log jam, pushing, crushing, trips, etc it is accepted practice to refuge them in a temporary waiting space until the escape route is clear. This is however only usually applicable to buildings with stairs, not single storey halls. Fire safety in premises outside dwellings is dealt with by Business Fire Safety/Protection units within the fire service, any Community Fire Safety department isn't trained in this area hence not being able to instantly reply to you. Here is the current guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-risk-assessment-means-of-escape-for-disabled-people

No, your tenancy and the deeds to the property will determine ownership & control. Not a fire safety matter.

Assuming in England or Wales: Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Fire Safety Act 2021 Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 A fire risk assessment will be required for the common areas (including flat front doors and the external structure of the building) which will determine the general fire precautions required and point towards the appropriate evacuation policy. Specified fire safety information & procedures will have to be provided to residents. Depending on the height of the building various other explicit statutory requirements apply. Conversions can be tricky to correctly risk assess so care should be taken in choosing a risk assessor. Any flat that is rented out has it's own obligations for the landlord under the Housing Act and Smoke & Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations.

You could argue if the cupboard has a fire door fitted this protects the escape route from the electric meters and boxing in as well is unnecessary duplication. The boxing in is usually reserved for meters on corridors/hallways that aren't in a room.

Modric is a brand used by Allgood for their products in certain markets such as North America. The 9156A is OK for fire door use as detailed here: https://www.allgood.co.uk/product/9156a-allgood-hardware-swing-free-overhead-door-closer/

Yes they are. They date back to early forms of modern fire safety and building regulations, which when applied to existing buildings would require an additional escape route. Some buildings had the footprint to add external steel escapes - others in city centres terraced with adjoining buildings couldn't and so escapes across roofs and through party walls became a common solution. As these are escapes into adjoining fire compartments they comply (although if you were building the terrace of buildings today you wouldn't usually be permitted to do this) but you do then fall into civil law regarding right of access. Without an agreement in the form of an easement, deed of variation, means of escape license or similar one party can lawfully remove right of access and potentially physically remove it too. Even where such an arrangement exists they sometimes expire on change of owner (which one client fell victim to resulting in selling up rather than doing the work to provide new alternatives). If you get a decent fire risk assessor (not a tick box champion) they can measure travel distances, exit and stair widths, take occupancy figures and determine if you actually need these adjoining escapes anymore - sometimes I've been able to justify removal without the need to add new stair cores or anything dramatic. Note that in other cases this hasn't been possible without major works if at all so it isn't a given.

It's now BS7177:2008+A1:2011 BS 7177:2008 was a full revision of the standard, and introduced references to mattress pads and changes arising from revisions to related standards. References to legislation were also updated. The principal changes introduced by Amendment A1 are to the wording of the fabric specifications in Annexes A, B and C. These changes are to make the fabric specification identical to that stated in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 [3a]. The technical specification of the fabric, and the results of any ignitability tests in which the fabric is used, are not affected by the changes.

Not needed to be a fire door unless they have to pass directly past the door as their only means of escape.

No. Whilst in similar fields Health & Safety and Fire Safety are different and the syllabus of most H&S courses (including IOSH Managing Safely) would not be suffcient for them to understand their duties under fire safety legislation. This is a better starter course https://iosh.com/employees/awareness-courses/fire-safety-for-managers/

Domestic smoke detectors are not suitable for non domestic premises (other than some very limited situations in very small premises). The legal minimum standard of alarm is a manual alarm upon a person discovering a fire. In the smallest premises this can be the human voice, but where this cannot be immediately and clearly heard throughout the building an electrical system of manual call points and alarm sounders off a central panel is required. If required by layout and risk you would then layer categories of detector coverage (part of the main system, not separate) in addition as required. Your fire risk assessment will determine what you need - official guidance is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-your-premises-safe-from-fire https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-risk-assessment-offices-and-shops

It should be the other way around on a loop. Voice alarm systems should generally operate in the following repeating sequence (BS5839-8): Attention-drawing signal – lasting 2 s to 10 s followed by Brief silence – lasting 1 s to 2 s followed by Evacuate message followed by Silence – lasting 2 s to 5 s

The maintenance regime comes from the Facilities Management British Standard BS 8210:2012 for building fabric and equipment and is not specific to a particular elementso would be equally applicable to any stair. It says: "Frequency of inspection Inspections should be carried out as follows: a) routine: consultation with occupants and other users of the facility to determine the existence of any maintenance matters that might require action and, where such work has been undertaken, measurement of users’ satisfaction with the outcomes; b) general: visual inspections of the main elements carried out on an annual basis that informs an organization’s budgets for maintenance programmes and other maintenance; c) detailed: a full inspection at intervals of not more than five years. An inspection should be carried out by using a checklist made up of facility elements/sub-elements and arranged in way that supports safe working." In essence this is usually translated to annual formal visual inspection & 5 yearly detailed structural survey. Whilst the British Standard is not itself law, following it is a good way to demonstrate compliance with actual legislation, such as The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (as amended) and similar.

It's not set in stone but for current active records for fire safety related stuff the minimum would usually be the last full year of PPM plus the year that is being worked through the theory being that most PPM are no less than once a year so this would always capture the latest test. Other records need to go back longer, such as fixed wiring EICR as they are usually 3-10 years apart. Completely binning at 24 months may be extreme - it may be worth archiving stuff outside the current active cycle for a bit longer.

Cost is no justification if the level of risk involved is intolerable. There are however potentially other solutions that may enhance safety that are more achievable instead that can mitigate the original issue, depending on what it is. PVC windows are not a 1958 thing so someone may already have made matters worse than the original build in the past already so you can't use the 'original spec' reasoning. Current legislation removed the statutory bar that older legislation contained so just because something complied in the past doesn't mean it does now. The risk assessor should look at the legacy precautions, compare them to the current approach and then determine if the difference in protection between the two is such as to present an unacceptable risk. Some old approaches & technologies are indeed still acceptable, but others have been disproven over the years as dangerously ineffective compared with current knowledge. It is wrong to automatically expect a legacy building to have to fully meet the standard and specification of somewhere built today just as much as it is wrong to say just because it met spec originally (which could be 20, 40, 60 or more years ago) it's automatically OK now. I'd need to know a lot more before I can give you options, but they may be out there (there are however some issues for which there are none).