AnthonyB

It's a perfect (& common) example as to why the Building Control process is rotten. If it's OK on the proposals & draft plans it'll do them. They will claim they don't have the time to do a proper snagging exercise nor is it their problem. That's why some completion certificates have small print disclaimers.

Just because it isn't a requirement of guidance doesn't mean it's not a good idea (it could be a non statutory provision for property/asset protection), however you are right, unless opening onto a protected route, dead end or enclosing an area of special fire risk or some other specified area (gym storerooms in schools being one) it generally isn't a requirement, but often gets provided. At the end of the day it's the risk assessment and whether you are sticking to life or life and property that determines the approach. If I found a store room with a propped door or disconnected closer that wasn't in a location where for life safety it would be expected to be a fire door I might mention in passing that even where not required to be a fire door it is still good sense to try and keep it shut to prevent loss, but wouldn't flag it as a breach.

As you didn't change it yourself it could be argued that you aren't obliged to change it - however any decent survey by a purchaser is likely to pick it up so you would either need to reduce the price, get it done or, if they suspect any work has been done without Building Regulations consent ask for you to pay for building regulation indemnity insurance or latent defect insurance. Of course they may not notice at all!

Any residential smoke control should follow these principles http://www.smoke-vent.co.uk/documents/SCA Guidance notes rev 3 (Jan 2020).pdf

If it's been imported direct from outside the UK and not via a UK sales entity it neatly sidesteps the very old pre-internet domestic furniture safety regulations. Therefore it doesn't need labels nor need meet any safety requirements and could be as dangerous as the pre-regs foam filled furniture of the 70's & early 80's On the other hand I don't know if Dubai has any furniture regulations - if they do it might be completely fine. Unless you can research the law there it is a bit of a gamble (a quick Google didn't reveal anything obvious)

Building Regulations only apply to new or altered buildings, so only flats & houses built after 1991 or older ones altered such that building regulations apply (a full rewire being the usual trigger in older dwellings) would be expected to have Grade D1/2 smoke & heat alarms. In older premises it was mostly voluntary until the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 came in - these do not specify a minimum grade of equipment so Grade F1/2 equipment (battery only) is still legal (To avoid the expense and disruption and encourage rapid compliance they chose this route) In Scotland things are far more strict, even in single private dwellings, although the compliance deadline has been extended due to COVID. It's different again in HMO's and shared houses....

If any of the firms/individuals were third party accredited or on a register then you have recourse to these bodies. If unregulated assessors were used you are a bit stuck.

The overboarding isn't on the risk side of the door so not as much of an issue as it could be - if a certified doorset however if may invalidate certification. We have a fire door specialist who supports the forum so you should get a better answer in due course.

More important than the manual controls are the Cause and Effects for the various vents - if they don't operate as indicated above there will be spread of fire between floors, will be serious property damage and potential for loss of life: https://www.ife.org.uk/Firefighter-Safety-Incidents/2016-regents-quay/39930 BS 7346 is the standard systems should be installed to and specific guidance to residential systems is here http://www.smoke-vent.co.uk/documents/SCA Guidance notes rev 3 (Jan 2020).pdf Smoke control systems are a specialist area and many electricians and fire alarm firms get involved with them despite not being fully aware of what is required and the advice of a smoke control specialist should be sorted.

If you are using a competent fire risk assessor with schools specialist experience they should answer this for you. The rather useless Government risk assessment guidance on it's own isn't sector specific enough and largely rehashes the content of the commercial offices and shops guidance and should be used with reference to the contemporary school fire safety design guidance called BB7 and current guidance called BB100. Very few doors in schools do need to be self closing or kept locked shut fire doors, usually cross corridor doors, stairs (if protected), those in dead ends, and to high risk areas such as science, food technology & design technology classrooms and associated stores/technicians rooms and electrical cupboards, boiler rooms, kitchens, kiln rooms, etc. The life safety risk in a normal school is usually quite low for during the school day, elevated slightly by extra curricular and third party usage and a sympathetic approach often being suitable. I can't give you a definite yes/no as I haven't done the FRA, but it's not an automatic yes (note that whilst life risk is low, property loss risk is high and you may choose to modernise beyond the legal minimum for this purpose)

Commercial or residential? Guidance for blocks of flats determining whether all new or upgraded/repaired doors are appropriate is here: https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/Business-safety/Premises-fire-safety/LGA-fire-safety-in-purpose-built-blocks-of-flats.pdf

Yes, the current risk assessment methodology (published by the British Standards Institute and known as PAS 79-1 & PAS79-2) requires a sensible and sympathetic approach to be taken to buildings with legacy fire safety features. Unlike Building Regulations and the old fire safety legislation there is no statutory bar anymore - in the past unless the premises was altered new standards couldn't be applied to existing buildings. However this led to many buildings in the 2000's being stuck with fire safety systems and standards from the 60's and 70's, some of which were still effective, but others proven to be dangerously outdated. The fire risk assessor should see initially if the premises complied first with legacy standards. If it doesn't action must be taken. If it does they are meant to compare the old standards with the new and determine the risks posed by this and if they are tolerable - if so they need not be modernised, if not then the current standard must be implemented. An extreme example is that when hotels first had to obtain a fire certificate they could do so without any automatic fire detection, just break glass call points and bells. If such a hotel certified in 1974 remained unchanged other than decor and so didn't need an amended fire certificate the fire service were powerless to make it fit detectors even though everyone would accept that smoke detectors in sleeping premises are essential for life safety - when the FSO came in this went out of the window and regardless of it's original compliance it would be expected to modernise. So in some types of buildings I'm happy with old fire door technology as long as maintained in good order, whilst in others I'll want upgrading (I am a practicing risk assessor on the Tiered Nationally Accredited Fire Risk Assessors Register) A decent risk assessor will have knowledge of the old as well as the new standards as well as the science and notable fire incidents that led to changed guidance (& why) and be able to apply them appropriately, however so many, especially with residential properties, don't have the knowledge and skills to do this appropriately. The guidance to be followed is here: https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/Business-safety/Premises-fire-safety/LGA-fire-safety-in-purpose-built-blocks-of-flats.pdf

See a property lawyer. It may be that the freeholder has the option of giving retrospective consent or making you restore the original configuration and that right usually is separate completely from whether the work is compliant or not.

Stair vent manual controls should ideally be at fire service access level (some lazy installers put it at the stair head) and lobby vent controls in each lobby. Sounds like the system is configured dangerously wrongly if all lobby vent doors open - I suggest you try the following: Quick guide to checking whether your smoke shaft system operates in this manner: Actuate a lobby or corridor detector; Check that the shaft AOV opens only on that floor and the damper at the top of the shaft (likewise the base of the shaft if provided); Without resetting the system proceed to another floor and repeat the test, nothing should happen i.e. no other AOV should open; Repeat as you feel necessary, to ensure have a good sample; Without resetting the system, find a manual override switch for another floor AOV (associated with the same shaft) and activate it, again nothing should happen; Have the system reset, any AOVs that opened should now close; Finally check all AOVs are close fitting and if they are fire door type, check the adequacy of the intumescent strips and smoke seals.

Depends on the building, the defects, the extent of the listing (in G2 it's often the building façade only) etc as to whether the existing doors can be accepted, upgraded/repaired or replaced.

It depends on the size and layout of the flats - if the assessor correctly applies the current accepted guidance then in many blocks existing notional doors are acceptable. A sample of doors should have been inspected as by the 1980's Intumescent strips were the norm - if not visible they could be the type of fire door where the strip is hidden behind the lipping (the door would have a marker plus to indicate this). If your block is quite large and through the guidance would require the upgrading of existing doors or the complete replacement of the door set then this normally falls down to the leaseholder - because of the risk to communal parts the freeholder is still responsible for getting the leaseholder to comply, in extreme cases the freeholder should seek enforcement through the Housing Act via the local authority. Currently the front doors are relevant to the common space and the freeholder's risk assessment even though control rests with the lease holder, but this isn't set clearly in the current legislation so the Fire Safety Bill seeks to be more explicit with two clauses that firstly make the freeholder responsible for assessing the doors in risk assessments (as well as all balconies and external structure) and secondly responsible for annual inspection of flat front doors. These clauses do not remove the current leaseholder's liability for effecting repairs & replacement; however a third addition that had been removed, but has been put back in by the House of Lords, that protects leaseholders from fire safety costs relating to the Bill (with the exception of where they also are part owners as is the case where Right to Manage has been effected and the freehold is owned and managed by the leaseholders via a TMC). The legislation is still in 'ping pong' between the Commons & Lords so there is still time for things being removed and added before enactment. Whether the leaseholder occupies the flat or lets it out is largely irrelevant to fire safety matters under the FSO and usually affects internal fire safety requirements under housing legislation.

There needs to be a 'competent person' nominated, but it doesn't have to be (& rarely is) a full time role, often added to existing roles - HR, Facilities Management, Health & Safety, etc

The law only requires someone to be 'competent'. Guidance recommends the use of qualified and ideally independently certified assessors for complex premises, but this isn't mandatory (although the law is likely to change later in the year for High Rise Residential Buildings making the use of certain professionals mandatory) The Fire & Rescue Service are the primary enforcer (with a few exceptions) of fire safety legislation and have a routine enforcement audit programme based on the risk category of premises, as well as reactive audit post fire or public complaint.

Unless your block doesn't meet the required fire safety standards for a stay put policy (i.e. built before the 60's or is a conversion before 1991 or has several critical defects) then there is no requirement for a communal fire alarm system for full evacuation which is when heat detectors and sounders off a communal system would be required inside each flat. If such a system is required it sounds like the leaseholders are being charged a proportion of the overall cost of the whole system rather than just the addition of points into their flat unless wire free equipment is being used. Your lease terms would dictate how the freeholder can act regarding costs, usually 2 or 3 quotes are required and certain service charge additions have to be approved by leaseholders - also as this is not repair the freeholder may not be able to go ahead like this - sometimes leaseholders have taken cases to tribunals regarding fire doors and similar fire precautions. This aspect is property law though and outside my speciality.

If the building is only that old it will have been built with the correct compartmentation so that the retail unit does not need to alert the flats who can safely stay put.

Depending on the type of system proposed you could have the main panel in the basement with a much more compact and discreet passive repeater panel that imply details the location of the fire/activation near the entrance. Eg - full size panel repeater panel (about 25% of the size)

You should find out what you need here: https://www.cieh.org/media/1244/guidance-on-fire-safety-provisions-for-certain-types-of-existing-housing.pdf

You can if you wish, you should have an on call keyholder as well if possible. Check your brigade's policy as some will not reset systems for premises any more.

I would say so, yes.