AnthonyB

Whilst the shutter is the more modern approach, there are plenty of existing premises where FD30 hatch doors are fitted, the 'keep fastened shut when not in use' approach is used.

Is your flat door not a fire door at all or just an older one? In smaller blocks a risk appropriate tiered approach to the minimum standard door is advised in government guidance - although a current standard FD30s doorset is of course the best protection.

But uncommissioned extinguishers are often incorrectly assembled, damaged and not serviced for over a year (no installation date) so it would be prudent to have them commissioned. The client is taking the full liability for failure to perform and having an adequate system of maintenance by not doing so.

Powder still has it's place, some examples: - Spill & running fuel fires, where foam can struggle - Large fires requiring rapid knockdown - Low temperature areas - Class C fires where there are specialist staff to safely extinguish the flame and manage the resulting explosion risk - Multi risk areas where the secondary damage & personnel risks have been assessed as tolerable. Due to low cost it's still the most common multipurpose extinguisher for the home, although ABF Foam & Water Mist would also suit. Quantities of foam & CO2 extinguishers are based on risk, fire rating & travel distances - in some cases you might have a fire point of 2 x foam and 1 x CO2 Extinguishers that have passed the 35kV test are suitable for direct use on electrical fires up to 1000V - it's a peculiarly British thing that they avoid pointing this out and prefer to sell a CO2 as well. AFFF is an Irritant in concentrate (certain special blends are corrosive), but not a toxin or carcongenic. It's harmful to the aquatic environment and older blends were worse for the environment generally. Water (or water and wetting agent) is the best Class A medium as it cools and soaks, however powder can be effective if the right type: - BC Powder, usually an alkaline bicarbonate based medium is very limited on Class A as there is no cooling or smothering effect, just chemical inhibition, making it ineffective on anything but the smallest surface fire - ABC Powder, usually an acidic ammonium based medium has a greater effectiveness on Class A fires as it fluxes when heated and sticks to burning embers having a smothering effect as well as inhibition. There is still a risk of re-ignition in deep seated fires

It's far more than you need, but if you want the extra protection then why not!

Looking at all the various questions on here for different premises it looks like you need to employ the services of an external competent person. Call centres usually have a higher density than offices and in older buildings, constructed based on office use and before call centres were a thing, will usually only have means of escape based on the lower office density and so a change of use results in overloading the capacity of the escape routes, both vertical & horizontal. I would first calculate the maximum capacity of your existing escape routes as this often is where the limiting factor comes in.

Foam extinguishers are suitable for Class A fires as predominantly water based and in the UK all carry a Class A rating (in some cases a very impressive one allowing an extinguisher to cover twice the floor area of a plain water jet extinguisher). Whilst the use of plain water spray is preferred for environmental reasons where there is no Class B risk a large number of extinguisher companies still install foam spray

You will also find most of those special user exemptions are now expired and the only remaining use of any note is on board aircraft and that expires soon so that no one will be allowed to use it. I suggest you also actually read the Equality Act.....?

Is the main hall provided with smoke ventilation?

The common areas should have emergency lighting, although if not fitted retrofitting would be considered a lesser priority in risk assessment guidance than matters related to fire doors and compartmentation.

The Housing Department are usually the lead enforcer in HMO's although both the Housing Act, HMO Regs & Fire Safety Order apply. Existing doors upgraded using third party accredited products in accordance with manufacturers instructions should give adequate performance such that you could provide a suitable case not to replace them. Enforcers can only suggest one solution and if you have a different one that achieves a similar level of safety they are meant to accept this (& appeals and determination processes exist to support this)

Ideally - too many internet bought extinguishers are damaged in transit, lost pressure or incorrectly assembled by the user. Some construction companies use the P50 range in cabinets and reuse them from site to site as they can complete the maintenance themselves.

If those are compartment walls (as they could be) you would expect a self closer.

Without seeing the layout of the building I can't be certain

Building Control will often insist on the cut off, if the exposed surface area of the frying risk exceeds 0.4sq.m. there should be fixed suppression. You don't need the AFFF, over complicates things - the Wet Chemical will cover Class A & F (and increasingly often B as well) and the CO2 the electrical

No

Usually not if to open air unless an extenal stair or similar escape passes close by (or the door is onto it on any other than the top floor)

If it is a door to the outside it doesn't automatically need one, if it's between two internal areas it is more likely to need one - generally of part of a protected route or a compartment wall

A lot of these developments are deliberately put forwards as the same as a block of purpose built flats for planning and building regulation purposes rather than commercial sleeping risk - treated as a dwelling they wouldn't need closers to bedrooms and only FD20 doors which is often achieved by using a FD30 blank but not adding strips. Makes the build cheaper & more flexible.

Sounds like it would be good in my Museum, although if a Britannia extinguisher it's probably still fit for use (Unless it's a small one with a plastic valve) even though 99% of service firms will just replace new. If it's a HMO or holiday accommodation then Article 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order required suitable maintenance, if rented under a tenancy the Housing Act applies, also a HMO is covered by its own legislation in addition, usually as part of licensing.

Depending on how you interpret Section 3.5 & Table 3 of Approved Document B you could come to that conclusion, likewise you could come to 120 as well

It's possible depending on the level of fire resistance required. This product selector will help you determine the required type & thickness of board and type of supporting system for the FR you require: https://www.british-gypsum.com/white-book-system-selector

The s suffix designates a fire door requiring a cold smoke seal (brush or fin), usually where escape routes need protecting. Both doors will seal in their frame after exposure to high temperature as the intumescent seal expands, but the door without a smoke seal will let cool smoke through for a period until the room reaches sufficient temperature to activate the intumescent.

You need to ask this on firealarmengineers.com/forum Because of how a twin wire or sav wire system works (voltage drop or polarity reversal depending on type) traditional zone monitors and sounder driver units generally wouldn't work. Interfacing the panels (presumably the current set up) or making the twin wire zones addressable spurs by putting new devices on and using isolators at the relevant points are what you often see. You would have thought someone would make suitable off the shelf products for monitoring twin wire zones.

For a very long time BS5839-1, the standard for fire alarm systems, has required 2 sounder circuits on fire alarm systems. Whilst a BS is not law, it is generally used as a benchmark for legal compliance and if you wish to vary from it (which you can legitimately do in some circumstances) you have to justify why the departure still provides an adequate level of safety. With one circuit there is a risk that if something goes wrong with it then you will have no warning at all of a fire - with a second circuit at least you will get partial warning.