AnthonyB

As a joint freeholder I would suspect you are liable for your share of costs - the applicability of the Fire Safety Order to your flat isn't the issue, it's more a property law issue vis a vis the liabilities as a joint freeholder - the freeholder is responsible for the managmeent of the communal space and associated costs be it fire safety or any more general maintenance and as you are one of them (& possibly as a result a director of the TMC if there is one??) you could be liable for your share of the cost.

No internal communal space by the sounds of it so no.

A lot of lazy or under-trained fire risk assessors will just take a yes/no approach to if there is a fire alarm system, despite the mere presence of one not ensuring it is suitable or sufficient. If the layout of a system meets a category it should be described as such, however some existing systems expanded piecemeal over the years don't meet any (although many fall in between two categories a common one being L4 plus specified additional detector heads) in which case guessing or pushing it into a category is wrong and a simple summary of areas covered is more appropriate. Plenty of guidance out there on minimum categories for various types of premises, BS5839-1 itself gives a good summary, it's often less than people expect with many places still only requiring manual call points

Unless it is so small a shout, hand bell or similar can be heard clearly throughout the premises it should have an electrical manual fire alarm system of 'break glass' manual call points and alarm sounders.This has been a requirement of schools design for over 60 years. Schools used only during the school day and not for extra curricular uses and that aren't of the CLASP construction (a cheap modular construction type popular for local authority buildings in the 50's - 70's that allows for rapid fire spread through voids) don't usually require much if any detection but must have the call points. Usually the fire alarm and class change bell system were combined. Ask to see the Fire Risk Assessment for the school and how it gets around the question of adequate means of fire detection & warning

This is the guide that you should use to determine what you need https://www.rla.org.uk/docs/LACORSFSguideApril62009.PDF

Can't see why doing that would be a problem.

Not necessarily, they should be marked 'fire door keep locked shut' and of course locked. Cupboards don't always need a closer.

If you've underdrawn the stair but not enclosed the area it's almost pointless as fire effluent and heat can still render the escape route untenable quickly, way before the burning of the stair would be an issue. Quite a proportion of house fires, including fatal fires, start in white goods like these so it's no surprise they are taking the approach they are.

No you should clear the exits!

All in here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422175/9449_Offices_and_Shops_v2.pdf

There is no statutory bar unlike with the old Fire Precautions Act - if the risk requires modernisation of precautions so adequately control it so be it (conversely if the old standard of precautions can be demonstrated to still give tolerable protection then it needn't automatically be modernised). British Standards are not law, in theory (& practice) you can deviate but you fully accept the onus for demonstrating why it doesn't compromise safety.

Life or property? Water mist has the advantages of easier to meet water supply requirements than traditional sprinklers - where are you putting the tanks for a traditional system? It seems it's preferred in the hotel sector too: http://www.watermist.com/en/case-studies/hotels-dorsett-regency/

Both BB7 the old design guide for fire safety in schools & BB100 the current guide take a different approach to fire doors than you would see in other types of building. Classrooms off a corridor that isn't a dead end don't require to be fire doors (unless an area of high risk like some labs) - so whilst they often still install fire door blanks with vision panels anyway they don't require self closers.

As a 'protected stair' it won't be blocked by a fire whilst people are in the building as if the fire is on one of the floors the doors and structure will hold back the fire and smoke for up to 30 minutes, plus also as a protected stair it is required to be free from combustibles and ignition sources so a fire doesn't ever start in it - this is why smaller buildings can still be built with just one stair.

Don't use intumescent foam unless specifically for door frame sealing (like Blue60) . One of the biggest fire safety issues is the misuse of the cheap fire rated foam outside of it's limited test scope and hundreds of thousands of pounds is spent each year having to remediate incorrect use. LACORS is guidance, but also a benchmark for enforcers and courts, and whilst you can depart from it you would have to justify why it still provides an adequate level of safety (which can be done just as with other fire safety guidance, but on a case by case basis). If the HO won't listen you can make an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if a Notice has been issued for the works. If you are putting in a new door LABC guidance would look to new doors and frames, even if FD20 was acceptable (which is usually for single dwellings), there is scope for upgrading of the existing doors and frames, but again usually only where FD20 is acceptable (or in heritage premises)

5 years according to the sole manufacturer http://kerrfire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/6786-Kerr-Fire-MONNEX-Datasheet.pdf

As long as it has a simple fastening not requiring a key or code and opens in the direction of escape (ideally) it's not necessarily prohibited. I'd check to see what consent they need to build on a shared courtyard - who owns it, what rights are in leases, etc.

Building control bodies have a chequered history of relaxing and overlooking things without suitable mitigation - just because they didn't object doesn't mean it's correct. I'd go off the FRA as that would be the most recent look at the building and that assessor would carry the can if wrong not the AI/BCO. Stick to the guidance in your observations - if they choose not to implement them that's on their head not yours.

You only usually need an alarm system if the premises conversion doesn't meet the stay put construction requirements - which is usually the case in house conversions. In which case you would usually need full coverage

Depends when they were fitted, when intumescent seals first started to widely appear in the 80's they replaced rebate only doors but smoke brushes weren'r widely used, it's not uncommon to find original build doors from that era that would today require smoke seals only having intumescent.

A 3 hour fitting has to be tested to and meet it's full rated duration. If it's lasted less than that it fails, you replace it. Fittings aren't that expensive these days, e.g. https://www.safelincs.co.uk/eden-led-emergency-bulkhead-light/ The relevant standard BS5266-1 requires sleeping accommodation to have fittings with a three hour duration.

Loads on eBay, plus I often have loads pulled off sites. They are popular with people with tropical fish tanks too as they use them for the plants or something (not my thing). The empty cylinders have a trade scrap value of a few quid as they can be pressure tested and refilled.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

Never assume an old in situ door complied with the regulations of the day, the old fire door standard would not have usually had large gaps, there was no such thing as intumescent seals and a tight fit in a rebate was essential. If you have excessive gaps then the door will not perform, there will (depending on the door location & what it's protecting) be a risk of serious harm and an offence may have been committed - waiting up to 4 years does not sound proportionate, plus if you are having a competent person inspect your fire doors they will tell you if it needs replacing as oppose to waiting for the risk assessor (who may not be a competent person for fire door inspection). Advice sources: https://firedoors.bwf.org.uk/ & https://www.asdma.com/ Look here to see the reality about non conforming fire door installations:

All the different guidance in Scotland for sleeping premises has been revised and consolidated into one document: https://www.gov.scot/publications/practical-fire-safety-guidance-existing-premises-sleeping-accommodation/ From your description the section for smaller guest houses will probably apply: https://www.gov.scot/publications/practical-fire-safety-guidance-existing-premises-sleeping-accommodation/pages/12/