AnthonyB

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, possibly articles 14 & 17

If you only really had one tenable exit the capacity shouldn't really exceed 60 persons. Also if the third door is signed as a fire exit it shouldn't be key locked even if the occupancy doesn't require it as people may just see the sign, go to it, find it locked and then the risk of crushing and panic increases

If it's correctly built to Building Regulations (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf) then it will not have a common fire alarm, only automatic opening vents to the stair and some or all (depending) of the corridor is required. Also if the premises are built to Building Regulations the fire would not have entered the flats. All a common alarm would have done is brought you out of your flat into the burning smoke logged corridor where you could have died (& others have in similar circumstances where there was an alarm and an arson attack in the common space) when actually the safest place to be was in the flat behind a 60 minute fire resistant wall and two 30 minute fire doors. If the premises are so concerning you should contact the Technical Fire Safety/Fire Safety Enforcement office of your Fire & Rescue Service (usually listed under the Business Fire Safety section of their website as it's commercial premises legislation that covers the common parts of flats) who will then audit the premises and can take action as required. Emergency lighting is intended for power failure, your normal lighting would be better & brighter if not affected by fire

It's been every 10 years since BS5306-3:2000 and the brief requirement for 5 year extended service on CO2 brought in the 2000 edition was repealed in the 2003 edition. Since then we've had 2009 & 2017 editions, the latter being current. The traditional regime in the 20th Century was 10 years from new unless there was a full service history in which case the test could be delayed until 20 years from new, unless the extinguisher was discharged between 10 & 20 years in which case it had to be tested before recharge. After the first retest the second was a fixed 10 years then the third and any subsequent tests were at a fixed 5 year interval.

It would form part of weekly means of escape walkarounds, there isn't actually much to check on a Redlam or Cooper Bolt, just signage, hammer presence and if the glass tube or Ceramtube is intact and not replaced by a bit of wood. As with any final exit the mechanism should be checked for free movement by removing the tube to see if the bolt springs back and the door opens easily (e.g. not swollen). They are unlikely to be mentioned in any British Standard as they are 1960's technology and are usually a legacy item in existing buildings rather than something newly installed. BS9999 does detail that "all escape routes should be inspected frequently and, in respect of buildings open to the public, on each occasion prior to the admittance of the public. " but does not define frequent. It has been tradition for formal means of escape inspections to be no less than weekly, but as always exact frequencies is down to risk assessment and mitigation as to why it doesn't follow traditional benchmarks but is still suitable and sufficient.

BS9999:2017 gives a useful PPM regime for most fire protection systems in a building - saves looking at loads of individual standards. Usually AOV's are tested for operation weekly and a full service of batteries, motors, chains, etc annually.

In the UK generally never, this practice dates back to cartridge extinguishers where compaction was more common. Stored pressure powders keep the powder in a fluidised state so there is generally little compaction although it's not unheard of. There would be manual handling issues with turning larger extinguishers (9kg+) upside down and care would need to be taken.

One of the main reasons for testing the alarm is to check the control panel can correctly receive and process a signal from the field devices, the recognition of the alarm sound and noticing defective sounders are others. Proper testing should ensure the alarm only sounds for a few seconds and proper staff training should ensure they know if the alarm sounds for more than a few seconds on test day to evacuate.

I'd be loathe to reduce the existing cover as it's handy to have - power failures or the consumer unit tripping (say if a bulb blows) are more common than fires so extra EL is always handy. I'd try to dim the LED in some way. If they are illuminated emergency exit signs in the bedrooms not emergency light fittings I may be tempted to remove those if I can't dim the glow enough

The law requires merely competence. Using accredited providers are an easy way of showing this but not the only way. Envirograf make a lot of retro fit strips and seals for existing notional fire doors that have test certification and can provide advice and fitting instructions. Whether your freeholder would accept this is another matter and you may need to take legal advice on their rights under the lease to require so specific an installer requirement. Unless the doorset is suitable for simple products such as the adhesive seals and so work cutting out of the door or frame may be required I'd consider it preferable to use a specialist - this could be the accredited providers (preferred) or a contractor who can prove competence (some may have recognised training in fire door work but not gone to the expense of being in a formal accreditation scheme)

Very little is set in stone and ultimately the courts would decide in individual cases. The prosecution would reference the benchmarks in BS5839 and in defence you would have to justify why an alternative approach is still safe. Sainsbury only test fire alarms monthly - but to justify this they went through years of detailed weekly test records, fault reports and engineer service visits for their stores and were able to demonstrate that the majority of fire alarm faults were discovered and escalated after either the daily visual check of the panel by the store duty manager or the 3/6 monthly service engineer visit as oppose to the weekly test. This is an example of how you can use the flexibility of the current legislative approach - but you can't just pluck a different regime out of thin air, it must be justifiable.

The lighting will come on upon power failure not alarm activation. You don't normally have to put emergency lighting in bedrooms, obviously someone has applied the recommendations prescriptively even though there is flexibility with mitigation. These doors are unlikely to even need to be designated fire exits based on the size and layout of the premises so wouldn't need the lighting at all. A fire risk assessment could look at the situation and decide if they need to be actually retained. The green light is to show that the fitting is receiving mains power and charging (but does not guarantee it will work hence the maintenance regime for the lighting). As long as you aren't obstructing the light output of the unit I can't see any reason why dimming the green LED would be an issue.

Normally in a stay put building there shouldn't be any alarms except in the flats for the flat occupiers protection, this is the problem with halfway house systems that are insufficient for full evacuate and confusing for stay put. Large scale evacuation is still rare in correctly built stay put premises so most of the time there is no need to know if something is happening as the safer place is to stay in the flat and not be nosy (people have died because of this). If the policy is to alert all residents then the alarm system should support this which to be done properly would include use of voice sounders to differentiate between alert and evacuate, but 99% of the time the cheapest option is used that can lead to confusion.

The testing requirements for a domestic grade system are in BS5839-6 which requires weekly testing of devices regardless of the grade. Think about it - sleeping risk is high risk and most fire deaths are in the home - why on earth would it be acceptable to have a lower maintenance standard than in lower risk commercial premises? If it actually needs the alarm it should be maintained appropriately.

No. Most care homes operate progressive evacuation which is almost wholly staff led due to the physical and cognitive issues with residents and it's deemed detrimental to subject them to the high noise levels normally used in standard sleeping accommodation where guests would need to rouse and self evacuate, especially as many will remain in their rooms for some time exposed to the alarm. As a result there is no need for bedroom sounders (except perhaps in guest and staff bedrooms) and indeed the audibility in service users bedrooms shouldn't/needn't exceed 45dB, the British Standard explicitly states this. Whoever told you this needs to reeducate themselves and I hope they aren't involved in risk assessments in these premises!

Depending on the age of the maisonette the closers may date back to the original build as it used to be a requirement to have them but was dropped as they were often removed or the door propped. A propped self closing door is likely to be always left open, a non self closing door has a better chance of being shut at night.

Answered you on Firenet!

I assume you mean doors normally held open by an approved automatic release device and not just hooked or wedged open. Tradition under old legislation was to require them to be shut at night in hotels and boarding houses, but as Tom says it's no longer explicit under the current regime, but still worth doing

There is no fixed definition, there is some basic pointers to help you decide in here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11085/payingguests.pdf If you feel you are bigger than the property types detailed in the above you need to use this guidance: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422192/9281_Sleeping_Accomodation_v2.pdf

Most cheaper off the shelf FR foams are not tested for use in frames regardless of the claims on product literature, loads of places have had to rip this out and start again or if lucky been able to trim it down and suitable mastic or plaster over it. Search for Blue 60 a foam specifically intended to serve your purpose

The first two were clearly out of their depth, the third was nearest to what the current benchmarks state - it would be correct in a post 2000 building regulation compliant stay put premises to not have a fire alarm system or domestic detectors and just have smoke detectors to operate the AOV's. Deaths have occurred in stay put flats where common area only detection with alarms (which would only activate if there was a fire in the common areas, an unusual occurrence and often associated with arson or charging mobility scooters) has brought people out of the 1 hour safety of their flat into a fire and smoke filled landing. It's therefore correct to suggest the erroneously installed smoke alarms be removed (or at least it be clear in the procedure given to tenants that hearing a common alarm may mean there is danger so take care if investigating and staying put may be safer) . As long as the fire service can access the AOV manual controls (which they can from your info) then your solution to a building specific issue should have been accepted and rubber stamped by the FRA. Too many under trained persons doing residential FRAs using the wrong guidance and ticksheets or point and click mobile report apps unfortunately.

It would probably be looked at as a civil matter for the private landowner to enforce through parking charge notices and physical means to stop obstruction such as steel or concrete bollards on the pavement

See reply in identical thread in this section

It should be unlocked at all material times, i.e. when it may be necessary to be used. If the use of a route is legally binding through an easement, deed of variation, license etc then you will have to honour this. Some of these agreements expire on change of occupancy or have a break clause, sometimes there is no agreement in place, in which case you could in theory give fair notice that they cannot use this route. It's not a perfect route involving windows and ideally should be risk assessed out if possible, however in some older city centre areas found in places like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc they are the only way of providing a secondary escape.

Smoke detectors of the type you describe are for domestic use not commercial premises. Fire alarm system design in all commercial premises starts with what is called Category M coverage, which is 'break glass' Manual Call Points and alarm sounders all connected to a fire alarm control panel, the system complying with BS5839-1:2017 Most shops,offices, etc only require this and no automatic detection. This is because in many cases a person will discover a fire and react quicker than a detector and thus needs some way of raising & spreading the alarm. Automatic detection is only required where the life safety risk warrants it - a common example is where there is a sleeping risk. If you want detection for property protection (i.e. out of hours) then that's up to you but it's not a legal requirements and again domestic detectors are not adequate, you should have a commercial system that is remotely monitored or dials preprogrammed numbers so there will be a response. A small shop may not even need an electrical fire alarm system is small enough for a shout of fire or a hand bell/whistle/air horn sounding to be clearly and quickly heard throughout the premises. Your Fire Risk Assessment should decide your requirements and a specialist fire alarm company (as oppose to a general electrician who may put the wrong equipment in) can also advise.