AnthonyB

6 monthly test hasn't existed since 2004 and just wears out the battery packs sooner, it's only used by those who are out of date or after a quick buck!

Depends on the existing doors specification and the size and layout of the block of flats - based on this the guidance risk assessors and enforcers should follow will state if: - Existing contemporary doors in good order can remain - Existing contemporary doors in good order can remain, but with upgrade (such as new door closers and the addition of intumescent strips and cold smoke seals) - Complete new FD30S doorset required Unless the latter is required door replacement is optional, however if it is flat owners have to comply or they can be compelled under the Housing Act (easier to use tool than the Fire Safety Order) to do so. Link to guidance: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/fire-safety-purpose-built-04b.pdf

Don't bother with powder extinguishers, it's dangerous for non specialists to tackle a gas fire by means other than cutting off the gas supply, just stick a CO2 in for the electrical gear.

It is possible to have managed use of the areas, but most flats follow the zero tolerance approach which is easier to police and so there should be nothing there. There are also possible H&S and liability issues too if stuff on a hand rail or shoes in the way causes a fall.

Do you not have access to a competent advisor? That's a massive undertaking without having been told what, where and how to do it. The risk is in the flats and sprinkler provision is to each flat in order to protect the common areas, adjoining flats & to some extent the occupants. Each flat usually has a system installed to BS 9251: 2005 – Sprinkler Systems for Residential and Domestic Occupancies, although this standard covers up to 20m fire engineers can usually mitigate use at higher heights and common supply sprinkler booster pumps are often installed to support this. For retrofitting a lot of mist based systems are available that are cheap,easy to install, have less issues with water supplies and the need for booster pumps and are still BS compliant Common circulation areas don't need cover, it's not uncommon to cover certain ancillary accommodation like bin stores though.

The last management company that forced new doors on residents and expected them to pay the bill when they weren't needed nor in poor repair lost at tribunal and had the foot the not unsubstantial bill themselves. Sounds like the management company has had poor advice, the FRA should have been more specific as to whether new or upgraded doors would suffice and why in relation to the tables in the LGA Guide and the risk.

Sounds like it's OK as travel distances in a single direction to a protected stair are adequate, assuming that you won't have more than 60 persons. In any case this should go past Building Control so they will no doubt have input.

No, they are private dwellings, some brigades have tried to enforce this on landlords, but as the expert testimony on the legislative regime at the Grenfell inquest points out this is not actually enforceable. Would the residents want to have to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds a year in service charge so the freeholder could employ people to be on site doing nothing except waiting for a fire so they can implement the PEEPs? The private individual retains some responsibility for their own safety, if they become so infirm that they cannot safely evacuate then they should assess where they live, it's unrealistic to expect freeholders to be responsible. That's why we have sheltered housing, care homes, bungalows, ground floor flats, etc

If they are built in 1989 and the original doors they are likely to be to FD30 standard and may even have intumescent seals. Also current Government guidance doesn't require retrospective replacement across the board, there are circumstances where no change is needed, or where upgrading existing will suffice. You should have a specialist inspect the door and also ask for the FRA that said it was required

As a minimum you would expect to see them to protect the stairway. Many halls fell outside fire safety legislation other than some minor conditions for the main hall if licensed for dance etc, so many are having to catch up on 60 years of legislation now coming under the Fire Safety Order. A Fire Risk Assessment is needed to determine requirements such as fire doors, escape routes, fire alarms, etc, etc as there may be several issues requiring attention.

Your interpretation matches that of the LACORS guidance for HMOs and flats from converted houses and would be what I would expect to see, a mixed system

They are not allowed to be kept open at any time unless fitted with a device that will release them to close upon the sounding of the fire alarm - if they are then depending on the category of hold open device and the risk assessment, then they might be left open at night although traditionally automatic fire doors used to have to be closed at night.

No, as Building Regulations is quite clear that you can build risers as a protected shaft without floor separation. It's a horrendously expensive thing to retrofit if done properly and so isn't a simple nice to have so if it isn't needed, don't do it! Some FRS forget it's not fire certification anymore and they can't ask for anything specific anymore. They can highlight they believe there is a breach of one of the articles of the Fire Safety Order and require that it be resolved (or otherwise disproven) either by formal or informal means and if necessary prosecute if there remains a risk to relevant persons due to inaction or unsatisfactory action by the RP but that is all. They can of course suggest a possible solution (they do not have to though and I've seen some enforcement notices that don't) but it is not binding - the RP can propose a different solution or why they believe no action is necessary and if it's reasonable the fire service have to accept it or the case can go to determination or court.

A typical example is here: https://www.mjnsafetysigns.com/products/hotel-guest-house-fire-action In addition a floor plan is often incorporated showing the exit routes.

If it's a care home you don't have them set to all release like that as the risk from resident's absconding, particularly in dementia care, is far higher than in fire. As you are using staff to evacuate the compartment of origin they would use the local overrides at each door, leaving the compartments not in fire secure (important as all the staff are busy in the compartment on fire or at the control panel awaiting the fire service). There would be a manual override that would release all the doors at the fire panel as a back up, but properly managed progressive evacuation rarely needs it. You should seek advice from a third party certified fire risk assessor with decent care home experience who can give advice specific to your situation and importantly put it in your risk assessment.

IFE branches often arrange days, nonmembers can go but pay more. Colt do lots of smoke control webinars, fire alarm equipment manufacturers do cpd days too

Not much of an expert...... Photoluminescent signage cannot compensate for lighting unless it's a full BS5266-6:1999 compliant low mounted way guidance system such as the below: 0 which ensures the safe route is illuminated. You need a good continuous supply of light (usually white light fluorescent or LED as oppose to natural light) to 'charge' the photoluminescent material so it will glow at the required lighting level for the required duration on light failiure EL provision is risk assessment based as acknowledged in the current BS5266-1 and so an FRA could require more cover or even less. It's OK to use borrowed or natural light but you must bear in mind that natural light is strongly susceptible to the time of year, time of day and even the weather and you need to account for all times relevant persons may be expected to be on site and the possible risks. Don't forget that EL isn't just a fire safety thing, but a general H&S one - it's a far more common occurrence for circuit and power failure when there isn't a fire - hence why many older existing premises are gradually upping their EL cover

If you look in Building Regulations it's perfectly acceptable to have a protected shaft and not go to the hassle and expense of stopping at each floor as long as the lift shafts have been correctly sealed. The work should have been notified to Building Control so if they are happy with only horizontal sealing then that should be fine (they won't be reliably certifying that the actual sealing work is done properly though so I'd check the method of sealing and any bits missed)

The equipment is identical, the main differences are the design criteria: - Audibility: Different requirements, e.g. Part 1 requires 75dB at the bed head of a bedroom, Part 6 only requires 85dB at the open bedroom door - Warning for the hearing impaired: Again different requirements, more detailed and stricter in part 1 - Manual Call points: Differing requirements for call point location, not always required and different location requirements in Part 6 - Capacity of standby batteries: Generally greater for Part 6 systems (72 hours instead of 24 hours) - Radio linked systems: Different requirements (largely similar though)

Unfortunately it's all guidance at the end of the day, and despite the fact there should be a consistent approach different Local Authorities have different interpretations (some out of date or plain wrong, others sensible and balanced) perhaps you should see what the EHO's in your area would be looking for.

Not expanding foam (even fire rated)! Envirograf have lots of products for uprating existing installations.

Yes it is technically an HMO if converted, or purpose built up to 2 flats, but not under mandatory licensing unless it meets the 5 persons, 2 households threshold (number of floors is irrelevant as that's gone in England), there may be additional or selective licensing requirements dependant on Council.

Meaning of the plug: https://www.firesafe.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/docs/bwfcolcod.pdf

Not necessarily (Your FRA should determine this) Many smaller fish & chip shops have such short travel distances there is no need for fire separation for life safety/compliance purposes and often have open doorways between the two areas. The only complication with these premises is if there is upstairs living accommodation accessed from inside the shop.

Many of the professional plan providers use CAD as there are existing libraries of fire protection related symbols to use with them.