AnthonyB

Is this on an ancillary accommodation level along with other plant, store rooms, staff rooms, etc or on a floor with bedrooms? This would influence whether you need to both upgrade the original notional fire door and add detection, although being on an escape route and in sleeping risk premises there is a leaning towards doing both.

They could have installed this manufacturers detectors with a 10 year rechargable lithium batteries. You've checked the circuit breaker for these in your consumer unit? Sound like they have been running on battery only recently

Usually the leaseholder, but you need to check your actual lease. Where a leaseholder refuses to act then the local authority can take legal action against them under the Housing Act 2004. If the door is an original fire door (not current spec) and still in good repair then depending on the size of block and risk it may only require a modern self closer - one group of tenants were able to win a civil case against the freeholder who replaced all the doors with current FD30S doors beyond the terms of the lease - the original doors were not properly checked, were actually still in original good repair and didn't need a full immediate upgrade for the type of block.

Or worse an electromechanical lock which would not be permitted on escape routes where it relies on the release of the electrical keep as they are known to jam under pressure. They are only suitable where from the inside the latch can be withdrawn without the keep release by the form of mechanical means such as a thumb turn.

Simultaneous evacuation is a last resort in purpose built housing and is only to be used where a building has insufficient compartmentation to support stay put and it is not viable to upgrade it.. For evacuation the common fire alarm system must extend into the flats with a minimum of a heat detector to the hallway with an alarm sounder so that the fire is discovered before it breaks into the common areas preventing escape and so that 85dB sound pressure is present outside the bedroom door so as to wake sleeping occupiers. In very poorly constructed premises the system would need to be even more comprehensive. Your premises sounds like it was built for stay put but you've had an unnecessary alarm system stuck in - I would ask to see the Fire Risk Assessment for the block.

A Grade D system has no maintenance regime beyond weekly testing and following manufacturer's instructions (which is usually 6 monthly vacuuming) so it's impossible to certify - the council housing officers need to brush up on the contents of BS5839-6.

If it's a purpose built block of flats built after 1962 and the compartmentation is still OK then a communal alarm is not usually required and can be counterproductive. If the premises have a automatic smoke control system (vents, shafts, etc) then you will need to keep the system to operate these (unless the smoke vents have their own detectors) but can remove call points and sounders. If the premises are a conversion or in poor condition some form of site wide system may be required. A competent Fire Risk Assessment should determine if you can remove the system, I've allowed this in several sites in my FRA

Is this a HMO, converted house or purpose built flats? First question would be does it even need the alarm (I'm guessing it's a conversion so requires the system but it's not unknown for OTT systems to be put in). If the system is required for the protection of relevant persons under the Fire Safety Order then it has to be maintained correctly so the call points and more importantly the detectors inside flats that are off the common system must be accessed for maintenance - even if you have to resort to legal action to effect entry under the lease terms. A very large apartment block in a major city that I dealt with in the past has this issue, but with domestic sprinklers - the valves for each flats system had been put inside each flat rather than a meter cupboard off the corridor so access for maintenance was difficult but the landlord/freeholder was facing prosecution if they didn't do this even if they could only get to force entry to do this via the courts (the sprinklers were also part of the communal fire strategy rather than just individual flat protection so the Fire Safety Order applied ). Even if a communal system is required it's an odd set up to have call points in the flats, as part of a FRA review I'd ask the design to be reviewed to see if the call points can be removed from the actual flats, meaning you only have to get in once a year to test the detector.

If the cavity barriers are suitably located and correctly constructed so a fire on the landing (unlikely anyway)cannot spread beyond the void above to threaten the adjacent flats from above then it's tolerable - the use of cavity barriers is the main protection anyway as fire rated ceilings in lieu of them are not considered good practice as they are more vulnerable

Then the only requirement for fire warning that covered both would be if the structural fire separation between the shop & flats is inadequate.

Depends on where the door is - there are various statutory situations where the vision panels must be clear, a couple for fire safety, more for health & safety & accessibility reasons.

The attached are useful and used to be used on fire certificates - whilst there is a newer version of these symbols most brigades still used these as they were far more obvious to their meaning even without a legend: https://www.firesafe.org.uk/graphical-symbols-and-abbreviations-for-fire-protection-drawings/

Separate access to the accommodation or accessed via the actual shop as integral accommodation? If the latter I'd go along with your thoughts. If it's separate then there are other configurations that may suit better based on construction & layout.

From my experience regardless of AD B, LACORS, LGA Guide, etc residential of various flavours seems to invariably get a Part1 or Grade A system regardless of the set up! Could have been a requirement of the BCO or AI too!

Pre 1991 there is a larger chance the separation isn't sufficient, although regardless of age inspection is preferred to confirm. If not fire separated then regardless of whether the two areas are owned by the same or different parties there remains a legal duty to mitigate the risk to relevant persons either by installing separation or providing detection to the shop linked to sounders in the flats.

I've assumed that because there is a panel referred to that it's a Part 1 or Part 6 grade A system

Fire alarm - weekly testing using different call points in rotaton; 6 monthly service by a competent person with 100% of the system tested over a 12 month period Emergency lighting - monthly function ('flick') test of all fittings; annual duration (usually 3 hours) test of all fittings. (Don't be conned into a 1 hour part duration test at 6 months, it hasn't been required since 2004 and only wears out the lighting quicker)

Your work may be subject to Building Regulations and the Building Control process will cover certain aspects of fire safety. Other aspects are dealt with by carrying out a fire risk assessment. Useful links: https://www.gov.uk/building-regulations-approval https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-risk-assessment-sleeping-accommodation

Discharge? About 15 seconds. Service life? The minimum service life is 5 years at which point it's cheaper to replace it than continue it's life - most service firms will do this. In reality if Extended Serviced (discharged, stripped down, examined in an out, consumables replaced, parts cleaned, extinguisher refilled) ever 5 years a powder extinguisher can last indefinitely until it physically deteriorates (rust, dents,etc) or the parts required to maintain the extinguisher are no longer produced. Depending on the make of extinguisher this can be anything from 5 years to 25 years

You are better asking this question on www.firealarmengineers.com/forum

Not normally, no.

There should be a permanent label with this on the actual blanket. There are so many fake blankets around that fail on usage and unless it has a BS Kitemark with a verifiable KM number I wouldn't trust it with a bargepole!

As there is a duty to limit false alarms the likelihood of this should be low - also many suites have deadlocks for use out of hours so when the office is empty and the fire alarm goes off the premises remain secure. Life safety trumps property safety so whilst there is the ability in BS7273-4 (the standard covering the use of these locks on escape routes) to risk assess out some of the emergency release provisions it's usually where the security issue is a greater safety risk than that of fire.

You need no electrical fire alarm or automatic detection. Due to the size and layout of the premises your means of fire detection & warning as required by legislation is human senses (sight and smell) to detect and voice to warn. The official entry level guidance for small premises reflects this. Do not be conned into paying to provide anything extra for detection/alarm, it's not required and no real benefit to life safety (although if you really don't want to just use your voice a whistle or air horn would suit). Emergency lighting could be a torch and a single small extinguisher suitable means of fighting fire (preferably 2l foam spray or 1l water mist as powder wouldn't be advisable in such a small space). Technically you only need one exit too.

Grenfell was built in the 70's and complied with Building Regulations at the time (which referred to CP3 chapter lV part 1 as the standard to follow).0 It was refurbished in the mid 2000's and the alteration work (only - not the whole building) was subject to the Building Regs and the then current edition of Approved Document B. It is argued that the cladding installation complied with ADB. You can still build a high rise single stair block of flats, I've dealt with a few. This is because whilst the Building Regulations are law they only set broad functional aims. Approved Document B is not statutory and is only one way to meet the functional aims in the regulations. You can use alternative solutions as long as they can be demonstrated to give the equivalent level of safety. This could be by using BS9991 (BS9999 is not for flats, only certain commercial buildings) or a bespoke engineered solution using BS7974 fire engineering principles. One of the high rises I refer to, built in the 2000's, has a single stair with extended corridor distance and also non standard open plan flat layouts as it uses residential sprinklers to each apartment and a purpose designed mechanical smoke control system to the corridors. Building regs are not retrospective and so existing single stair high rises are perfectly acceptable, with thousands of fires in these over the decades not making the news because they stay in the flat of origin. It's very likely if the flat of fire origin occurred in a non refurbished Grenfell we may not have read about it other than in local press as you would only have the original non combustible concrete fascia.