Hayfever

I totally understand what you mean, but surely compliance is all about meeting legal statutory targets - so pretty much everything on this site has a 'legal advice' angle doesnt it? I was asking for assistance whether that was towards a guidance document, best practice or simply what practical examples forum contributors had experienced. If I have overstepped forum rules, I apologise Thank you to Anthony B. I rather feared that might be the route 😞

Could anyone point me in the right direction here please? A 1970s block of (6) flats over three floors. All six residents share the freehold and pay a service charge to the company they part own A FRA has determined that front doors on five flats need upgrading to reach nominal status and the 6th flat needs a new fire doorset The lease is unclear as who owns (pays for) the front door, as when it defines the demise, it mentions the walls of the common parts but not the doors There is an assumption that it will be cheaper to upgrade the doors (a third hinge, plus strips & seals) than it will be to replace the door and frame in the 6th flat The six freeholders have discussed this matter and 5 of them who are set for upgrades want to pay for their own front door individually . The owner of the 6th flat that needs the most expensive works wants the costs for all doors to be added to the service charge and shared equally amongst other residents. Unsurprisingly the 5 residents who are upgrading aren't happy about subsidising the costs of the new fire door and frame on the 6th flat so a stalemate exists Its looking likely that the 5 doors will be upgraded within weeks but the owner of the 6th flat is refusing to agree to paying for his door? So my questions are: 1) What is the default in law - where there is no clear definition in the lease as to who is responsible for paying for front doors (fire doors) to be upgraded or replaced when it is not clearly defined or set out in the lease? 2) How can the Responsible Person (in this case, the company the 6 residents own) force the guy in the 6th flat to pay for his own new doorset? Thanks

I am confused by this as the Regs guidance states; routine checks of fire doors that the Responsible Person must ensure are carried out - these checks are only required in blocks of flats in which the top storey is more than 11m above ground level (typically, a building of more than four storeys) So I am reading this that the 6 monthly fire door checks are not required in a premises under 11m ????? Have I missed something????

Of course, Mike North is totally correct in his advice, but OP seem to be a parent of a child in the school who may have no access to the fire risk assessment or might not understand it if they did see it. Plus it will take some time to achieve My view is that the possibility of padlocks on what may be fire exits on a school building is so serious, it should be reported to the fire service as soon as possible. This is not about getting anyone into trouble or causing a fuss, its about ensuring the safety of vulnerable children The LFB will get a Fire Safety Officer - or in some cases the local fire station - to visit the school within a couple of hours of receiving the call. The LFB will be able to either give advice to the school if they've got it wrong or reassure you that the system is OK Please use the phone number half way down this page rather than the email contact fields https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/contact-us/ Good luck

Many thanks Anthony

A 150m2 hairdressing salon is covered by a 6l AFF and 2kg CO2 by the main entrance (exit). There is no extinguisher by the rear exit It's time to upgrade and I am considering advising 2 x 2l water spray P50s - one at either door. As they are both rated at 8A, if I can use the aggregate 'score' of both extinguishers, there is plenty of cover as I only need <13A But can I add up the ratings of two smaller extinguishers like this at a very small and low risk retail outlet?

I note that the 2litre Triclass P50s (as mentioned above) have been discontinued and the former 13A and 55B is now replaced by a 2litre water mist with an 8A, 5F rating That's not much of an alternative is it as you now need to buy 2 units to get the same rating??? Do I take it the change is for environmental protection reasons? (The effects of foam to the environment?)

Really??? Article 2 of the FSO provides the following definition in relation to one of the two groups of relevant persons : “relevant persons” means— any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; A trespasser or intruder therefore is not a relevant person so does not need to be considered during any FRA that may be required by the FSO. This is why you can bar and chain final exits when a business has closed

I have seen hatches in recent years on a new build specialist scientific laboratory that had specific technical needs due to the processes that were being performed there. (in particular pressure differentials in different spaces that needed triple inner room type layouts) The example given is really curious and seems fairly ordinary. However, like Anthony, I wonder what is happening outside door 2 as surely nobody would advise on the expense of a hatch if it wasnt needed......... would they?

On Grand Designs (House of the Year) tonight 23/11, they showed a 3 storey house which had a staircase from the top floor that discharged into an open plan living room/kitchen so did not provide a protected route to a final exit. Many years ago I was involved with a project where a similar arrangement was overcome by the use of a domestic sprinkler system in the living room. However, although Grand Designs didnt say there wasnt a sprinkler system present in this house, for the life of me I couldn't see any signs - even of a concealed head - but then being concealed, I may have missed. So my question is, when considering a loft conversion above a 2 storey house (to make a habitable space on the second floor) that will utilise a staircase that discharged into an open plan living/kitchen space, are there alternatives in addition to sprinklers to mitigate the lack of a protected staircase?

We use a rather more pragmatic approach to fire action notices (FAN) FANs by a final exit will rarely be read during business as usual and frankly when the final exit is in use during an evacuation, its a bit too late. We do place FANs by manual call points (including final exits), but frankly they are there to appease panicky fire safety inspecting officers. In addition, we also place them at tea points where staff gather and controversially at eye level (when sitting) on the back of toilet cubicle doors. The last example may sounds a bit silly/jokey, but it is the location where you have a captive audience who is unintentionally hungry to read something during their stay, as opposed to adjacent to a door to a staircase where nobody hangs around.

Tim There's a heap of "where necessary' entries throughout the Fire Safety Order, including Article 14 Article 14(2) states (2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons— -- -- (d)emergency doors must open in the direction of escape; So where necessary, (60 + persons as Anthony has described) the door must open is the direction of escape

This is exactly the set up I help establish for a range of secure buildings where is was untenable to allow such circumstances where people externally could nefariously open final exits and gain access, even with intruder alarm operation. We added mitigation of monthly manual override tests (on a rota of a small number per week which meant all units were tested in a 4 week period) plus additional signage, plus 2 fire drills per annum

Of course I understand the rational for this clause, but where green boxes are used to secure a final exit, surely having the external door unlock when the fire alarm operates is a security risk If intruders create smoke and introduce it into the building at 2am or on a Sunday,, all final exits open and they are in

We have a similar situation where we are fitting rapid chargers in a large 10,000m2 windowless basement car park under 14 floors of offices. The car park is fitted with sprinklers which are fed from an inexhaustible supply of water. This can only be a good thing as the fire service may struggle if the EV batteries are involved and the sprinklers may need to operate for many hours. Our strategy is to create introduce areas of non combustibility around areas set aside for EV charging and attempt to limit the fire loading by creating separated EVCBs (EV Charging Bays). Each EV charging bay will accommodate a limited number of cars and be separated to immediately adjacent areas by two hour fire resisting walls to provide some degree of protection from fire spread by direct burning. This is not traditional fire separation as the FR walls simply form a open ended barrier between groups of EV Bays. The aim is that sprinklers will prevent spread from EV Bay to EV Bay but not necessarily extinguish it. An interface connected to the sprinkler system will isolate charger power. Additional charger isolator controls will be positioned around the car park, adjacent to manual call points. They will be large mushroom head buttons which lock down when pressed and will need a key to release. They are coloured yellow and signed to prevent confusion with the manual call points. On operating the isolator button, the BMS system will alert building managers. We lose some parking space but the employers environmental policy is to go electric (EV) well before the 2030 target set by HMG and nothing will be allowed to get in the way. Within 5 years there will be at least 120 EV spaces created There are a raft of associated measures that accompany this policy. A few exit doors from the car park close to EVCBs will have panic bolts fitted to deal with the potential for rapid fire development. Staff training and instruction will be amended to include EV fires and servicing arrangements for the car park drainage will be amended to cater for long duration sprinkler and fire service operations We have found the RISCAuthority's RC59 Fire Safety When Charging EVs a useful guide https://www.riscauthority.co.uk/public-resources/documents/resource/rc59-fire-safety-when-charging-electric-vehicles-401 Good luck!