Tom Sutton

It is legal and is known as an inner room situation, there is three options to make it safe, • a vision panel between the two rooms providing adequate vision to give an indication of the conditions in the outer room and the means of escape; • a large enough gap between the dividing wall and the ceiling, e.g. 500mm, so that smoke will be seen; or • an automatic smoke detector in the outer room that will sound a warning in the inner room. Check out https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422175/9449_Offices_and_Shops_v2.pdf page 70 for more information.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 has no jurisdiction when the escape route reaches the public thoroughfare. You could put signs and painted hatched area outside the escape doors hoping motorists will take notice but as far as I am aware the RR(FS)O cannot help. You could contact the local council to see if they can help but your actions are limited.

How do they record the 75db at the bed head if they do not operate the sounders? This is the sound level when the sounder is operating.

You need to discuss your proposals with the Building Control Department because it is up to them to decide what is acceptable and what is not. My concerns would be if a fire broke out between the exit doors and the back of the shop this would mean the occupants would have to bypass the fire to get to the final exit. I used to have a rule of thumb that the depth must not exceed the width to a ratio of three to one which would mean the depth of your coffee shop would be limited to 10.5 m. But if you was to locate the coffee making facilities at the back of the shop and reduce any fire risks in the premises BC may accept your proposals as it meets the travel distances in one direction. As for an alternative escape into the adjacent premises is not acceptable, for many reasons, it needs to be an independent route. The guidance they will use will most probably be https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

I far as I am aware there is no required to allow fire crews to enter the building from the outside, the staff will simply open the doors and allow them in, if not they have effective means of opening doors without a key. I think it all depends on the needs of the residents in the care home, does the doors need to be secure in preventing residents from wandering outside then special needs would be required and either devices has manual means of opening the door, take your choice.

Without detailed information it is impossible to say, you need to detail your proposals and have a fire safety consultant to examine them. There are many things to take into account when designing a means of escape plus other items to ensure conformity to The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The final plans should be in accordance with the Building Regulations guidance.

Another link on access that may be useful to this situation http://housingexcellence.co.uk/news/croydon-council-serve-injunction-gain-access-selhurst-flat-after-leaseholder-refused-let-it

Check out http://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/resources/articles/southwark-council-v-various-lessees-of-the-st-saviours-estate-2017-ukut-10-lc and it appears the findings of the tribunal was limited to an eighty pounds charge because the council could not prove the doors required upgrading or replacing and I think your lawers needs to look in this more deeply. Also what you would do if the tenants refuse to replace or upgrade the doors, as this work is required as result of the implementation of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 . We would be pleased if you keep us informed on the outcome of this situation.

It appears you are the Responsible Person under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and have a duty to implement article 8 to 22 in the common areas, the front doors of the flats form part of the common area. The tenants of the flats are not subject to the RR(FS)O except for a small section of the order. You need the tenants goodwill to enter the flats so I would use a softly softly approach which in most cases should work but if there is an impasse threaten with an injunction which has worked in the past. I think as you have a legal obligation it would be better if you upgraded or replaced the front doors, passing any costs to the tenants through service charges. Providing the grade "A" fire alarm again is your legal responsibility and providing the smoke alarms/CO alarms to each flat is your legal responsibility under the The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015. Taking into account the above comments I would suggest you organise the work yourself passing on any costs through service charges and remember softly softly catchy monkey. You need to acton the work as soon as possible but it is understandable it will take sometime to complete and this should be understood by the Enforcing Authority.

Yes, Ask her to stop. if she refuses report her to the Responsible Person (Owner/Landlord or management company) If still having difficulties contact the enforcing Authority, the local Fire and Rescue Service.

I do not believe you will get an answer to this one, as I said most fire safety guidance originates from the post war studies with a bit of tweaking through the years. You will never know who tweaked it and for what reasons. I think you will find many similar situations in fire safety and I think you will find a rational scientific reason for any of them.

Oops it was in the the 2011 version aswell missed it completely thank AB pulling me out the mire.

A vacant commercial property England or Wales is subject to The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the owner or his representative will be the Responsible Person. The RP will be required to conduct a fire risk assessment and if this FRA decides emergence lighting is required, then it needs installing, if already installed, then it will need maintaining.

1) Does the landlord legally have to correct the faults? If so, who do I contact to force them? Yes and the local fire and rescue service is the enforcing authority. 2) Could it have invalidated our insurance? Do we need to let our insurance company know? It would depend on the terms and conditions (small print) you need to talk to the insurance company. Check out http://www.firesafe.org.uk/uk-fire-rescue-services-details/

Depends on the location of the panel if it is in an escape route then yes it would, also the risk assessment should determine how important the panel is to the evacuation. If the panel is located in the room where communication to the fire and rescue service is located then again I would say yes, it would all depend on the outcome of your risk assessment.

The gaps appear too excessive for the intumescent strips the work correctly let alone the smoke seals and it looks like the gaps needs reducing to allow it to close to the 3mm standard.

Are these flats and are the doors opening onto a common area or are they single private dwellings.

No this would not be acceptable, it could interfere with the operation of the door but you can get rubber smoke seals that fit in the corner of the frame which may damp down any noise.

What guidance are you quoting and most fire safety guidance originates from the post war studies with a bit of tweaking through the years.

If there is no common areas then the maisonnette will not be subject to The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and I assume there is no shared facilities, then it will not be a HMO so it is likely to be considered a single family dwelling. As for fire safety that would be covered by the building regulations guidance at the time the house was converted or you could consider HOUSING – FIRE SAFETY Guidance on fire safety provisions for certain types of existing housing which may be acceptable. You need to discuss your situation with a solicitor dealing with this area. Check out http://www.safetylawyers.co.uk/fire-safety/

The legal situation is there should be no obstructs in a mean of escape route see article 14 of The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 but it is considered acceptable, subject to a fire risk assessment, to allow small obstructions that would not put occupants in danger. In this case it looks like the management of the premises is allowing a limited obstruction under strict rules.

Timber joists with floor boards on the top and a plastered ceiling below could achieve 30/60 minutes fire resistance depending on the materials used which should be sufficient to escape from a fire.

It should read, Check out Main changes in volume 1 of Approved Document B (Fire Safety) intro page. It allows locks and child resistant safety stays may be provided on escape windows. Approved Document B (fire safety) volume 1: Dwellinghouses

All walls and ceiling separating any habitable rooms from the utility room, to be a full 30 minute fire resisting (FR) and any openings in those walls has to be 30 mins FR. This means the door from the kitchen needs replacing with a FD30 fire door set (door and frame) plus a S/C device also any other opening needs to be 30 mins FR. Any openings on outside walls require no action but if there is a habitable room above the utility room the ceiling must be upgraded to 30 mins FR. Because the floor is stepped down by 8" would mean you do not have to lower the floor or have sloping floor to outside.

If you have a gas fire in your living room you should have an air brick vent to provide ventilation for the gas fire. Is it possible if the weather conditions are right, that very small amounts of CO from yours or passing cars could be getting into your living room via the vent, which could be happening to your neighbours but because the level was not sufficient to operate the warning buzzer they have not registered a problem?