AnthonyB

As the part 6 inside the flat is local to that flat it's only for the life safety of the flat occupier and the flat is a private dwelling then it's out of the scope of the Fire Safety Order and the liability of the RP (unless there is some contractual maintenance responsibility) so it shouldn't be a concern - only facilities in a flat to protect the other parts of the building (such as heats & sounders off a common system) would be the RP's responsibility and liability if not maintained.

Strictly speaking if it's text only it doesn't meet the requirements for fire safety signs under the Health & Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 as it does not include a pictogram (symbol/picture) - however I take a balanced approach to this based on the potential number & type of users of the exit as the most common symbol you see is just a white tick on green which adds nothing to understanding how to use the door. If the exit has the required level of emergency lighting adjacent it won't need to be photoluminescent as it would have suitable external lighting (plus photoluminescent signage isn't very effective unless externally lit continuously to keep the material 'charged' so it has the required brightness and duration of luminescence to be any use when the power fails)

As Neil says! Did the FRA pick up the common area domestic smokes that the official guidance says aren't suitable and shouldn't be there as they confuse.

Is it a full room or more a big cupboard? I do a lot of schools work and the doors required to be fire doors is often less than you think. I'd need to see the building to be definitive but it's certainly not automatic.

Why does the FRA say you need one? A 2014 conversion in accordance with Building Regulations guidance (Approved Document B) which yours sounds like operates stay put and absolutely does not need a site wide linked fire alarm or an evacuation strategy. The only reason you would need to change is if the external wall construction or internal compartmentation/fire stopping has been found to be defective (possibly also compartmentation between shops & flats substandard as well being a reason) and not readily rectifiable - full evacuation & alarms is considered a last resort on all current guidance. Unfortunately it's sadly common for post 2000 builds and conversions to have legacy fire safety defects that the ineffective building control approval process has not picked up leading to issues like this when they come to light (Grenfell Tower being the ultimate example as it's refurbishment had a completion certificate as meeting Building Regs) If no particular reason is detailed then you need a new, better, FRA and to seek a determination of your enforcement notice by the Secretary of State (which fire services do loose, they don't win them all by a very long chalk!) to see if your solution (i.e. the status quo as per building regs guidance) is acceptable. There must be some reason they are going down this route

The way the NFCC guide is written puts the clause in 94.16 firmly in the section regarding the communal BS5839-1 system, which in some sheltered housing blocks does extend into the flats with detection in addition to or instead of a domestic BS5839-6 smoke/heat alarm system. If that communal system is linked to an Alarm Receiving Centre AND the fire strategy relies on that link for the life safety of occupiers (which it might if for some reason the flat domestic systems are NOT linked individually to telecare/warden/Tunstall systems which is sometimes the case) then I would interpret this as meaning you would then need to weekly test a device in a flat in rotation & see that the ARC is notified (although in most cases the ARC would still only get a simple 'fire' signal from the main address not identifying the flat). If it doesn't then this clause does not apply. The domestic Grade D system is dealt with in a separate section where the usual requirement of monthly user test applies (which itself would lead to the flat's local telecare link, where fitted, also being tested) with an annual service being required only where a telecare link exists.

If that combination of closer and installation method are approved by the fire door manufacturer you may not need to change anything, most fire door companies would want you to replace the frame now it's been damaged.

No, if the original hinges approved at the time of installation are in good order and the correct rating for the weight for the door they should be fine - CE marking on new products is not retrospective. Sadly poorly trained risk assessors and unscrupulous fire door companies are costing leaseholders lots of money on things that add no fire real safety advantage.

That's one I don't have in my collection - if not keeping it message me! It's an early example of the aerosol can type extinguisher brought to market from the start of the 1960's for the domestic, automotive and leisure market. It's similar to the more well known brands of this type such as Hero & Firemaster (the latter which continued trading until the 2000's) and by the method of operation & can design is certainly one of the earlier ones. It uses Sodium Bicarbonate based dry powder under CO2 pressure in a sealed aerosol can which is pierced by striking the knob allowing the entire contents to be discharged on the fire (it's 'total discharge' so once started you can't stop it) to extinguish the fire by chemical inhibition. Others of this type used vapourising liquids, sometimes recognised extinguishing liquids such as Carbon Tetrachoride, Chlorobromomethane and for several decades the very effective Bromochlorodifluoromethane - others used general (cheaper) refrigerant freons that were less effective on fires. Until the mid 1980's there was manufacturing, test and performance British Standard at which point BS6165 was introduced to regulate these items - before then these products were of varying performance and had a bad name (many were too small to be of much use) and usually fared poorly in consumer and motorist journal practical tests, although Firemaster usually fared better as they followed as best they could existing standards for 'proper' extinguishers (BS1721 for vapourising liquids, BS3465 for powder, later BS5423 for all types) I've not come across the brand that yours is, it obviously didn't succeed too well, although it looks a reasonable size and could have been of some effect on a small fire.

Is there any higher risk items in the store such as an electrical distribution board?

It sounds on the surface completely unnecessary. External doors usually only need to be fire doors if in a block of flats where there are several flats with an open deck approach where you have only one stair, or where they open onto an external stair (other than the top floor). There are potentially other situations that might arise if I saw the site, but generally if it doesn't fall into the above then 99% of the time it's unnecessary, usually prompted by unscrupulous fire door companies or poorly trained fire risk assessors. Ask for the fire risk assessment (even with no internal common areas there should be one for the external structure) and point out that you will take the matter to a First Tier Tribunal if they try and impose it.

Yes, a protected route must not just be clear of obstruction but also free from combustible materials. Also a 3 storey commercial building in the UK will not usually be sprinkler protected but just have smoke detection.

You would need to review your FRA, but there should be no major impact beyond that you've said depending on the use of the room. You may need to consider emergency lighting if part of an escape route.

No. The primary requirements are smoke alarms and if gas/solid fuel/oil appliances (other than cookers) are Carbon Monoxide alarms

Hi, No. Everything you need to know for a small building is in here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-your-small-non-domestic-premises-safe-from-fire