AnthonyB

Contact Council Environmental Services regarding the garden (They do have powers over private gardens with regard to statutory nuisances) and Council Planning & Building Control over the garage

If it's an existing older house that hasn't undergone relevant building work where current standards would be applicable then no.

It is vague, but gives you an aspiration, I would suspect it would be interpreted similarly to 'best endeavours' in 11m+ buildings, that you should try to get round them all annually. Ultimately the Responsible Person has to decide how they want to approach this and take their chances!

Yes, s156 of the Building Safety Act requires the risks & protective measures detailed in the FRA to be made available to residents and for other information to be provided to and FRAs aligned with other Responsible Persons. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/check-your-fire-safety-responsibilities-under-section-156-of-the-building-safety-act-2022/fire-safety-responsibilities-under-section-156-of-the-building-safety-act-2022

As said, depends on numbers and types of person that could be using them.

In which case the painting is probably OK - https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/technical-blog/tech-update-painting-over-intumescent-strips As for flat internal doors it's been in Building Regulations for decades that they be fire doors (other than bathrooms/toilets, just that they need not (any more) be self closing.

Seems a bit OTT if it's integral staff accommodation and operating a simultaneous evacuation policy with a suitable alarm system. Such separation can't be retrospectively applied as it's not required in existing premises FRA guidance, nor would any sensible risk assessor require it in their FRA. Approved Document B is only for Building Regulations purposes so only kicks in for new builds or relevant 'building work' and would then bring in the 60 minute requirement as whilst it says "Compartmentation is not needed if one of the different purposes is ancillary to the other." it does say that if that ancillary use is a flat it must always be treated as a separate Purpose Group. ADB is not law, Building Regulations are and it is permitted to propose alternate solutions that would afford suitable safety such as BS9999 (which would allow 30 minutes where the floor of the upper storey is not over 5m) Sounds like you need to find a fire authority with experienced and enlightened staff & set up a Primary Authority arrangement with them!

The Guide linked to by Neil states: Six-monthly: • Check all fire doors, other than flat entrance doors, to ensure that they are undamaged and are effectively self-closing Annually: • Check all fire doors in the common areas to ensure that they remain in good condition and fit well in their frames • Ensure that self-closing devices fitted to flat entrance doors and doors in common areas remain in working order and close the doors effectively in their frames The guide has s50 status which means in respect of compliance with fire safety legislation: "1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)— (a)proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and (b)proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention." Which essentially means that it would be wise to follow the regime in the guide!

Are you in the UK? This is absolutely not a user replaceable part!

Is this a seal that includes a smoke brush or fin or just a flat seal?

Are these separate flats or sleeping accommodation ancillary to the pub for the manager or licensee? Makes a difference!

Technically one central test switch meets the relevant standard (BS5266-1) as all it says is: "8.3.3 Test facility Each emergency lighting system should have an appropriate means for simulating failure of the normal supply for test purposes (e.g. manual isolatingbdevice or automatic testing). The test facility should be able to be used for both monthly short tests and annual full duration tests. The test facility should be protected from unauthorized operation. The test device should not interrupt power to any other electrical equipment that could cause a hazard." However for convenience and to avoid the monthly function test duration going on too long (with consequential longer recharge times and greater risk of battery damage) it's common in better installations to have multiple test points, sometimes one for each floor, sometimes one for each room & section of corridor!

No, it's been a key principle in guidance since 2011 that the self closers are fitted. Many deaths at Grenfell were attributed to missing or non working self closers allowing the internal escape stair (not directly affected by the cladding) to become impassable as it quickly filled with smoke from all the open doors. The guidance when it comes to residential is increasingly more than just a suggestion as it now has special legal status: (1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)— (a)proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and (b)proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. If you don't follow the guide you have proven your guilt! The guidance is quite generous in smaller blocks allowing older fire doors to be retained but will not move on self closers - too many deaths associated with open doors (even before Grenfell) There are lots of options to make a self closer less burdensome - delayed action closers, swing free closers, etc

Unless they are very old and predate the CE marking requirement, yes

It's not the total number in the building that dictates fastenings and direction of opening but the number realistically likely to need to use them. Unless things get really bad in education it's unlikely a classroom direct exit will be used by more than 60 persons and evacuation will be staff led so an EN179 push pad exit device would be accepted.

It require a commercial system does unless it is so small that a fire would be readily discovered and the alarm spread throughout by shouts. Building Regulations and every bit of fire legislation guidance from the 60's to the current day requires a layered approach to fire warning where the minimum system to comply with legislation (if not very small) is a Category M BS5839-1 system of manual call points & sounders. Only if required would you then add detection.

LACORS only applies where a conversion isn't to post 1991 Building Regulations. A 1996 conversion & AOV suggests to ADB and stay put, however there are lots of other factors you mention which are not! The fire strategy from the conversion would help (unless lost) as it would explain the rationale. Smoke control is also to benefit the fire service as well as escape and it's likely it was introduced as such under Building Regs so you can't negate it as there is an absolute duty to maintain it. Not straightforward and certainly not possible to be definitive on here.

Not a question or a fire safety forum sadly - more a landlord/tenant/property law issue, Citizens Advice are a useful free initial source of advice.

The detailed guidance is in here http://www.smoke-vent.co.uk/documents/SCA Guidance notes rev 3 (Jan 2020).pdf You don't want a stair vent opening on it's own so other than some configurations of small single stair buildings you don't want or need stair detection

That would be sensible and in line with the holistic 'whole building' safety approach the BSA amendments aim to introduce.

Hi, Yes I do - I can see a Chubb PSK 5 5 kilo ABC Powder extinguisher from the 70's next to it as well! Equally collectible. Here's about 10% of the total collection I have:

Because it dated back to old battery technology (such as when wet lead acid central battery systems were common) and gives no benefit. Current battery types are actually damaged by part duration testing and it was found that by hour testing cells soon developed a memory effect and would prematurely fail 3 hour tests - a nice earner for test and install company's but a unnecessary large cost to end users

Sounds like you are in an area with selective/additional licensing so virtually every rented property falls under their remit. I think Rahel meant to link to this which is similar in cost to a Dorgard - https://www.safelincs.co.uk/geofire-agrippa-acoustic-door-holder/

Retrospective fire strategies are a nice extra money earner for consultancies and in existing complex premises are indeed important to establish the fire safety intent of the original design and how it works going forward. They aren't a legal requirement in themselves though and are usually part of the Building Regulations process. Simpler premises like described may simply require a record of fire safety arrangements (which is a legal requirement) that can more easily be compiled by the duty holder or their competent person and not costs anything like a retro fire strategy. Also a lot of retro fire strategies are very generic, contain little more info than is already in the FRA and don't include plans but cost a lot of money so if you do go ahead you need to check carefully what you are getting.

Utter rubbish to get more work - the 6 monthly 1 hour test requirement was removed in 2004!