AnthonyB

A number of factors determine if you need a second exit (internal or external) including travel distances, whether the existing stair is a protected route (enclosed in fire resisting construction and fire doors with a final exit at the foot or via a protected corridor) and numbers needing to exit the storey. Numbers wise you are OK as below 60, but the other factors still need to be accounted for.

If it's in a location requiring them, i.e. protecting means of escape, as oppose to enclosing areas of special fire hazard, etc then you would expect to see them. But just as not every wooden fire door requires smoke seals neither does very steel one - as said it's up to the FRA

Which is fine for building regulations purposes, yet the second it's handed over the official risk assessment guidance contradicts it and expects signage. This shows how disjointed things are! It's hardly going to critically affect life safety in any case...

From the British Standard for fire alarm systems: Premises type: Common places of work, such as offices, shops, factories, warehouses and restaurants System category M or P2/M A or P1/M Notes Category M system normally satisfies the requirements of legislation. It is, however, often combined with a Category P system to satisfy the requirements of insurers, as company policy for protection of assets, or to protect against business interruption Translation! A Category M fire alarm system to BS5839-1 consists of 'break glass' manual call points and alarm sounders connected to a control & indicating panel. P2/M indicates selected areas are provided with smoke or heat detection, P1/M indicates all areas are so provided - in both cases the detection for property protection and not part of a legal requirement for life safety (although it does have benefit towards it). Systems with life safety detection are category L (1-5) and whilst not required in all cases depending on your layout may be needed rather than just category M. Your Fire Risk Assessment should determine this.

Unlikely, they'd potentially have to destructively test it. The only other option is certified treatment https://www.flameprotectuk.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjw-8qVBhANEiwAfjXLrp2JunzO-vJ6PBncr5P5Bhi-rAt8S2LBm8HLx1tCgQq3qNXDNAspARoCh2oQAvD_BwE

Are the viewing panels fire resistant glazing suitably fixed and beaded? If not then the rest doesn't matter, it's not a fire door (don't forget to consider any transom above the door too) The gaps, warping, lack of fully closing etc all mean that these will not perform in the slightest as fire doors. Whilst guidance allows older style fire doors in certain circumstances they still have to be in good working condition and to the standard of the time - which these are not!

You are a competent person with the training and equipment to do the job - BAFE has nothing to do with it. I'm not BAFE but can legally service and issue certificates.

Sheet based fire barriers & wire reinforced mineral wool barriers are sometimes easier to fit than blockwork or stud and plasterboard. Yes an open cavity is a significant risk and has been involved in fatality and high loss fires.

Sounds a bit made up (it's not in the guidance at all). Correct use and suitable inspection for signs of damage and wear are all that is detailed.

1) Guidance states that "It is strongly recommended that the exit door from each unit of accommodation (bedsit or flat) is also openable from the inside without the use of a removable key." so you don't have to. If you ever replace the door and furniture the general expectation would be the new door would comply 2) Not unless it was due to proven equipment failure, which is very uncommon. False alarms are usually caused by the occupants. 3) Possibly, it sounds like the premises may have changed evacuation strategy (possibly due to poor cladding or firestopping) and the communal alarm system has had to be extended into the flats to facilitate full evacuation - if they didn't do this they could face Prohibition action from the fire service in which case you wouldn't have any tenants or rent as the building would be vacated. It might not be this at all, but it is common.

Not a fire safety issue but a property law one. There may be a clause in the freehold or leases giving a right of access making the blocking of the gate unlawful from a civil law point of view. If no such right of access exists then you are stuck, although some plaintiffs have won where the ability to access, albeit informal, has been in place for a substantial period of time. This is one for a specialist in property law to advise on really.

No set rules, it's down to the HA to determine their policy. Tenants being able to reset alarms without being able to confirm isn't real is a potential issue.

No - whilst front doors of flats don't have to have these signs the Sleeping Accommodation guidance gives no differentiation regarding FDKS signs. Most fire certificates under previous legislation were similarly robust. However in premises that have no other particularly serious issues the door signage alone is likely to be under threshold for enforcement, the premises being deemed 'broadly compliant' Larger hotel chains are likely to have Primary Authority arrangements with a single fire service acting as umbrella enforcer and adviser and if it's agreed with them that it's not necessary then this would apply across the estate even in other fire service areas.

Its emergency lighting not fire lighting, there may be other power failure causes where someone needs to safely navigate the stairs, also even in stay put premises there is often a need to evacuate other than the fire flat. That's why both regulations and guidance require it's provision as well as it being subject to a system of maintenance and being fit for purpose.

I doubt it unless someone's external escape route has no option to pass close to the door.

Unless it's unassisted independent evacuation with simultaneous evacuation this is wrong & dangerous. I think specialist fire safety input is required urgently to prevent an expensive error!

This company can help https://www.checkmatefire.com/news/specifying-fire-resistant-glass

You are best asking the manufacturer who will provide maximum tolerances for their doorset to retain performance.

I think you have misread - the intumescent strip goes into the door frame along the top and both sides facing the door blank, not facing outwards one way or another.

1 - No, they will have complied with the standards at the time of build. It was once practice to meet an FD20 door requirement using an FD30 blank with no strips when FD20 doors stopped being manufactured. 2 - No. The requirement was removed a long time ago

Yes

This is usually a sign of wear and a fire door inspector would usually fail these and require replacement.

If fire doors that are the boundary of a flat and communal space then it's simple - no. They are explicitly mentioned as not permissible.

Whilst the fire performance of a flat front door is covered by the regulations it is arguable that, as it serves a private dwelling, the locking mechanism, is outside scope and optional.

3-4mm top & sides