AnthonyB

The responsible person can be a corporate entity. A multi occupied premises may have multiple RP's. The RP is the person or entity at the top of the tree - employer/person having control/owner. Whilst others may have day to day responsibilities towards a premises they are not the RP as set out in law, merely persons with responsibilities - whilst they may be directly responsible for an offence and can (& have been) individually prosecuted, it's usually not instead of the actual 'tree top' RP but as well as.

Smoke seals would protect the escape route and a well sealed cupboard will have limited growth in this situation as there would be limited oxygen (& limited materials) to cause spread - better to contain it - it may even go out. Depending on the design category of the system & the strategy there may be detection in the riser shaft or cupboards, a typical stay put wouldn't always have them for the shafts/cupboards just the main room, but there are no hard and fast rules, you see it done differently all the time and as long as the minimum expectations are met it's OK The revised LGA Guide will hopefully deal with this and as it is planned to have special status (failure to follow it would be evidence in it's own right of an offence whereas at the moment it's just a benchmark to judge against) will be the one to follow closely.

I've seen plenty of services cupboards with normal locks and internal thumbturns on modern builds all over the country - it's rare to see FB locks and Building Regulations doesn't require them. So it seems OK to change them - if there was a fire the fire service would use thermal image cameras to check it's the right door an use their entry tools to force it.

Check out the manual - it might help you and if not has manufacturer contact details to ask them direct. http://www.detaelectrical.co.uk/images/downloads/products/safety_alarms/Instructions/INS_0066_V1.1_-_Smoke_Heat_Alarm_Instructions.pdf

The Approved Documents to the Building Regulations state step height limits - what floor would this loft be equivalent to (1st, 2nd or 3rd floor) this will determine if it's an escape window (you lower yourself out) or a rescue window (fire service have to put a ladder or aerial appliance up to pull you out)

Can you still open the door 90 degrees + to give the full unobstructed width and then move away to safety along a route that is also 1m? (Even if you have to immediately turn left or right because of the barrier) Who would be using the route?

For any door protecting an escape route the benchmark is an FD30s door (intumescent seals and cold smoke brush/fin) - this is also in the guidance for existing premises. For a door only enclosing an area of special fire risk the benchmark is FD30 or in some cases FD60 (seals but no smoke brush/fin). The letting some smoke through is a bit of an outdated principle only remaining in the LACORS housing guidance (which is being reviewed as it's shockingly outdated) A building from the 60's/70's will have required fire doors in order to get a Means of Escape Certificate under the Offices, Shops & Railway Premises Act 1963 (later a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971) but back then the technology of intumescent seals didn't exist and so to prevent leakage the doors had to close fit in a frame fitted with a 1" (25mm) rebate. It didn't work that well (but was an improvement on what went before) and created other issues (the door edges would char and produce a heavy tarry smoke that wouldn't reach ceiling height in the adjacent area and so miss smoke detectors for a period of time (this is why the provision of detection in rooms opening onto escape routes was introduced in the 80's to solve the issue of fires in hotel bedrooms that did not activate detection in the corridor, which was all that was usually present if at all). Proper risk assessment, in line with the accepted methodology PAS79-1 & 2 does not reject legacy provisions out of hand and simply examines the differences between old and new and if that difference creates an intolerable risk. In an office with legacy rebate only 30 minute fire door, where there is no sleeping risk, no delayed evacuation, occupiers familiar with the premises, ideally 2 exit routes and a higher than normal fire protection package (essentially any meaningful detection provision as the minimum for offices is still call points only) it is not unreasonable to accept the doors, noting that upon damage, replacement or a building refurb they should then be replaced.

If you are a tenant the landlord is responsible for all this. If the boundary is the responsibility of the other party it's up to them if they want a gate or not. There is no legal requirement for such a provision.

No, all completely down to the tenant. It's similar with typical small buildings with a retail unit on ground and a floor or two of offices above with a single lease each for the whole of the office (including its stair) and a single lease for the unit. Often the whole building fire alarm is in one demise off it's board and some agents assume that because there is one system 'common' to the premises they need to maintain it (even when the lease assigns no such responsibility to the landlord/freeholder) and carry out an FRA and then when actions are required (as these systems are often quite old) complain as there is no service charge to pay for it and the client has to stump the cost - precisely because the system isn't common at all! In these cases the tenant who has the panel & it's power supply is responsible for it through the whole building and they and the other leaseholder have to work together to manage fire safety as per Article 22 of the Fire Safety Order

Nothing in Building Regulations or fire safety guidance for your situation requires FD60 doors, FD30 would suffice.

Not really - if you were directly into the street you wouldn't expect it. The only slight possibility is if the only route of escape passes your door and you can't be more than a meter from it but that normally applies to balcony access on the upper floors of larger blocks. I'd ask for full details on where this comes from.....

Building Regulations aren't - they still have the statutory bar. The Fire Safety Order removed the statutory bar from fire safety post build. If the shortfall in protection from the old standard and the new is significant enough to be a risk to safety then it is no longer acceptable - this is the cornerstone of risk assessment in determining this. I do agree that an older specification of doorset can remain acceptable. The door checker should provide enough detail on the deficiencies to allow the risk assessor to determine which need resolution and which can be progressive in the future. Sadly loads of firms that have done the course and jumped on the fire door inspection bandwagon will inspect every door they see (even if not required to be a fire door) fail them if anything at all is wrong, and then put a 5 or 6 figure quote in to remediate it all. The better ones will actual grade defects allowing a sensible assessment and action plan to be drawn up only doing immediate work where really needed.

There is no hard and fast answer, it's a case by case thing. All being on one alarm system leans towards one report, but it could equally be done as three. Really massive multiple building sites need splitting but in smaller cases it's on the merits of each case.

I've done several for a Council and the DCLG Sleeping Risk guide with relevant input from the NFCC Specialised Housing ended up being the most appropriate as they weren't care or nursing homes nor private dwellings or HMO's The consensus along with the enforcing authority was the risk profile of the occupiers, even with staff on site, warranted the more robust basic measures in the DCLG guide with further influence from the results of person centred FRAs (as per NFCC) as indicated. Arson, damage and self harm are sometimes considerations requiring anti barricade doors that are also FD30s doors and anti ligature (expensive but achievable). Deprivation of Liberty authorisations and the sometimes higher risk to the service user from being able to abscond creates interesting considerations when it comes to escape fastenings on final exits!

If travel distances are short enough a mezzanine floor then they don't always need a protected stair however they shouldn't really pass through an area of high fire risk and some form of enclosure or separation might be advisable

You would need to for the part of your premises that was the workplace as oppose to the private dwelling but it would not need to be written unless a licensed activity. You need nothing more complex than what's in this basic guide for the smallest type of business: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14879/making-your-premises-safe-short-guide.pdf

It's a perfect (& common) example as to why the Building Control process is rotten. If it's OK on the proposals & draft plans it'll do them. They will claim they don't have the time to do a proper snagging exercise nor is it their problem. That's why some completion certificates have small print disclaimers.

Just because it isn't a requirement of guidance doesn't mean it's not a good idea (it could be a non statutory provision for property/asset protection), however you are right, unless opening onto a protected route, dead end or enclosing an area of special fire risk or some other specified area (gym storerooms in schools being one) it generally isn't a requirement, but often gets provided. At the end of the day it's the risk assessment and whether you are sticking to life or life and property that determines the approach. If I found a store room with a propped door or disconnected closer that wasn't in a location where for life safety it would be expected to be a fire door I might mention in passing that even where not required to be a fire door it is still good sense to try and keep it shut to prevent loss, but wouldn't flag it as a breach.

As you didn't change it yourself it could be argued that you aren't obliged to change it - however any decent survey by a purchaser is likely to pick it up so you would either need to reduce the price, get it done or, if they suspect any work has been done without Building Regulations consent ask for you to pay for building regulation indemnity insurance or latent defect insurance. Of course they may not notice at all!

Any residential smoke control should follow these principles http://www.smoke-vent.co.uk/documents/SCA Guidance notes rev 3 (Jan 2020).pdf

If it's been imported direct from outside the UK and not via a UK sales entity it neatly sidesteps the very old pre-internet domestic furniture safety regulations. Therefore it doesn't need labels nor need meet any safety requirements and could be as dangerous as the pre-regs foam filled furniture of the 70's & early 80's On the other hand I don't know if Dubai has any furniture regulations - if they do it might be completely fine. Unless you can research the law there it is a bit of a gamble (a quick Google didn't reveal anything obvious)

Building Regulations only apply to new or altered buildings, so only flats & houses built after 1991 or older ones altered such that building regulations apply (a full rewire being the usual trigger in older dwellings) would be expected to have Grade D1/2 smoke & heat alarms. In older premises it was mostly voluntary until the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 came in - these do not specify a minimum grade of equipment so Grade F1/2 equipment (battery only) is still legal (To avoid the expense and disruption and encourage rapid compliance they chose this route) In Scotland things are far more strict, even in single private dwellings, although the compliance deadline has been extended due to COVID. It's different again in HMO's and shared houses....

If any of the firms/individuals were third party accredited or on a register then you have recourse to these bodies. If unregulated assessors were used you are a bit stuck.

The overboarding isn't on the risk side of the door so not as much of an issue as it could be - if a certified doorset however if may invalidate certification. We have a fire door specialist who supports the forum so you should get a better answer in due course.