AnthonyB

Depends what running the place entails - if it's supporting the residents then the NFCC Specialised Housing guide is appropriate. If they are just servants then it is not a workplace for the purposes of the Fire Safety Order and an FRA and the associated general fire precautions are not required. From RRO: '“employee” means a person who is or is treated as an employee for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(4) and related expressions are to be construed accordingly' From HASWA: 'Exclusion of application to domestic employment. Nothing in this Part shall apply in relation to a person by reason only that he employs another, or is himself employed, as a domestic servant in a private household.' If they really did want some sort of fire safety check then you would have to refer to the single dwelling guidance in the LACORS guide and the general domestic fire safety tips from the Government's Fire Kills website.

That's up to the Fire Risk Assessment which could suggest, as an existing older building, either the openable windows at each landing, a permanent vent at the head or an AOV whichever is easiest to implement.

Before changing extinguisher types be aware that there are stringent legal requirements for extinguishers on both inland waterways and ocean going craft (including yachts) and Water Mist extinguishers wouldn't meet the minimum fire ratings for use if your yacht requires a Boat Safety Scheme license. If you are only using it outside waters requiring a BSS license and it is only ever used as a Class XII private pleasure boat, then being under 13.7m it escape the requirements under the UK Merchant Shipping Regulations of having any extinguishers (if it did then the Water Mist extinguishers would need to be 3 or 6 litre) and you could swap as you desire, although I'd check with your insurers first.

This is a property and land law issue & you need to consult a qualified legal adviser. A lot will depend on the nature of the legal agreement (if any) existing regarding usage of the shared space.

Firstly it's not much of a fire door with a hole in it!

As long as you are competent and the resulting assessment is suitable and sufficient then legally you can carry out the FRA. Many organisations choose to use external competent persons to ensure a suitable and sufficient FRA, but if you feel competent enough the official guidance is inked below: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/fire-safety-purpose-built-04b.pdf

Powder, whilst messy will put out ethanol fires as will CO2. Water Mist is also suitable, but only on very small fires as it has a small rating.Alcohol Resistant Foam extinguishers are available, but rather expensive and only in big sizes..

Yes they should and it's a bit of a coincidence with the fault. Was it a fire alarm company or just electricians?

As long as you are enclosing the area of special fire risk and maintaining protection of the stair you should be OK - unless the layout of the building requires lobby protection to the stair then your version of remedial actions does sound sufficient.

Fire and smoke will readily pass through this and depending on location and what areas it penetrates could indeed be an issue.

No, but an application of common sense and risk assessment is appropriate with rooms/cupboards off an inner room - if a normal habitable room it's a no, but a cupboard or single cubicle toilet could be tolerable as they aren't going to be inhabited for any length of time.

Defend in place is an accepted option in the care environment, but usually a last resort. Normally they are meant to have a member of staff stay with them and the bedroom and door be of 60 instead of 30 minutes fire resistance. The fitting of a domestic sprinkler system as added protection is not uncommon, plus if there is an elevated risk of fire from the service user themselves in their room then the use of a personal protective mist system to the room (as oppose to fitting a building wide system) is also an option.

Lipping/rebating doors predates modern methods of sealing fire doors - it used to be common because it was the only way to get some form of flame, heat & smoke seal. Whilst it had some effect compared to a door without the rebate the performance is nowhere near the same as a door with intumescent seals and cold smoke brushes. The acceptability of an 'older' method of fire safety joinery will depend on the situation and the performance requirements of the door-set in question - in some situations such as heritage premises and certain existing premises (based on other factors taken into account) it may be acceptable, but not if current standards are a requirement.

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/01/perception-of-doors/ https://www.property118.com/dispute-certification-fire-doors-going-court/

Many manufacturers give a recommended shelf life of 5 years, although this is more of a 'best before' than a 'use by' in most cases as long as the powder remains sealed, free from moisture and still free flowing. Performance wouldn't be guaranteed by the manufacturer after their recommended age.

Ownership has no bearing on whether an action is desirable or required - if this is a required action then it would suggest (& the report should clarify this) that either the internal compartmentation or external cladding (or both) is inadequate and a full evacuate solution is required as mitigation until resolved (or permanently if it can't be). A lender would be very reluctant to lend on a premises in this condition and for valuation the properties would be zero valued. If it is of such a condition that it requires such an extensive change in strategy and precautions failure to do so would be considered a breach of the legislation and be enforceable against the freeholder/TMC. It's possible (& has happened) in the worst cases a premises (including dwellings) can be served a Prohibition Notice and everyone has to move out. The Housing Act applies to dwellings and can be used against individual dwelling owners to enforce actions required for fire safety - it's most commonly used to get unsatisfactory flat front doors changed & I've experience of sites where we've used that to get enforcement notices against leaseholders who wouldn't change their doors in a tower block.

To be fair any domestic fire small enough to be safely tackled by an untrained occupier would be within the capabilities of a 1.4L Water Mist extinguisher, one per landing (3l if you really want, but costly) If you can't put a garage fire out with 2kg Powder you should be leaving it to the brigade. A 3l foam would be similar performance but cleaner and easier to see. All are available from the forum sponsor Safelincs.

That's OK, I can answer then - it's similar to a situation I have across a few sites. Traditionally the approach was to extend detection & sounders from the common system into every flat to facilitate full simultaneous or phased evacuation of the whole block - this was based on most ACM or HPL blocks being completely covered in the material. Some blocks however only have selected strips of ACM only potentially linking a small number of flats, the greater part of the block being non combustible (e.g. brick) faced. In these there is an understandable reluctance to expand the system building wide (with the resultant cost to the flat owners on top of the already high remediation costs) when most flats remain both externally & internally structurally safe to retain a 'stay put' approach. In these proposals have been put forward to only put a temporary wireless linked system in each strip of flats with an ACM exterior with cover to the exterior facing rooms and the hall ways so that only the set of flats liable to be affected by an externally spreading fire that originated in one of them need to evacuate. This has been accepted and allowed a removal of the (very costly & unreliable) waking watch. It's important the FRA and resultant mitigation strategy clearly defines which route is required and why.

Depends on the lender - if not down as legal requirements it's up to their opinion. Of course some findings in an FRA are required to met the functional requirements of the law, a good FRA will make clear which are required and which are just desirable.

Sometimes you need to use two parties - one to do the intrusive work and make good (often a passive fire protection company) and then a risk assessor to take their findings into the FRA and determine what remedials, if any, are required. Tenos can do both aspects in house.

I think, that based on layout, all this may be unnecessary, however without seeing the premises (or accurate plans) I can't be sure. The date of build makes me think it's going to be fine as it is, builds of this era do not usually have non compliant layouts, just service penetration fire stopping/door issues. Due to the age there should be a design fire strategy that formed part of the mandatory building information that should have been handed down on completion to whoever is responsible for the common parts, it's worth getting hold of. Sadly there are a lot of FRA assessors that don't understand the differences between commercial & residential.

Is this in Manchester?

It might not be used bu anyone else, but it is not your stair to use, it belongs to the freeholder or TMC so they are in their right to ask you to remove it even if there were no H&S reasons. As per my previous answer the management have clearly adopted the zero tolerance approach so unless a case can be made for managed use and more importantly the agent be persuaded to adopt it then you are stuck. Also even if they do not obstruct they will burn and the principle of communal circulation areas in flats is that they do not contain anything that can burn.

If built as stay put to Building Regulations you wouldn't expect any call points (or alarm sounders) - whilst you might have seen them in other purpose built modern blocks they aren't actually required.

If your premises were built for stay put you would not expect to see call points or even alarm sounders. However the configuration of your system sounds like one designed for a premises where a full evacuation is required and as such call points would normally be required - this is also the case in sheltered housing (more commonly called over 55 or retirement villages as it sounds better) where it is stay out other than for the common areas or flat of fire origin.