Responsibility for fire alarm system in rented business property

[Guest JonCoo]

Hello,

Whilst I understand that a business tenant has responsibilities under the legislation I cannot find out if the tenant or the landlord is responsible for the supply and installation of a fire alarm. Any help would be most gratefully received. I can be contacted by email or telephoned on 01656724100.

many thanks
Jon

[Tom Sutton]

Under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 the person or persons defined the Responsible Person (RP) is responsible for the fire alarm. First you would need to establish who the RP or RP's are, using article 3. If you are an employer then you are the RP for your workplace and all the other employers would be the RP of their workplaces and you would have to co operate with each other to provide a fire alarm for the building. The owner or his agent may take over this responsibility but it all depends on your tenancy agreement, as does the costs. I would suggest you contact your solicitor and get them to sort it out with the landlord.

[AnthonyB]

Are you in a multi-occupied premises with shared communal space or a single occupancy premises?

If the latter it's fully in your court, in the former there is usually a communal system across the whole site.

[Guest BeverlyWri]

I would like to know whether there is a legislation regarding fire alarms in a commercial property and who is responsible for fitting them. Landlord or tenant?

[Tom Sutton]

If a fire alarm is required it is the duty of the Responsible Person (RP) to provide it under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The RP is defined by article 3 of the fire safety order and article 5 lists his/her duties.

Who installs it and pays for it will depend on your tenancy agreement but in the end it is going to be the tenants through their rent who pay for it. I would think it makes sense for the owner/managing agents to install it because he/she has control of the structure of the building and could recoup any costs through rents. If the RP of each workplace was to install their own they would have to be interconnected and consider the problems with maintenance, it would make more sense if the owner took on this responsibility also its part of the structure which cannot be removed when the tenant leaves.

[Guest Please help]

Hi I am a salon owner in a communal shopping arcade the landlord didn’t have any smoke detectors or fire extinguishers fitted In the building and a faulty alarm system , the building was recently on the receiving end of an arson attack is my landlord accountable for any loss as he didn’t put in place the correct safety measures 

[Tom Sutton]

As an employer or self-employed you are subject to The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for your premises and the route from your premises to the public thoroughfare. The landlord could be responsible for certain articles as well as yourself, who are subject to them all. You and the other premises are also required to co-operate and co-ordinate as the employers are all Responsible Persons under the regulations.

[Guest Bel]

My partner and I are disagreeing on whether when a company rents a newly built warehouse, there has to already be a fire system in place by those who own the building. But when I started working at my warehouse 3 years ago, it was after I started, a year or 2 later, that the fire system was set up. Before that, we had a horn you pressed fir fire drills. 

My partner says that's not possible because legally the owner of the building, land, is responsible for installing before renting it. 

Can anyone tell me if I am right or not please? That would be great.??

[AnthonyB]

If it's modern build, then unless very small or built illicitly, there would be a basic system installed under Building Regs unless built as a shell for occupier fit out in which case it may not have anything.
 

Regardless of this as soon as an employer (tenant) moves in they assume all legal responsibility & liability under fire safety legislation to ensure that adequate provision is made and maintained.

[Edward]

My Employer has recently rented some office space in building which is an old converted barn and in use as such for 20yrs plus. We've just had our first external fire inspection/service/maintenance visit from external contractors and their report highlights actions and a large quote for said works. I'm querying the following points:

i) The Fire Control Panel needs replacing as over manufacturers 10yr guarantee so doesn't conform to BS5839-1 2017 - I'd argue its fit for purpose as is tested weekly and risk of deterioration is minimal as located in dry, warm reception foyer

ii) The loft space requires means of detection - The loft is empty bar insulation and wiring (lights) and we will not be using. I'd argue that the risk of ignition is low and detection isn't required to ensure safe evac of staff in the office below. I'm going to have it secured and sign as 'permit to work required' so that temporary fire detection (smoke angel etc.) can be arranged in the unlikely event of works up there.

Questions:

1) On the face of info presented does anybody disagree with these risk based judgments presented in i & ii? If I'm wrong I'm happy to be told so but there is a bit of holding the Contractor to account here as the feeling is they state BS compliance too readily and quote happily rather than giving professional advice on options.

2) RRFSO is about Duty Holder requirement to aid early detection and evac to protect life - it doesn't take in to account property (apart from if say collapse of such property would endanger others in which case Emergency arrangements would dictate others would be alerted) Correct?

3)  I get that *ensuring* there is provision of fire detection and alarm systems is a employers requirement under RRFSO but is it not trumped by Landlord Act or Occupiers liability Act which state that Landlord arrangements to be in place to 'safeguard/protect' (not so familiar with these so not sure of phase/language) people other than their visitors? I've read articles that fire alarm systems are Landlord responsibilities unless express agreement/statement otherwise. 

4) unrelated but kind of related (going back to my assessment of fire risk in the attic) am I right in thinking the Landlord has respnsibility to demonstrate and esnure electrical system is safe ie produce a EICR report and evidence of completed works where highlighted as C1, C2.. 

5) BS isn't a legal requirement correct? May be a stipulation of the Landlords building insurance though correct? What about my Employers insurer, say in the event of injury or worse for cover to be in place to protect against civil claim.

Thanks in advance. 

ES (H&S Mgr)

 

[AnthonyB]

7 hours ago, Edward said:

My Employer has recently rented some office space in building which is an old converted barn and in use as such for 20yrs plus. We've just had our first external fire inspection/service/maintenance visit from external contractors and their report highlights actions and a large quote for said works. I'm querying the following points:

i) The Fire Control Panel needs replacing as over manufacturers 10yr guarantee so doesn't conform to BS5839-1 2017 - I'd argue its fit for purpose as is tested weekly and risk of deterioration is minimal as located in dry, warm reception foyer

That's a good sales line, if the panel still works fine, then it stays in service - the British Standard doesn't actually set life spans like this as long as it works. If it is an addressable system however some makes do become obsolete and can't be repaired or altered - but from what you say this isn't the line they are taking so probably isn't the case

ii) The loft space requires means of detection - The loft is empty bar insulation and wiring (lights) and we will not be using. I'd argue that the risk of ignition is low and detection isn't required to ensure safe evac of staff in the office below. I'm going to have it secured and sign as 'permit to work required' so that temporary fire detection (smoke angel etc.) can be arranged in the unlikely event of works up there.

It would be contrary to the standard, however the Fire Risk Assessment determines what is required in a specific situation. If genuinely low risk, lack of cover could be mitigated in the FRA. It could be rubber stamped for the alarm company if an 'agreed variation' to BS5839-1 was put in place if agreed with all relevant parties.

Questions:

1) On the face of info presented does anybody disagree with these risk based judgments presented in i & ii? If I'm wrong I'm happy to be told so but there is a bit of holding the Contractor to account here as the feeling is they state BS compliance too readily and quote happily rather than giving professional advice on options.

See above - companies will stick to the BS (or weird misinterpretations/applications thereof)  as (a) it can be used to make money & (b) they aren't doing the FRA and don't want to be seen as responsible in any way for determining precautions that could be taken to be being involved in the FRA so will stick to the BS.

 

7 hours ago, Edward said:

2) RRFSO is about Duty Holder requirement to aid early detection and evac to protect life - it doesn't take in to account property (apart from if say collapse of such property would endanger others in which case Emergency arrangements would dictate others would be alerted) Correct?

Life safety only, correct

3)  I get that *ensuring* there is provision of fire detection and alarm systems is a employers requirement under RRFSO but is it not trumped by Landlord Act or Occupiers liability Act which state that Landlord arrangements to be in place to 'safeguard/protect' (not so familiar with these so not sure of phase/language) people other than their visitors? I've read articles that fire alarm systems are Landlord responsibilities unless express agreement/statement otherwise. 

No, the FSO stands separate. You are both the employer and by way of your lease person having control of the premises so determining the requirements in your area is yours - also if it is a single occupancy self contained let system remains your responsibility to provide and maintain unless your lease specifically says otherwise (& you would then have a Service Charge). If it's just a suite or floor in a larger building with a single common system serving both common and tenanted areas then your landlord would be liable for it's maintenance, all you would need to do is identify if it's sufficient for your needs and if not tell the landlord who must make it so (but they could recharge costs, particularly if the changes are due to alterations you've made to the suite after moving in)

4) unrelated but kind of related (going back to my assessment of fire risk in the attic) am I right in thinking the Landlord has respnsibility to demonstrate and ensure electrical system is safe ie produce a EICR report and evidence of completed works where highlighted as C1, C2.. 

It's common for a let to be handed over with a current clear EICR, the tenant usually only accepts responsibility thereafter (assuming they remain in occupancy long enough for another EICR to become due)
 

5) BS isn't a legal requirement correct? May be a stipulation of the Landlords building insurance though correct? What about my Employers insurer, say in the event of injury or worse for cover to be in place to protect against civil claim.

No, but it is used as a benchmark by the Courts. Therefore any deviation must be justifiable and demonstrate that it does not lead to a risk to relevant persons compared to meeting the BS. It is possible to agree such variations and I have done this in FRA's in the past.

Thanks in advance. 

ES (H&S Mgr)

 

 

[AnthonyB]

My Employer has recently rented some office space in building which is an old converted barn and in use as such for 20yrs plus. We've just had our first external fire inspection/service/maintenance visit from external contractors and their report highlights actions and a large quote for said works. I'm querying the following points:

i) The Fire Control Panel needs replacing as over manufacturers 10yr guarantee so doesn't conform to BS5839-1 2017 - I'd argue its fit for purpose as is tested weekly and risk of deterioration is minimal as located in dry, warm reception foyer

That's a good sales line, if the panel still works fine, then it stays in service - the British Standard doesn't actually set life spans like this as long as it works. If it is an addressable system however some makes do become obsolete and can't be repaired or altered - but from what you say this isn't the line they are taking so probably isn't the case

ii) The loft space requires means of detection - The loft is empty bar insulation and wiring (lights) and we will not be using. I'd argue that the risk of ignition is low and detection isn't required to ensure safe evac of staff in the office below. I'm going to have it secured and sign as 'permit to work required' so that temporary fire detection (smoke angel etc.) can be arranged in the unlikely event of works up there.

It would be contrary to the standard, however the Fire Risk Assessment determines what is required in a specific situation. If genuinely low risk, lack of cover could be mitigated in the FRA. It could be rubber stamped for the alarm company if an 'agreed variation' to BS5839-1 was put in place if agreed with all relevant parties.

Questions:

1) On the face of info presented does anybody disagree with these risk based judgments presented in i & ii? If I'm wrong I'm happy to be told so but there is a bit of holding the Contractor to account here as the feeling is they state BS compliance too readily and quote happily rather than giving professional advice on options.

See above - companies will stick to the BS (or weird misinterpretations/applications thereof)  as (a) it can be used to make money & (b) they aren't doing the FRA and don't want to be seen as responsible in any way for determining precautions that could be taken to be being involved in the FRA so will stick to the BS.

 

  8 hours ago, Edward said:

2) RRFSO is about Duty Holder requirement to aid early detection and evac to protect life - it doesn't take in to account property (apart from if say collapse of such property would endanger others in which case Emergency arrangements would dictate others would be alerted) Correct?

Life safety only, correct

3)  I get that *ensuring* there is provision of fire detection and alarm systems is a employers requirement under RRFSO but is it not trumped by Landlord Act or Occupiers liability Act which state that Landlord arrangements to be in place to 'safeguard/protect' (not so familiar with these so not sure of phase/language) people other than their visitors? I've read articles that fire alarm systems are Landlord responsibilities unless express agreement/statement otherwise. 

No, the FSO stands separate. You are both the employer and by way of your lease person having control of the premises so determining the requirements in your area is yours - also if it is a single occupancy self contained let system remains your responsibility to provide and maintain unless your lease specifically says otherwise (& you would then have a Service Charge). If it's just a suite or floor in a larger building with a single common system serving both common and tenanted areas then your landlord would be liable for it's maintenance, all you would need to do is identify if it's sufficient for your needs and if not tell the landlord who must make it so (but they could recharge costs, particularly if the changes are due to alterations you've made to the suite after moving in)

4) unrelated but kind of related (going back to my assessment of fire risk in the attic) am I right in thinking the Landlord has respnsibility to demonstrate and ensure electrical system is safe ie produce a EICR report and evidence of completed works where highlighted as C1, C2.. 

It's common for a let to be handed over with a current clear EICR, the tenant usually only accepts responsibility thereafter (assuming they remain in occupancy long enough for another EICR to become due)
 

5) BS isn't a legal requirement correct? May be a stipulation of the Landlords building insurance though correct? What about my Employers insurer, say in the event of injury or worse for cover to be in place to protect against civil claim.

No, but it is used as a benchmark by the Courts. Therefore any deviation must be justifiable and demonstrate that it does not lead to a risk to relevant persons compared to meeting the BS. It is possible to agree such variations and I have done this in FRA's in the past.

Thanks in advance. 

ES (H&S Mgr)

 

[Edward]

Thanks AnthonyB - that all makes perfect sense and is much appreciated! Ed

[Guest Rhonda]

My landlord installed fire alarm to my unit. There was three electrical surges in business park last year and power was not going to board. 
 

I reported to land lord and they arranged for fire people to come out to repair. Instead of fixing board they carried out a load of works on site with out my consent or permission and no costs were approved. 
 

now land lord has billed me for 50 percent of costs and bill is over 2 grand. I am furious as all I wanted was the current alarms working and now they have installed loads of new sensors etc and now I am out pocket as they are fixture amd fitting of building that I can’t take with me. 
 

I need advice on the is. 

[green-foam]

You need legal advice which this forum does not offer.

[Guest Business Alarms]

I live in rented accommodation above a butcher’s shop. My fire/ smoke alarms regularly go off early mornings and I believe it has something to do with the ovens at the butchers below us. Should my alarms and theirs be connected in this way at all? Or should their alarms be different to mine and only theirs go off instead of the whole building?

[AnthonyB]

On 15/12/2023 at 07:42, Guest Business Alarms said:

I live in rented accommodation above a butcher’s shop. My fire/ smoke alarms regularly go off early mornings and I believe it has something to do with the ovens at the butchers below us. Should my alarms and theirs be connected in this way at all? Or should their alarms be different to mine and only theirs go off instead of the whole building?

If the fire compartmentation between the butchers and your flat is not good enough (usually needs to be a 60 minute fire resistant floor/ceiling) then a fire in the shop could quickly breach into your flat, potentially with fatal results (especially at night). Where this is the case (often due to the age of a property) it's usual to have fire detection in the shop linked to the flats above.

They may have incorrect detectors - they should have heat detectors where the ovens are so they won't false alarm but would still activate before even a non fire resistant ceiling failed.