Ultimate responsibility

[Fitter 1]

Good Evening,

Can anyone please advise, we have a client that has had a FRA completed on a house converted in to 3 flats back in the early 80's. The property consists of Flat 1 which is the main house (occupied by the RP) and Flats 2 and 3 which are rented out to single tenants on long term lease. The Escape route from flats 2 and 3 is a communal staircase which passes through a conservatory area to a final exit door to the main road.

The FRA has asked for Grade A LD2 communal with heat detector in the flat entrance within 600mm of the door interlinked.  Grade D LD2 within each flat. The RP is adamant that he will not have any trunking or floors lifted within the flats and wants the existing Grade F LD2 system replaced with Interlinked Aico Grade F1 detection with remote control adjacent to the flat entrance door. 

If the RP wishes to go against the advice of the FRA and have the Grade F1 system installed along with the Grade A communal, who is ultimately responsible should for any reason a court case arise.

thanks in advance.

[Tom Sutton]

The RP could go against the advice of the FRA but if the FRS (the enforcing authority) conducted a fire safety audit and if they agreed with the FRA, could take the RP to court. It would be up to the court to decide the RP was right or wrong to ignore the FRA which appears to follow the relevant guidance.

[Fitter 1]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the reply.

So ultimately if the RP decided to ignore the advice given in the FRA and advice from me to follow the FRA and  have me as the engineer install Grade F1 then it is up to him but he takes the consequences should there be a court case. Is that correct?

I appreciate your time.

[Tom Sutton]

Yes more or less providing your advice was to follow the FRA and tell the RP of the possible consequence should the FRS do an audit.