Security Chains on lobby doors in high rise

[WG]

In a single staircase high-rise (approx 23 metres) split landings providing lobby approach to a single flat, the door from the staircase into the lobby being part of the common means of escape (landlord demise). The lobby contains service riser, detection to operate AOV, the area is maintained by the landlord including maintenance. (Built circa 1972).

Q1. Would it be acceptable for the tenant occupier to put a security type chain on the lobby door?

Q2. Can the owner landlord remove and insist that the means of escape are maintained available?

Q3. How would the fire and rescue service view this arrangement?

Anyone have any suggestions

[kurnal]

I would not see a problem with the means of escape for the occupiers of the single flat affected but the access could be enforced for maintenance purposes to the service riser, detector and AOV.

The perennial problem with these places is tenants always wanting to push the boundaries and put junk in the landlords areas and a chain on the door may potentially create a psychological demarcation line making it the tenants property (in their perception).

[Phoenix]

I'd support kurnal's points.  Access shouldn't be a problem though, because the chain can only be on when people are in, in which case they are available to take the chain off to allow people access to risers, etc.

To answer Q2 the landlord must insist that the route remains available for use, it's within the area for which he/she is responsible.  There used to be a story going around about someone who died in a fire because they couldn't get the chain off their front door quickly enough - was there ever any truth in that - anyone know?  Also, this is in the landlord's area and he/she would have every right to remove an unauthorised bit of door hardware and claim compensation for the damage caused.

Q3 - Don't know what the fire service would say.  It would depend what mood they were in.  I can't see it's any different from the occupier having one on their actual front door.  And that leads to a final point, why do they want to put this on this door and not on their front door?  I can only think that kurnal has it spot on and the tenants are trying to claim a bit more territory as their own.  With territory comes occupation: pot plants (no problem), pictures (not much problem), coat stand (not so good), bags of waste waiting to go out to the bin (bad).

In honesty, we can't judge, not having seen the building but, if you're the fire risk assessor, be wary of such a proposal and try and uncover the true intentions of the tenant - they'll deny everything of course, I would.

Stu

 

[tmprojects]

It is very difficult to interpret you words into a picture of the premises. and in some senses the only point that is important is where the common parts end and the single private dwelling start.
But if i have understood you correctly. each 'lobby' serves a single premises but is within the demise of the owner. if this is correct then here is my view.

Q1. if the owner, within their FRA, identifies these doors as risk critical then NO. apart form the access issue for maintenance. if the doors form part of the MofE then it is their duty to ensure any door for MofE is easily openable in accordance with;
Article 14 (f) emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;
It is their premises, they are responsible, END OF.

Q2. Yes. for reason made clear above.

Q3. Not very favourabley. apart form the accesss to the premises it would impact on access to the service ducts which could hamper firefighting. Apart form that. an englishmans home is his castle does not extend past his demise. SIMPLE.

from an enforcement point of view the RP of the common parts would be deficient in this instance because they failed to comply with article 14(f)