FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nigelB on November 05, 2006, 05:53:42 PM
-
If I own a block of flats, and I rent them out to long term tenants; who is responsible for ensuring there are smoke detectors in each flat? And is it necessary to have one in each flat, or is it just good practice. Does anyone know where I can find information on such matters?
-
Common areas would be protected by a Fire Alarm panel eg stairwells; individual dwellings needs Smoke alarms & possibly Heat Alarms.
There is no Building Regs requiring this, however you have a civil responsibility under Duty Of Care principle; if you e mail me with your address I'll send you a relevant document.
-
Common areas would be protected by a Fire Alarm panel eg stairwells; individual dwellings needs Smoke alarms & possibly Heat Alarms.
There is no Building Regs requiring this, however you have a civil responsibility under Duty Of Care principle; if you e mail me with your address I'll send you a relevant document.
Not necessarily. This a more complicated issue.
-
Gel - whats this "relevant document" you are talking about????
-
Isn't this technically an HMO ?
-
Isn't this technically an HMO ?
THats what I initially thought because we maintain a lot of flats that actually don't need the protection that is installed - HMO's only apply (in broad terms) to accommodations made up of seperate sleeping quarters but communal living areas.
-
The simple rule of thumb is -
If you all live in self contained dwellings - then you each have your own self contained smoke alarm system.
If you share facilities, as in a HMO, such as kithchens - then you have a common shared fire alarm system.
However I should warn you that lots of buildings that aren't really HMOs get treated as HMOs this is due to a combination of poor legislation and overzelous enforcement.
-
The simple rule of thumb is -
If you all live in self contained dwellings - then you each have your own self contained smoke alarm system.
If you share facilities, as in a HMO, such as kithchens - then you have a common shared fire alarm system.
However I should warn you that lots of buildings that aren't really HMOs get treated as HMOs this is due to a combination of poor legislation and overzelous enforcement.
That also!
-
I have recently been dealing with a similar issue.
If housing(public protection) have registered it as a HMO then a 5839 part 6 LD2 system would be required to incorporate common areas of association. i.e If someone was working on the 3rd floor landing(common area)such as a contractor and the ground floor flat caught fire,the RRO insists (article 13)that warning is given.Therefore a detector is required in the domestic property(or HMO).Obviously not a definitive answer as the terminology of HMO has different meanings in different areas.
-
Dont follow that at all Inspectionofficer. How is the contractor any more at risk on the third floor landing than the other relevant persons such as the occupants of flats on the third floor?
I dont think we have directly answered the original question though. If the building is not an HMO, if it is a block of self contained rented flats what is the position?
If the building was converted to flats after 1991 then the Building Regs in England would have ensured that each flat has a mains powered smoke detector . Pre 1991 no provision was made. I suggest if the conversion was pre 1991 and the flats are let unfurnished then there is nothing more than a moral duty on the landlord to provide smoke alarms in the tenants flats, and now under the RRO, through the risk assessment, to consider an alarm and detection system covering the common areas.
I also think that if the flats are rented furnished they will be more likely to be defined as an HMO. The risk will be higher as the tenants are more likely to be short term at risk groups so any moral duty on a landlord is more compelling.
-
Putting a total building, simultaneous alarm system in a block of flats is bordering on being irresponsible.
No code of practice recomends it (quite the opposite). False/unwanted alarms will soon make the system irrelevant.
Flats are desinged so that evacuation should not be necessary. HMOs are different (real ones that is)
-
I agree on this one Brian!
-
I agree also but many people out there, some risk assessors and some enforcers are requiring detection and extinguishers in the common parts of flats.
It is true that they do fall within the scope of the RRFSO but In my opinion there is no need for such provision.
Kurnal is correct with regards to flats built post 1991 and these are not HMOs.
-
In my opinion the level of compartmentation comes into play. Approved Document B states that "the same principles should apply within flats as for houses whilst noting that:
a) The provisions are not intended to be applied to the common parts of flats and do not include interconnection between flats."
The reason being one of the two following scenarios:
a) In two storey flats escape is the same as dwellinghouses, out the door if possible or open the escape window hang and drop if your primary route is unavailable.
b) In flats more than 4.5m above GL the increased levels of compartmentation within flats should ensure that a flat adjoining a flat on fire should remain free from the effects of fire for a considerable time (Long enough for the fire service to arrive and determine whether evacuation is necessary and how it is done).
If at any time Tenant B discovers that a fire is ongoing in Flat A they have limited distances through common areas (which should have minimal smoke) to travel before being within a sterile stair enclosure.
These factors offset the need for an interlinked system due to the potential for a tenant to drive their neighbours potty by triggering off the alarm system as and when they please. I agree with Brian interlinking alarms could be seen as irresponsible (especially if elderly occupants are present).
In HMO's, but ONLY those where control over the occupants is easily possible (Student accommodation etc) then the interlinked alarm can work with management policies to remove irresponsible behaviour.
The risk to workers in common areas of general flats would be minimal. The workers would be nearer the stair than the occupants of the other flats. Worst case scenario, there would be 2 doors between them and the fire (and that is more than adequate at any other time, including other tenants).
Saddlers
-
If they are not HMOs and the occupants simply private tenants and not in care, then Building Regs provide the only legal requirement for AFD of which I am aware and then only since 1991 and not retrospective. They remain a good idea but not connected to the other flats. If you provide them, there is an argument that you should also maintain them.
-
Detection in these flat types are for the occupants not for the other residents. Residents are supposed to stay behind their 60 minute protection. True HMO's as indicated above have differing alarm systems because of a lower protection level.
-
And remember Wales & Scotland have differing "rules of engagement" for HMO's, with England's being bit more disjointed/locally decided.
Wales calls up sprinklers I believe in new HMO's.
Not sure on N Ireland scenario;perhaps someone can clarify?
WEE BRIAN
(Relevant document referred to earlier, was a legal opinion we had commissioned by a Doctor of Law, on the somewhat vague "Duty Of care" principle.
This aimed at public housing specifiers who bleat,
"Why do we have to fit smoke alarms in existing stock, there's nowt in Building Regs?"
Go to 10 legal eagles, and you'll get 10 opinions(+ INVOICES), but as we know Doctors best!)
-
Only 10 opinions!! I would count on at least 15 and most of those would be a fairly definite maybe.
-
GEL
I can see that there may be a duty to ensure that your tennants get a standard of detection at a level similar to that of a new building. But providing a more extensive system than is recommended in an Approved Document would be hard to justify even by some two bit (or even several bits) lawyer.
-
You would be amazed what architects put into conversion jobs with regard to detection. I had to look at a set of plans recently where they had put smoke detection in the staircase, the flat lobby and the flat lounge (that was actually a lounge diner), all linked. I recomended to him that they remove the smoke from the lounge, make the lobby one a heat and smoke in the staircase. Finally each lobby also had a part 6 smoke just to alert the flat occupants in the early stages or more likely to toast! I do find it strange that ADB really only gives detection coverage to the flat and does not consider warning the rest of the occupants of the block. If you are risk assessing and believe in detection its hard to say ok sit behind 60 minutes FR and hope you or a passer by spots the fire in a flat below.
-
Its apolicy that has worked since the early 1960s. We dont just make this stuff up you know.
-
Have a read of Guidance Document 3 and the Notes that go with the Fire Alarm section. You get a mix in some cases of part 1 and Part 6 in all sorts fo premises.
-
Ouch Wee brian, you are a bit aggressive aren't you? saying it was a hang up from the 1960's is hardly a good reason, have we not just had some new fire safety legislation come out going by your attitude we should have stuck with the old stuff!
Thanks Jokar i will look it up.
-
BJ
Didn't mean to be agressive. Just because the law changes it doesnt mean we have to change all the technical stuff. Fire is still a kind of hot and orangey stuff with smoke coming out of it. Even Parliament can't change that.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of fire safety officers who, in the past, had little to do with blocks of flats are now questioning the startegy that the UK uses for these buildings.
There's nothing wrong with asking the question but I get a bit irritated by people who form opinions before doing their homework.
The strategy is well established and has a long and succesful history. I have had severall guys go off the deep end when they realise that you can have a 30 storey block with only one staircase. However almost all the casualties we get in these buildings occur in the flat where the fire starts.
Nobody has ever become a casualty due to a lack of stairs in a block of flats. Given that we have been doing it for so long it is a clue that perhaps it works. (we do get lots of fires in these buildings so its not just luck)
There are a few buildings, often more modern ones, where some misguided sole has installed a house alarm system. This is often as a trade off against protection to the stairway. In practice the occupants soon tire of these things going off in the middle of the night and disable them. If you do evacuate the flats, people often end up with smoke injuries as there is often a fair bit of smoke in the stairway.
I had the dubious honour of investigating an incident in a relatively new block which had a house alarm system. Firefighting had gone a bit wrong and the officer in charge decided to evacuate the building. Firefighters worked their way down the building knocking on doors and asking people to leave. This is what is meant to happen.
Despite the fact that the house alarm had been ringing for some considerable time people only started to react when a firefighter in full kit appeared at their door. One householder was actually in the process of ripping a sounder off the wall as a firefighter apeeared at his front door!
-
Well said.
-
If you are risk assessing and believe in detection its hard to say ok sit behind 60 minutes FR and hope you or a passer by spots the fire in a flat below.
The point is John that the level of compartmentation should ensure that the fire stays within the flat so why would you want to evacuate everyone?
I have to agree with Wee Brian, there are many very tall buildings with a single stairway that are perfectly safe.
-
Some colleagues did a fire drill on one of these modern conversions into residential flats earlier this week and after about 10 minutes gave up as not a single soul emerged - the licensed units at the bottom were not open at the time of alarm & the flats were either empty or ignored it!
This does illustrate the limited value of a central common alarm in this non HMO situation - you can't even cite early fire service attendance as this system isn't linked to a monitoring station! Plus there are two alternative protected stairs as well as the main atrium and corridor seperation
-
QED
Why are peop[le trying to reinvent a perfectly serviceable wheel?
-
I am new to this forum but I would like an opinion on the following. The question is in regard to fire risk assessments on flats. The flats in question would not have been built in accordance with the current B Regs in fact some of them are in the region of 70yrs old. All have timber floors and generally only one staircase. The front doors to the flats are suspect but substantial ie heavy but no seals or in most cases no self closers. The FSO asks for fire alarm for the common area based on BS5839 pt1 but also Pt6 Grade A LD2. The question is should this installation include fire alarm call points and if so where would they be installed. My first thought was that at least one call point at the panel may be suffiecent., but on reflection perhaps no call points only detection. I realise that call points in the public domain may in many properties give rise to abuse and false alarms but these properties are in the top end on the market both cashwise and socially. The flats are being advised to install their own smoke detection system that will not be linked to the building alarm (so no burnt toast evacuations)
PeteG
-
I am new to this forum but I would like an opinion on the following. The question is in regard to fire risk assessments on flats. The flats in question would not have been built in accordance with the current B Regs in fact some of them are in the region of 70yrs old. All have timber floors and generally only one staircase. The front doors to the flats are suspect but substantial ie heavy but no seals or in most cases no self closers. The FSO asks for fire alarm for the common area based on BS5839 pt1 but also Pt6 Grade A LD2. The question is should this installation include fire alarm call points and if so where would they be installed. My first thought was that at least one call point at the panel may be suffiecent., but on reflection perhaps no call points only detection. I realise that call points in the public domain may in many properties give rise to abuse and false alarms but these properties are in the top end on the market both cashwise and socially. The flats are being advised to install their own smoke detection system that will not be linked to the building alarm (so no burnt toast evacuations)
PeteG
Peter,
Since the requirement for the common areas is for a BS5839 part 1 system, and on the assumption it is installed for the protection of Life, then Manual Call Points are the minimum that would be required and would be installed adjacent to every exit from the buidling and at each of floor levels leading to the staircase. If the actual travel distance to operate any MCP is more than 45 metres (25 metres if a significant number of mobility impaired residents) then additional MCPs may be required. Automatic detection is not a definite requirement just because a system has to be to BS5839 part 1, but I would guess the Risk Assessment would require them, as per L4 category as a minimum.
-
Peter
The first consideration should be which fire safety standard should be applied in this case. It sounds as though the standards for a house in multiple occupation(Housing Act 2004) are appropriate rather than the standards applied to flats- the fire officer and environmental health officer should be consulted to find out how they are viewing it.
It reads as though each flat has its own stair- this is a little confusing. If there is a common staircase serving several flats then the first priority will be to ensure that a fire in any flat as far as possible cannot affect the means of escape from the others- by providing fire doors and screens to the staircase- they need to be to the FD30 S SC standard. Depending on how many staircases and how many floors there are there may need to be additional protection.
As for alarms this will depend on several factors- the height, the number of staircases, the level of structural protection that can be achieved.
Finally to the heart of your question. If it were flats in the middle of town you are right that call points will attract vandals like wasps round a jamjar. If it were a HMO the standard is for a full BS5839 system that includes break glass units on each floor and detection in each room leading onto the staircase. If its flats then stand alone detection to part 6 and nothing in the common areas would be the norm. However if the means of escape can never be brought up to the standard where its protection can be guaranteed in case of a fire in a flat then its likely that the fire officer has asked for detection in the common areas to give early warning of smoke in the staircase - to alert people before they are cut off. In the circumstances you describe the manual call points may not be a problem. If they are likely to cause problems some could be omitted under a declared deviation to the code, by agreement with the enforcement agencies - the spec under BS5839 would probably be L4 in this case.
Now we all know this solution for flats would bring problems- people would be reluctant to evacuate if the common areas alarms operated. But can anybody come up with an alternative idea in this case?
-
...... If they are likely to cause problems some could be omitted under a declared deviation to the code, .....
Kurnal my old mate, how has 'deviation' crept back into the party again? Great posting, otherwise. I do enjoy learning from you. And at no cost! Which is the precise amount I can afford to pay after Matron started diverting my pension into her 'holiday' fund!
-
Sorry Wiz forgot myself again.
I apologise for my deviation from the official politically correct terminology. Of course I should have called it something else but the trouble is I can remember all the old terms and always forget the new. Dr Kirchoff said something about these things going round in cycles - I do try to keep up to date, but when I get it wrong it hertz.
By the way I hope Matron has a gay time on her holiday.
-
Sorry Wiz forgot myself again.
I apologise for my deviation from the official politically correct terminology. Of course I should have called it something else but the trouble is I can remember all the old terms and always forget the new. Dr Kirchoff said something about these things going round in cycles - I do try to keep up to date, but when I get it wrong it hertz.
By the way I hope Matron has a gay time on her holiday.
For those who haven't forgotten but just don't know, the term 'deviation' has been superseded in BS5839 2002 with the term 'variation'
-
And I must admit that variation is a better term really because it indicates a planned, engineered and justified change to the standard fully code compliant installation. Whereas the term deviation implies somebody has bent or broken the rules and the system is substandard in some way.
I go along with this Wiz 100%.
But I cant see why it matters if I say system category rather than system type.....
-
And I must admit that variation is a better term really because it indicates a planned, engineered and justified change to the standard fully code compliant installation. Whereas the term deviation implies somebody has bent or broken the rules and the system is substandard in some way.
I go along with this Wiz 100%.
But I cant see why it matters if I say system category rather than system type.....
As you know Kurnal, it wasn't me that made the change. And as far as I am concerned you can say whatever you want. I just didn't want others saying you liked deviations and thought I'd remind you that 'they' have taken our deviations away from us!