FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: The Colonel on June 13, 2008, 02:37:36 PM
-
I have recently carried out fire risk assessements on comon areas (stairs, entrance hall) of five blocks of lease hold flats on behalf of the management company. Each bloock contains 12 flats on ground, 1st & 2nd floors, all accessed off the internal common area. Not many problems as they are purpose built blocks with good inbuilt fire resistance. During the assessment it was noted that three ground floor flats either had or still have cat flaps fitted into the flat entrance door which is 30 mins FR.
Comment was made in the risk assessment that these flaps and infilled areas should be restored to 30 minutes FR as they may affect the means of escape. I have just recieved a question from the management company with regard to the doors and would be gratefull for you opnions.
"Reference the flat doors, the Management Company can readily write to the owners of the flats to have the doors checked / brought up to standard but what if an owner refuses to remedy the fix? If the Company is shown that it has taken the necessary reasonable steps (duplicate letters, final letter sent recorded etc etc) does this relinquish the responsibility (liability) from the Management Company? Is it simply the interpretation of "reasonable steps". Unusually each owner of the 60 flats is also a Director of the Management Company"
Each common area is reasonably sterile but if residents from upper floors wish to evacuate they will pass the doors with flaps.
Am I being over the top in asking for the fire resistance of these doors to be restored, they were of the 30 minute standard for a reason in the first place.
-
Envirograph provide F/R cat flaps.. Bought one last year for my doctors garage door. Product 118.
D E S C R I P T I O N
A metal frame that houses an Envirograf® Product 16 economy intumescent box, designed
for standard cat and dog flaps (these are not supplied). Your standard door flap fits into our
unit. Standard finishes are brown, grey, and white. The fitted intumescent and PVC-faced
sponge is sufficiently smooth for a cat and dog to pass through. It will not seal or expand until
the fire has reached 1200C at the door (approximately 4 minutes into the fire). The product
can be made to fit a brick wall of any thickness.
U S E
For fire-rated doors in apartments and houses. In a fire, the intumescent material would
expand, filling the hole and maintaining the integrity of the fire door. This Envirograf® product
is simple to fit.
P E R F O R M A N C E
Tested to BS476 Part 22 (1987) and prEN1366-3, achieving 68 minutes protection.
-
. It will not seal or expand until the fire has reached 1200C
So it will not stop cold smoke and might take a while to stop anything hot either?
I'm no expert on this, but is something better not needed if it won't start working until it get's to 1200C?
-
I'd like to think it's a miss print, 200? bit nearer your intumecent materials.
-
Not over the top. They are there for protection for others. It is an interesting case though with regard to entrance doors which are FR. Who does the door belong to? Quite clearly the lease should state which is the RP of the door, the managing agents or the flat occupier. It is not really your problem any more as the FRA has been done and it is for the RP to now deal with the outcomes.
-
These fire doors onto flats are they fitted self closers and three hinges? I think not
-
Intumescent strips nearer to 140c before they start to activate
-
Had a look at Envirograf and the cat flaps would be good for replacing the existing one, the stated temperature on thier site is 120c.
Yes the doors do have 3 hinges and a self closure (Perco) of which sample doors contained broken self closers
Joker, will ask the managing agent who owns the door but I would suspect its part of the flat. I know its not my problem once it is highlighted in the risk assessment but help and advice is all part of the service to clients.
Perhaps a few coats of Envirgraf paint on the repaired parts of doors may help on the flat side?
-
Colonel
You are absolutely right to ask for the fire resistance to be restored, as you know the doors are absolutely critical to the fire safety of the common areas and to the stay put policy, and the fire alarm and detection strategy for the building.
As you no doubt remember the old CP3 was intended to cover floors above the first floor only but standards have moved on since then. At ground and first floor levels it was ( and still is under building Regs ADB) ok to jump out of a window.(assuming no railings, obstructions, drops over 4.5m)
How many good fire doors are there between the ground and first floor common areas and the exit routes from the second floor? Any less than 2 and the ground and first floors will need upgrading too
The Landlord or agent should have retained control over the entrance doors to the flats and whoever drew up the leases should have seen to this if they were competent. There are many cases where in an attempt to slope shoulders and through ignorance of the implications, agents instructed their solicitors to make the front doors the tenants responsibility. If this was the case they cant now wring their hands and complain that they have lost control.
This sort of thing is so frustrating- came across a mixed use development this week of shops and flats that lacked the necessary separation between purpose groups- in the past an interconnected alarm was accepted by building control in lieu- I was working on behalf of one of the shops and found a nasty little clause trying to make my client responsible for the maintenance and testing of the alarm equipment in the flats.
So in your case the agent should check the lease agreements and ascertain from there who is responsible. If the flat owner is liable then they should seek to enforce reinstatement. If this does not work they should seek assistance from the fire and rescue service who do have the powers to serve a notice on the owners of the flat in respect of their door under the RRO to the extent that they have control over the safety of the common areas. But its probably the agents solicitors fault that it has come to this so "done all that is reasonable" would probably not withstand scrutiny.
-
I totally agree with you Kurnal but as for the FRS serving notices then I think you will find they probably wont. If its a large block and you have to serve notices on pretty much all 36 flats per block what happens if all of those residents fail to comply. There is no way in the world the brigade would have the time or resources to follow this up and take residents to court. Logistical nightmare.
Also in some brigade areas the local council would be lead authority where the new National Protocol has been implemented, this is where the FRA will be lead authority on all housing stock owned by a local authority or if the building is mixed use residential and commercial or a B&B and the Local AUthority will be lead on everything else such as private landlorded blocks of flats. Again they wont serve that many notices. Its catch 22.
-
You would need to serve the notice on the RP - in this case the managing agent who will be able to exercise control control normally by virtue of the lease conditions. You wont be able to serve a notice onto the flat occupier - single private dwelling which is outside of the scope of the order. Yes FRS's have served enforcement notices in this instance. It is up to the RP to get the work done - not the Fire Service, failure to do is a failure to comply with an enforcement notice, the only defence would be to show due dilligence ie that they had taken all reasonable steps to address the issue. Not an easy issue for managing agents to deal with but they have the powers and the legal obligation to do so.
-
You would need to serve the notice on the RP - in this case the managing agent who will be able to exercise control control normally by virtue of the lease conditions. You wont be able to serve a notice onto the flat occupier - single private dwelling which is outside of the scope of the order. Yes FRS's have served enforcement notices in this instance. It is up to the RP to get the work done - not the Fire Service, failure to do is a failure to comply with an enforcement notice, the only defence would be to show due dilligence ie that they had taken all reasonable steps to address the issue. Not an easy issue for managing agents to deal with but they have the powers and the legal obligation to do so.
Nearly agree Wizzer, but why are we back to this 'single private dwelling' question?, it has no relevance here. A notice could, I repeat could, be served on any person who has to any extent control. Now if that person happens to occupy a domestic premises, a notice coule be served on him as Kurnal correctly points out.
However the best route as you correctly point out is to go for the responsible person, who is probably the managing agent. In my opinion of course.
-
I too agree with Kurnal and PhilB
I find that fire officers are wary of serving notices on tennants or residents, but in my opinion we should be taking this forward and using the legisaltion proactively.
To me a block of individualy privately owned flats can never be classed as single domestic dwelling - it is a building containing mutliple dwellings, but not a single domestic dwelling.
Residents have to realise by installing fancy plastic PVC doors they are lowering the integrity of the fire resistance and putting others at risk.
Having said all that in the real world if you have a block of flats where all 60 or so residents have changed their front doors then you would approach the RP /managing agent. Serving notices on all 60 residents would take too much time, and as Cleveland states what do you do if all of those 60 residents did not to comply?
I suspsect a magistrate probably wouldnt be too chuffed at the prospect of 60 hearings clogging up the system. So for small individual cases go enforce on the resident directly, if you are talking a lot of residents then look at the RP. (All in my opinion of course)
-
Firstly it is highly unlikely that the management agent has any control over the Leaseholders front door as the majority of leases will state that the front door belongs to the leaseholder.
In a block we manage approximately 70 residents had fire doors as their front door with no intumescent strips or cold smoke seals. The local Brigade tried to enforce us as the managing agent, but as an RSL under the housing act we are unable to spend money on Leaseholders. The brigade understood that we had no control or juristiction over the doors and then looked into enforcing the residents.
To cut a long story short they didn't enforce any of the residents (whether politically, or legally unable to, I will never know)
We received a letter of deficiencies stating that we should consider either upgrading the doors or changing the buildings fire strategy to an Evacuation policy.
I would recommend writing to the Leaseholders in partnership between the local fire service and managing agent explaining the possible consequences of a fire affecting flats with the catflaps etc.
-
Firstly it is highly unlikely that the management agent has any control over the Leaseholders front door as the majority of leases will state that the front door belongs to the leaseholder.
In a block we manage approximately 70 residents had fire doors as their front door with no intumescent strips or cold smoke seals. The local Brigade tried to enforce us as the managing agent, but as an RSL under the housing act we are unable to spend money on Leaseholders. The brigade understood that we had no control or juristiction over the doors and then looked into enforcing the residents.
To cut a long story short they didn't enforce any of the residents (whether politically, or legally unable to, I will never know)
We received a letter of deficiencies stating that we should consider either upgrading the doors or changing the buildings fire strategy to an Evacuation policy.
I would recommend writing to the Leaseholders in partnership between the local fire service and managing agent explaining the possible consequences of a fire affecting flats with the catflaps etc.
Yes agreed, it does come down to lease agreements. The example you gave however when did this take place?
Im not sure of the full legalities of the scenario where managing agents are involved - theyre certainly seen to be the "responsible person" and as such Im not sure how lease agreements under the RRO would come into play.
-
Local authorities selling flats under right to buy will normally sell the front door as part of the flat. The flat including the front door is now a domestic premises. (Domestic premises defined in Article 2 of the RRO) The order does not apply to domestic premises except for Article 31(10) (Article 6(1)a of the RRO). Article 31 is blunderbuss territory and allows a prohibition where risk to relevant persons is so serious the use of the premises ought to be prohibited. This includes domestic premises but not houses.
Is a cat flap in a fire door opening onto an evacuation staircase such a serious risk that the use of the premise should be prohibited. Ie Prohibit occupation of the flat until fire resistance is restored. In my opinion you would have a hard time persuading a tribunal that the risk merited prohibition. Large scale hoarding of petrol prior a to fuel dispute is in my opinion the sort of thing Article 31 catches. (I don't think you can defer the prohibition by suggesting the risk is not imminent.)
This may be an occasion for the RA to note that there is a possible problem with doors but note the RA only applies to the common areas. The duties of the RP for the common areas/staircases etc stops at the outer face of the front doors.
-
Local authorities selling flats under right to buy will normally sell the front door as part of the flat. The flat including the front door is now a domestic premises. (Domestic premises defined in Article 2 of the RRO) The order does not apply to domestic premises except for Article 31(10) (Article 6(1)a of the RRO). Article 31 is blunderbuss territory and allows a prohibition where risk to relevant persons is so serious the use of the premises ought to be prohibited. This includes domestic premises but not houses.
But Martin, the common parts are subject to the Order, and an enforcement notice could be served on any person who has to any extent controlof those common parts. I would argue that removing the front door or cutting a hole in it the person is to some extent exercising control of the common parts.
Consider this, if my flat, single private dwelling opens onto a common stairway to say an office block, and I begin storing weedkiller and petrol and fireworks and crisps and videos and all sorts of other nasties, and I remove my front door could the fire authority issue an enforcemnt notice on me in the domestic premises? I would suggest yes. The notice is served on the person, not the premises.
Also if an offence is committed because relevant persons are placed at serious risk I could also be prosecuted under article 32(10). The Order does not apply to the flat but it does apply to relevant persons who may be affected by the activities in the flat.
-
Exactly right PhilB
People think that entrance doors form part of a domestic dwelling and are therefore not subject to the order.
The issue here is not about trying to control what goes on in the flat because the fire authority can not do that in a domestic dwelling.
You could have a fire eating circus perfomer practising his act in the flat or Mr Bloggs repairing his classic motorbike complete with full tank of petrol next to his adult video collection in the front room.
The issue then is making sure that if a blaze does occur in the flat it doesnt spread to the common areas and effect other residents. If there is the potential that that could happen as PhilB says then the Fire Authority could take action.
Because we can't easily control the level of fire precautions in the flat you then look at Fire Resistance and Early Warning to protect relevant people.
Front doors form part of those essential lines of fire resistance. If someone wnated to go to the "nth degree" with regards to the legal position of a flat entrance door I reckon a barrister could argue that half of the door (when closed) is within the flat and half of it is on the communal areas and thus subject to the RRO.
Finally you mention a cap flap for instance Martin. Yes that would compromise the ability of the fire door to contain smoke and flame. Although I would agree it does constitute a means of escape for your cat.
-
The front door is part of my domestic premises and is not part of the common parts. The front door is either in the common part or outside. In the case described it is quite clearly outside the common area. The only contact the RRO has with domestic premises is Article 31(10).
The landlord/Agent etc as the RP who ensures the common parts are not used for storage etc. is not responsible for my fire door or for me having or not having fire detection. If I as the occupier of domstic premises (not being a house) create a serious risk then the only legal option is a Prohibition Notice on me.
I did say that I think article 31 is aimed at the likes of dodgy petrol storage. ("Large scale hoarding of petrol prior a to fuel dispute is in my opinion the sort of thing Article 31 catches)". Again the PN is served on the individual occupier of the flat not the RP for the common areas.
Secction 32(10) does not in my opinion help. You need first to have an offence under the RRO. Only people defined in article 3 have duties and can commit an offence. What offence and by who has been commited if in my domestic premises in a block of flats (not a house) I undertake weld repairs to the petrol tanks of my personal collection of vintage motorbikes. No employment, no work activity, no undertaking but a serious fire risk to relevant persons. I am clearly outside article 3 so I am not obliged to comply with the RRO.
The only way I appear in court is if I get a PN and then fail to comply.
I'm not sure how building regs. fit into people altering fire doors on their own property.
-
The front door is part of my domestic premises and is not part of the common parts. The front door is either in the common part or outside. In the case described it is quite clearly outside the common area. The only contact the RRO has with domestic premises is Article 31(10).
The landlord/Agent etc as the RP who ensures the common parts are not used for storage etc. is not responsible for my fire door or for me having or not having fire detection. If I as the occupier of domstic premises (not being a house) create a serious risk then the only legal option is a Prohibition Notice on me.
I did say that I think article 31 is aimed at the likes of dodgy petrol storage. ("Large scale hoarding of petrol prior a to fuel dispute is in my opinion the sort of thing Article 31 catches)". Again the PN is served on the individual occupier of the flat not the RP for the common areas.
Secction 32(10) does not in my opinion help. You need first to have an offence under the RRO. Only people defined in article 3 have duties and can commit an offence. What offence and by who has been commited if in my domestic premises in a block of flats (not a house) I undertake weld repairs to the petrol tanks of my personal collection of vintage motorbikes. No employment, no work activity, no undertaking but a serious fire risk to relevant persons. I am clearly outside article 3 so I am not obliged to comply with the RRO.
The only way I appear in court is if I get a PN and then fail to comply.
I'm not sure how building regs. fit into people altering fire doors on their own property.
I cannot agree Martin.
1) Notices are served on persons, not on premises.
2) 32(10) helps enormously. Read it again if the offence is caused by some other person, it does not say a person in a premises to which the Order applies. So a person in a domestic premises, even a domestic premises in a house, could commit an offence under 32(10).
You are mistaken when you say only people defined in article 3 who have duties can commit an offence, anyone can. Proving it may be problematical.
In the example you give in the block of flats, the responsible person commits the offence if the vintage motorbike puts relevant persons at risk. But if the RP has done all he can i.e can show due dilligence, it may be better to go after the person who has caused the problem i.e. the occupier of the flat, and the wording of 32(10) makes this possibe.
Whether someone is employed or not is not relevant.
-
Sorry I have to disagree. Another person cannot be liable for an offence if there is no initial offence. There is no responsible person in a domestic premises. So there is no possibility of an offence in a domestic premises. For section 32(10) there has to be an initial offence by a duty holder which can then be laid at some other person's door. (Assuming it is their door and not 50% a common door.) If you cannot prove an original offence you cannot then attribute the fault to someone else. This mirrors section 36 of the HSW act. For a prosecution to succeed using 32(10)the original offence by someone with a defined duty who is subject to the RRO must be at least proved prima facie before moving onto evidence concerning acts and defaults of other people.
If it is a domestic premises then by definition there is no RP. If an RP is needed equally it cannot then be a domestic premises.
Can you point me to an article in the RRO which places a duty on anyone who is not clearly defined. As far as I can tell only article 5 describes duty holders and if you are not defined as having a duty you can't be charged.
To put it differently imagine writing an information alleging a breach by Ms Nutter or the landlord/agent for her hobby of welding petrol tanks
Prosecution. Ms Nutter as RP in your domestic premises you put relevant people at risk by doing dangerous things with petrol tanks.
Defence. Domestic premises RRO does not apply. Costs to Defendant
Prosecution. As Managing agents and RP of Ms Nutters block of flats you allowed Ms nutter in her domestic premises to do dangerous things with petrol tanks.
Defence. Domestic premises RRO does not apply. Costs to Defendant
Basically article 5(3) "duties imposed on every other person" is overtaken by article 6(1) "This order does not apply to domestic premises except in the extent allowed in 31(10)." 31(10) allows PNs in domestic premises which are not houses but nothing else from the RRO gets inside a domestic premises.
-
You're missing the point Martin - no one is saying anything about dealing with what actually goes on in the flat. (other than prohibition or petrol storage which is a slightly different issue of course)
We are talking about maintaining fire resistance to common parts of the building and other flats for the protection of residents.
As I said before you can have a fire eater living in a flat all we are trying to ensure is that if he manages to have an accident and sets fire to his living room any fire doesnt breach the common areas or adjacent flats.
There is an RP in blocks of flats. The RP can be the Chairperson of the Residents Committee, a managing agent, or where they do not exist then it will be the individual resident causing the failing or offence for the purposes of enforcement.
In this instance i think the clause "Anyone who has to an extent control of the premises" would kick in. They would "defacto" have control over what happens to common corridor IF their actions within the flat could affect the common parts.
In my opinion residents are duty holders (where no managing agent or committe exists).
The RRO applies to common areas and the front door provides access into the domestic dwelling, I still argue that whilst it forms part of the dwelling it isnt exclusively part of that dwelling, it is also a component of the common parts of the building .
-
You can probably tell this is a quiet afternoon.
Cat Flaps without intumenscent strips were in an earlier post as an example of doors onto common areas "losing" their fire integrity.
There did seem to be two strands one about protection of common parts and another about legal duties.
I totally accept ther wil be an RP for common areas of flat blocks. maybe landlord/agent/committee etc. I am not convinced that the RP has any duties in regard of privately owned front doors. If it is a rented flat then yes landlords should maintain fire integrity of doors. I think it highly unlikley anyone would lease rent or buy a flat without definition of who is responsible for common areas. (Front door, Collective roof repairs etc.) This is going to be the person who "cops" for who has control of premises. If memory seves me right there is housing law on just these issues which would no doubt be persuasive in court in identifying the person with control of the premises.
However the RRO does not apply to domestic premises so "Anyone who has to an extent control of the premises" doesn't apply. We are back to is the door part of the common parts or is it the gate to an englishman's castle. I am not convinced it can be domestic and common at the same time.
And again I don't enough about buiding regs to say if altering the door is in breach of building regs. It may not need prior approval but does it need to comply?
As a local authority we have lots of maisonettes flats etc with right to buy owners etc. It may seem I am labouring the point, but it is a concern of ours and could become a major expense. SoI am not being pedantic about interpretation of law for the fun of it.
-
Sorry I have to disagree. Another person cannot be liable for an offence if there is no initial offence. There is no responsible person in a domestic premises. So there is no possibility of an offence in a domestic premises. For section 32(10) there has to be an initial offence by a duty holder which can then be laid at some other person's door. (Assuming it is their door and not 50% a common door.) If you cannot prove an original offence you cannot then attribute the fault to someone else. This mirrors section 36 of the HSW act. For a prosecution to succeed using 32(10)the original offence by someone with a defined duty who is subject to the RRO must be at least proved prima facie before moving onto evidence concerning acts and defaults of other people.
If it is a domestic premises then by definition there is no RP. If an RP is needed equally it cannot then be a domestic premises.
Can you point me to an article in the RRO which places a duty on anyone who is not clearly defined. As far as I can tell only article 5 describes duty holders and if you are not defined as having a duty you can't be charged.
To put it differently imagine writing an information alleging a breach by Ms Nutter or the landlord/agent for her hobby of welding petrol tanks
Prosecution. Ms Nutter as RP in your domestic premises you put relevant people at risk by doing dangerous things with petrol tanks.
Defence. Domestic premises RRO does not apply. Costs to Defendant
Prosecution. As Managing agents and RP of Ms Nutters block of flats you allowed Ms nutter in her domestic premises to do dangerous things with petrol tanks.
Defence. Domestic premises RRO does not apply. Costs to Defendant
Basically article 5(3) "duties imposed on every other person" is overtaken by article 6(1) "This order does not apply to domestic premises except in the extent allowed in 31(10)." 31(10) allows PNs in domestic premises which are not houses but nothing else from the RRO gets inside a domestic premises.
Martin I will try one last time. The first point to make is that there is an initial offence. The RP has failed to comply with the Order and that failure has placed persons at risk.
1)The Order applies to the common parts, there will be a responsible person for those common parts, there has to be and they are defined in article 3. can we agree on that?
2)The responsible person would commit an offence if relevant persons are placed at risk of death or serious injury...agreed again??
3) If the offence of the responsible person is due to the act of another person, proceedings can be taken against that other person using 32(10), that would include the occupant of a domestic premises.
To put it differently with Ms Nutter or the landlord/agent for her hobby of welding petrol tanks
Prosecution. Ms Nutter you have caused the RP for the common parts to place relevant people at risk by doing dangerous things with petrol tanks.
Defence. Domestic premises RRO does not apply. Answer, no but it does apply to the common parts.
Prosecution. As Managing agents and RP of Ms Nutters block of flats you have committed an offence, however because you did all you could to stop Ms nutter from doing dangerous things with petrol tanks, you have a defence of due dilligence. Ms Nutter you're banged to rights.
Also Martin take a look at Article 17 which deals with maintenance...
"Maintenance
17.—(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible
person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect
of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including
any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance
and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
(2) Where the premises form part of a building, the responsible person may make arrangements
with the occupier of any other premises forming part of the building for the purpose of ensuring
that the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.
(3) Paragraph (2) applies even if the other premises are not premises to which this Order applies.
Note the last paragraph, this article applies to all premises including domestic premises. So even though the Order does not apply to the flat it may be necessary to maintain the integrety of the flat door and other measures within the flat such as the fire warning system. Again not for the safety of the people in the flat but for the safety of everyone els.
-
Some flats don't have a defined RP like a managing agent or residents committee. In these situations though someone will normally be in control of the common areas and the maintenance of them such as the freeholder for the building and once you have pinned them down you go down the route Philllllllll says above and go for the commision of an offence by another person. I agree with retty that residents do have some kind of duty and article 32(10) mops that up . What he said about front entrance doors is also a valid point the gate to the castle ius required for the safety of the other englishmen and their castles isnt it. There is no getting away from that.
-
Well gents never known a cat flap to cause such a debate which is really intersting and a good learning exercise. I am still waiting for some additional info from the managing agent but he is going to have fun with this one.
Keep up the good work its like being back in the office again.
-
Martin the difference between our points of view is this- I think that each flat's fire door is there to protect the common areas and is nothing to do with the safety of the flat itself. If the common areas are not protected by fire doors there is no way that the common areas can be safe to support a stay put policy and to support the minimal or absence of a fire alarm and detection system.
Personally I dont give a hoot what people do in their own flats- as you say the flats themselves are domestic accommodation and are not subject to the fire safety order.
But if people start messing about with the fire protection to the common areas- including fire doors at flat entrances then it absolutely most definately is covered by the fire safety order.
-
Martin
Think, where is the fire likely to start- in Ms Nutters place or in a sterile common area? Ergo as the Prof says the door protects the common area from in the main smoke logging.
Personally, I wouldn't want to keep my pussy in a block of flats, how would he reach the lift button?
Also, don't forget H & S on this one- danger of slipping on something nasty in the common area!
davo
-
Bearing in mind that the cat flaps are very low down, wouldn't the fire have had to develop to a very large size before hot gases provided a positive pressure low down to force their way out of a cat flap?
Perhaps this indicates a potential protection for the common staircase? IE pressurise it. It would not matter then if there were no seals on the catflap or on the door. Also have the advantage that if a door was left ajar as a resident fled from a burning flat it would assist to keep the staircase free for exit by other residents and access by the F&RS?
By the way, I'm curious about one thing - if the flats have individual cat flaps for moggies to get onto the staircase, is there a communal catflap at the ground floor for the said moggies to get in and out....?
-
Going back to the first post.
Can a staircase be an evacuation staircase if a flat door opens directly into it?
I think not. (but can stand to be corrected by those far wiser)
Are we talking single MoE here?
davo
-
Bearing in mind that the cat flaps are very low down, wouldn't the fire have had to develop to a very large size before hot gases provided a positive pressure low down to force their way out of a cat flap?
Not necessarily. I take on board what you are saying but any aperture or breach within a fire resisting structure or component should be addressed and should be adequately sealed or capable of resisting the passage of smoke and flame.
My moggy's cat flap is well used and now over time doesn't close properly. Bit trivial I know but something worth bearing in mind - theyre just like doors - they do suffer from wear and tear. Also they're not normally fire resisting and not brilliant at preventing the passage of smoke.
Afterall we often require FR letterboxes so why would cat flaps not be a consideration?.
I wouldn't want to take the risk of cold smoke finding any little crack in the flap and filtering through into the corridor (particularly in the early hours of the morning in a block with no AFD in the common parts)
Going back to the first post.
Can a staircase be an evacuation staircase if a flat door opens directly into it?
I think not. (but can stand to be corrected by those far wiser)
Are we talking single MoE here?
Hi Davo
You can have a flat entrance door leading directly from the staircase up until a certain height ( up to three storeys) if memory serves me rightly but there will be an internal lobby or hallway within the flat. Anything larger will require lobby or corridor approach ie flat entrance door plus fire door to staircase.
-
Is a front door of a flat on to a common escape route not a common door for the purpose for which it is provided? The door may belong to the occupier but the purpose is for the safety of all occupiers. Nobody really cares what goes on behind the door, whether it involves pussys or not, as long as it is legal.
Is it similar to a block of flats where the roof springs a leak. It is not the sole responsibility of the occupier of the flat directly under the leak to pay for the repairs. It is the responsibility of all occupiers.
-
Going back to the first post.
Can a staircase be an evacuation staircase if a flat door opens directly into it?
I think not. (but can stand to be corrected by those far wiser)
Are we talking single MoE here?
Hi Davo
You can have a flat entrance door leading directly from the staircase up until a certain height ( up to three storeys) if memory serves me rightly but there will be an internal lobby or hallway within the flat. Anything larger will require lobby or corridor approach ie flat entrance door plus fire door to staircase.
Hi Midland,
You are correct. Diagram 9 in ADB Vol 2 shows that in small buildings under 11m in height, and with less than 2 flats per story, that if the dwellings have a protected entrance hall then the lobby between the common stairs and dwelling entrance is not essential. The point I made about the enforcement of tennants began last August and came to the conclusion I described in February.
All,
In my opinion, the entire fire strategy of a block of flats (especially in a social housing environment) the front door is the most essential item of passive fire protection you have.
The reason the doors are so crucial is because of all of the above anecdotes regarding amateur pornographers who weld their petrol driven generators in their lounge etc. As a company you cannot control what goes on beyond that front door, so in my opinion you must ensure that the front door is properly fire rated.
Whilst the expense of upgrading flat entrance doors accross an entire social housing stock would be prohibitive, In my opinion it is reasonable and practicle to rectify serious and obvious failings in fire resistance highlighted at the FRA stage and begin a programme of upgrade works accross the stock over a period of years to upgrade doors to include intu strips and cold smokes. No legislation is retrospective so upgrading all of your front doors accross your stock immediately would be wholely unnecessary.
Leaseholders are the problem as they own their own front door as supposed to a tennant who rent the door from you. As an RSL you legally cannot spend money on a leaseholder regardless of the severity of the doors failing, so tactful wording in official letters and support from your local brigade would be essential.
In my opinion a brigade could enforce the changing of a front door in a block of flats as it would be interfering with the means of escape for the other residents.
Incidentally in every lease you will have there will be a caviat within the lease stating that leaseholders cannot do anything to endager other residents or the block. So regardless of the fire order or enforcement, the leasholder would be in breach of their lease if they lessened the fire integrity of their front door in anyway. Therfore allowing you to force them to change their door.
-
[Incidentally in every lease you will have there will be a caviat within the lease stating that leaseholders cannot do anything to endager other residents or the block. So regardless of the fire order or enforcement, the leasholder would be in breach of their lease if they lessened the fire integrity of their front door in anyway. Therfore allowing you to force them to change their door.
Thanks Big T- entirely agree with your excellent summary and the caveat is a great suggestion as to a possible way forward.
-
Agreed. Useful info - cheers Big T
-
Gentlemen thank you for your very constructive replies which I have discussed with the managing agent of the flats, its given him some thinking to do and may have highlighted a few holes (not in the doors) but in the individual lease agreements.
Having read the lease agreements the following answer was recieved from the managing agent with regard to the flat entrance door.
"With regard to the lease I have read in detail and the issue of the flat doors is not specifically "included" or "excluded" from the definition of the property. It refers to the properties being flats but whether flats are defined inclusive of the door I am not clear. "
I am sure that the issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.
-
Common areas to be protected - therefore front doors to flats opening onto common areas to be FR. Any door providing exit route for more than one occupancy (flat) is common and therefore to be FR(S)SC)) etc. where it is part of compartment with due regard to direction of opening and opening mechanisms. final exit is, final exit and appropriate method of opening mechanism.
-
Common areas to be protected - therefore front doors to flats opening onto common areas to be FR. Any door providing exit route for more than one occupancy (flat) is common and therefore to be FR(S)SC)) etc. where it is part of compartment with due regard to direction of opening and opening mechanisms. final exit is, final exit and appropriate method of opening mechanism.
Don't quite understand this Mr P. I think you are getting confused with difference between a door which is for escape and one that is for protection of escape route. The latter is the subject matter.
Yes the door of a flat opening onto a common escape route should be FRSC. But the issue is how this is enforced.
-
It might be useful here to take an example from previous Scottish regulations on this matter, they support nearlythere's comments.
Firstly, and most fundamentally, any door separating a single occupancy from a common occupancy requires to be of separating wall / compartment wall standard. it is not simply a means of escape door and should not be regarded as such.
Secondly, as it is protecting, it is the responsibility of all concerned jointly or separately, individually or severally in legal terms.
and Scotland does have its fair share of tenement housing with many 'front doors'!