FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nearlythere on August 23, 2013, 02:28:04 PM
-
Situation - Multi occupancy building with common stairway. Ground Floor 2 low to moderate risk commercial tennants with common entrance foyer and upper 3 floors 2 apartments each. Fire detection system throughout including OTT within apartments but thats not the issue. Appartments have seperate point of access from ground floor occupancy.
Landlord has asked about responsibility for maintenance of installations.
Building essentially new other than front retained due to listed status. Concrete floors. Fire alarm system as said and EL throughout common apartment escape routes, within each ground floor occupancy and common entrance foyer. EL built in during renovations.
Who has responsibilty for testing and maintenance of EL within each ground floor occupancy. Landlord for common entrance foyer yes. What about each occupancy? Setting aside the co-operation bit would each tennant be legally responsibile because they are the employers? Would the landlord be because he installed the system?
My view would be that EL in a unit is not a common issue and so each RP/AP is responsible for it in their particular occupancies which will include the testing and maintenance even though they did not install it.
-
I am afraid the standard answer is a fairly definite maybe.
It would depend on the set up of the emergency light system. If it consists of individual self-contained luminaires then I would look at the tenants being responsible for the units in their areas whilst the landlord would be responsible for the units in the communal areas.
However if the system is a set of lights which is run from a central UPS either a battery bank or a standby generator then the overall responsibility would be the landlord. Who did the testing would depend on how the system was set up. If there is a test switch for each occupancy then I would look to the tenant to carry out the test. If there is a single test switch or the test switch covers a number of occupancies then I would look towards the landlord to carry out the testing with the co-operation of the tenants.
-
I am afraid the standard answer is a fairly definite maybe.
It would depend on the set up of the emergency light system. If it consists of individual self-contained luminaires then I would look at the tenants being responsible for the units in their areas whilst the landlord would be responsible for the units in the communal areas.
However if the system is a set of lights which is run from a central UPS either a battery bank or a standby generator then the overall responsibility would be the landlord. Who did the testing would depend on how the system was set up. If there is a test switch for each occupancy then I would look to the tenant to carry out the test. If there is a single test switch or the test switch covers a number of occupancies then I would look towards the landlord to carry out the testing with the co-operation of the tenants.
It is the former Mike and I'm inclined to agree with your view. It is not helped by the fact that each occupancy is uncomplicated and small, video shop and hairdresser, essentially public area with rear small tea kitchen and WC and each with huge windows to a well lit town centre and if the EL was not installed there would no cause to ask for it.
-
NT, if you firmly belve that the EL is not required in the small units then the occupants are under no obligation (unless under the terms of the lease) to test, maintain or service it. Remember that they are legally required to provide it only "where necessary." When they move out and return the premises to the landlord they will be contractually obliged to leave the premises as they were when they moved in so they may have to get the EL checked prior to moving out.
However, it might be judged by others that the fact that someone in the past has deemed that the EL is necessary tends to indicate that there may exist some need for it.
Stu
-
How many units in total? If only single figures then maybe the landlord can be peruaded?
davo
ps why can't I see posters names, am on Firefox??? (sorry)
-
'However, it might be judged by others that the fact that someone in the past has deemed that the EL is necessary tends to indicate that there may exist some need for it.'
Or that someone wanted to cover his backside and asked for it without looking at the whole area, something we have seen with fire alarm systems!
-
NT, if you firmly belve that the EL is not required in the small units then the occupants are under no obligation (unless under the terms of the lease) to test, maintain or service it. Remember that they are legally required to provide it only "where necessary." When they move out and return the premises to the landlord they will be contractually obliged to leave the premises as they were when they moved in so they may have to get the EL checked prior to moving out.
However, it might be judged by others that the fact that someone in the past has deemed that the EL is necessary tends to indicate that there may exist some need for it.
Stu
Only judgement made Stu is by building control who do not advise architects when there is over provision, some architects who use blitz approach and don't know when to stop and some installers who see EL and FA installations as a cash cow.
-
Likely you will find that some spark took it upon himself to "design" the fire alarm and emergency lighting. BC then tick the box by requesting niceic completion certs. Most contractors do not have sufficient grounding in said subjects. Along comes FR assessor who relies on the implied competency in the documentation. Let me make it clear. NICEIC contractors are not normally accredited for competence in installing fire alarms and emergency lighting. Thus where consultants are not used, as is possible in your case, you cannot be confident in the design intent and compliance of the systems. If you request the documentation you will see that 5266requires that the responsible person is identified.
-
Next bit. I was PAT testing here yesterday and LL asked me for advice on FAs. When built Pt1 smoke detection was installed in escape routes and extended into each apartment with SAA in their entrance hall, living room and bedroom. One heavy smoker consistantly sets off alarm which sounds throughout building including each other apartment. Solution is to exchange detector to heat but has anyone ever downgraded a fire alarm system to current CoP for flats or any premises type?
My thoughts are that if a new CoP requires an upgrade then surely there can be a downgrade providing the structural specification allows it.
-
Back to the original question. Each occupier is responsible for their bit. The question of whether it is required or not is another question, but don't forget that it could be process lighting - just might save your ears or the hairdressers fingers if there is a lighting failure.