Retro fitting intumescent strips and smoke seals.

[Big T]

All,

This is with regard to risk assessing the common areas of flats.

I have visited a few buildings recently that have fire doors with no intumescent strips or smoke seals.

Do we have to retro fit all doors them IAW the RRO? The brigade are obviously keen to get them fitted to every door on the planet but where do we actually stand from a legal perspective?

As part of the risk assessments I am fixing any doors that are damaged or do not close properly.

If we have to fit them, where does it say we have to?

I don't want to spend a fortune fitting strip and seals to 50,000 doors without good reason.

[Pip]

if you can demonstrate that there is a good seal ( on each door to a Fire authority or court )to resist the passage of cold smoke-then you may have a case,if not, can you justify in court or before the coroner why you did not fit them?

[Big T]

The seals are good. You can't see any daylight between the frame.

[Tom Sutton]

Can you guarantee the doors meet the required fire resisting standard with out the intumescent strips and if smoke stopping is required does it meet the required standard?
If you can you have no problems.

[Big T]

The doors were cleared when it went through Building control. The doors have georgian wired vision panels and are of a good quality. The block was refurbed approximately 10 years ago.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

The recommendation I give is to have them fitted to bring the doors to current standards. The adequacy of the doors should be assessed in the fire risk assessment within the preventative and protective measures and securing the means of escape.

A poorly fitting door with a big gap in it is unlikely to contain a fire or prevent the spread of smoke so I would ceratinly be looking to have it rectified unless already highlighted and scheduled.......... or the fire risk assessment says it's acceptable!

[Big T]

According to the fire safety reform think tank, the following is the official response (which has taken some time) I received.

"There is no specific legal requirement to install intumescent strips or smoke seals in existing fire doors that were not fitted with them when they were first installed in the building. What measures need to be taken in a particular premises should be based on the results of risk assessment. It may be reasonable to upgrade doors or replace them if the level of risk justifies it. Alternatively it may be more appropriate to wait until the doors are replaced or refurbished in the normal course of building maintenance.
 
Where seals have been fitted, they should be adequately maintained."

[patrickhamblin]

Please provide an email address for the 'fire safety reform think tank'.

[jayjay]

I have recently carried out a number of fire risk assessments in Local Authority multi storey flats  and I would say that without exception none of the tennants front doors are fitted with smoke seals, and not many are fitted with self closers.

Also doors separating staircases, lobbys and bin rooms are rarely fitted with smoke seals. These flats were built in the 60's before the use of smoke seals. I have recommended that smoke seals be fitted as I think the risk of fire in flats is high. All the blocks of flats operate a stay put procedure therfore the fire and smoke separation needs to be high.
A recent fire has shown that a fire in a bin room has caused smoke to bypass three sets of doors without smoke seals and entered the flats causing the tennants distress as they expect to be safe under the stay put ploicy.

What would be the implications if someone jumped from an upper floor window because smoke was entering the flat?

As flats were never inspected under the FPA the controls and maintenace standards can in some cases be very poor. Many were built to CP3 which was a minimum standard and have since deteriated.  I found on some of the blocks that the smoke ventilation to staircases had been sealed or openable windows replaced with non opening PVC units.

You just need to do a google on flats, high rise or tower block fires to see the number of fires that are being reported and the resources fire brigades are commiting (also have a look here )ttp://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/2008/050108/news050108_01.html

Remember that the risk assessment must also consider the risk to others, including firefighters.

[kurnal]

Remember that the risk assessment must also consider the risk to others, including firefighters.

Whilst I agree with most of what you say jay jay  we shouldnt  overlook article 2

"relevant persons" means—

(a) any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; and

(b) any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises,


but does not include a fire-fighter who is carrying out his duties in relation to a function of a fire and rescue authority under section 7, 8 or 9 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire-fighting, road traffic accidents and other emergencies), other than in relation to a function under section 7(2)(d), 8(2)(d) or 9(3)(d) of that Act;

In the past I have also found that work on pipes and ducts without replacing the fire stopping between floors has breached the compartmentation and caused unexpected spread of smoke in blocks of flats

[nearlythere]

According to the fire safety reform think tank, the following is the official response (which has taken some time) I received.

"There is no specific legal requirement to install intumescent strips or smoke seals in existing fire doors that were not fitted with them when they were first installed in the building. What measures need to be taken in a particular premises should be based on the results of risk assessment. It may be reasonable to upgrade doors or replace them if the level of risk justifies it. Alternatively it may be more appropriate to wait until the doors are replaced or refurbished in the normal course of building maintenance.
 
Where seals have been fitted, they should be adequately maintained."

There is no specific legal requirement even to provide fire doors.
As you probably know the legal jargon is to provide a reasonable or adequate means of escape in the event of fire or variations of that wording.

This is done, probably but not always, by the securing of escape routes which, if from multi-storey buildings, most likely would entail the protection of the vertical escape route or routes. This is normally done with fire doors complying to a particular standard and nowadays that involves doors fitted with intumescant  strips and smoke seals.

For the sake of a few pounds it is probably cheaper to install it than try and argue that a door does not need it.

[Big T]

Please provide an email address for the 'fire safety reform think tank'.

Was originally FIRE.SAFETYREFORM@communities.gsi.gov.uk but was closed last year. I received the email much later than the email address was closed so i assume they replied to all people who mailed prior to the closure of the email account. The email address now auto replies with "speak to your local brigade"

For the sake of a few pounds it is probably cheaper to install it than try and argue that a door does not need it.

Thats fine if your company has money or only one block. If you are a housing association with 1000 blocks for example a few quid to upgrade the doors becomes a few million

[wee brian]

Well said BT.

Keep it real and reasonable - more people die falling down stairs each year than in fires.

We must be wasting millions on unnecesary fire protection.