Means of Escape through Party Walls / Cross Evacuation

[ST1878]

Good Morning All

Has anyone any experience whereby long standing cross-evacuation between old (heritage/listed) existing premises, with seperate occupiers, have been closed (bricked up) by one occupier/ownner due to a change of use from commercial to domestic?

I would also appreciate observations on whether or not FRA's should now be accepting such existing arrangements as suitable and adequate under the RRO.

[PhilB]

Yes of course you must accept them if the responsible person can demonstrate that they are suitable but they are fraught with problems. There is existing case law where a court decided that the agreement that is made between two parties cannot be imposed on a new occupier.

There is of course a duty to co-operate under the fire safety order but if I buy a house next to Tescos and decide I no longer want the means of escape discharging through my living room it would be for Tescos to come up with a suitable alternative and not me.

The old FP Act 71 had a section that could be used to determine such disputes in a civil court but there is no similar article in the new order.

[ST1878]

Thanks Phil

What about where alternative MOE from commercial offices does discharge through someones living room/flat?
If there is no formalised agreement/easement, how does the commercial occupier demonstrate adequacy within their risk assessment?

Unavailability of the alternative in this case would revert the commercial occupancy to single staircase condition with questionable seperation and no AFD.

Can you direct me to a link or source where I can look at the case law you refer to please?

Regards
ST1878

[PhilB]

Dont have the details to hand but I'm sure it involved a case where means of escape from one shop passed through another. The shop was sold and new owner didn't want to honour the agreement and judge decided ageement was not binding on new owner, I will try to find more details.

There are of course many different cases that need to be looked at depending on the terms of leases etc.

If that escape is no longer available it is the duty of the responsible person to assess the risk and provide a reasonable solution, if there is no reasonable solution then it may not be possible to use the premises for the intended purpose.

There are many examples of problems with these agreements and I'm sure other posters will tell you of situations where these escape routes are found to be locked or even bricked up without telling the other occupier.

The duty to co-operate and co-ordinate is there but sometimes not fully complied with.

[jayjay]

I was involved with a couple of these many years ago. They were in small bed and breakfast premises and some times they were mutal arrangements and to the benifit of both properties.The fire Authority I worked for would only accept them if a legal agreement, pepared by both parties solicitors, was signed. This agreement only applied to the signatories and could not be applied to any new owner or occupier of the the premises.

Unless there is a mutual advantage or a perhaps adequate compensation I doubt is such agreements could be made today.

My advice would be to avoid them as the agreements are not permanent and could be revoked.

[Ken Taylor]

I had one where escape from an office building was through into the building society next door. Needless to say the door was bolted on their side! Additional measures were required for the office building.

These things are trouble and duty holders need to ensure that such arrangements are maintained readily available as part of their regular fire safety checks.

[jokar]

Best advice is to avoid them whrerever possible.  Risk assess the means of escape and try a different approach.

[ST1878]

Thanks All
Unfortunately can't avoid these premises as they are existing and known to the FRA.

Legal arrangements are fine as long as individual participants remain in situ and the agreement is formalised in writing. This agreement should/must  also be detailed in the Fire Risk Assessments, and sited by the FRA.
However should one occupier change, a notice served under the Party Wall Act will allow the new occupier to brick up the alternative MOE, rendering the remaining existing occupiers MOE inadequate, and there is nothing that can stop it. I have seen this happen more than once.

Also, notwithstanding agreements between occupiers for alternative MOE, problems always crop up over testing/drills, communication and cooperation, and maintenance. Would anyone argue that these openings between different premises are common areas, and therefore the responsibility of the landlords?