duty of care....?

[David Rooney]

Scenario...

Shop unit (Hairdressers) ground floor.

The building owner - nothing to do with running the shop - lives above.

The shop is part of a typical "terrace" of shops and flats above and a small parade.

I have no idea if there is adequate fire seperation between the shop and the flat.

Erring on the side of caution, we have suggested installing a sounder to the flat above.

But..... is it actually required, is it overboard, should we be recommending more, does the owner of the salon (who is renting the shop from the owner living above), have responsibility under the FSO to recommend extending the FA system to the flat above?

And if the owner of the flat refuses to pay for the extension who is ultimately responsible....??

... only slightly confused......

Thanks

[jokar]

The owner is a relevant person and therefore any FRA should consider the impact froma fire on the premises, the salon, on that person.  If the fire risk from the salon is low and there is little chance of a fire affecting the owner the option could be to do nothing.  If the chance of a fire is higher then the separatin may become an isuue, if you are really worried about the owner in the domestic premises above then go the alarm route.

[Midland Retty]

If this was a new conversion building regulations would ask for six minutes fire separation.

But as Jokar states an alternative would be to install a simple fire alarm and detection system in the hairdressing salon linked to a sounder in the flat would probably suffice.

Landlord / owner must do FRA as should the salon, both should co-ordinate and co-operate and liaise with each other over the significant findings etc etc

[David Rooney]

Hello men... sorry, this is an existing premises, probably 40-50 years old. FA put in by dodgy friend of a friend electrician 2 years ago....

I'ts not the fact the Salon is particularly high risk, although it has tanning rooms, spray booths etc, I just had the thought that if there was a fire in the early hours, (no redcare by the way) then regardless of how long the fire seperation may be, eventually the fire would break through and most likely the smoke would kill the person still sleeping in the flat above...

Another issue is that there are smoke detectors in the salon that keep going off due to the aerosols etc, if we change them to heat then obviously there are again implications for sleeping risk above...

Can the shop owner change these smokes to heat and not worry about the risk above ??

[Midland Retty]

Can the shop owner change these smokes to heat and not worry about the risk above ??

Hi Dave

Im someone who agrees with you about tthe potential of the fire burning undetected and eventually overcoming the sixty minutes fire resistance.

Heat detection would be less preferable without any upgrade to the separation between the flat and salon.

You can now get less sensitive detector heads which (if compaitble with the existing system) may reduce false alarms. Might be worth asking your chum to speak to a fire alarm contractor as Ive not kept up with all the latest detector technology in depth. They should be able to advise better on a more suitable detector head.

You could also perhaps look at only having the fire alarm system turned on when the hairdressers is closed, and at all other times ensure that the hairdresser alerts the owners of the flat above of anything occuring.

Just some thoughts you may want to consider.

Give my regards to Wayne wont you, (and also Mickey)

[Galeon]

Sounds good to me , go for a day/night mode heat during the day , smokes at night , watch the spacings though will have to default to heat.
Any suggestion is better than nothing

[Tom Sutton]

Might be worth asking your chum to speak to a fire alarm contractor as I’ve not kept up with all the latest detector technology in depth. They should be able to advise better on a more suitable detector head.

I think you may find Mr Rooney is that contractor you speak of.

As I understand the original question, is about who is responsible under the RR(FS)O. The first thing to do is to establish who is the Responsible Person under article 3 of the Order and that tends to be about who has control. The person in the flat would be a Relevant Person and has to be taken into consideration when conducting the FRA. The Responsible Person would be required to implement the order and fund any action that is required. A starting point could be the contract between the shop owner and the building owner to establish who has control.

As to assessing your recommendations to the RP, I will leave that to somebody more experienced in FRA's

[Graeme]

Sounds good to me , go for a day/night mode heat during the day , smokes at night , watch the spacings though will have to default to heat.
Any suggestion is better than nothing

a reasonable idea but as usual this probably will come down to the cost involved and a/a fire system will unlikely be an option for such a small premisies.

[David Rooney]

Thanks one and all.

The existing system is a cheapy 2 zone conventional so going over to A/A would be a little overkill, as Graeme says, this is a small premises (hair and beauty salon) covering no more than 60 sq m.

We have just taken over the mantenance, and with it being a conventional system are very limited to what we can do with detectors with regard false alarm management.

The contract is an interesting place to start... but all i want to do is fulfill my obligations and point these people in the right direction, not write their assessment for them.

They are looking for a definitive answer and unfortunately because of the structure of the FSO there doesn' t appear to be one !

[Midland Retty]

Sounds good to me , go for a day/night mode heat during the day , smokes at night , watch the spacings though will have to default to heat.
Any suggestion is better than nothing

a reasonable idea but as usual this probably will come down to the cost involved and a/a fire system will unlikely be an option for such a small premisies.

What do you mean by A/A guys Im not familiar with that abreviation

[David Rooney]

Analogue Addresable as opposed to Non Addressable aka Conventional......

OK.... C U L8R..... as the kids on the block probably wouldn't say !!!  

Respeck.......

[Clevelandfire]

Sounds good to me , go for a day/night mode heat during the day , smokes at night , watch the spacings though will have to default to heat.
Any suggestion is better than nothing

a reasonable idea but as usual this probably will come down to the cost involved and a/a fire system will unlikely be an option for such a small premisies.

No one mentioned A/A systems

Wouldnt need one

Few detectors and a sounder job done!

[kurnal]

Hi Dave
Just out of interest how many flats are there - is it just single flats with their own private entrance or are there any common access routes to flats?

Is the flat access completely independent from the shop- no links between the two?

Definitive answers are possible but the fire separation between shop and flat is crucial.

If there is one hour separation in good condition- no need for alarm sounder in the flat - the idea is that if a serious fire occurrs a passer by or the flat owner should be aware of the fire below them well before there is a risk of fire spread affectng the flat or its means of escape.

If theres not one hour separaton then the people in the flat need to know about the fire in the shop. If its thin lath and plastter I would try and get the ceiling improved as first choice, and  hold out for smoke detector in shop and sounder in flat. If there is a good half hour plasterboard ceiling in good condition then I would suggest we may consider heat detection to avoid false alarms in the knowledge that an alarm should be given in sufficient time.

[David Rooney]

Because the flat isn't technically in our remit I haven't seen it, but it is only one flat and appears to be on two levels above the shop. IE the whole building is gnd = shop, 1st and 2nd = single flat

Flat is totally separate from the shop, own entrance etc etc.

The ceiling in the shop appears to be plaster board with LV downlighters (!) there is a loft hatch suggesting this ceiling has been lowered at some point but we couldn't get access at the time so not sure what the ofiginal seiling is, but would suggest lath n plaster....

[Tom Sutton]

but all i want to do is fulfill my obligations and point these people in the right direction, not write their assessment for them.

Dave if you wish to give advice then you need to conduct a partial risk assessment to be able to give that advice and consequently you need to know who’s who.