Compromised fire doors

[Martin]

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.

[PhilB]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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.

[Martin]

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.

[PhilB]

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.

[Martin]

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.

[Midland Retty]

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 .

[Martin]

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.

[PhilB]

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.

[Clevelandfire]

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.

[The Colonel]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[Davo]

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

[John Webb]

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....?

[Davo]

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