Upgrading existing FR doors to flats

[rn976]

In the same vain as the compromised fire doors and in the same area of front doors to flats, but this time can any one help with a simple question.
For a door installed post 1990 (BS8214:1990)but with 25mm stops and evidence of good FR to door whilst I belive the RA  should identify the need to upgrade the door to SS & SC should the effectivness of the door become compromised, has any one knowledge of documentation that says the existing standard is OK until that time?

[Big T]

RN976

There is no standard as such to cover this. Other than the fact that no legislation is retrospective. In my opinion it is about what you are willing to live with as with (as an organisation) as residual risk and for what period of time and reasons at to why you are not upgrading sooner.

A definitive strategy for addressing this issues (including timescales) should be in place within your organisation. I

In an email I received form Fire safety reform at the DCLG the following advice was given:

"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"

[CivvyFSO]

There is the RRO that says you have to do what is reasonably practicable to protect relevant persons. Can you honestly says it is not reasonably practicable to fit strips and seals and a self closer?

If you have an alarm system that will evacuate the whole building then this may be acceptable to some people with just self closers. (You really want that door closing behind the person escaping from the affected room)

[CivvyFSO]

no legislation is retrospective.

But from the day the RRO came out it applied regardless of any prior acceptance/certificates/standards. By not being retrospective that surely just means that we can't prosecute you under the RRO  for failings prior to the RRO coming out, but if they were still failings on the day the RRO came out, then we can prosecute/enforce.

[Martin]

Imagine a major housing association wiht thousands of flats maisonettes etc with front doors opening onto common areas. I would not expect them willy-nilly to start upgrading old 1" rebate doors. However it may well be reasonably practicable when they start putting in double glazing etc to budget for door repalcements.

THe question is will the front door stop fire and smoke passing. ifnot then it is repair or replacement time. IMHO if for example the damage is from forced entry with limited damage around the lock then a good repair to the rebate would be acceptable and a replacment with intumescent strips smoke seals etc is not needed. My RA is that the door will do what is needed, not does it meet published standard. If it does meet the current BS then this is clear supporting evidence it will work.

[CivvyFSO]

Why should a major housing association be treated any different to a smaller landlord?

[nearlythere]

no legislation is retrospective.

But from the day the RRO came out it applied regardless of any prior acceptance/certificates/standards. By not being retrospective that surely just means that we can't prosecute you under the RRO  for failings prior to the RRO coming out, but if they were still failings on the day the RRO came out, then we can prosecute/enforce.

But there never was legislation requiring some doors to be fire doors so retrospectiveness is not an issue. The legislation was, and still is, to provide an adequate means of escape. What was considered adequte then may not be considered adequate now.

[JC100]

Why should a major housing association be treated any different to a smaller landlord?

Its not that they should be treated differently, i think enforcement officers just need to realise that these associations are different to smaller landlords.
The expenditure for these associations to upgrade all of their doors with strips and seals would be huge, especially when they are trying to juggle budgets between complying with the RRO, completing the governments 'decent homes' scheme and carrying out normal maintenance works. It will no doubt take these associations with 800+ blocks longer to bring their buildings up to this standard compared with Joe Bloggs who owns 1 block of 4 flats. With that in mind whilst it would be great to have strips and seals on all flat doors it just isn't at all practical for it to happen as quickly as they may like.

[Martin]

It is not a different standard for large and small RPs. The standard is reasonably practicable. Finding a budget and managing a massive door change programme may not be reasonably practicable. Doing a quick inspection of the doors when they become due for decorating and doing any repairs or replacements at that time is IMHO reasonably practicable.

Can we turn it round Civvy FSO or any enforcing officers. What would make you think you were into legal failure territory and start drafting an enforcment notice?  What would the notice say?

[CivvyFSO]

Having lots of properties is not an excuse for not complying with the legislation. Imagine if some large company insisted that they had so many staff surely they cannot be expected to give them all protective workwear where required. Do you reckon the HSE would swallow that? I am being slightly antagonistic here, because I would not expect everything done at once, however I would like to see something more solid than "we will do it when we get round to it or when we do something else"

As far as enforcement goes, Article 8 would suffice, linking it to meaning of general fire precautions:

(a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises;

If the premises was not operating as stay-put then article 14 would do, means of escape.

As we are all aware it is up to you/them to prove it is not reasonably practicable to do more than was/is done.

[Midland Retty]

Having lots of properties is not an excuse for not complying with the legislation. Imagine if some large company insisted that they had so many staff surely they cannot be expected to give them all protective workwear where required. Do you reckon the HSE would swallow that? I am being slightly antagonistic here, because I would not expect everything done at once, however I would like to see something more solid than "we will do it when we get round to it or when we do something else"

As far as enforcement goes, Article 8 would suffice, linking it to meaning of general fire precautions:

(a) measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of the spread of fire on the premises;

If the premises was not operating as stay-put then article 14 would do, means of escape.

As we are all aware it is up to you/them to prove it is not reasonably practicable to do more than was/is done.

Quite right CivvyFSO

As ever communicate with your local fire officer, agree a suitable and reasonable timescale to get failings or deficiences rectified. If its got to be done, then its got to be done, the issue wont go away just because there isnt enough cash to sort it!.

An RP shrugging their shoulders and saying " cant do that cos I cant afford it" is not acceptable, instead enforcers are looking for the RP to say something like " I cant afford to replace all the fire doors this year, however i will do 50 % this year and the remaining 50% next year" or whatever it may be.

Fire Officers generally are reasonable people, but you have to give them all the facts so that they can assess the overall picture and decide (along with the RP) what is a reasonable timescale.

The order applies to large companies just as much as it does small.

[JC100]

CivvyFSo and Midland Retty

I agree with what you are both saying, the point i was trying to make is that it WILL take large associations longer for these issues to get sorted than smaller landlords but like you say Midland Retty, as long as a reasonable timescale is in place than there should be no problems.

[Big T]

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you expect the housing associations to retrofit perfectly acceptable doors installed to CP3 with intumescent strips and seals without some form of company policy and long term plan. Whilst I accept that doors that are unsuitable or poorly fitted should be replaced as a matter of urgency when identified as part of the FRA doors which will do for now are not even close to being on a priority list.

[CivvyFSO]

What you are calling 'perfectly acceptable' doors have been tested under BS476 conditions, and are more in the region of being a FD20 door. With a 4mm gap they don't even manage 20 mins. Also, CP3 is from 1971, the fact that technology has progressed in the last 37 years shouldn't make much difference then?

[Big T]

No, quite frankly. Not to a companys policy. It might mot perform in the way a modern door does but it will perform. If all doors need upgrading the government would make it a legal requirement under the order. And it isn't.

The brigades need to understand that you cannot retrospectively upgrade all buildings in the UK in one day, companys HAVE to take finance into consideration and budget carefully to allow upgrade over a period of years.

Serious life safety issues obviously require immediate attention but other items require a more considered approach with regard to budget and seriousness of the deficiency.