Leaseholder replacing doors

[JPAH]

Guys 

Has anyone come across the issue in general flatted accommodation of tenants purchasing their flat from the HA/Council and then installing a shiny new pvc front door?  Obviously it isn't acceptable [in most circumstances] but do you find that the HA have recourse under general conditions of a standard lease or is it only easily addressable where 'wise' HA's have included specific clauses relating to fire safety?  I am thinking specifically of England as I understand that laws in Scotland relating to this issue are different.

Comments much appreciated.

[kurnal]

Yes its fairly common but the bottom line is its the Responsible Person who carries the duty in Law. So the HA may not have recourse against the tenant unless they have been far sighted enough to be in a position to use contract Law against the tenant/owner. If they have not then it is likley to get very messy. Wonder if the door was fitted by a member of FENSA?

When I do work for landlords and housing associations I always recommend that they put a contract in place with purchasers and in tenancy agreements that makes it clear that the front door must not be altered and must be maintained as it forms part of the protection to the common areas.

[JPAH]

Thanks Kurnal.

Surely there must be a standard clause to the effect that the new leaseholder cannot do anything to his/her property that could be to the detriment of other residents.  It is so common and must come up regularly.  I suppose it may vary with every lease, however I would've thought it would/should be standard practice.   

Not being 'legal' I am slightly hesitant to look at a lease.  Perhaps that is my next step.

[JC100]

I work for a housing association and this is a very real and complicated situation.

The door to the leaseholders flat belong to them (stated in their lease), the frame belongs to the association. In the majority of leases there is no mention of fire safety, however there is a clause about the lessee endangering others in the block but we've had 2 conflicting opinions on what this means from 2 solicitors. Neither particular helpful in this case.

Leases tend to be fairly standard throughout the country and they are apparently not as easy to change as we might think. For existing leases, both parties have to agree to the change for intance.

[JPAH]

Thanks - this has been useful. 

[Tall Paul]

A standard 'lease' paragraph used by some local authorities where individual flat units have been sold reads as follows:

Not to make any structural alterations or structural additions to the Flat Nor to make any alteration which might affect the safety provisions within the Building and without prejudice to the foregoing the Tenant shall not replace with inferior quality
(i)   Fire Resisting Doors
(ii)   Glazing on common staircases and corridors

The Association for Residential Managing Agents provides useful professional advice for members (www.arma.org.uk)

[Big T]

Smokescreen and I have been working closely with the LFEPA to investigate how to deal with this issue. In real terms unless a fire service are willing to enforce a leaseholder as the responsible person for the protection of acommunal means of escape then the issue will never be solved unless you use clever worded letters to coerse leaseholders to change them.

An RSL or council cannot change the door of a leaseholder by law

[Midland Retty]

Sorry for coming into this discussion late - Ive only just noticed the thread

The issue of owner / occupiers replacing their FR flat entrance doors is a difficult one, and all too common I'm afraid.

Dependant on how the lease is worded it can be extremely difficult to require a resident to re-instate a fire resisting entrance door to their flat.

Fortunately I have worked with some very pro-active housing associations who have been on the ball when tackling this issue. In partnership we have been able to gently cajole owner/ occupiers into re-instating fire resisting doors through information and education, by explaining why the FR doors are required and what could go wrong if they're not. The reaction was very positive.

But I realise we have been lucky - I know in many parts of the UK this approach wouldn't work - especially as money is so tight at the moment and residents may not be able to afford such replacements

Also the problem can be wide spread - Ie; in some high rise blocks of flats  there may be so many residents to tackle it becomes very difficult / time consuming / labour intensive to approach everyone involved !

One housing association Im engaged with is looking to part-fund replacement doors ( in other words "go halves" with resident) or may offer to supply and fit FR doors at a competitive rate with the resident given the option of paying the HA back in affordable installments.

This is just something we're looking at which may or may not work with the schemes youre involved with.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thats very intresting Retty, some food for thought there. I have recently been appointed to assess several blocks for a RSL and those options may be of use.

[JPAH]

I wonder if Building Control is another route for this.  Strictly speaking a flat entrance door replacement should require a BC application (unless the alteration is 'like for like').  Therefore Building Control should be able to insist on upgrade as well. 

[Midland Retty]

Yes very true JPAH

In constitutes a structural change - so if a Housing association wished for example to replace 60 min doors with thirty min fire doors they would need to seek necessary approvals.

Changing like for like however doesn't require approval to be sought.

[wee brian]

Yes, but BC enforcement is time limited. So if you want them to do anything, pull your finger out.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thats not strictly true. If I build something which isn't compliant three years ago it doesn't mean building control can't do anything about it now. The time limit to take action only kicks in from the time Building Control are made aware of the problem else why on earth would they have any powers at all? We'd all build things and hope BC never got to hear about them.

[nearlythere]

Thats not strictly true. If I build something which isn't compliant three years ago it doesn't mean building control can't do anything about it now. The time limit to take action only kicks in from the time Building Control are made aware of the problem else why on earth would they have any powers at all? We'd all build things and hope BC never got to hear about them.

C3, Realistically I think you will find that once BC issue the cert that will be the end of its involvment. Not unless you have the money for a judicial review. I am dealling with two BC issues at the moment, both buildings completed within 10 years, and am finding it impossibly difficult to get BC to share any responsibility. One is providing "help and support" to the client the other is being obstructive and using every stalling tactic it can think up to frustrate the issue.
"We'd all build things and hope BC never got to hear about them". Yes, thats part of the game.
I could go on.

[CivvyFSO]

If I read the Building Act correctly the often mentioned 'year' limit is only in regards to the BCO being able to instruct you to "pull down the work", i.e. Put it back to how it was, or make it comply. It seems that someone could still be fined many years later and then despite the BCO not being able to actually instruct them to pull it down etc, keep running up a fine of £50 per day that the work remains sub-standard.

I do stand to be corrected here, as it was only a quick look through.