Removal of fire doors from flats

[Foggy]

Hi,

I have got a bit of a problem regarding 2 x 11 storey blocks of flats and am hoping that somebody may have come accross a similar issue and  therefore able to offer some advice.

The flats were owned and maintained by the Local Authority until 1994 at which time they were sold off to a private property business. This company then sold all the flats and now a considerable number of the flat owners have replaced their front doors with ones that look a lot pretier but unfortunately, as is usually the case, they are not fire resisting or self closing etc.

However the leases specifically exclude the exterior doors to each flat from 'the maintained property' for which the landlord is responsible and are excluded from the structural parts of the building, therefore seemingly making the owner of each flat the 'Responsible person' in relation to the RRO and therefore it would seem, that any enforcement required to replace the non fire resisting doors with fire doors would need to be taken against the 60 or so individual owners. (very messy)

However, in my opinion, the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the common areas and as such they should not have provided provision within the lease that allowed the owner to replace their doors in first place and I would be tempted to go for the freeholder in relation to enforcement.

I would not consider the provision of detection within the corridors/lobbies as a means of overcomming the problem and in any case it would not be approriate given the nature of the occupancy.(rundown area, valndalsim etc) it would be going off extremely frequently.

Can anyone offer any advice inrelation to the siuation and my thoughts on it. Also on who should take the lead role in any enforcemnt action, Local Housing Authority or Fire Service? 

Mnay thanks

[nearlythere]

Hi,

I have got a bit of a problem regarding 2 x 11 storey blocks of flats and am hoping that somebody may have come accross a similar issue and  therefore able to offer some advice.

The flats were owned and maintained by the Local Authority until 1994 at which time they were sold off to a private property business. This company then sold all the flats and now a considerable number of the flat owners have replaced their front doors with ones that look a lot pretier but unfortunately, as is usually the case, they are not fire resisting or self closing etc.

However the leases specifically exclude the exterior doors to each flat from 'the maintained property' for which the landlord is responsible and are excluded from the structural parts of the building, therefore seemingly making the owner of each flat the 'Responsible person' in relation to the RRO and therefore it would seem, that any enforcement required to replace the non fire resisting doors with fire doors would need to be taken against the 60 or so individual owners. (very messy)

However, in my opinion, the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the common areas and as such they should not have provided provision within the lease that allowed the owner to replace their doors in first place and I would be tempted to go for the freeholder in relation to enforcement.

I would not consider the provision of detection within the corridors/lobbies as a means of overcomming the problem and in any case it would not be approriate given the nature of the occupancy.(rundown area, valndalsim etc) it would be going off extremely frequently.

Can anyone offer any advice inrelation to the siuation and my thoughts on it. Also on who should take the lead role in any enforcemnt action, Local Housing Authority or Fire Service? 

Mnay thanks

This issue has already received a good airing within the last year Foggy, if you can find it or if someone knows where it might be.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Hi,

I have got a bit of a problem regarding 2 x 11 storey blocks of flats and am hoping that somebody may have come accross a similar issue and  therefore able to offer some advice.

The flats were owned and maintained by the Local Authority until 1994 at which time they were sold off to a private property business. This company then sold all the flats and now a considerable number of the flat owners have replaced their front doors with ones that look a lot pretier but unfortunately, as is usually the case, they are not fire resisting or self closing etc.

However the leases specifically exclude the exterior doors to each flat from 'the maintained property' for which the landlord is responsible and are excluded from the structural parts of the building, therefore seemingly making the owner of each flat the 'Responsible person' in relation to the RRO and therefore it would seem, that any enforcement required to replace the non fire resisting doors with fire doors would need to be taken against the 60 or so individual owners. (very messy)

However, in my opinion, the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the common areas and as such they should not have provided provision within the lease that allowed the owner to replace their doors in first place and I would be tempted to go for the freeholder in relation to enforcement.

I would not consider the provision of detection within the corridors/lobbies as a means of overcomming the problem and in any case it would not be approriate given the nature of the occupancy.(rundown area, valndalsim etc) it would be going off extremely frequently.

Can anyone offer any advice inrelation to the siuation and my thoughts on it. Also on who should take the lead role in any enforcemnt action, Local Housing Authority or Fire Service? 

Mnay thanks

You have hit a catch 22 situation. You are correct that the individual owner / occupiers / landlords become RPs and and to even attempt to take action or issue notices individually on those people to change doors back would be impossible. There would not be the political will or resources available to follow that action up. Then you mention that the managing agents should have written something in the lease to prevent the hose owners from changing their doors, but you will struggle now trying to do anything with that unfortunately too. Im afraid you will need to consider a communal fire alarm system. It is the only way. No other options are practical. The seperation in the flats has been compromised by non FR entrance doors. I know some colleagues would argue that if the communal fire alarm has gone off its probably because the escape route are filled with smoke. Therefore people will be escaping via smoke filled corridors. You can't win.It has to be a communal fire alarm system, combined with a semi stay put policy whereby when the communal alarms goes off residents should be encouraged to peer out their front doors and evacuate if they cant see any obvious signs of fire and call the fire brigade. If corridor is smoke logged they stay inside flat and obviously call fire brigade.

[Big T]

Your joking I assume? Haha, communal alarm, haha. haha, ha

I assume after installation the fire services false fire alarm reduction officer is going to visit the moment it has been commissioned to whack a notice on us?

Not in a million years is that going to happen!

Its like saying in a mixed user developement like a shopping centre, the people in the builing who can't be bothered to comply with the RRO get away with it and the people that are bothering have to spend a ton more money to improve safety for the people not complying and have to manage a fire alarm that is not required.

Not on my watch squire!

Joking apart

Its not just as simple as installing a communal fire alarm. The problem with your suggestion is that legally, Leasholders will have to pay for the installation of the communal fire alarm system (full price of system, divided by the number of flats in the building. Just like they would if the roof went, if the water pipes burst, if the cladding needed repair, if the satellite fell off if the carpet needed repairing etc etc.) Landlord of the communal parts pays nothing. This is likely to be considerably more expensive to the leaseholder than them changing their front door back to the required fire safety standards. So there is a catch 22 for even the recommended solution of installing a communal alarm. Leaseholders will then take us to a tribunal to get a legal standpoint which will take time and money and I doubt very much whether the fire service would help or get involved due to the political hot potato that telling Joe public they are a menace to others safety would be. In addition the court will look at BS5588 pt 1 see there is no statutory requirement to install a communal part and rule in favour of the leaseholder.

The solution we are adopting which we believe to execute our responsibility (and in my opinion goes much further than is required)

1. Flat front doors not providing minimum fire resistance for the type of flat that they are in are noted on the Fire risk assessment which is carried out by the responsible person for the communal areas.

2. Responsible person deals with all items on the fire risk assessment in the timescales they have decided and at the same time send a letter to the leaseholders without suitable doors explaining that their door  has been noted as a risk and that it should be changed within a timescale with recommended spec etc.

3. When the leaseholder does not bother (most will bother if you ask them and explain why) you send another, slightly more stern letter

4. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (Virtually all will have bothered by now) In partnership with the local brigade the fire safety department sends a letter to the leaseholder explaining it is serious they are the Responsible person and that they could be prosecuted under the RRO.

5. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (I suggest most will be in the process by now) The company solicitor sends a letter with some legal mumbo jumbo and a date for an LVT (which can be instigated by the manager of the common parts, not just a leaseholder.

6. Year later, doors not replaced, repaired etc, process starts again.

Has my organisation done all that is reasonably practical? Yes
Has the Leaseholder been goven the opportunity to do all that is reasonably practical? Yes
If there is a fire and death occurs, who goes to court? Everyone
When the evidence of all the procedure and correspondance above is given to the fire service or court to review, who is going to get prosecuted for having responsibility for the flat entrance door which was not fire rated?

The Leaseholder.

[Hightower]

As part of the risk assessment of the common areas of flats most of us are agreed that AFD is not suitable and that a stay put policy is.  In point to your question if flat entrance doors are not suitably fire rated at what point should the stay put policy be communicated to the residents.  Is it immediately and before the doors have been replaced - with the compromised compartmentation as it is, or is it after all doors are raised to the appropriate standard - a catch 22 I think - wondered what the opinion of others was.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Your joking I assume? Haha, communal alarm, haha. haha, ha

I assume after installation the fire services false fire alarm reduction officer is going to visit the moment it has been commissioned to whack a notice on us?

Not in a million years is that going to happen!

Its like saying in a mixed user developement like a shopping centre, the people in the builing who can't be bothered to comply with the RRO get away with it and the people that are bothering have to spend a ton more money to improve safety for the people not complying and have to manage a fire alarm that is not required.

Not on my watch squire!

Joking apart

Its not just as simple as installing a communal fire alarm. The problem with your suggestion is that legally, Leasholders will have to pay for the installation of the communal fire alarm system (full price of system, divided by the number of flats in the building. Just like they would if the roof went, if the water pipes burst, if the cladding needed repair, if the satellite fell off if the carpet needed repairing etc etc.) Landlord of the communal parts pays nothing. This is likely to be considerably more expensive to the leaseholder than them changing their front door back to the required fire safety standards. So there is a catch 22 for even the recommended solution of installing a communal alarm. Leaseholders will then take us to a tribunal to get a legal standpoint which will take time and money and I doubt very much whether the fire service would help or get involved due to the political hot potato that telling Joe public they are a menace to others safety would be. In addition the court will look at BS5588 pt 1 see there is no statutory requirement to install a communal part and rule in favour of the leaseholder.

The solution we are adopting which we believe to execute our responsibility (and in my opinion goes much further than is required)

1. Flat front doors not providing minimum fire resistance for the type of flat that they are in are noted on the Fire risk assessment which is carried out by the responsible person for the communal areas.

2. Responsible person deals with all items on the fire risk assessment in the timescales they have decided and at the same time send a letter to the leaseholders without suitable doors explaining that their door  has been noted as a risk and that it should be changed within a timescale with recommended spec etc.

3. When the leaseholder does not bother (most will bother if you ask them and explain why) you send another, slightly more stern letter

4. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (Virtually all will have bothered by now) In partnership with the local brigade the fire safety department sends a letter to the leaseholder explaining it is serious they are the Responsible person and that they could be prosecuted under the RRO.

5. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (I suggest most will be in the process by now) The company solicitor sends a letter with some legal mumbo jumbo and a date for an LVT (which can be instigated by the manager of the common parts, not just a leaseholder.

6. Year later, doors not replaced, repaired etc, process starts again.

Has my organisation done all that is reasonably practical? Yes
Has the Leaseholder been goven the opportunity to do all that is reasonably practical? Yes
If there is a fire and death occurs, who goes to court? Everyone
When the evidence of all the procedure and correspondance above is given to the fire service or court to review, who is going to get prosecuted for having responsibility for the flat entrance door which was not fire rated?

The Leaseholder.



Strongly disgaree but hey ho thats life!. The arguments you use against my reasoning automatically hold true for your own reasoning.

Its down to the fire authority or housing authority to have the you know whats to enforce it.

In either example the political will isn't there, and is thus taken out of the risk assessors, or fire inspectors hands.

So do nothing. Cos nothing will get implemented exactly for the reasons you give which is exactly what i said in the first place; CATCH 22

[Thomas Brookes]

This is not an answer to the main question on here about the legality of the fire doors but more on a fire detection system for a building such as that  with vandals and false alarms.

What about Linear detection, you could run a single low temp heat  cable up the stairwell and corridors. In my experience these never seem to get any vandalism and because its a heat detector it wont go off when the locals are smoking etc when hanging out where they shouldent be.

[nearlythere]

This is not an answer to the main question on here about the legality of the fire doors but more on a fire detection system for a building such as that  with vandals and false alarms.

What about Linear detection, you could run a single low temp heat  cable up the stairwell and corridors. In my experience these never seem to get any vandalism and because its a heat detector it wont go off when the locals are smoking etc when hanging out where they shouldent be.

I thought it was about flat owners changing flat main entrance doors to non FR types Thomas and if AFD is adequate as a compensatory factor.

[Thomas Brookes]

Foggy said

I would not consider the provision of detection within the corridors/lobbies as a means of overcomming the problem and in any case it would not be approriate given the nature of the occupancy.(rundown area, valndalsim etc) it would be going off extremely frequently.

I was just trying to say if a normal AFD system was not suitable maybe a more covert looking one might not suffer valndalsim, thats all.

[kurnal]

I tend to go along with Big T on this one but would be interested to hear a little more about the layout.
Is it a block with a single staircase? These old places often tended to have a single ventilated staircase with open louvres and a lobby off the stairs at each level just serving a few flats. If this is the case then ensure that the doors you can control- between staircase and lobby are super dooper and you could as a temporary fix pending a permanent solution  stick a domestic heat detector in each flat entrance linked to the others  on the same landing only. I guess the same would apply in a multi stair building with corridors but there may be more flats to install in.

[Midland Retty]

Your joking I assume? Haha, communal alarm, haha. haha, ha

I assume after installation the fire services false fire alarm reduction officer is going to visit the moment it has been commissioned to whack a notice on us?

Not in a million years is that going to happen!

Its like saying in a mixed user developement like a shopping centre, the people in the builing who can't be bothered to comply with the RRO get away with it and the people that are bothering have to spend a ton more money to improve safety for the people not complying and have to manage a fire alarm that is not required.

Not on my watch squire!

Joking apart

Its not just as simple as installing a communal fire alarm. The problem with your suggestion is that legally, Leasholders will have to pay for the installation of the communal fire alarm system (full price of system, divided by the number of flats in the building. Just like they would if the roof went, if the water pipes burst, if the cladding needed repair, if the satellite fell off if the carpet needed repairing etc etc.) Landlord of the communal parts pays nothing. This is likely to be considerably more expensive to the leaseholder than them changing their front door back to the required fire safety standards. So there is a catch 22 for even the recommended solution of installing a communal alarm. Leaseholders will then take us to a tribunal to get a legal standpoint which will take time and money and I doubt very much whether the fire service would help or get involved due to the political hot potato that telling Joe public they are a menace to others safety would be. In addition the court will look at BS5588 pt 1 see there is no statutory requirement to install a communal part and rule in favour of the leaseholder.

The solution we are adopting which we believe to execute our responsibility (and in my opinion goes much further than is required)

1. Flat front doors not providing minimum fire resistance for the type of flat that they are in are noted on the Fire risk assessment which is carried out by the responsible person for the communal areas.

2. Responsible person deals with all items on the fire risk assessment in the timescales they have decided and at the same time send a letter to the leaseholders without suitable doors explaining that their door  has been noted as a risk and that it should be changed within a timescale with recommended spec etc.

3. When the leaseholder does not bother (most will bother if you ask them and explain why) you send another, slightly more stern letter

4. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (Virtually all will have bothered by now) In partnership with the local brigade the fire safety department sends a letter to the leaseholder explaining it is serious they are the Responsible person and that they could be prosecuted under the RRO.

5. When the leaseholder still doesn't bother (I suggest most will be in the process by now) The company solicitor sends a letter with some legal mumbo jumbo and a date for an LVT (which can be instigated by the manager of the common parts, not just a leaseholder.

6. Year later, doors not replaced, repaired etc, process starts again.

Has my organisation done all that is reasonably practical? Yes
Has the Leaseholder been goven the opportunity to do all that is reasonably practical? Yes
If there is a fire and death occurs, who goes to court? Everyone
When the evidence of all the procedure and correspondance above is given to the fire service or court to review, who is going to get prosecuted for having responsibility for the flat entrance door which was not fire rated?

The Leaseholder.

Apologies just been able to log back into firenet and saw this topic. Big T I generally agree with your posting. But Out of interest (and this is not a barbed question) what would you do if the majority of tennants / residents refused to replace their non FR doors?

[Big T]

Thats ok Midland, spikey loaded questions come with the territory.

Whilst this procedure that I have outlined is in short where are organisation intends to take this, In discussion with other managers accross the organisation the general consensus is that the majority of leaseholders will comply with our requests as we are very carefull in the wording of the letters to ensure they are relevant and not OTT or scary or threatening etc.

Once the full programme of letters has gone through the mill It is our intention with the support of local fire services who we would partner to seek to enforce under the legislation.

In my opinion if it is enforceable (which it is) but Fire services do not enforce for political reasons then the blame would be in the leaseholder / fire service court. Remeber, as an organisation we cannot spend money to upgrade the buildings fire safety provision as it has to be paid for by Leaseholders.

The situation hasn't happened yet so we will have to see how this goes. We are piloting the scheme in around 30 Blocks and once completed we will have a model which long term I will take to the CFOA to get them to recommend it to the fire service as good practice to work with companies like ours.

It is a sticky situation which in my opinion will have been overlooked by the majority of Registered social landlords and councils accross the UK

[Midland Retty]

Yes this is a huge problem.

What about contact with Local Housing Authorities? Have they had any input?

[Big T]

This is how we as a Registered social landlord intend to deal with it. Not sure how councils are approaching it