Proping open fire doors

[Tom Sutton]

The requirement not to prop open fire doors is one of those common sense unwritten laws that we all accept but I am not ware of any documented proof that would support your case if you were arguing the point. I was wondering if there is a reference to a regulation or ruling (court or otherwise) that would support this point.

[nearlythere]

The requirement not to prop open fire doors is one of those common sense unwritten laws that we all accept but I am not ware of any documented proof that would support your case if you were arguing the point. I was wondering if there is a reference to a regulation or ruling (court or otherwise) that would support this point.

It is not unlawful to prop open a fire door but it is unlawful not to provide and maintain adequate means of escape in the event of fire.

[CivvyFSO]

I agree with Nearlythere. A fire door is generally an integral part of the means of escape. By wedging it open you probably no longer have sufficient means of escape.

RR(FS)O Article 14(2)(b): in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible;

Past an open fire door is not really "as safely as possible". It is the same part we would quote as a the non-compliance on an enforcement notice to make someone protect a staircase or escape route with an FR wall/door.

There is also article 8, general fire precautions, linking to article 4...

4. —(1) In this Order "general fire precautions" in relation to premises means, subject to paragraph (2)—
...
(c) measures for securing that, at all material times, the means of escape can be safely and effectively used;

[fireftrm]

To follow this - as long as the prop is removed in case of fire - then there is nothing legally wrong at all. The measures for ensuring the security of the means of escape could be a premises procedure for removal of props on activation of the alarm, through training and practice. If the responsible person has risk assessed this then................................................

[nearlythere]

To follow this - as long as the prop is removed in case of fire - then there is nothing legally wrong at all. The measures for ensuring the security of the means of escape could be a premises procedure for removal of props on activation of the alarm, through training and practice. If the responsible person has risk assessed this then................................................

Am I reading you right that your thinking is that the door can be wedged or propped open until you have a fire?

[fireftrm]

Yes, literally, as long as the responsible person has risk assessed and has control measures there is really no argument against - until the fire occurs and the control measures don't work......................

[nearlythere]

Yes, literally, as long as the responsible person has risk assessed and has control measures there is really no argument against - until the fire occurs and the control measures don't work......................

So how would this be managed and maintained fireftrm so that the door is in the closed position when a fire breaks out? The only way I can imagine it is that you have someone standing beside the door at all times. What if he or she needs a comfort break? Much cheaper to have a £100 self closer linked to the FA system. I know where you are coming from but why?

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks guys for your contribution which I agree with except fireftrm who I am not fully sure what he is suggesting or is there a taste of irony there. But it is not what I wanted; I needed something in black and white like a prosecution which I found on http://www.firerisk.net/html/recent_prosecutions.html.

[jokar]

Interesting quotes from civvyfso.  Does that mean that escape is easier with all the doors open?  Walking past an open fire door is fine unless there is a fire within that space.  What happens if the door is not on the means of escape?

There are a number of prosecution cases where wedged open doors have contributed to fire spread and injury to people.  However, proving that a wedged open fire door will cause serious injury and loss of life is a bit more difficult to do pre a fire.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Thanks guys for your contribution which I agree with except fireftrm who I am not fully sure what he is suggesting or is there a taste of irony there. But it is not what I wanted; I needed something in black and white like a prosecution which I found on http://www.firerisk.net/html/recent_prosecutions.html.

TW Sutton look again at Fireftrms reply. He is actually bang on the money

Unless it can proven that a wedged fire door contibuted to put someone at serious and imminent risk or worse killed someone the fact the door is wedged is irrelevant .

For instance I allowe din the past an office door to be wedged open at all times someone was working int it because the office got very hot in the summer. The moment the office was left unattended i gave a proviso that the door should be shut.

Also every other poster is correct in that iof it did happen then article 14 would come into play

[Tom Sutton]

I wanted; I needed something in black and white like a prosecution which I found on http://www.firerisk.net/html/recent_prosecutions.html.

TW Sutton look again at Fireftrms reply. He is actually bang on the money

Unless it can proven that a wedged fire door contributed to put someone at serious and imminent risk or worse killed someone the fact the door is wedged is irrelevant .

For instance I allowed in the past an office door to be wedged open at all times someone was working in it because the office got very hot in the summer. The moment the office was left unattended i gave a proviso that the door should be shut.

Also every other poster is correct in that if it did happen then article 14 would come into play

If you check out the link to the prosecutions you will find a number of FRS have managed a prosecution.

As for the office wouldn’t providing ventilation be a better solution and in a fire situation what are the chances of somebody remembering to remove the wedges.

[Tom Sutton]

TW Sutton look again at Fireftrms reply. He is actually bang on the money

Unless it can proven that a wedged fire door contributed to put someone at serious and imminent risk or worse killed someone the fact the door is wedged is irrelevant .

For instance I allowed in the past an office door to be wedged open at all times someone was working in it because the office got very hot in the summer. The moment the office was left unattended i gave a proviso that the door should be shut.

Also every other poster is correct in that if it did happen then article 14 would come into play

If you check out the link to the prosecutions you will find a number of FRS have managed a prosecution.

As for the office wouldn’t providing ventilation be a better solution and in a fire situation what are the chances of somebody remembering to remove the wedges.

[nearlythere]

Think I would play safe myself and go for a hold open device.

[Midland Retty]

Surely it is down to risk assessment chaps

Clevelandfire's procedure may be perfectly acceptable and much cheaper than trying to provide ventilation in that room.

If it's well managed where is the problem?

[nearlythere]

Reminds me of an inspection I carried out when in the job. Back office down a corridor with 2 people employed and quite a distance from front. Office had final exit door but locked with padlock. I pointed out that the door should be available without use of key when persons in premises.
Girl in office said that the other office person always carries key and can open the door quickly. I asked where that person was. At lunch was the reply.