Front doors leading on to an escape coridor

[ASIF]

Senario;
Block of flats with a mix of social housing and private flats. The landlord has updated his social housing flats to current sandards new detection new fire doors including the front door to FD30 standard.
The other owners may have over time replaced or repaired their front doors with a standard front door. The corridor has to be a 30 min protected route but now has obvious breaches.
Therefore, would the landlord be responsible if following a fire the standard door failed and the means of escape was comprimised, or because he has no control over the private flats they would carry the can?

Even if the landlord contacted each private flat asking the owner to confirm their front door was fire resistant for 30 minutes (documentation if they still have it) and if not, who then buys and supplies the new front door?

And finally... If no response comes back from the private flats and there is a fire, would the landlord be responsible for failing to protect the escape route ?
 
I would be gratful for your thoughts....     


Many thanks

Asif

[nearlythere]

Senario;
Block of flats with a mix of social housing and private flats. The landlord has updated his social housing flats to current sandards new detection new fire doors including the front door to FD30 standard.
The other owners may have over time replaced or repaired their front doors with a standard front door. The corridor has to be a 30 min protected route but now has obvious breaches.
Therefore, would the landlord be responsible if following a fire the standard door failed and the means of escape was comprimised, or because he has no control over the private flats they would carry the can?

Even if the landlord contacted each private flat asking the owner to confirm their front door was fire resistant for 30 minutes (documentation if they still have it) and if not, who then buys and supplies the new front door?

And finally... If no response comes back from the private flats and there is a fire, would the landlord be responsible for failing to protect the escape route ?
 
I would be gratful for your thoughts....     


Many thanks

Asif

Are there any conditons written into the leases prohibiting occupiers changing front doors to non fr type?

[kurnal]

A very common scenario.

I think that the Landlord must do all he can to protect the common areas and the front doors should be seen as part of the common areas and not the tenants or lessees property.

However the change to the Law in 2006 were not forseen by landlords and conveyancing solicitors and many leases do not specifiy any control of this important element.

I guess really that changes of the front doors may also have been subject to the Building Regulations and an application should have been made? Have at regualtion 3 of the Building Regualtions.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/explanatorybooklet.pdf

There is a problem here  and I speculate that under the Fire safety order the tenant could also be considered to be a person having control as their actions have detracted from the fire safety within the common areas. If the lease says the door belongs to the lessee then IMO they are a Person Having Control. If it belongs to the Landlord the lessee is just a relevant person.

If the lease is unclear, and if the door has been changed without authorisation or Building Regulations approval,  then I think the Landlord is in a strong position under the Order to lean heavily on the person who changed the door. I think the landlord should change the door and then persue the tenant for the cost in doing so.

If the lease says the door  belongs to the lessee  then they are a person having control and full sanction of the Fire safety Order could be applied to them.

The landlord must make sure in future for any further sales that the demarcation line is clear and the doors are controlled.  The Landlord has to be able to show due diligence in his efforts to resolve this problem and if he can show he is doing all he can, subject to the due processes of the Law, then he should be covered.

[Midland Retty]

A few housing associations I have dealt with offer to fit a brand new fire resisting door for the leaseholders at cost, (as you can appreciate housing associations buy products in bulk so get doors at favourable prices).

The tenant does pay for it, but in the end gets a cheaper door (cheaper than if they were to source one themselves in most cases), fitting at cost (again generally cheaper than going to a commercial tradesperson) and have the option to repay the Housing Association in installments and spread the cost to minimise the financial impact.

[ASIF]

HMM very Intresting....

nearlythere, not sure about the lease agreements as they were with the preivious owners prior to the transfer of housing stock to the landlord.

Thanks Kurnal for your comprehensive information, intresting point about who actually has contol and who has caused the breach.
From the landlords point of view, because he is aware of the breach and something does happen, is he liable for not showing due dilligence and therefore responsible for revoking a duty of care?

I guess the sort of compromise Midland Retty talks about would be the best course of action as it solves the problem practically if not financially!

[Clevelandfire 3]

The leaseholders or owner occupiers if you want call them that would definately be classed as pHCs trouble is that the fire service would have to service notices on those PHCs and if you have a block of flats with 50 leaseholders that will be  alot of notices to right and too much hassle.