Fire doors

Barry,
not sure which risk the insurers are trying to reduce? Building too secure with risk to persons or not secure enough with risk to property?

I was too quick with my previous comment without checking further. To confirm Iain's earlier post, the relevant section is in the RRO 2005 Part 1 section2 Interpretation "relevant persons" means—
(a) any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; and
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 Part 3 Chapter 5 section 79 “relevant person”, in relation to premises, means—
(a)any person who is, or may be, lawfully in the premises; or
(b)any person—
(i)who is, or may be, in the immediate vicinity of the premises; and
(ii)whose safety would be at risk in the event of fire in the premises;

Iain, my apologies for not reading Part 3 to the bitter end....


regards

John

Hello John

We have had the debate in a number of my buildings with the insurers (doubtless trying to improve their risk) and there seems to have been a complete change in thinking over the years, where once we did not owe a duty of care to trespassers (or if we did it was never pressed) we do now.
So if a burglar falls down the stairs in the dark???

Barry

Iain,
I think we agree in principle, but I am sure like many others, the actual definition, if it were in court, may not be so clear. The original question related to department stores, in which case the final exit opening devices would probably be recognised push type. I have experience of final exits opening inwards and being locked, opened by a thumb-turn on inside, satisfied Building Control and Fire Regs due to low occupancy levels of the building.
The Fire (Scotland)2005 Act and Fire Safety (Scotland) Regs2006 use the term 'relevant premises' and 'relevant persons' . It may be that these are indeed persons legitimately in the premises, but does it preclude all others?
Debatable point long overdue in clarifying in my opinion.
In the situation of original question, I am considering that 'out of hours' there are often cleaning, maintenance, store operations etc which can be occurring overnight. Plus possibly security staff.


Barry,
I think the relevant Fire Safety Orders do refer to, and recognise other legislation but as far as I can see make no reference to the legality or otherwise of the presence of the persons involved.

regards

John

Hello Iain

I was not thinking of the RRO then more the duty of care to all occupiers including those not there legally.

Regards

Barry

Barry,
I'm not up to date with the situation in England and Wales on this particular point but in Scotland under Section 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act, you only need to consider persons who are legally on the premises. I would be surprised if the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order does not deal with this in a similar manner.

Hello

I have seen a similar situation to Alan where a lock had been replaced but not the key in the box (not on the worksheet), would you also need to make sure that the doors can be opened if the occupier was there illegally (burglar)....

Barry

John,
I agree that the simplest form of securing device is best. However, if there is an insistance that, when the premises are unoccupied and the occupier is unwilling/unable to spend the additional money for more expensive 'panic type' fastenings, given propoer controls, supported by a sutable and sufficient fire risk assessment, using a bolt may be acceptable.
The idea of the door being available 24/7 is only relelvant if the premises are in use 24/7. The duty in terms of fire safety is only to those who are legally on the premises. Certainly this is in PArt 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to avoid, as has happened in the past, owners/occupiers being prosecuted by persons who have broken into premises and cannot leave after they have set fire to the premises.
I totally concur with Alan regarding the use of keys whether or not in glass boxes. The bottom line is that any door on an escape route has to be readily openable by one easy acction without resorting the use of a key WHEN THE PREMISES ARE LEGALLY OCCUPIED. Whether the action is easy or not can only be decided by careful consideration of the physical and/or mental abilities of those using the door as part of your fire risk assessment.

Ricky,

Keys in a box are not acceptable to many authorities and I concur because I have seen many situations where the wrong key has been provided or it was missing and in a panic situation the delay can be very serious. I have even seen one situation where the glass in the box had been replaced with toughened glass because it kept getting broken by people wanting to leave the building by a short cut.
Keys in boxes were acceptable many years ago but not now when there are so many acceptable other solutions available and so you may wish to review your Fire Risk Assessment if this indicates that they are ok.

Regards Alan (mail@alanfcox.co.uk)

Hi Editor to Fire Door,
As far as reasonable practicable, all doors opening should not be locked. This would only trapped user(s) from safely leaving the premises or building. This would be aggravated if it is an emergency situation, such as fire. What we did here was:- put the key next to the locked door(s) within break-glass box/enclosure. (Similar to fire alarm call point; break the glass and alert via fire alarm).
By courtesy of Ricky

RRO 2005 Part2 14(f) emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;
(Fire Safety Scotland Regulations 2006 Pt3 13 2f is basically the same.)

As with many regulations, open to interpretation but in my opinion this means a locking device which can be easily opened 24/7. Ideally the simplest form of securing and opening emergency doors is preferred. eg, panic bars, bolts, pads etc. NO chains, padlocks or anti jemming bars which require a key to open. The main reason why stores LOCK the final exits at night is to prevent theft. Plastic security tags fitted to doors wont stop the theft but does alert security to the fact that the exit has been opened.
As already mentioned all should be noted in FRA, I would add that fire drills and practices also add to the communication to staff.

If no one is in the building you can secure the doors by any means that you wish but as Iain points out as soon as the building is occupied the doors need to be easily openable by a person escaping from a fire.
One group of people that many companies forget about are cleaners and maintenance staff and when they are in the building the same rule applies. I normally advise large stores to have an Opening and Closing Book which sets out what needs to be done at the start and end of each day and is signed off each time by the member of staff carrying out the check.
Back to your question - if this is a door to which the public may need to resort then as Iain points there needs to be a procedure in place to prevent them being inadvertently left in operation and this could be incorporated into the O&C book. If this is a door to which only staff have access then a draw bolt may be acceptable but with certain provisos e.g. it is the only fastening on the door, it is clearly visible and in a convenient location, staff are aware of the fastening etc, however, as Iain states this arrangement should be identified in the Fire Risk Assessment.

Hope that helps but if not please let me know.

Regards Alan

This would only be acceptable if there is a set down procedure to draw the bolts back and secure (padlock) them in the open position and this should be the first action of the first person entering the premises. This should be formally identified in teh Fire Risk Assessmnet.

is it legal for there to be bolts on the inside of a final exit fire door of a department store even if they are opened as soon as the buildin is occupied.