Retrospective application of Fire Safety Order

Stephen,
Could you let me have your email address and I will send you details.

Regards
Alan

could you please tell me how I can get hold of a copy of the fire door video?
Thanks very much Stephen

Going back to the original theme of this discussion - Retrospective application of the RRO - ie to conditions prior to 2006, we may conclude that enforcing authorities are legally within thier brief to do so. It appears to me that owners / occupiers should avail themselves of the appeal facility that is available in the enforcement process.
In 1984, our association built a brand new sheltered block of 45 units. It was passed by building control and fire service as compliant with the standards then required, in particular, 25mm fire door stops (rightly or wrongly) and a fire alarm system to BS5839-4
The BS for both have subsequently changed and a recent inspection from HMO (don't ask) required fire doors to be upgraded with seals & strips but not the fire alarm. The new BS EN 54, 2 and 4 for alarm systems is not intended to be rerospective where it can be demonstrated that the old standard is still performing the function for which it was designed and installed. When service engineers recommend a replacement system, (due to parts no longer being available for example, or replacement is cheaper than repair etc.) then the system must be brought up to current standards.
So why can't the same reasonable approach be applied to fire door sets?

In our situation, it was determined that the life safety gain / cost ratio was acceptable with regard to the fire doors. whereas the same didn,t apply with regard to the alarm system. This was particularly important in view of our stay-put evacuation policy for residents with mobility problems.

In our experience, enforcing authorities have been very reasonable when they see a high degree of compliance with the majority of standards and that we take our responsibilities seriously.

Section 21.3 of the document Mark refers to states "In most situations fire-resisting doors should be fitted with smoke seals, as these restrict the passage of smoke into the escape route from the room where the fire is situated.". The detail regarding "well fitted and constructed solid doors" appears in the written clarification and is qualified by ataing "Subject to the absence of any high risk factors and the inclusion of all other relevant fire safety precautions recommended in the guidance this arrangement may be accepted."

I would suggest in the light of other research, it is unlikely that many 'standard' HMOs would be unlikely to have an absence of high risk factors.

The exceptions to the fitting of smoke seals is related to only having detection in the corridors. In my experience the rooms in the majority of HMOs would be classified as having a high enough risk factor that, following a suitable Fire Risk Assessment, detection would be provided in each room. THis is supported by the fact that the BRE research into the provision of sprinklers in premises highlighted that HMOs were on of the few types of premises where sprinklers should be provided - but that's another topic.

Have just taken 20 minutes to read through this discussion and have found it really interesting. I would like make couple of comments on the provision of smoke seals in fire doors.
Surely it most is important to consider the level of fire detection within a building before fitting smoke seals to doors opening onto escape routes. If a building has detection only on the escape routes then before doors are upgraded, priority (and resources) must be given to extending the detection into rooms that open onto the escape routes if not then there will be a considerable (and unacceptable) delay on the raising of the alarm. Would it not be true to say that when improving fire safety facilties within a building - how the work is phased in is crucial to maintaining occupant safety.
This is highlighted in a number of guidance documents (including LACORS - Guidance on Fire safety in Certain Types of Housing and endorsed by CFOA, DCLG etc.).
This guide is not intended for commercial premises but to some residential premises to which RRO applies. This guide specifies practical solutions to RRO compliance that relies ,in some case, to "well fitted and constructed solid doors" and not doors to FD30S standard to protect a an exit route.
I would be really interested to hear what the experts think of the LACORS Guidance.

Charlie,

I will send you a private email about how to obtain the Fire Door Educational DVD. In respect of your observations about intumescent strips the DVD clearly shows how different strips operate under various conditions and shows you where they should be used. There is also a section showing how smoke strips and ventilation dampers work.

It's not quite as black and white about how the intumescent strips work because the intumescent strips also help to keep the door closed in a fire situation to protect the escape route and this is where you have to be careful about their selection as if you use the wrong strip it can force the door open but this is also covered in the DVD.

Whilst some people and authorities will allow some relaxation of fire door strips dependent on the type of alarm / detection system system I am generally of the opinion that it is not a good practice and I think that when you have seen the DVD you will agree with me.

Regards Alan

Any door that is required to stop the spread of smoke requires cold smoke seals. This would include all doors protecting an escape route. How long it takes for a person to respond to a fire alarm is dependant on numerous factors and the type of automatic alarm system is only one of them. The early warning is improves the chance of escape, but a more important factor is the response time of the individual being alerted.
I have certainly never heard of a situation where a lack of smoke seals has been compensated for by the provision of a higher than minimum required fire alarm. But all this is down to the considered judgement of the Fire Risk Assessor.

I'm informed that intumescent strips begin to expand when tempretures reach 120 degrees C. The video clearly shows that a long time elapses (23 mins) before gaps are sealed - prior to this, smoke was bealching out unrestricted.
So, am I right in thinking that strips are useful for protecting property while smoke seals are more effecient for life protection.
Also, does it make any difference if there is an L1 or L2 alarm system installed which should provide maximum Available Safe Egress Time?
Alan, can you tell me how I may purchase the full video.

Whilst on the subject of intumescent strips it's worth pointing out that not all strips are appropriate in every situation and simply going out and buying the cheapest one available may not work in every situation.
Many unsatisfactory situations that I see arise from the client wanting to have the cheapest solution and consequently the builder obtains and fits the cheapest one available. Unfortunately, this is not the best way to improve the fire and smoke performance of the doorset and if you don't know the correct one to fit please approach a specialist organisation like IFSA who will point you in the right direction.

Alan

For information. IFSA provide free information sheets which are relevent to the above subject and may be of interest.
www.ifsa.org.uk

This has certainly been an interesting discussion and highlights a problem that is not new.
All sorts of people be it tradesmen, regulators or consultants seem to think that 25mm checks are how you deal with fire doors and intumescent and smoke seals are a new fangled idea. It goes back to the late 80's when it was realised that the fire door test used then, being carried out in an open furnace, did not reflect the pressure build up in a room fire. The result of the investigation proved that in a test furnace where there was a pressure build up all these previously accepted fire doors failed. In 1990 a new British Standard was issued, BS 8214:1990. This is where the specifications for the construction of Fire door assemblies with non-metallic leaves was first published. This has been superceded by BS 8214:2008 but the 1990 version is that still quoted in Building Regulations. I recall in the late 80's seeing a video comparison between a door fitted with 25mm checks and the same door fitted with various intumescent strips from different manufacturers and this hotch potch of intumescent strips ensured that the door performed far better than the one assemled "in the way we always did it".
As far as RRO or, in Scotland, Part 3 of the Fire Scotland Act being retrospective, this is only true within limitations. When the Fire Precautions Act was repealed, it was with the intention that Fire Safety should be dynamic and not trapped by the time the Fire Certificate was issued despite developments in technology or advances in understanding. However, whilst it is necessary to access against todays standards it is not necessary to absolutely comply with them. A judgement is required to acccess to what extent the particular premises fails to comply with todays standard and from that judgement decide whether the premises require alterations to make it fully comply, partially comply or not be altered at all. The decisions that is made has to be fully justifiable and doing this requires some level of training, dependant on the complexity of the issue being considered.

Dr Iain A Sanderson

Charlie,

I'm glad that you found the video informative and I personally find it quite worrying that so many so called experts still keep telling people that a 25mm rebate is required. If you think about it logically if a 25mm rebate was that important how can they make a double swing fire door that passes the required testing procedure? The Fire Door Educational Package that I made goes through every aspect of fire doors and covers in great detail areas such as The need for fire doors,Specification,Testing and Certification,Hardware, Intumescent Fire and Smoke Seals, Glazing, Site Installation and Identification and Maintenance. The test that I carried out for the BBC is also covered in greater detail.
I know that virtually every Fire and Building Control Authority purchased the video so I don't know why they should be giving out such poor advice.

Regards Alan

Video clip was pretty impresive. What impressed me most was the egress of smoke in the early stages of the test before the flame resistance integrity of the unsealed door was breached. I would like to view the full test video since this matter now raises safety and ethical issues for our organisation. It also raises the question; if the RRO is going to be applied retrospectivly in this respect, can the decisions of the enforcing authorities (fire and building control) to 'pass' 25mm door stops as acceptable, prior to 2006, now be challanged in court, as bad advice? Thanks Alan - charlieh@oaklee.org.uk

I have managed to find the BBC Inside Out video showing the fire door comparison and it is here http://www.bwf.org.uk/firedoors/fire-doors-your-responsibility/your-responsibility-the-film/ This is only a short clip which was extracted for the BWF and if anyone would like to see the complete video please let me know and I will try and assist you and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Alan

Sorry I am a little late in responding but I have been on vacation and it wasn't easy to retrieve my emails.

Firstly, the link for the BBC video has now expired but if you want me to send you a copy of the video I would be pleased to do so if you let me have your address. If you were only interested in the Fire Door Test I think that some organisations are using it as a feature on their website and if this is all you require I will try and find it and see if its still being used. Please let me know what you require.

Secondly, on the question about the fire doors raised by Phil - I would be interested to know who decided that these doors were unsuitable and wanted replacing because in my experience this is a very specialised and complex question and whilst it may be easy to determine if some doors don't meet a certain standard because of their condition or obvious faults - in other situations it needs an expert and my advice to you would be to consult an expert that will give you a written determination which will be accepted by the authorities. If you need specialist advice I would be pleased to put you in touch with someone who can assist you.

Some years ago I made a Fire Door Educational Package and when I first put the idea to Central TV they responded by indicating that they didn't think there would be enough material to make a 30 minute video - they were very surprised by how complex the situation was and the final version was over 180 minutes long and won many awards for how it dealt with such a complex subject. The video clearly dispelled many myths about fire doors including the need for 25mm rebates and I understand that it is still used at the Fire Service College.

Lastly, let me address the problem of if the RRO is retrospective and like many questions the answer is not black or white.
Many fire authorities would have you believe that it is retrospective and that you must change all your fire safety equipment and this is one of those aspects that I spend a lot of time challenging because it's not always the case.
Lets look at the subject of fire doors in a little more detail as this appears quite topical and if you need to change them because of the RRO.

The first point that you need to consider is the construction of the door and the fit in the frame and provided this is of a reasonable standard and it is fitted with suitable ironmongery then it should be ok. The next point that you need to consider is the fit of the frame in the wall and provide this is ok there is no reason that it should not be able to give you 30 minutes fire resistance with the addition of intumescent strips and smoke strips if required. The problem faced by many fire officers and consultants is that they simply don’t have the expertise to be able to assess all of these factors and to give you a determination of how the door will perform in a given fire situation and so they tell the client to change the doorsets for new ones.

This is also the case with items such as automatic fire detection and fixed fire fighting installations and far too many are being replaced because the authorities and consultants don’t understand the systems/items and how they perform.
Where the items clearly don’t meet the standard then they should be replaced but the client really needs to look at all the options before spending large amounts of monies on the advice of people who don’t fully understand the subject.

Alan Cox

This discussion is very excellent - Alan, I too would like to view the BBC link if you would be so kind

Hi to All

A very interesting debate!

Alan, you spoke of a link from a BBC programme? would you be able to send it to the following address please?

anbroad@cornwall.gov.uk

Hello Phil,

what an interesting condition you report, in that a fire risk assessment company engaged to undertake a safety inspection appears also to be a specialist door provider who suggests that £1000 per door is required to be spent with them as a result of their inspection?

Before undertaking any works or parting with any money on behalf of your clients, you may wish to secure a second opinion at this stage................

With regard to your query regarding retrospection, there is evidence that the Courts are applying retrospective rulings regarding fire safety conditions, which does lead to some present confusion, which we at Fire UK Ltd are monitoring.

Good luck

i have been reading these posts with interests and was hoping that someone may be able to advise on my particular problem.

I manage a portfolio of properties on behalf of several companies, one of which owns three blocks in Southampton. The day to day management is out sourced to a firm in Southampton who instructed Fire Risk Assessments on these three blocks in 2007.

The blocks in question were all constructed in the 1960's and each contains 45 flats, many of which are sold off on long leases, with a few in hand.
One of the issues raised within the FRA report were the front doors to the individual residential units. These doors are original and as such were deemed not to meet the current regulations. The company who undertook the FRA has advised that all of the front doros must therefore be replaced and have quoted £1,000 per front door for the works.

I received the FRA reports for the first time last month with a request for payment on account in relation to the 10 flats which are owned by my direct cleint.

I thought that changes in Building Regulations were not retrospective, however on reading these posts I am now not so sure.

i would be grateful if someone could point me to the relevant legislation that "forces" these changes to be made as I have and irrate client and many more irrate tenants without the means to pay for the replacement doors all looking for answers. No matter where i look there does not appear to be a definitive answer...

thanks in advance!

Phil

It would be interesting to know the final decision on the Hilton case. The trouble I have is that I find it very difficult to obtain information on decisions made and precedents set, and so it is difficult to argue a case with the Fire Authority (or anybody else) and it becomes very open to personal views and interpretations, and hence very subjective.

The court case has not set a precedent for the fitting of smoke seals in guest bedroom doors in hotels. There are some hotels who would challenge the need for smoke seals in door where they have provided smoke detection in the bedrooms and the doors are otherwise a good fit. My understanding is that Hilton hotels are seeking a determination on this issue although when that will be I don't know. As far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest that fire deaths in hotels has increased as a direct result of missing smoke seals.

Hello all,

a recent court case may have set a precedent here.

The Park Hotel Leicester and its' manager was fined a total of £41,080 for a number of breaches of the Order including "...no intumescent strips or cold smoke seals on any fire doors..."

This judgement appears to confirm that an offence is committed if fire doors are not fitted with intumescent strips and cold smoke seals, however, we do not know at this time whether the fire doors in question were older doors which have never had any strips and seals fitted or newer doors which have had the strips removed over time leaving an empty edge channel?

Regards

Mike Kane

No problem Alan.

Of course there is no comparison. The added benefit of heat strips and smoke seals is a no-brainer. The point is that fire doors without those provisions are not necessarily totally inadequate and require upgrading immediately. It depends on other factors.
We are in total agreement that, as you rightly say " if the person carrying out the Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) is satisfied that the equipment and standards that are there will do the job and is prepared to argue the case with the Fire Authority then that is what should happen".

I too am frequently prepared to argue a case for acceptance of existing conditions and resisting blanket upgrades that are demanded as a cover for lack of time, commitment or experience or, in some cases, for commercial interest.

Back to you Andy. I think you can see that you may have reasonable grounds to discuss the matter further with the FA. Reasonableness is the key.

David

David,

I am sorry to disagree with you but the depth of rebate is irrelevant and the provision of smoke/intumescent strips is of vital importance. If anyone would like to see the comparison between a fire door fitted with fire/smoke strips and a fire door without them under fire test conditions let me know and I will send you a link where you can see the BBC Inside Out programme that I was involved in. Here you can see the dramatic difference that the strips make to how long the door remains effective under fire conditions and when looking at means of escape issues this could be a significant factor in getting people out of the building.
I also know of numerous instances where Fire Authorities have issued notices in respect of missing smoke/intumescent strips.

Whilst it does appear that the Fire Authority are asking for the replacement of fire equipment that does not meet current standards - what I am indicating is that if the person carrying out the Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) is satisfied that the equipment and standards that are there will do the job and is prepared to argue the case with the Fire Authority then that is what should happen. I spend a great deal of my time discussing these issues with the enforcing authorities and I am usually very successful in getting them to accept existing standards even though they do not meet current standards and obviously this saves my clients a lot of uneccessary expenditure. Just because a standard changes doesn't mean that everyone has to go and upgrade their fire equipment because the Fire Authority thinks they should do.

Regards Alan

I take your point Alan but the issue is the urgency that has been given to the deficiencies. Depth of rebate, however, is as relevant as the rest of the quality of fitting. Missing heat strips and smoke seals are not always life threatening if they are the only defect. They do not always require immediate attention. If that were the case then many places would require prohibition notices. A reasonable programme of works is acceptable judged on the occupation, costs, location of the door in relation to escape routes and other conditions in the building.
The Fire Authority appear to have simply issued a blanket paragraph. It is perfectly reasonable for the RP to respond with a schedule based on the parameters above.