Question 1

FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

Accepted Answer

Q:

We have recently commissioned a fire risk assessment of our block (total nine flats on three storeys) from a commercial company in accordance with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The Local Government Association has produced a helpful guide entitled “Fire Safety in purpose-built blocks of flats” which outlines the type of considerations taken into account.
The report we received recommends a “stay put” policy in the event of fire. However, it also recommends that closers be fitted inside each individual flat front door in the interests of longer containment of a fire allowing residents more time if advised to evacuate the block
Whilst we want to do everything possible to carry out the many recommendations in the report, we are meeting with some resistance from lessees on fitting closers inside front door of the flats. The objections are on grounds of cost and the possibility of residents accidentally locking themselves out. On checking our new lease, clause (1)(a) of the First Schedule suggests that only the external surfaces of the (front) doors are excluded from the demise. This suggests that we, as representatives of this company which holds the freehold for the benefit of 8 of the nine lessees, may have no right to press for the fitting of closers inside the doors. It may be that clause 5(4)(g) overrides this in allowing the variation or ceasure by the Lessor of works necessary for the maintenance, safety, administration of The Estate (our underlining)
Also clause 5 of the Fourth schedule may help in requiring the Lessee not to do anything to void or cause an increased premium of any insurance policy for The Estate. If the Fire Risk assessment report is a statutory requirement, then should not the Lessor have the authority, if not an obligation, to implement its recommendations?
We are prepared to commission work to have closures fitted to each front door of each flat and take the costs from the service charge. However, we feel a little, reluctant to impose this on lessees if we do not have the authority or an obligation to do so. But, if we fail to do so, are we negligent in our duty as directors of the company which holds the freehold?
There are other more minor recommendations eg keeping landings clear of all clutter. We overlook doormats outside front doors but, given that the recommendation seems concerned with the removal of any trip hazards and combustible items on a smoke-filled landing or in a corridor in an emergency evacuation, we feel that the recently appeared large pot plants outside their front doors present more danger – particularly since one elderly resident with very poor vision is registered blind. Do we have an obligation to enforce this type of recommendation even though it may seem petty to some? It seems that there is nothing to stop lessees from putting such objects back on the landing as soon as our backs are turned.
We should be most grateful for your advice.

FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: Thank you for your very considered and thoughtful query which has been passed to me initially for a practical response although I do recommend referring this to our legal advisor before taking any action.

I trust that the risk assessment commissioned is by a suitably 'responsible' company which if correct their advice should be ignored at your peril as it would almost certainly invalidate the insurance in the event of a claim.
The 'stay put' policy is widespread for blocks of flats now as it is nearly always safer to stay put in the event of a fire as the fire service can usually be with you in under 10 minutes in the event of a fire and current standard fire doors should be 30 minutes which is the rationale for ensuring the doors are compliant..
The problem here is where the lease responsibilities conflict with other legislation such as Fire safety laws, and therefore would ask our legal advisor to comment on this point.

If your interpretation is correct and the Company have no responsibility for the whole door including the closing mechanism then I would strongly urge you not to use service charge to replace these without a variation to the lease first. If responsibility does lie with each leaseholder and it is accepted that not making the required change to the door fails to be compliant with fire safety laws then my view is this will invalidate your insurance policy and the leaseholder would be in breach of the lease, practically if this is the case it may easier to seek a variation rather than to enforce non-compliance especially if there is a number of leaseholders affected.

The problem with recommendations is they are just that and therefore can be ignored, however if the recommendations are to be ignored there would need to be a clear, accountable decision made with clear explanation as to why the Directors ignored the findings from a responsible authority cost and inconvenience is not a reason to ignore the recommendations in my view. A written response from the insurers may assist you on this point.
Do not consider this until you have received an impartial legal view from our legal advisor.
What may seem minor recommendations could have serious implications if ignored. Always take a pragmatic but consistent view. Your local fire service may be able to assist here but my own view is to ensure 'means of escape' are kept totally clear at all times.

I hope this helps. I will ask the office to refer this to our legal advisor for a view on the legal aspects of your own lease terms. [Submitted April 2016]

Question 2

FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

Accepted Answer

Q:

We have recently commissioned a fire risk assessment of our block (total nine flats on three storeys) from a commercial company in accordance with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The Local Government Association has produced a helpful guide entitled “Fire Safety in purpose-built blocks of flats” which outlines the type of considerations taken into account.
The report we received recommends a “stay put” policy in the event of fire. However, it also recommends that closers be fitted inside each individual flat front door in the interests of longer containment of a fire allowing residents more time if advised to evacuate the block
Whilst we want to do everything possible to carry out the many recommendations in the report, we are meeting with some resistance from lessees on fitting closers inside front door of the flats. The objections are on grounds of cost and the possibility of residents accidentally locking themselves out. On checking our new lease, clause (1)(a) of the First Schedule suggests that only the external surfaces of the (front) doors are excluded from the demise. This suggests that we, as representatives of this company which holds the freehold for the benefit of 8 of the nine lessees, may have no right to press for the fitting of closers inside the doors. It may be that clause 5(4)(g) overrides this in allowing the variation or ceasure by the Lessor of works necessary for the maintenance, safety, administration of The Estate (our underlining)
Also clause 5 of the Fourth schedule may help in requiring the Lessee not to do anything to void or cause an increased premium of any insurance policy for The Estate. If the Fire Risk assessment report is a statutory requirement, then should not the Lessor have the authority, if not an obligation, to implement its recommendations?
We are prepared to commission work to have closures fitted to each front door of each flat and take the costs from the service charge. However, we feel a little, reluctant to impose this on lessees if we do not have the authority or an obligation to do so. But, if we fail to do so, are we negligent in our duty as directors of the company which holds the freehold?
There are other more minor recommendations eg keeping landings clear of all clutter. We overlook doormats outside front doors but, given that the recommendation seems concerned with the removal of any trip hazards and combustible items on a smoke-filled landing or in a corridor in an emergency evacuation, we feel that the recently appeared large pot plants outside their front doors present more danger – particularly since one elderly resident with very poor vision is registered blind. Do we have an obligation to enforce this type of recommendation even though it may seem petty to some? It seems that there is nothing to stop lessees from putting such objects back on the landing as soon as our backs are turned.
We should be most grateful for your advice.

FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: Thank you for your very considered and thoughtful query which has been passed to me initially for a practical response although I do recommend referring this to our legal advisor before taking any action.

I trust that the risk assessment commissioned is by a suitably 'responsible' company which if correct their advice should be ignored at your peril as it would almost certainly invalidate the insurance in the event of a claim.
The 'stay put' policy is widespread for blocks of flats now as it is nearly always safer to stay put in the event of a fire as the fire service can usually be with you in under 10 minutes in the event of a fire and current standard fire doors should be 30 minutes which is the rationale for ensuring the doors are compliant..
The problem here is where the lease responsibilities conflict with other legislation such as Fire safety laws, and therefore would ask our legal advisor to comment on this point.

If your interpretation is correct and the Company have no responsibility for the whole door including the closing mechanism then I would strongly urge you not to use service charge to replace these without a variation to the lease first. If responsibility does lie with each leaseholder and it is accepted that not making the required change to the door fails to be compliant with fire safety laws then my view is this will invalidate your insurance policy and the leaseholder would be in breach of the lease, practically if this is the case it may easier to seek a variation rather than to enforce non-compliance especially if there is a number of leaseholders affected.

The problem with recommendations is they are just that and therefore can be ignored, however if the recommendations are to be ignored there would need to be a clear, accountable decision made with clear explanation as to why the Directors ignored the findings from a responsible authority cost and inconvenience is not a reason to ignore the recommendations in my view. A written response from the insurers may assist you on this point.
Do not consider this until you have received an impartial legal view from our legal advisor.
What may seem minor recommendations could have serious implications if ignored. Always take a pragmatic but consistent view. Your local fire service may be able to assist here but my own view is to ensure 'means of escape' are kept totally clear at all times.

I hope this helps. I will ask the office to refer this to our legal advisor for a view on the legal aspects of your own lease terms. [Submitted April 2016]

FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT

Search

Articles Archive