Question 1

Fire Safety

Accepted Answer

Q: In my two-storey Edwardian mansion block of 12 flats, four flats lead off each of three communal hallways from three separate main front doors. Each flat has an exit through the common hallways to the front and an immediate rear exit into the gardens at the back. The upstairs flats have rear exits down staircases. Does a building of this size need a certificate? If so how do we get one? The flats are all private dwellings, there are no businesses; eight are leasehold and four tenanted. Does the freeholder who is the landlord of the four tenanted flats have his own responsibilities? Or do we, as the RTM Co, have overall responsibilities for the whole building? FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: A: Thank you for your question about Fire Risk Assessments which has been passed to me as the Fire Safety advisor for the FPRA. The simple is no. Fire Certificates were abolished in 2005 following the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Act, which does however place a requirement on the RTM Directors to have a Fire Risk Assessment for the 'common parts' of the block of flats but not the flats themselves. In practice it's up to you how you go about carrying out this Risk Assessment but a useful starting point is the guidance available on our members’ website. This is an extensive guide and was compiled by the Local Government Association which I contributed to on our behalf. You may decide to employ a private contractor to do this for you or do it yourselves if you feel confident but as this is an enforceable Act of a Parliament I suggest seeking advice from your local Fire Service who are the enforcing authority. The 'common areas' of most blocks of flats tend to be fairly low risk, but important factors to consider include:

Safe 'means of escape' in the event of a fire. This should be free of obstructions and well lit in the event of a power failure caused by the fire which means emergency lighting should be considered.

Fire fighting equipment. If your block employs 'trained' staff on duty 24 /7 then this is a good idea , if not my view is not to have these in the common parts of the block.

Firedoors - Important consideration especially if you adopt a 'stay put' policy in the event of a Fire. My view is fiat owners are usually best to stay put if there is a fire in the block and close all fire doors with a '30 minute' specification which simply will allow the fire service time to reach the fire and rescue people before the fire spreads beyond the fire door.

Most leases require the front doors of each flat to be maintained by the flat owner not the RMC so it's worth just checking this in your lease and encouraging flat owners to ensure their doors are compliant. Your Fire Service will be able to assist with this. The RTM is responsible for the 'communal' fire doors and must be compliant with the latest standards.

Communal Alarms: These are not a requirement but should be considered as part of the overall plan for the means of escape in the event of a fire. If you do decide on an alarm these should be 'hard wired' not battery type and regularly serviced. I would not recommend battery alarms in the common areas but recommend each flat is encouraged to install at least one in their flat.

I hope this helps for completing your Fire Risk Assessment, I recommend the findings are recorded and reviewed regularly especially if there are substantial changes in risk within the communal areas. If you provide us with a copy of your lease we can ask our legal advisor to review the issue of responsibility, especially regarding front doors and other common parts where clarity of responsibility is needed. FPRA Legal Adviser Nick Roberts adds: A: Your email correspondence with Bob Smytherman has been passed to me as Legal Adviser to FPRA Ltd so that I can comment on how your lease divides up responsibilities between the leaseholders and the freeholder (in whose shoes for most purposes the RTM Company now stands). Clearly the common parts are your responsibility. We often find that it can be relevant who owns the ‘front’ doors from the hallways and landings into the individual flats. Risk assessments may recommend that they should be replaced with fireproof doors. Who owns the doors is then relevant. If the leases say that these doors are included within the scope of the lease to the leaseholder (lawyers may refer to this as ‘whether they are included in the demise’), then it may be impossible for the ground landlord or an RTM Company to insist that these are replaced. If, on the other hand, the front doors are not included, then it is likely that they are reserved to the ownership of the ground landlord. It is then likely to be easier for the ground landlorr or an RTM Company to insist on replacing them, though there can be difficulties if the service charge does not cover expenditure on ‘improvements’. I have had a good lease and it is surprisingly silent on these issues. There is no attempt made in the first clause of the lease to define the precise extent of the flat (this wording would generally follow on from the words ‘ALL THAT’). Sometimes it is possible to work out what parts of the building are included in the lease by making inferences from e.g. how the repairing covenants are worded. The wording of the 1976 lease is much less detailed than one would expect in a more modern lease. Clause 4(2)(b) would suggest that all repairs are the responsibility of the Lessor (so now the RTM Company) apart from internal decoration, which, as one would expect, is the responsibility of each leaseholder under Clause 2(5). I am afraid that in trying to interpret your lease I find myself pulled in different directions. If nothing is said to limit a lease of a flat to (for example) the interior plasterwork surfaces, then the presumption is that the whole of the area that may reasonably be termed ‘the flat’ is included in the demise. On the other hand, the wording of Clause 4(2)(b) – and the very limited scope of the exception contained in Clause 2(5) – would suggest that all repairs, except for internal decorative repairs, were the responsibility of the ground landlord and are now the responsibility of the RTM Company. But even if the responsibilities of the RTM Company extend to, say, the repair of the front doors of the individual flats, I cannot see any clear basis for this to include their replacement. As the wording of your lease is so vague, it is rather difficult to advise in general terms. If any specific points arise, then I might be able to express a view as to whether the proposed change would or would not lie within the competence of the RTM Company. [Submitted October 2017]

Question 2

Fire Safety

Accepted Answer

Q: In my two-storey Edwardian mansion block of 12 flats, four flats lead off each of three communal hallways from three separate main front doors. Each flat has an exit through the common hallways to the front and an immediate rear exit into the gardens at the back. The upstairs flats have rear exits down staircases. Does a building of this size need a certificate? If so how do we get one? The flats are all private dwellings, there are no businesses; eight are leasehold and four tenanted. Does the freeholder who is the landlord of the four tenanted flats have his own responsibilities? Or do we, as the RTM Co, have overall responsibilities for the whole building? FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: A: Thank you for your question about Fire Risk Assessments which has been passed to me as the Fire Safety advisor for the FPRA. The simple is no. Fire Certificates were abolished in 2005 following the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 Act, which does however place a requirement on the RTM Directors to have a Fire Risk Assessment for the 'common parts' of the block of flats but not the flats themselves. In practice it's up to you how you go about carrying out this Risk Assessment but a useful starting point is the guidance available on our members’ website. This is an extensive guide and was compiled by the Local Government Association which I contributed to on our behalf. You may decide to employ a private contractor to do this for you or do it yourselves if you feel confident but as this is an enforceable Act of a Parliament I suggest seeking advice from your local Fire Service who are the enforcing authority. The 'common areas' of most blocks of flats tend to be fairly low risk, but important factors to consider include:

Safe 'means of escape' in the event of a fire. This should be free of obstructions and well lit in the event of a power failure caused by the fire which means emergency lighting should be considered.

Fire fighting equipment. If your block employs 'trained' staff on duty 24 /7 then this is a good idea , if not my view is not to have these in the common parts of the block.

Firedoors - Important consideration especially if you adopt a 'stay put' policy in the event of a Fire. My view is fiat owners are usually best to stay put if there is a fire in the block and close all fire doors with a '30 minute' specification which simply will allow the fire service time to reach the fire and rescue people before the fire spreads beyond the fire door.

Most leases require the front doors of each flat to be maintained by the flat owner not the RMC so it's worth just checking this in your lease and encouraging flat owners to ensure their doors are compliant. Your Fire Service will be able to assist with this. The RTM is responsible for the 'communal' fire doors and must be compliant with the latest standards.

Communal Alarms: These are not a requirement but should be considered as part of the overall plan for the means of escape in the event of a fire. If you do decide on an alarm these should be 'hard wired' not battery type and regularly serviced. I would not recommend battery alarms in the common areas but recommend each flat is encouraged to install at least one in their flat.

I hope this helps for completing your Fire Risk Assessment, I recommend the findings are recorded and reviewed regularly especially if there are substantial changes in risk within the communal areas. If you provide us with a copy of your lease we can ask our legal advisor to review the issue of responsibility, especially regarding front doors and other common parts where clarity of responsibility is needed. FPRA Legal Adviser Nick Roberts adds: A: Your email correspondence with Bob Smytherman has been passed to me as Legal Adviser to FPRA Ltd so that I can comment on how your lease divides up responsibilities between the leaseholders and the freeholder (in whose shoes for most purposes the RTM Company now stands). Clearly the common parts are your responsibility. We often find that it can be relevant who owns the ‘front’ doors from the hallways and landings into the individual flats. Risk assessments may recommend that they should be replaced with fireproof doors. Who owns the doors is then relevant. If the leases say that these doors are included within the scope of the lease to the leaseholder (lawyers may refer to this as ‘whether they are included in the demise’), then it may be impossible for the ground landlord or an RTM Company to insist that these are replaced. If, on the other hand, the front doors are not included, then it is likely that they are reserved to the ownership of the ground landlord. It is then likely to be easier for the ground landlorr or an RTM Company to insist on replacing them, though there can be difficulties if the service charge does not cover expenditure on ‘improvements’. I have had a good lease and it is surprisingly silent on these issues. There is no attempt made in the first clause of the lease to define the precise extent of the flat (this wording would generally follow on from the words ‘ALL THAT’). Sometimes it is possible to work out what parts of the building are included in the lease by making inferences from e.g. how the repairing covenants are worded. The wording of the 1976 lease is much less detailed than one would expect in a more modern lease. Clause 4(2)(b) would suggest that all repairs are the responsibility of the Lessor (so now the RTM Company) apart from internal decoration, which, as one would expect, is the responsibility of each leaseholder under Clause 2(5). I am afraid that in trying to interpret your lease I find myself pulled in different directions. If nothing is said to limit a lease of a flat to (for example) the interior plasterwork surfaces, then the presumption is that the whole of the area that may reasonably be termed ‘the flat’ is included in the demise. On the other hand, the wording of Clause 4(2)(b) – and the very limited scope of the exception contained in Clause 2(5) – would suggest that all repairs, except for internal decorative repairs, were the responsibility of the ground landlord and are now the responsibility of the RTM Company. But even if the responsibilities of the RTM Company extend to, say, the repair of the front doors of the individual flats, I cannot see any clear basis for this to include their replacement. As the wording of your lease is so vague, it is rather difficult to advise in general terms. If any specific points arise, then I might be able to express a view as to whether the proposed change would or would not lie within the competence of the RTM Company. [Submitted October 2017]

Fire Safety

Search

Articles Archive