Landlord common areas fire responsibilities

ComicGeek

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047382#Comment_82047382

The starting point has to be that the freeholder has done nothing, and that the property is inherently dangerous. That unfortunately is the disgustingly low level that some/(most?) developments operate at. You then need them to prove to you that they have undertaken all required measures and that it is safe.

You should be thankful that your solicitor has brought this up, and it is entirely reasonable for you to get further information from the freeholder and then make a decision on whether it is a safe place to move to or not. if that holds up the chain, so be it - you need the information, it's not your fault that they are failing in their legal duty.

Things have changed signficantly due to the Grenfell fire. Even though this happened in 2017, it took until around 2022 for the legislation to catch up and there have been significant changes since - changes which a lot of freeholders/landlords still seem to be unaware of, which is not a legitimate defence.

clairec666

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047420#Comment_82047420

Yes, I'm glad my solicitor has been diligent (despite my annoyance that they've been sounding like a stuck record on this issue for 2 months now, I know there's a good reason for it, and I would much rather have a slow sale than an unsafe flat).

My impression of the freeholders prior to this is that they have maintained the building well, including some exterior decoration earlier this year. I believe it was them who originally converted the building into flats. Maybe I am being overly generous here, but I don't think they are evil money-grabbing landlords with lots of properties. I believe the last time a flat in the building was sold was in 2020, so it's possible that legislation has changed since and they've been unaware that the risk assessment needed renewing. Still, the onus is on them to get things sorted.

I have heard all the horror stories about extortionate charges to remove cladding, people unable to sell as a result, etc., but didn't realise small properties would be this complicated. It would concern me if I ever needed to sell in the future.

I viewed another flat where the freeholders / management company had gone completely AWOL (possibly death, inheritance ?) and the leaseholders were left in no man's land. It must be a nightmare if you're trying to sell.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047382#Comment_82047382

Is possible they have, or its possible they havent.

There are professional freeholders who do everything by the book, there are also those that do the absolute bare minimum and as late as possible. There are non-professional freeholders who simply dont know the regs or dont keep up to date with how they change overtime who become non-compliant through ignorance rather than intent.

ComicGeek

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047448#Comment_82047448

I think the major issue for freeholders is that a FRA is a continuously live document, that has to be reviewed and amended regularly. Fire safety is one area where new legislation and requirements are applied to existing buildings - it's no good stating that the conversion was compliant 20 years ago, or that a FRA was undertaken 10 years ago. An ignorant or absent freeholder is as dangerous as a landlord who is unwilling to spend money on necessary measures.

clairec666

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047550#Comment_82047550

When you say "it has to be reviewed and amended regularly", I'm assuming you're saying we're reliant on the freeholders to decide to do this and problems may only come to light in situations such as mine where someone's trying to sell?

ComicGeek

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047576#Comment_82047576

Correct, but only in situations where freeholders are doing the absolute minimum. The law states that FRAs must be reviewed "regularly", but doesn't define the time scale for this, and also whenever there is a significant change to the premises or a reason to believe it is no longer valid.

Within the industry we would normally consider "regularly" to be at least once a year - that might only be a quick assessment to confirm that nothing has changed. In addition to this there would usually be more regular visual inspections of properties to check for any issues (ie weekly or monthly dependent on the type of building), which might be combined with other activities such as cleaning, security etc. If there is any specific equipment like AOVs, detectors, emergency lighting etc, then there would also be additional maintenance schedules in place - fire alarm systems would be tested weekly in hotels, offices etc.

Personally I think there should be a central register for FRAs, so that people can clearly see if one doesn't exist for their property. If you're expected to live/work in a building then you should be provided with information to prove that it is safe. The starting point should be that every building is dangerous,-and then they have to prove that it is safe - there are far too many assumptions and far too little records kept.

clairec666

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047695#Comment_82047695

I completely agree about the need for a central register - not only from a safety angle for existing residents, but also to speed up the conveyancing.