Fire Regulations Communal Hallway

paintpot

It was not converted "four years" ago. It was converted into four flats several years ago - the exact date is yet unknown. Until the OP clarifies..........

mattgod69 wrote: »

They can give good advice. I did say may not be because I have come accoss incidents when they have recommended works which whilst a very good idea and arguably should be implimented, they do not have to be done under the legislation..... strictly speaking.

If the property was converted legally four years ago then it will have building regulations approval which will mean that it aleady has fire detection and warning. The extent of the system will depend on the house circumstances. If it is an HMO the Environmental Health department can insist on retrospective upgrade works, but it is normally done only when there is a problem (i.e. fire) as all local authorities have so many properties with problems. You would be very unlucky if any shortcomings (assuming there are some) are identified and needed to be upgraded in such a recent conversion.

Building Regulations work cannot be retrospectively applied so if the work had approval four years ago and the standards changed, no further works would be necessary unless there are works being carried out etc that are changing or worsening the existing situation. Standards under the Housing Act 2004 are different and can be retrospectively applied although as stated its unlikely with such a recent conversion.

The property will probably have stand alone smoke detection within each dwelling. In addition there should be a common parts alarm which also includes heat detection within each flat so all the units are notified if there is a problem in any of the flats.

mattgod69

oops.... its been a long day! in that case 1991 is a milestone date.

The same thing applies re the building regs though, not retrospective, but environmental health can insist on upgrades.

tbs624

Bungarm2001 wrote: »

....errr...guys...I think you are not reading this right...? or is it me....

Yep - absolutely right Bungarm. Brain malfunction - I focused on another poster's interpretation and should have re-read the OP's info for myself. I did suggest where to get clarification though:;)

tbs624

mattgod69 wrote: »

You misunderstood me. I did not say you need to employ the services of a Chartered Surveyor, ....

I was seeking clarification - freebie or paid for services - Matt: the use of the word "if" twice in my original postscript should perhaps haven given you a clue .

I maybe misread this bit too.....;)

mattgod69 wrote: »

You really need to consult the services of a Chartered Surveyor who can assess the individual circumstances.... (see rics.org for help finding one and if its in the south east i can assist!)

Can't say that I agree with you that if something is free, then it's generally not worth having. That would bang out a huge proportion of the valuable guidance provided by the advice sector for a start, and much of that advice is - guess what- provided by professionally qualified people.:D

mattgod69

point taken tbs.....

i do of course agree there is a lot of good and valuable advice out there and the internet is also a very powerful tool, but i have a few examples that lead me to these conculsions.....

TJ27

mattgod69 wrote: »

If it is an HMO the Environmental Health department can insist on retrospective upgrade works, but it is normally done only when there is a problem (i.e. fire) as all local authorities have so many properties with problems.

You probably have no idea how wrong you are there Matt. As a council enforcement officer I've upgraded several hundred HMOs and my department several thousand. Not one of these was as the result of a fire. Moreover, not one of them has suffered a fire after the upgrade either. On the other hand we HAVE had fatalities in HMOs which landlords failed to tell us about. So I like to think that the free advice we offer is having some effect.

mattgod69

TJ27... Agreed, but what i mean is that the process of enforcement and upgrade works (following disucssions with Councils that I deal with) is that the problem properties (by that i mean ones with health and safety issues) are targetted first before the more recent conversions which whilst may still be deficient in some areas are not considered so serious or such a high priority. I have also been told that if there is ever a fire or similar incident, this also triggers enforcement (if needed).

Obviously, if the housing stock is in good condition or there are very few HMOs then this policy could differ...

I think the free advice you offer is no doubt useful and is obviosuly having an effect as you are all working on imporving the housing stock......

I guess that with the licencing scheme now in place you should find out about more incidents (especially fatalities). This is because one assumes that this would cause damage to the property, which in turn may trigger a building regulation application for the reapirs and thereby hopefully triggering a call to yourselves...... are you actually finding this is happening?

TJ27

Well, yes, it's correct that we tend to prioritise the houses which pose the greatest risk and deal with these first, as you might expect. Yes, a fire would trigger some sort of action. So my previous post isn't quite correct because we would certainly investigate a house where there had been a fatality. But the fact that I've upgraded several hundred houses doesn't mean that I've dealt with several hundred fires of course. We do actively go out looking for HMOs (sometimes even knocking on doors), or they come to our attention for lots of other reasons.

The main problem with getting in surveyors, or architects, or builders to do work without involving the council is that they are often wrong. I've known a landlord who employed an architect, his mate, to upgrade his houses in order to comply with the rules. At the end of the work he proudly gave us a call, so that we could come out to have a look. We told him that he'd installed the wrong type of alarms, needed extra structural protection, had to upgrade the doors, etc, etc. It all ended up in court and he lost his case.

So he spent a fortune on architect fees, a fortune on doing the wrong work, a fortune ripping it out and doing it properly, a fortune on legal costs, then he was fined and got himself a criminal record. (He also fell out slightly with his mate the architect!) If he'd gone to the council in the first place he could have obtained all the free advice he needed, done the right thing in the first place and avoided all the aggro.

That's why I say that if you want to comply with the council enforced rules, it's usually wise to ask the council how to do so.

We usually find out about fires in houses because we regularly liaise with the fire service.

Issy01

Hi Guys, Thank you for your comments.

I'm a landlord of 1 property but my buy to let is a house, it's less complicated to manage for these reasons. I am asking on behalf of a friend who owns the flat and rents it out, however he does not own the freehold.

The property is not a HMO. Also don't know if this makes a difference but although there are 4 flats only 2 flats are accessed by the communal hallway. The other 2 flats have their own entrance.

I'm pretty sure that there are no actual legal requirements but obviously under duty of care the landlord should really install smoke alarms.

mattgod69

TJ27.... fair comments and i can see that he must not have been pleased with the Architect!! I agree with everything you say except that in my own experience when i am dealing with such projects, people like yourselves are consulted early on and throughout the process for the exact reasons you stated! Only a fool would proceed on the basis that they know it all and i am generalising again (so forgive me for that) but Architects in my experience are not as well placed as Building Surveyors in dealing with projects of this nature..... There is little point is steaming ahead without considering the aspects that can upset the applecart. Where i feel value added can be given is managing the process and delivering the right product for the right price......