NEWS Government to require three month fire door checks


IN THE fire safety bill, the government will include a requirement for fire doors in all flat blocks to be checked every three months. Last December’s Queen’s Speech introduced the bill, which made it clear that building owners and managers are ‘responsible for assessing the risks of external walls and fire doors’. It also includes clarification that the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 ‘includes the external walls of the building, including cladding’ and ‘fire doors for domestic premises of multiple occupancy’. The ‘relevant enforcement powers’ to hold building owners and managers ‘to account’ would be strengthened, while a ‘transitional period’ for those roles – or the responsible person – and the fire and rescue services would assist in placing infrastructure. Inside Housing has reported that the bill will include a requirement for fire doors in all flat blocks ‘to be checked every three months’, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) asking building owners if quarterly inspections are ‘feasible’. This came after Grenfell inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick recommended the inspections timescale in the first phase report. He had also recommended ‘that all fire doors are fitted with effective self-closing devices


risk of damage is high. There are also fire doors where their contribution to a building’s fire safety is very important, which means they should be inspected even more frequently. Fire door inspection has to be a risk- based approach’. An MHCLG spokesperson added:


in working order’, with initial concerns over the government’s response that doors and closers should be ‘routinely checked or inspected’. This had led to speculation that ministers were ‘moving away’ from compulsory three monthly checks, but a source said the bill would implement ‘all’ inquiry recommendations. Currently there is no ‘specific


legal requirement’ to check doors at certain intervals, though legislation requires maintenance. British Woodworking Federation technical director Kevin Underwood stated that ‘quarterly checks might be suitable for domestic fire doors, but not adequate for high-risk, high-usage doors. For instance, doors in corridors in busy areas may be more or less constantly in use, meaning that the


‘Residents’ safety is our utmost priority and building owners should ensure that products being used in their buildings meet the appropriate standards. We have been clear that building owners must take responsibility, review their building fire risk assessments and ensure fire doors are routinely checked or inspected by a qualified professional.’ Victoria Moffet, head of building


and fire safety programmes at the National Housing Federation, added: ‘Housing associations’ top priority is their residents’ safety. As such, our sector is carrying out in-depth reviews of buildings to identify fire safety risks and developing remediation programmes where necessary, as well as regular and comprehensive checks of fire safety mechanisms, including fire door self-closers. We agree that we must learn the lessons from the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower and would welcome further conversations with government about achieving the safety outcomes that the inquiry’s recommendations seek.’


Housing association ‘failed to complete’ FRA actions


GOLDING HOMES has been punished by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) after more than 100 ‘high- risk’ fire safety actions from fire risk assessments (FRAs) were left ‘outstanding for months’. Inside Housing reported on the


Kent based housing association, which owns 7,000 homes and had referred itself to the RSH after an internal audit found health and safety compliance was ‘poor’. It also found itself unable to ‘fully validate the compliance position due to a lack of reliable data’. The FRA actions were left undone


‘for a number of months’, and Golding also identified a ‘large number [of]


potentially dangerous’ overdue actions arising from electrical safety checks. The RSH concluded that this ‘had the potential to cause serious detriment’ to tenants, breaching the Home Standard, which requires social landlords to ‘meet all applicable statutory requirements which provide for the health and safety of tenants in their homes’.


Golding commissioned external


assistance ‘to deal with the issues’ and put extra resources into plans to resolve problems. The RSH gave it a regulatory notice in response, in relation to fire and electrical safety failings. Its notice read: ‘Fire and electrical safety are self-evidently important


because of the potential for serious harm. In this case, the regulator has concluded that the risk of serious harm is demonstrated because of the large number of tenants potentially exposed to danger from fire or faulty electrical installations over a significant period of time. ‘We have assurance that Golding


is taking effective action to address these outstanding actions, and is taking a risk-based approach to mitigate any ongoing risks to tenants.’ The regulator concluded by noting


that, following this assurance, it will ‘therefore not take further action at this stage’ and will work with Golding to address the issues


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2020 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60