Kitchen fire doors for two storey HMO’s and LHA requirements?

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 19/04/2019 - 16:22
Hi PJB, I may well be 🙂 ! My question relates purely to one and two storey HMO's only and the interpretation of wording used in The Management of HMO Regs 2006 Schedule 3, 3(b)(ix). "appropriate fire doors". Some LA's (such as Bristol) interpret the word "appropriate" as giving a choice, accepting a 30min rated fire door (for high risk kitchen) or "a well constructed and close-fitting conventional door" as defined in Lacors for a low risk kitchen. The standard adopted by some other LA's (such as B&NES) emphasis is on the word "fire door". Interpreting this to mean all HMO's as requiring a 30min rated fire door, irrespective of the risk level! Which interpretation is correct? Has anyone challenged either interpretation? What was the outcome?

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 19/04/2019 - 17:49
Hello Rob,
I have not crossed swords with BANES (yet) but have done so with Welhat. The Welhat property is a two storey student HMO on a 'whole of house' HMO agreement. Welhat came in 'all guns blazing' until I pointed out various points in Lacors and its addendum (see my posting much earlier in this thread). The kitchen doors (one to a utility & rear exit and the other to the hall and the front exit) were already equipped with 30 min. fire doors. The two storey dwelling is important if 450x450mm min. escape windows are provided giving the all important secondary escape route. It means that the full measures cannot be insisted upon. Our case, the staircase did not need to fireproofed and the door closers & window restrictors to the first rooms did not need to be provided.
From what I have witnessed, the interpretation of the rules takes place at the local level. In our case, I used Lacors and health & safety objections to successfully negotiate with the local council e.g. door closers are far more dangerous when trying to transport scalding hot drinks through a doorway that is determined to push you out of the way and window restrictors that prevent the fire services from attempting a rescue.
Because these matters are decided and implemented at local level, there is no statute or case law that can be applied.
My feeling that it is the council will need to accept your case that a well constructed and close-fitting solid conventional door will be sufficient. The council should be receptive to Lacors, especially if low risk 'family' style AST agreements operate and there is a secondary escape route. The council will also take advice from the local fire service. It might be worth enquiring with them to see how the land lies.

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 19/04/2019 - 18:59The local fire service won't comment as fire safety for hmo's is assigned to the LA's. As your aware, it's the same fire service that encompasses both B&NES and Bristol. B&NES consider Lacors as a guide and the Act as law, hence their stance.

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 19/04/2019 - 19:07
I share your pain. I have long thought there should be a realistic and unequivocal set of combined national standards for the implementation fire, health and safety standards. From I have observed. all councils are different as are the officials that work in them. Everyone needs to sing from the same song sheet.
Personally, I would bite the bullet and fit fire doors and store the originals if required to sell the property later.

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 19/04/2019 - 19:22
I'm not sure all landlords would agree with your roll-over and accept it approach! Indeed we should not have to!

Reply to the comment left by Rob Crawford at 19/04/2019 - 20:10
Since there are no national standards, all we can do is negotiate with the local officials. If they don't want to converse, there is little we can effectively do except grit out teeth and avoid the consequences.
The fight for uniform and sane standards is better directed at national level with all our representative bodies joining in to promote Lacors & its addendum as the national standard with relevant conflicting Health & Safety issues thrown in.

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 28/11/2018 - 09:34
Have you had that confirmed by the LA housing department that they are willing to accept windows rather than protected stairwell escape?

I have a two storey HMO. LA inspector visited and insisted on fire door between kitchen and hall way but allowed me to fit a Dorguard to enable light to enter kitchen. My licence was dependent on this amongst other things.

Reply to the comment left by at 20/06/2020 - 13:05
I quoted all the relevant sections of Lacors and its addendums to the LA housing department. They grudgingly agreed that a secondary means of escape meant that protecting the staircase was not mandatory.

Reply to the comment left by PJB at 21/06/2020 - 00:57
Well done PJB, you did better than I was able to do.
I now have an unused en suite room because the LA wouldn't accept an escape window in lieu of a protected escape route.