Case study Fire safety: making leaseholders change noncompliant doors MAY 2016

Background A number of LEN members have been working on fire safety issues, and undertaking fire risk assessments. Many appear to be experiencing some issues in respect of leaseholders either having non-compliant doors in place or who have been changing their door to a noncompliant UPVC door. Whilst they should have asked for landlord permission, leases will usually state that the front door to the flats are leaseholder's responsibility. Both proactive and enforcement action is often needed. However, conversations with the fire service and authorities for assistance on enforcement can prove fruitless. So, what are LEN members doing about this?

Shared practice This summary provides a flavour of the work that some LEN members have been taking when dealing with leaseholders who haven’t changed their non-compliant doors, or who need to make UPVC doors compliant with fire safety regulations. Wolverhampton Homes - fire safety project Darren Reade Wolverhampton Homes has been very pro-active with this, although due to the level of issues raised in fire risk assessments (over 300) and staffing it has taken a number of years to get to the point we are at now. Firstly, all individual front doors are the leaseholders' responsibility. However, under the terms of the lease, anyone wanting to change the door should request our prior consent. It was approximately four years ago when we started receiving lists of leasehold properties as raised in the fire risk assessments where there were concerns with the front doors or glass in windows where they opened onto an enclosed communal area. We therefore seconded a project manager to the section to look into this and other issues. He investigated this matter and it was found that it was a requirement of building regulations that a known fire rated door set (door, frame and furniture) has to be fitted. In addition we spoke with officers at Wolverhampton City Council, the West Midlands Fire Safety Officer for Wolverhampton, and the Lead responsible for carrying out the fire risk assessments - who was from an independent organisation. All fully supported the action that we proposed to take. We therefore started a communications exercise, by letter, informing all affected leaseholders of the findings of the fire risk assessments and asking for confirmation as to whether they had received consent to change their door sets, and whether they had certification of proof that the door had a minimum fire rating of 30 minutes.

2 – Case study: fire safety: making leaseholders change non-compliant doors

This prompted a number of responses, and this initial letter, along with a number of others sent out over the following two years, led to us receiving various proof of the door sets being fire-rated, a number of doors being changed by the leaseholders to our specification, and a number agreeing to have a fully composite door set fitted by Wolverhampton Homes. We still however had a hard core minority that would not engage with us. We therefore decided to pursue this legally, and this happened about two months ago. In conjunction with Wolverhampton Council, we therefore approached the courts and received hearing dates for a number of cases. The cases were led by a senior solicitor from the council and were heard by a civil judge. He found in our favour, and we received injunctions. The leaseholders that turned up defended themselves. The injunctions required the leaseholders to fit a compliant fire door set and provide certification within a designated number of days. Failure to do so would result in committal proceedings. The judge however felt he had no authority to give us the right to enter the property and change the door and re-charge without the leaseholders cooperation. The injunctions have prompted leaseholders to come forward to us so that we can fit new door sets with their approval. Wolverhampton Homes is now down to a small number of cases plus new ones that come to light and it will be an ongoing project which is now managed by the leasehold management team. Salix Homes - currently upgrading with new doors Eddie Sawford Salix has not had any non-compliance as of yet, but we are upgrading a number of blocks with new doors following fire risk assessments so we do expect we may come across some non-compliance. Although we are providing the new fire doors free of charge for all our leaseholder, from the date of installation onwards (DLP notwithstanding) they are responsible for maintaining the door to fire safety standards. We have also had some leaseholders contact the fire brigade to verify the need for a fire door and the fire brigade have been helpful in confirming that they should allow us to fit the new door.

Dartford Housing Services - learning the lessons from Lakanal House Alison Haines At Dartford, following the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, we implemented comprehensive fire risk assessments of all our blocks. These identified all doorways which opened on to a communal fire exit route, following which (in 2010) we rolled out a programme of replacement fire safety doors for leaseholders at a subsidised charge of £250 each as we considered it to be a high risk issue.

3 – Case study: fire safety: making leaseholders change non-compliant doors

The programme: We visited every leaseholder and encouraged them to sign up for a new front door We offered them a payment plan so they didn’t have to pay the £250 in one go We also worked with the Fire Service, which in our area was happy to write to leaseholders advising them generally about fire safety Our repairs and private sector teams visited each and every leaseholder that needed a new door to highlight the dangers and encourage them to sign up for the deal. We are pleased to report that in 2016 all our communal doorways are now compliant with fire safety regulations. Eastbourne Homes - actively getting the Fire and Rescue Service involved Nathan Thompson Eastbourne Homes dealt with this same thing a few years ago. Our leases state that the flat front entrance doors belong to, and are the responsibility of, the leaseholders. Where we identified non-compliant doors we initially wrote to all applicable leaseholders advising them of this and explained the health and safety issues of not having at least FD30 doors. We also gave our leaseholders the option of having their doors replaced by our repairs and maintenance contractor, with whom we have a qualifying long-term agreement, as a direct arrangement - but the resident would receive the same financial benefits that Eastbourne Homes receives for the new door installs. We then made the East Sussex Fire & Rescue Services (ESFRS) responsible for the doors that remained non-compliant. It certainly wasn’t easy or simple, but we made it very clear, in writing, to the Fire Officer that they would be responsible for any non-compliance resulting from the flat entrance doors. The ESFRS agreed to take responsibility and issue recommendation notices to leaseholders. The notices stated that any doors that were not replaced with compliant alternatives would result in enforcement action being taken against the individual(s) by the authority of the ESFRS. So far, this has been quite successful. We do not yet have 100% compliance but we are getting there. I would recommend the other members 'push' their local Fire Officer to get involved.

4 – Case study: fire safety: making leaseholders change non-compliant doors

Other examples Pauline Norman of Circle tells us that they had a situation where a leaseholder in a block of flats had replaced her flat front door, using a well-established UPVC company. However, it was discovered that the door was non complaint. Circle worked with the elderly resident (who was disabled and quite ill) and contacted the company on her behalf to point out that they had fitted a non-compliant door. After some reluctance, they actually replaced the door with a compliant door at no extra charge. Phillip McGing of Milton Keynes Council advises that Milton Keynes Council has recently instructed several leaseholders to replace their doors with appropriate fire doors and this is something we will do more work on in the near future. Emma McSweeney, of Phoenix Community Housing tells us that they have written to all those who don’t meet the fire safety requirements and have been able to procure good rates to carry out the works on their behalf. To accept the offer they have pay for the work up front. This was the only way that Phoenix could get around the issue of recovering costs that aren’t a legitimate service charge. They have also advised that Phoenix will be providing names and address of non-compliant properties to the relevant fire authority at the end of the period - who have informed them that they will take action directly.

5 – Case study: fire safety: making leaseholders change non-compliant doors