The Fire Safety Order includes the common areas of flats and maisonettes, yet there is still a worrying degree of ignorance about this. Bob Williams sets out his concerns and asks whether the lettings industry is taking its responsibilities seriously enough.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (Fire Safety Order) came into effect in October 2006 and is an all-encompassing piece of primary fire safety legislation for England and Wales. Similar legislation has also been enacted in Scotland under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 and in Northern Ireland under the Fire and Rescue Services (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2006. The Fire Safety Order replaced a host of acts, regulations and bye laws which had been introduced over many years.

Local fire authorities had always been geared up to prescriptively administer fire safety in certain designated premises under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 through the fire certification process. Under the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (As Amended) the authorities became validators of fire risk assessments carried out by building occupiers. This process has now been carried over to the Order and includes a requirement to undertake risk assessments on the common areas of residential buildings.

A worsening situation
Why were these common areas included in the new Fire Safety Order? The government were obviously aware of the considerable amount of new apartment blocks being constructed, many of which were probably built to satisfy the new buy-to-let market in the property boom. However, the government also appeared to acknowledge that there was still a great deal of older housing stock throughout the country and as time passed, these older properties were going to deteriorate further. It may have been a concern that the standard of fire safety in them would also worsen to the point that a number of them could possibly be classed as dangerous.

A typical house converted into flats

Within the common areas of the smaller, older properties there can be a lack of adequate passive fire resistance measures: possibly timber walls or partitions; non fire resistant glazing in doors, which themselves contain original thin timber panels and are of less than adequate construction to hold back a fire; opening transoms onto escape routes; and hidden voids etc. Coupled with this there are often hazards within the escape routes in the form of unprotected electrical apparatus which can be near the final exit door through which people have to pass to make their escape.

While tenants may have battery operated smoke alarms within their own individual dwellings, some landlords are still unaware that a more robust form of automatic fire detection should be provided within the escape routes of these older properties. These issues, together with the lack of emergency lighting and clear instructions on what to do in an emergency, sometimes paint a frightening picture.

Maintenance of life safety systems can be another issue. Where interlinked hard wired smoke alarms, fire alarm and emergency lighting systems have been provided at the time of construction, testing, maintenance and servicing may have been ignored – sometimes for many years. This is not uncommon and equally applies to a smaller but significant number of commercial, multi-occupied premises, many of which contain different purpose groups, e.g. sleeping accommodation above commercial/retail premises.

This is probably the very reason why the common areas of such properties were included within the Fire Safety Order. They had previously escaped fire safety regulation or enforcement, unlike houses in multiple occupation where safety was usually enforced under the Housing Act. Nowadays, safety can also be enforced under the Fire Safety Order and under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

Apathy or lack of awareness?
The basic requirements of the Fire safety Order are that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment should be carried out within the common areas. The Responsible Person – who could be the landlord, managing agent, limited company set up to administer the freehold, or any other person in day to day control of the property – should then introduce general fire precautions which are reasonable and proportionate to the risks identified.

Following the tragic fatal fire at Lakanal House in London, one would assume that risk assessments of common areas, especially in larger blocks of flats, would be a priority. Although the cause of this incident is thought to have originated inside an individual dwelling, following the fire it was discovered that risk assessments in literally hundreds of blocks over four stories high had not been undertaken. It is very difficult to estimate how many of these remain outstanding but if smaller flats and apartment blocks were included, the number of properties across England and Wales could well run into tens of thousands.

Whilst many managing agents, social landlords, letting associations and other similar organisations now appear to be aware of their responsibilities, it seems that there is still a certain amount of general apathy among them. Some agents are being proactive and arranging for fire risk assessments to be undertaken and acted upon, but there are others who have still not put the necessary arrangements in place.

However, if one looks at the ‘information for landlords’ page on websites of many of the managing agents, the focus on safety continues to be in four main areas:

• Electrical Safety
• The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations
• Provision of Smoke Alarms
• Gas Safety

While these are undoubtedly of fundamental importance, it is almost impossible to find local lettings or management agents who even mention on their websites that fire risk assessments are necessary in the common areas. Is this apathy or ignorance? Even the Association of Residential Lettings Agents, the UK Association of Letting Agents and even the online resource site for landlords, The Letting Centre (Letlink.co.uk) do not make any obvious reference to, or give advice on fire risk assessments.

Welcome exceptions are the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) and the Residential Landlord’s Association (RLA). According to ARMA it focuses exclusively on matters relating to block management of leasehold property. Its 250 corporate members manage some 900,000 units in over 34,000 blocks of flats and estates. An ARMA Lessee Advisory Note: LAN03 advises that fire risk assessments should be carried out on the common areas of blocks of flats, and that it is an obligation on the landlord to do so.

The RLA has taken the lead in advising landlords on fire safety; there is a significant amount of relevant information on their website to which non-members can also gain access.

One often imagines the typical modern apartment block as being trendy accommodation of contemporary design with quality finishes, often in city centre re-generation areas or rejuvenated dockside complexes. One hopes that all of these have had assessments carried out in their landlord’s areas. Although there have been examples of passive fire protection problems in relatively new buildings, such as at Pacific Wharf in London's Docklands a few years ago, newer blocks are not generally thought to be the buildings with inherent problems.

Not taken seriously
So where are the enforcers in all this? It is only right that fire authorities should enforce the Fire Safety Order but were the government a little naive in thinking that they would be able to inspect some of these smaller properties? To start with, they probably aren’t even aware of the location of most of them and wouldn’t keep files on other than the largest of blocks, unless they were notified via statutory consultation such as Building Control.

Some authorities don’t have the staff to deploy in this sector, concentrating instead on promoting community fire safety to vulnerable groups and providing smoke alarms in individual dwellings.

In the event of a serious fire resulting in injury or a fatality, the fire authority will wish to scrutinise the fire risk assessment, determine whether or not it is ‘suitable and sufficient’ and if any significant findings had been addressed. If the cause of the fire was, for example, attributed to a risk within the common area, or inadequate fire resistance or other passive measures had caused abnormal fire spread, the consequences for the Responsible Person could be a severe fine or even imprisonment. These penalties can apply even in the absence of a fire.

Landlords may lack awareness, some managing agents could be more proactive, and the letting associations could take the lead by ensuring there is sufficient information on their websites and encouraging landlords to carry out fire risk assessments. Fire authorities could also provide input by visiting local managing agents and making them aware of the need to abide by the requirements of the Fire Safety Order and ensure assessments are carried out where necessary. This is already being undertaken through a recent initiative between East Sussex FRS and Brighton and Hove Council.

In spite of Lakanal House, this issue is still not being taken seriously enough by all parties. The situation will not improve without further action and without greater awareness by landlords, agents and the wider lettings industry.

Bob Williams is a former fire and rescue service inspecting officer and is now a fire consultant based in Redditch, Worcestershire.