In the latest SHP - "IN COURT" Section a landlord was jailed for 18 months following a fire in one of his properties. The fire involved a flat above a phone shop, the flat occupant received very severe burns but survived - just. My question here is as follows: If the entrance/exit door, to/from a flat above a shop is inside the ground floor shop, whose responsibility is it for the fire risk assessment in relation to that door, and what are the requirements for the door? By the way I don't think the door of the flat involved in the article was inside the shop - but what if?).

Hi Chris, I doubt that the shop owner would be happy to have access/egress through his premises but supposing this were the case. I would suggest that the landlord or building owner would be responsible for the risk assessment of the door and that the shop manager either as an individual having a lease or being an employee of either the leasee or owner would be a (PHC) person having control under the RR(FS)O and so would be responsible for ensuring that the MOE is maintained in a clear and usable condition. I would see it something similar to historical roof top escapes accross multiple buildings in London.

Don't think I would be too happy with moe passing through an area of considerable deep fat fryers though. To me it would be akin to positioning a kitchen/kitchenette between sleeping occupancy and moe! Would not be my preference

:-) it is actually named ..........Plaice and Deli. Too late to do anything about it now as the premises are about 60 or more years old. Environmental Health have been in and passed everything. You asked "how far does the occupant have to travel to reach a place of ultimate ate safety or should that be "plaice" of ultimate safety". Ate and Plaice fit in well, just in case you were serious with the question I previously wrote the answer - a couple of metres.

Chris the person whose responsibility it is is the one who creates the risk. By how you describe the problem I do not consider the door to be the issue but the means of escape for the flat occupant. The door can be a perfect fire door in superb condition but if the flat occupant had to make an escape he would have to open that door and exit through the shop. That would mean he does not have a protected means of escape available to him. In this case the flat occupant and the shop lessee are the same person but that does not matter, as you have indicated they could be two different persons. If the flat were newly constructed then this situation would not be allowed to arise; means of escape would not be permitted through the shop. The shop is a relatively high risk area. It does not matter that the premises are 60 years old or more in my view this situation should not be allowed to exist and I am amazed the the EHO has accepeted the situation. I would be looking for alternative means of escape.

OK, it's not an ideal situation, but I cannot see an Article 31 notice being considered for this as a first option. (assuming this is a small two storey building) I would probably aim at reducing the risk of fire and ensuring suitable means of raising the alarm, especially at high risk times. This may include enhanced staff training & effective/suitable FFE for when the chippy is open, and perhaps a time related fire detection system for when the shop is unoccupied (automatically switching from heat to smoke detection overnight). For taller/larger buildings, perhaps with an HMO above and increased travel distances, maybe then some enforcement may be required, up to and including a prohibition notice. But with older buildings, sometimes you just have to deal with what you've got. How many pubs do you know of where staff have to escape from sleeping accommodation through bar areas? Lower risk than a chippy I accept, but still problematical. There are scores of pubs like this just in London's west end alone and perhaps 100s across the UK, and I don't see multiple prohibition notices being issued for them.

Messy, As far as I see it, the key considerations are that do the flat occupants have to travel through the chip shop frying area ? If there is a fire in the chip shop and the flat occupants have no alternative means of escape then they would have to traverse through a smoke filled chip shop that is on fire. Consequently if you installed a fire detection and alarm system you would in fact draw persons from the flat into a place of extreme danger. That is why I would require a protected means of escape from the flat. Furthermore there are also issues about escape though some-body else's property as access cannot normally be guaranteed. I this case the final exit must be capable of being opened from inside without use of a key! The point about pubs is that the landlord is usually the occupant of the flat above. Furthermore, it is not usual to have to evacuate through the kitchen and lastly a chip-shop has a far greater fire loading than that a pub. Chris, the duty to maintain the maintain the escape route is the chip shop tenant's responsibility and not the flat tenant's responsibility. Regards