As far as I know such things should not longer be in use.

zimmy

Members of the public would be highly unlikely to use this exit as it is a roof exit route door to an adjoining store.

It's focus is in the event of a store member or contractor being on the upper floor and their other routes being blocked due to fire on lower floor. People numbers would account for approx 6 staff maximum in the building.

It may be appropriate to have such a system but wondered if there is guidance available that advocates this as not an option?

Thanks JonB,

This was my understanding too although wouldn't dream of this for a new building.

If I'm right here? If someone were to be half blinded by fire/smoke and made their way to the door and could not find the box and key then they may be doomed? Any investigation would then find that if a 'crash-through' door had been fitted, the person/s may well have survived? I would strongly recommend that the lock be changed.

Low risk is fine as long as it's not me!?

I hope I don't get moderated on this on!

Zimmy

Hi Chris,

Not entirely correct as the door is only designated for our staff only and isn't sited as a primary route as such.

The landlord put in a system only for us to use the roof and door to adjoining building and looking in that building has sufficient alternative routes that doesn't necessitate the use of our building in their plans. So a 1 way system as such.

Our building is pretty old in design, in fact the exit is of a medieval wooden framed design!

There are scores - if not hundreds of shared rooftop MOE routes in London alone, most of which require persons to use an adjacent building.

Getting out onto the roof is pretty straightforward without a key (push pad etc), but access into the neighbours building is perhaps the main difficulty as (unsurprisingly) there are not many occupiers who want to leave unlocked doors, perhaps 24/7.

Quite often, a key in the door approach (that is - a key to your neighbour's door is held in a box at the final exit of your premises) is the only option subject to certain caveats. The caveats would include no public to use route, sufficient space of roof for staff to queue in a place of relative safety whilst the neighbour's door was unlocked (ie not queuing in the burning building!) and increased staff training and drills - perhaps 4 drills x year)

Lastly, your neighbour's final exit (into street?) should not not be secured with a fancy Banham mortise, but if this cannot be avoided, another key maybe required.

Often, such in this case, you will not find any/much advice in any guidance, particularly for heritage/lusted type buildings. A common sense approach to the FRA is the only way to conclude if a MOE is suitable.

As a fire service inspector, we would often accept control measures as listed above as part of an overall FS emergency plan

One issue you may wish to consider, irrispective of who's property you are entering into:

The alarm actuates, you respond and take an alternative route of escape. The lights fail ( maybe an electrical fault) not to worry you know where the key is.......no panic!!

Open the box, lift the key and fumble it into the lock..........drat ...dropped the key, now on hands and knees in the dark, alarm bells ringing and you are trapped in a roof. Most of the products of combustion travel up.........gosh! why did I accept this system.

Dont accept second best......we dilute safety each day.......every day .......trust me .......it saves money not lives

Wizard