I have a great deal of sympathy with certain tenants who refuse the new door closers.

If, as my late Motherin-Law was, they are frail and find it difficult to get about, many types of door closers make it impossible to get in/out of their flats.

[I removed her door closer so she could get to the 'common areas, suchas the Residents Lounge - and told the Managers of the property why. They accepted that the door was never left open, but it needed to be easy to open]

If there such a problem, look at other options

Edited by moderator 05 February 2014 13:24:34(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Like Alan - I have considerable sympathy with tenants who quite simply cannot manage to overcome the closers! As Hopeful identifies, this is a matter for the premises controller to recognise and address so that the tenant is not tempted to remove or modify a closer that is intended to protect the common areas which will be the Means of Escape in the event of a fire in any of the occupancies.

As for refusing to allow a flat entrance door to be replaced because it doesn't provide the minimum fire resistance - well, neither the tenant nor premises controller can really allow this except under very specific and assessed conditions. It's a breach of the lease [as you identify] and also the duties of the premises controller under the FSO; and probably negates any premises insurance held by the premises controller and also the tenant.

Frank Hallett

You're quite right about the very low closing force Bob. But it's the general inability of the closer to overcome the modern door latch mechanisms and close fully every time at that [recommended] force that leads to the closer being uprated and then introducing other problems.

There's actually a very good case for alternative, self-powered closing/opening mechanisms where the users may be comparatively weak, or slow, or even trying to get their shopping out of the way before the door scramles all the eggs.

Frank Hallett