I'm sure someone will add to my comments but I would never lock a front door with a key when people are in the property. The exception being if the key was left in the lock itself, even then with young persons I would feel uncomfortable. For additional security why not fit a chain or bolt?

I forgot to add - for both adults to become incapacitated at the same time - seems very unlikely for the following reasons. They are in each side of the joined houses. So it would take the outbreak of 2 separate fires at the same time for smoke to overcome both adults. An unlikely event. I assume there are probably a number of fire doors already separating the joined houses. Also a fire alarm etc.

I may be reading more into your post than was intended, so a question. Is there a concern that if the children can get out in a fire they could also use the same method to run away ? This may help others advise Chris

Chris42 - you have read between the lines correctly; part of the purpose for locking the door at 10pm, is a means of 'dissuading the young residents from leaving the premises'. The 2 sides of the house are only interconnected on the ground floor so if one staircase becomes unusable - the people on the upper floor of that side of the house, have no escape route (this is another issue under discussion). The doors to the rear of the property on the ground floor are also locked at night, primarily because these rooms house the office and IT suite etc). The residents do not have any learning disabilities - sometimes "challenging behaviour", but they are aged 14-16 :) My role is an adviser with the LA; the issue was highlighted following an ofsted inspection. The relevant manager has approached me in order to assist in determining the most appropriate solution considering the specific circumstances. It is true to say that the likelihood of both adults becoming incapacitated at the same time is very remote; however do these long odds justify the contravention of the requirement that "emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;" ?

So what else do you do are your normal residence, when you go to bed? I lock myself in my house.

In mental health, it is common practice to lock doors and have staff carrying keys. In this case, why not have the doors locked on maglocks linked to the fire alarm system and have key operated overrides (not break-glass overrides which can be abused). The only issue then would be that residents who understand the fire alarm opens the doors may push manual call points or place burning material under smoke detection to activate the alrm, thereby opening the doors. My concern about key operated overrides (and/or key operated manual call points) would be that, in this case, staff are not awake at night, so will be delayed getting to the final exits compared with those on a wakeful watch. This cannot be an isolated problem, so I hope somebody with some experience of this type of premises comes along soon In the meanwhile have a look at this guide Page 94 Means of escape security B3 pages 127 to 129 It doesnt fit this problem too well, but might inspire you https://www.gov.uk/gover...sra-residential-care.pdf Good luck

I've made a suggestion for the managers consideration, as the sticking point is ensuring the locked door can be opened in an emergency, I've raised the possibility of a copy of the vital key being securely stored in a 'keyguard' box at the front door(s) or strategically placed near to the doors. These can be set up to sound an audible alarm if accessed, thereby alerting staff on site should any of the younger residents access the key. Controlled yet accessible. It certainly seems a proportionate solution considering the very remote chance of a worst case scenario coming to pass (*both* adults being prevented for whatever reason, from bringing the key to open the door).

Its a shame we are stuck with the legal aspects of fire safety & duty of care etc, while we don't know enough about the kids - it certainly seems it is not a mental healthcare facility. Sure probably stroppy/awkward teenagers etc but that seems to be it. I've got 2 of them!! In reality the fire risks are probably no worse and probably far less than a normal domestic situation, with an admittedly large family of up to 8 kids. Domestic houses of 2 parents + 4 kids is not uncommon - yet do we demand one of the parents stays awake on 'shift' every night or have a full L1 grade fire alarm. Sure any sensible domestic householder will have a smoke alarm. Lets keep the risk in perspective and what fire safety/security precautions are required.

again some great ideas here and as suspected the issue is 'dissuading the young residents from leaving the premises' and this is where involving the F&RServices is a good one as I have done on many such occasions [but U must lean them and not follow them] and in all cases they fully understood and accepted that the doors needed to be secure - which is contrary to fire law in the 'usual' situation but this is not the usual situation we have to look at all factors here and include safeguarding, human rights, social security, and education law areas as well as the children [they are children] who are not residents in the common sense of the word they are minors in our care and the problem that U may have is that there is a mix of child types with a mix of problems, especially child grooming, all of which need accounting for As already stated we all lock our own personal doors at home with minors inside & unless U have a particular 'troublesome' child then doors can be locked - we ended up with key safes next to the doors that opened as part of the alarm system. Thereafter everybody were happy [except ofsted but they had to lump it as we all stuck together] As for Ofsted; well in 17 years of dealing with them [my friend had 20 + years dealing with them] we found that in most [not all] cases they were not competent but to those who have not dealt with the organisation U have to note just how powerful they are irrespective of competence and just what influence they have !! In one situation Ofsted marked down a special school because of a poor H&S policy yet when challenged Ofsted themselves could not produce their own H&S policy even after >3 months of badgering them yet they were marking down schools etc. and this is yet another area that HR has no knowledge of [I have put this in for good measure] Undertake your RA and stick with the findings arguing your case with all that challenge it and as said already the F&RServices are usually very good if U involve them all the way so they can support U in any argument This is real 'day to day' fire risk assessment! Best of luck

Just re-read my post - what I mean in Note 2 above is that - fire extinguishers, alarms, fire doors, fire wardens, fire prevention, risk assessment are all irrelevant if you do not have safe escape from the building. Safe escape is the most critical element of any fire safety strategy, and something as a Fire Risk Assessor I do-not compromise on. This is why I would be uncomfortable with the OP's current situation.

I forgot to add, the Rose Park reference is not entirely relevant here. That was a different order of magnitude of risk entirely. Greater occupancy, elderly and infirm residents with probably a whole range of age related infirmity and ill health issues. Lets at least compare similar risk levels etc.

with reference to the well made comment;- "If any of these children are mentally vulnerable and need greater care etc or likely to run off - then why house them in such a low security property" The areas behind placing different types of children together especially just before they are 16 is money, politics and similar as it costs more to manage 'troublesome' people than none troublesome people so on many occasions different 'types' of children are put together irrespective After my 17 years with both education and social services areas it was as hard to get real information about children etc. [so as we could facilitate a situation/ manager etc.] out of the various bodies in the first year as it was in the last year and time and again when the truth was known some of the children housed with other children should have not been in 'ordinary' homes but costs and politics play a very big part in such things especially the nearer the child gets to 16 In the UK irrespective of our generally great social systems things are very very very hard for children with no parents or family, and there are many thousands of them, with only the gov that is acting as the guardian. Even today children [yep children] at a certain point before they turn 18 get 'thrown out' of the system and have to fend for themselves in a very tough world

What we do in our 'own homes' is entirely up to us and we do-not need to comply with H&S Law. However, for example registered care homes (in which this premises may well be, we just don't know) require having an L1 alarm system fitted, fire extinguishes, safe means of escape, FRA's, etc... this is the Law, and we must comply with the law. All children up to the age of 16 require a responsible person (parent or guardian) to ensure their safety and welfare, children in care require welfare guardians (as stated above for most its the council (gov) that are the guardians) and therefore all children are vulnerable, given the nature that these children are in care can make them more vulnerable that the average child, no one is suggesting any mental health issues here. Rosepark although different circumstances, I'm not sure it is entirely irrelevant, fire in a care home and people died. Note: every year children die in their homes as a result of fires.

Of course we have fire safety laws for domestic premises - Building Regulations. We can compare the fire risks for a reasonable domestic house and these 2 joined houses- as they are seemingly also residential premises. So purely from the science of fire& fire engineering the fire risks appear to be about the same. My usual fire work is associated with oil refineries, fuel storage facilities, oil platforms & chemical process plant - so I'm familiar with most aspects of fire safety & fire engineering. As previous, it seems to me instead of assessing the fire risk properly, blanket 'gold plating' takes place in this sector. No issues at all with very high fire safety/fire detection standards in care homes with possibly immobile people, hard of hearing, poor eyesight etc and other frailties of the older person.

Hi DonnaAlAssad, I have worked for a number of years in residential care services for children and the situation you face is not uncommon and with so many stakeholders demanding that regulations and standards are met it is difficult to get an appropriate and agreed balance. What we have always considered is escape is priority. Therefore a movement or burglar alarm can be utilised for ensuring that doors remain closed at night and alert sleeping staff if opened. Be careful of how you justify this as it is not deemed appropriate in all situations to mechanically monitor or restrict young people as you will be aware. Such a system will allow for the use of thumbturns and can be part/zone set. Both stairways should form part of a protected escape route and be seperated from each other with a glazed fire door. compensatory measures shoukld also be considered such as first aid fire fighting equipment and secondary means of escape via staff room windows, should the main route be blocked. Just my opinion based on your description. Kevin

I've been watching this thread with interest from a distance until now. I would like to say I have the answer but I don't. Due to the nature of the occupants this is not a HMO so any special rules for HMO's will not apply. They are not families but children. If in care they are Vulnerable children, if under Social Services then they should be involved in any assessments, I do not say fire risk assessment because there is more to this then a simple fra. I do know something about children in care having fostered in the past, I have an understanding of how they think, I do not fully understand them but I do know that if they wish to exit the premises they will try, it may be a cry for help/attention or it may be a real escape attempt so the final exit doors have to be secured as a deterrent. They could decide to open the door and allow someone in unauthorised? If a teenager is serious about escaping they will stop at nothing, perhaps use force to access the key, and if there is more than one who wishes to escape one or two adults can become easily overpowered therefore a locked door does not guarantee everyone will remain inside. I offer the following as thought starters and hope I have helped: a fire exit door should open easily safely and be immediately usable at all times usable without passing through doors requiring a key or code to unlock where possible there should only be one fastening available for access by the emergency services all doors on escape routes should open in the direction of escape (Do they if in a pair of houses?) Small numbers OK. you should consider the type of people who will use your premises, if the residents are in a hostel type accommodation or a house in multiple occupation they will remain vulnerable and at a higher risk when sleeping. This includes the members of staff who hold the keys! effective management procedures are required for those with mobility impairment (need help to escape) your fire risk assessment must take into account factors such as the mobility of the people who may be expected to use the doors and the accessibility of door opening devices. consider Arson - outside well lit, secure the perimeter, secure all entry points including windows and the roof, making sure this does not compromise escape routes, regularly remove all rubbish, don’t allow skips adjacent to the building etc. etc. etc. keep escape routes clear manage building works (fires more frequent when buildings are under refurbishment) do not allow smoking, operate a safe smoking policy, (persons under 16 should not be allowed to smoke). good housekeeping The above come from the guidance on sleeping accommodation which may or may not suit the type of risk here but the bottom line as always is: It is your risk assessment (not OFSTED's or anyone else) and you must act accordingly.

I forgot to add in my opinion whoever decided to knock theough at ground floor level only made a big mistake as there is escape only in one direction from anywhere on the first floor. That makes the fire risk higher. If possible there should be a knock through on first floor as well.

For information - https://www.gov.uk/gover..._20rescue_20services.doc See section 24 and 36

Donna, many thanks for the feedback. It is good to know that Stable Door policies are alive and well.