Invalidation Of Insurance?

[jackthehat]

I have Googled but am getting conflicting information so I hope that some knowledgeable AB may be able to give me the definitive answer.

My parents live in a 2 bedroom apartment on the 3rd floor of a purpose built complex. On entering the flat, you are in an hallway off which are all the rooms. The open plan Kitchen/Living Room is furthest from the entrance door. All the rooms have solid fire doors with closers which means that the hallway is in permanent darkness. My parents are having a bit of work done to their flat soon and want to swap the solid door to the Living room for one which is substantially glass, thereby giving daylight to the hallway.

My Mum is concerned about invalidating their insurance were there to be a fire in the flat; naturally the Kitchen is the most likely place for this to occur.
The Buildings Insurance is paid for in their annual Management Fee, and their Contents Insurance simply states that they need to have a 5-lever mortice lock on the front door.

Can anyone advise me of the position their Insurance company is likely to take in a case of fire?

Many thanks.

[bednobs]

Hi, have you asked their local council regarding whether this is a building control issue re fire doors, or is it simply that is what was in htere when they moved?
you say 'purpose built' - is it retirement flat? If so, do the management company have rules?

[jackthehat]

They were first in the building when it was completed 9 years ago.
There are NO management company rules on the matter.

[bednobs]

sorry JTH i realise you are more knowledgeable than me on these matters, but perhaps you could call BC at the LA and chat it through. Or even call the insurance compamy

[Zacs-Master]

They will be compromising the integrity of a fire escape route if they change the doors for a non-fire rated one. This may be part of the Landlords Fire Risk Strategy and was almost certainly a requirement of the Building Regulations approval. There are fire rated glass types which could be used (Pyrobellite being one) but these are expensive and don't come in 'obscure' glass.

Worst case scenario: your parents could be sued by someone suffering burns or by their family should they die, in the (fairly unlikely) event that their injuries / death was caused by changing the door for a non fire rated one.

[hc4361]

In the situation you describe there must be fire doors especially the living room/kitchen door.

I suggest they look in to cost effective but natural looking lighting for the hallway so it isn't so gloomy. Perhaps with a sensor so they turn on when movement is detected.

[Retrochic]

Surely the only course of action here is to call the Insurance Company or Management Company with the question. In multiple occupation buildings rules are different as you have certain liabilities in respect of those living both above and below you

[Canary42]

They may be contravening Management Agreement - they should seek advice from the building's owners re the Buildings Insurance.

[jackthehat]

We don't want to 'red-flag' the enquiry to the insurance company.

It has nothing to do with Bldg. Regs. - the fire door was in-situ when they signed off the building and that's an end to it as far as they will be concerned.

[Zacs-Master]

Of course it is to do with building regs.....the building will only have received approval as it has a protected route of escape, part of that protection being the fire rated doors.

[jackthehat]

Dad is a Director of the management company.....so no issues there. The Fire Escape Route is maintained because of the layout of the rooms - all other rooms are to the 'Exit-door' side of the Kitchen door.

[jackthehat]

With all due respect Zacs, how people choose to occupy their own homes post 'completion' is beyond the interest of Building Control.

[bednobs]

"We don't want to 'red-flag' the enquiry to the insurance company. "
why not? if it makes a difference, they will need to know because they will be uninsured, and if it doesn't, great.

[jackthehat]

My parents would prefer not to at this stage, hence the reason i am doing a bit of research for them. :o)

[Zacs-Master]

Occupying their home and contravening Building Regs are completely different things. I'm pretty sure their insurers would take a dim view of such alterations. There may even be a clause relating to it. You don't seem to want to hear good advice so I'll leave it there.

[hc4361]

Loss adjusters look for reasons not to pay out in a claim. If there were a fire the fire inspector's report would certainly state that there was no fire door where there should be one.
It would be easy enough for the insurance company to find out that it had been removed, rather than never installed. As your parents were the first occupiers it will be impossible for them to shift the blame.

An insurance contract is made in good faith - they trust you to properly maintain the building to insure it is safe and not to anything to jeopardise the safety.

[bednobs]

hmm all good points. In my mind the question now comes down to whether fire doors were installed because that's what HAD to happen to ensure BC sign off, or whether they are just fire doors as a bonus (for example, i don't have a fire door in my kitchen, and i suspect most people do not!)
If it was just a 'bonus', then i can't see a problem in removing it. If it was laid down by BC that there must be a fire door there and they change it, i think the IC could easily say that's a reason not to pay out

[Retrochic]

There are different rules for private, one family occupancy, and multiple occupancy when it comes to both building regs and Insurance. As fire doors cost up to four times the price of ordinary doors they will have been fitted for a reason not as an 'extra'. Water and fire damage can cause problems for multiple units in an apartment block and if you modify your apartment that may compromise safety then your Insurance maybe be invalidated and in case of a fire you may become liable for damage to other properties as well.

[Dogsbody2]

My suggested solution, if they do not wish to alert the insurance company as to their idea, is to change the existing solid fire door with one with that includes a long panel that is glazed - with wired glass that is also 30 minute fire rated. The existing compartmentalized design is thus maintained.

At least one of the above responders could do with updating his knowledge. The provision of compartment structures in place of fire, and the required exit routes in the event of said fire are not the same requirement. Viz, a door on an approved fire exit route does not necessarily need to be a fire door.

[Zacs-Master]

It does if it's a 'protected' route. So less of the derogatory comments eh?

[Peter Pedant]

I think you hvae to bite the bullet and say
Mama is right - taking down a fire door and replacing it with balsa wood may be relevant to a claim following a fire.....

having said that
I have never had a fire in any property and
those fires caused by candles because the leccy was cut off v
I think they still paid out