Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

--
SL

wrote

Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations,
best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit
on the number of independent locks, or of independent
locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent
bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the
entrance door of a flat?

Nope, you are free to get some natural selection back into the system.

Not just with flats either, with your house as well.

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised
access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape
rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

Sure, but that is just as true of bars on the windows and shutters too.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

No such animal.

What you need is a person flap, bit like a cat flap but only works in one
direction!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
wrote in message
...
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc.,
which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or
of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent
bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door
of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose
an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example,
fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

--
SL

In article ,
wrote:
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice,
etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent
locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or
independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on
the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may
impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of,
for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

Is this the communal entrance you're referring to? If so, I'd say it must
be able to be opened from inside without a key - same as any other fire
exit.

If a private front door, it's up to the owner.

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

There is if it's above a certain floor - IIRC third floor or above - in
which case building regs require that the lock can be opened without a
key from the inside. Otherwise it seems that windows can be used as an
escape route - though these could be locked as well.

Best practice is surely one lock - with multipoint locking if needed,
but requiring multiple keys doesn't give any advantage.

Mike

On 09/03/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice,
etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent
locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or
independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on
the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may
impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of,
for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

Is this the communal entrance you're referring to? If so, I'd say it must
be able to be opened from inside without a key - same as any other fire
exit.

An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an electric
release so tenants can let visitors in.

If the fire alarm goes off, the electric release triggers.

I'd assumed it was not only so people could escape quicker, but so the
emergency services could get in.





--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2014 11:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:


An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an electric
release so tenants can let visitors in.

If the fire alarm goes off, the electric release triggers.

I'd assumed it was not only so people could escape quicker, but so the
emergency services could get in.


So a villain can get in if he can find a way of triggering the fire alarm?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 09/03/2014 10:01, wrote:
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

Check your building contents insurance, they normally specify, the
minimum lock required to ensure you cover is valid.

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:14:46 +0000, Roger Mills wrote:

An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an
electric
release so tenants can let visitors in.

So a villain can get in if he can find a way of triggering the fire
alarm?

Most electric releases are pretty pathetic, good shove with a
shoulder will force it open.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Brian Gaff wrote

What you need is a person flap, bit like a cat flap but only works in one
direction!

And only works with chip implants so any burglar that
does get in can't get out again when you are beating
him to a pulp.

Corse that might be a problem for the visitors in the case of a fire.


wrote in message
...
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice,
etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent
locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or
independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the
entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may
impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for
example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

--
SL

On Sunday, 9 March 2014 16:59:32 UTC, Yendor wrote:
On 09/03/2014 10:01, SL wrote:

Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.


Check your building contents insurance, they normally specify, the
minimum lock required to ensure you cover is valid.

Read what I wrote. I asked about a limit, which implies a maximum, not a minimum; and that is reinforced by the later "too much". And *my* insurance has nothing to do with the matter : "a flat" is not equivalent to "my flat".

--
SL

On 09/03/2014 11:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/03/2014 10:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice,
etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent
locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or
independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on
the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may
impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of,
for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

Is this the communal entrance you're referring to? If so, I'd say it must
be able to be opened from inside without a key - same as any other fire
exit.

An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an electric
release so tenants can let visitors in.

If the fire alarm goes off, the electric release triggers.

I'd assumed it was not only so people could escape quicker, but so the
emergency services could get in.

An office block I worked in had fire doors on electric releases leading
to emergency only staircases. When we had a fire drill a number of us
went to the nearest door and found that the release didn't work and the
door remained locked! Much simpler and more reliable in that case to
have had a bolt held shut with a glass tube.

SteveW

In message ,
writes
Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice,
etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent
locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or
independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on
the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may
impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of,
for example, fire.

Then perhaps Fire regs are the place to look
URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.


--
bert

On Sunday, March 9, 2014 4:14:46 PM UTC, Roger Mills wrote:
On 09/03/2014 11:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:





An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an electric

release so tenants can let visitors in.



If the fire alarm goes off, the electric release triggers.



I'd assumed it was not only so people could escape quicker, but so the

emergency services could get in.





So a villain can get in if he can find a way of triggering the fire alarm?


or if he can turn the power off. presumably in a power cut it does not lock everybody inside.

Robert

On Sunday, March 9, 2014 9:29:49 PM UTC, wrote:
On Sunday, 9 March 2014 16:59:32 UTC, Yendor wrote:

On 09/03/2014 10:01, SL wrote:



Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?



It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.



URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.





Check your building contents insurance, they normally specify, the
minimum lock required to ensure you cover is valid.



Read what I wrote. I asked about a limit, which implies a maximum, not a minimum; and that is reinforced by the later "too much". And *my* insurance has nothing to do with the matter : "a flat" is not equivalent to "my flat".


A limit not be a minimum, as in "lower limit" ?

Robert

[Default] On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 11:20:48 +0000, a certain chimpanzee,
The Medway Handyman , randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

An office block I look after has a thumb turn inside and an electric
release so tenants can let visitors in.

If the fire alarm goes off, the electric release triggers.

I'd assumed it was not only so people could escape quicker, but so the
emergency services could get in.

The fire brigade carry their own key; it's called an axe.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

[Default] On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 03:01:32 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, , randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:

Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc., which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door of a flat?

It seems to me that too much security against unauthorised access may impose an undue risk of being unable to escape rapidly in the case of, for example, fire.

URLs for authoritative relevant Web pages would be useful.

The guidance of Approved Document B, Vol 2 (Buildings other than
dwellinghouses) to the Building Regulations says that the operation of
locks or other mechanisms should be without the use of a key and
"without having to manipulate more than one mechanism", which suggests
that more than one lock is not allowed. There's no distinction made
between the front door of a flat, and the final exit from the common
stair nor other doors.

The preamble suggests you consult Secured By Design at the local Plod
Shop.

However, the Building Regulations would only cover the erection,
change of use to, or material alteration* of a dwelling.

The companion guidance for dwellinghouses makes it clear that door
locks aren't covered by the regulations for those types of buildings.

*It could be argued that changing or increasing the door locks counts
as a material alteration by the very fact that it alters the means of
escape in case of fire.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

On Monday, 10 March 2014 21:48:02 UTC, Hugo Nebula wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 03:01:32 -0700 (PDT), SL wrote:

Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc.,
which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or
of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent
bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door
of a flat?

The guidance of Approved Document B, Vol 2 (Buildings other than
dwellinghouses) ...

What is a dwellinghouse?
The residence of interest is in a purpose-built block of flats.

--
SL

On 19/03/2014 09:18, wrote:
On Monday, 10 March 2014 21:48:02 UTC, Hugo Nebula wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 03:01:32 -0700 (PDT), SL wrote:

Is there anything in English Law, Building Regulations, best practice, etc.,
which applies or recommends a limit on the number of independent locks, or
of independent locks which can only be opened with keys, or independent
bolts or chains, or combinations thereof, or suchlike, on the entrance door
of a flat?

The guidance of Approved Document B, Vol 2 (Buildings other than
dwellinghouses) ...

What is a dwellinghouse?

An individual dwelling, such as a house (detached, semi-detached or
terraced) or a bungalow.

The residence of interest is in a purpose-built block of flats.

That would be a multiple occupancy dwelling, which are covered by the
above document.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The residence of interest is in a purpose-built block of flats.

That would be a multiple occupancy dwelling, which are covered by the
above document.

Are you sure about that? I thought it referred to bedsits etc, where
facilities like toilets are shared?

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/03/2014 10:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
The residence of interest is in a purpose-built block of flats.

That would be a multiple occupancy dwelling, which are covered by the
above document.

Are you sure about that? I thought it referred to bedsits etc, where
facilities like toilets are shared?


I thought that was a house in multiple occupancy. In any case, the point
is that flats come under the document referenced by Hugo Nebula.

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 19 March 2014 14:27:07 UTC, Nightjar wrote:

I thought that was a house in multiple occupancy. In any case, the point
is that flats come under the document referenced by Hugo Nebula.

I thought that in that document the lock-limitations only referred to the
communal doors and not to the individual "front door" of each flat.

--
SL

On Monday, 10 March 2014 21:48:02 UTC, Hugo Nebula wrote:


The preamble suggests you consult Secured By Design at the local Plod
Shop.

Not known there; but I met a brace of plodesses in the street who have caused me to receive a 15 page printout of a page remarkably similar, but not identical, to
http://communitysafe.gov.uk/articles/6239-keeping-your-home-safe-during-halloween-and-guy-fawkes/attachments/827/download.doc, DOC file,
about 15pp., 366kB. That links towards
http://www.securedbydesign.com/index.aspx, a relevant UK Police site.

Thanks. HTH(s).

--
SL