Trading standards officers in North Yorkshire have prosecuted a builder over the fitting of ‘potentially unsafe’ fire doors under consumer protection from the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Aztech Building and Maintenance Ltd was asked to convert the loft of a property in Sherburn-in-Elmer, North Yorkshire and the work was carried out between March and September 2021. The owners of the property asked builder Ross Trutch to supply and fit six fire doors at the property, that would comply with Building Regulations.
Fire doors are fitted to limit damage between different parts of a building and protect escape routes from fire and smoke to allow occupants to leave the property safely. They slow the speed at which fire spreads through the building and should comply with Fire Safety Regulations.
Every component of a fire door can affect safety, including the hinges, closers and door frame, and the door should achieve a minimum fire resistance time (for instance 30 minutes/60 minutes). No element of a fire door can be replaced or modified without affecting the door’s efficiency.
Fire doors provide escape routes from the property, by restricting or preventing the spread of fire and/or smoke within the home and to, or from, neighbouring properties. They also provide essential access to firefighters.
Trading standards became involved when the couple that owned the property noticed cracks appearing at the bottom of some of the fire doors. It was found that the builder had added wood to the doors that was of a different material to the original fire doors. This wood had not been tested to ensure it was compliant with fire regulations.
The builder pleaded guilty and was fined £1,000 by York Magistrates and ordered to compensate the home owners the sum of £4,416 and pay prosecution costs of £813 as well as a statutory a surcharge.
North Yorkshire Council said: “Fire doors slow the spread of fire through a property and give people in the building longer to get out safely. It is of great concern that a builder could act without the professional diligence that would be expected of him, leaving the householders who had relied on his expertise with a substandard product and a potentially unsafe house.”