FAQ's

Fire Extinguisher & Blankets

London Fire Brigade doesn't encourage residents to fight fires. In the event of a fire they recommend leaving the premises, closing all doors behind you and calling 999 straight away. This is to prevent the risk of injury in fighting a fire yourself. However if you feel confident and competent in a fire situation and don't tend to panic you can buy an all purpose fire extinguisher with fire blanket combo online for around £15-20. Click here for Amazon search .

Will this affect me?

If you live in a council building, 10 floors or more, as a tenant, leaseholder or renter the plans for sprinkler installation will affect you with:

• future charges
• rent increases
• service charge increases
• insurance issues
• disruption during installation
• the design, decoration and aesthetics of your property

Are Sprinklers Necessary?

Obviously, post Grenfell, theres a lot of fear around fires in high rise blocks. To date, all major fires that have spread have almost all been because of cladding tiles. (The only exception the Council has mentioned involved wooden balconies, not a common feature of our blocks). There are plenty of examples of fires within council highrises that were successfully contained within the flat they started in. There's no doubt that sprinklers (if installed correctly) can offer extra protection if a fire start's in your home. If residents want sprinklers they should be encouraged to do so, in the full knowledge of what it means to retrofit sprinklers verses being designed in from the start for new buildings. Statistically you are very safe living in a 10+ floor block compared to other housing types. Assuming your building has not had it's fire-safety compromised by any additional alterations - it's important to note that if you are keen to have sprinklers to protect your person and property, wether or not your fellow residents have them will have an negligible impact on your safety in the event of a fire. We are asking for a consultation, a risk assessment of individual blocks and whether it's the council's/local government responsibility to pay. Ultimately to give residents the right to choose.

Proposal for an evidence-based approach to fire safety post Grenfell Tower.

Click here to read Councillor Malcolm Grimston Proposal for an evidence-based approach to fire safety post Grenfell Tower, presented to 'Housing and Regeneration Overview & Scrutiny Committee" – 14th September 2017

How much will it cost?

Leaseholders are on the hook for an estimated bill of £4,000 - £6,000 (being mindful that historically costs have always increased from initial estimates, so it could be more). Tenants indirectly (through the Housing Revenue Account) will see increased rents – (the Council estimates the cost to the HRA will be a whopping £24 million though it could be higher if the sprinkler trade cashes in or if asbestos is an issue in any of the blocks)

Why does the council plan to charge Leaseholders?

The Council have legal powers to recharge leaseholders for the works under clauses in the lease. There are around 3 or 4 variations of Councils leases. The main lease stating clause (4.5) :

"...To do such things as the council many decide are necessary to ensure the efficient maintenance administration or security of the block including but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing installing door entry systems employing caretakers porters and other staff..."

There is a 'First Tier Tribunal' underway to ascertain the legal interpretation of this clause. As you can see from the examples given, the "security of the building" in this context is of access to the building. Suggesting sprinklers as a security feature is a rather large leap of the imagination. The council has in fact lowered security in some instances in order to increase fire safety - Some residents who had extra iron doors installed for security have been made to remove them on grounds of fire safety, making it easier for firefighters to access the property. This highlights how fire safety is dealt with differently, and super-seeds, security (along with the free fitting of smoke alarms). Many leaseholders we've spoken to feel that the council is overstepping the line here in using this clause to charge. If the council wins at the tribunal, in effect, they have an excuse for imposing whatever costs they choose on leaseholders with such an open interpretations of the term 'security'.

Please bear in mind, leaseholders do not want to prevent the installation of sprinklers to those who want them. They specifically don't want tenants and renters to be prevented from having them installed should they wish. They are querying the charges and whether Wandsworth council / local government should be offering to pay or contribute. They are querying the effectiveness of such a scheme on highrise building without cladding in preventing fire spreading. At the same time validating that this is the best use of Housing Revenue money.

Leaseholder 'First Tier Tribunal'

Wandsworth submitted its application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (now known as the First Tier Tribunal or FTT) a couple of weeks ago. The Tribunal has written back with directions and the Council has to write out to all affected leaseholders by 17th August with a copy of these directions, the council's application and the response form. A case management hearing is to be held on September 27th and the full hearing may be in November.

The Council is using your money to get legal advice. To enforce a scheme a lot of residents don't see the need for. It was suggested that the Council fund residents to the same level of legal representation to help bring their own case to the FTT. This was rebuffed. So, the Council is using your money to get legal advice and also refusing to let any resident (or opposition councilors) even see the questions that they are asking the FTT to rule against, (despite Freedom of Information request) under the guise of commercial privilege. 'Stitch up' sounds an appropriate term here. It's disheartening that one of the main complaints from Grenfell was that their council didn't listen to them. How ironic that the response to that is another council - not listening or giving important information to it's residents. The council is manipulating statistics and data. They say objections to this scheme are coming from a 'few' leaseholders. Considering they have not asked any residents (including tenants, renters or RA's) for their view how do they have any idea on the number of objections? It's just hearsay. Click here for a collated list of comments from WBC own website on recent articles about sprinklers. The vast majority show objections (even people who want sprinklers object to the costs). They are also divisively calling out leaseholders from tenants in a 'divide and conquer' approach. Residents do not want to be segregated in this way. The council has stated that if they lose the tribunal and can't charge leaseholders then the scheme will be scrapped. That is moralistically bankrupt. If they believe so passionately that sprinklers are vital they should be offering ways to protect residents without using leaseholders as cash cows to fund the scheme for improvements to the block, improvements they are responsible for.

Ultimately it may be necessary to crowd fund some legal advice so watch this space.

Sprinkler Spec.

The sprinkler system proposed is designed and installed to BS9251:2014 standards with Viking Residential Concealed Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers (VK480) with a flow rate of 49 litres per minute.

There are newer 'Automisting' systems available that have BS8458:2015 approval. An example https://plumis.co.uk/automist.html. These sprinklers use a lot less water with a flow rate of 5.6 liters per minute. The 2 standards are comparable. Obviously the newer variations will significantly reduce the risk of water damage to your property or others below you. They are also specifically designed for ease of retrofit. Due to using less water, tanks can be fitted "under the counter" in kitchens, the pipe work is thinner and less invasive, You could own these systems, keep some equity in it by taking on to a new home or selling on to a buyer, significantly reducing the financial burden. Automist can be installed without major disruption. When installed in the course of a major refurbishment project, the advantage is twofold: disruption is minimised, and volume pricing offers exceptional value.

The council has currently ruled out these types of sprinklers. Amongst other things, they are unsure how well they would preform in high-rises if windows are open with a strong wind - a valid concern but one of smaller consequence to the risk of flooding of legacy sprinkler systems. We are trying to get information from suppliers on this as some residents would prefer these newer systems to give better piece of mind to water damage as well as kitchen based oil fires where they also have benefits over traditional sprinklers.

Who's responsible should a Sprinkler be activated, causing water damage to a different property?

Not everyone has house insurance. The Council has building fire insurance that residents can use should their property be affected by a fire that is not their fault (it will likely not be as robust as having your own). There has been no information as to water damage and if a resident may be held personally liable. We are waiting to hear from the Council on this point. The Council does have building insurance but claiming will be tricky.

How long will it take?

It could take up to 5 years of work to complete the installation.

What is the official recommendation from the London fire service?

https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/property-management/sprinklers/

Where can I find the Councils latest advice?

https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200570/safety_in_your_council_home/2294/fire_safety/9

Please note that 'The Select Committee of cross party MP' referred to on Wandsworths website, far from endorsing Wandsworth intention to impose sprinklers on residents and make them pay for it, specifically called for the scheme to funded by the Government. (a little omission they chose to leave out)

Also mentioned '"there remains a risk that fire can spread and there are recent examples of this happening." They failed to offer any context, citations or statistics here. A willful pattern of the Council's lack of regard for evidence and peer review. Please see evidence-based approach to fire safety which shows, there are no examples of this happening for any block that hasn't had it's fire-safety compromised by alterations made by the council, that doesn't have wooden balconies, or where Wandsworth has not been fined for failing to carry out fire inspections satisfactory.

Click here to see for other WBC articles on Sprinklers.

Different Views - Petitions

It's important that we know if people are for or against sprinklers in their property. We wish to support everyone in either getting sprinklers installed or not if they so wish. We are fighting for the right of residents to choose and for appropriate funds to be made available (Why are Council estate residents regarded as being too ill-informed to take decisions like this for themselves when the Council would never dream of treating people in private houses or properties in this way even if they had the powers to do so). Watch this space for news on Petitions.

Councilor Malcolm Grimston (Independent )

Some of this information is supplied by Independent Councilor Malcolm Grimston. It's great to see someone with a sensible head fighting for a evidence base approach to fire-safety, helping the most venerable first and offering pragmatic advice as to the best use of Housing Revenue Funds for the well being for Wandsworth residents. Click here to read his full newsletter. We would like to sincerely thank Malcolm for all the effort and the hard work he is putting in on this project.

Further reading

https://roeregeneration.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/feedback-from-lease-regarding-retro-fitting-water-sprinklers/

https://www.lease-advice.org/fire-safety/