Question: We’ve been using the same fire company for years. They always issued our AFSS with a few minimal repairs however this year we have a long list of actions – some substantial. Should they have been warning us of these upcoming expenses? Have they been negligent?
The building was turned into a Strata complex over 20 years ago. We have been using the same fire company for many years. They have passed off and issued our AFSS every year on our 4-unit building with a few minimal repairs carried out to see our building complies.
This year they stated that the following items need to be actioned:
- Wall drencher system and Fire Seals incorporated in the building
- Test Drain system and flow test need to be carried out,
- a manhole needs to be fitted to inspect and repair a plumbing plastic drain pipe
- a fire seal collar installed to prevent fire from spreading from one unit to another.
These assets have been listed as “passed” on the Fire Schedule and on the AFSS for years by this same fire company without any recommendation (either verbally or written) to address these issues. The cost of these items is significant.
Should the fire company have previously warned us of these upcoming issues so we could have budgeted for them? Are the fire company liable or negligent in any way? If yes, what are our options?
Answer: The owners should be very concerned as to the quality of the service they are receiving.
This is an increasingly common issue occurring due to 20 years of under-enforcement being unwound by the accreditation practitioner scheme. Great to see fire safety improving, but feel for owners bearing the cost of what should have been done properly since the AFSS regime was implemented in the early 2000’s.
If a wall drencher system and fire seals have been on the schedule and endorsed on an AFSS in previous years, then the owners should be very concerned as to the quality of the service they are receiving. If those items definitely don’t exist, the contractor should have been reporting this. The other items may have valid explanations, but certainly sound like they speak to the same issue, but I require further context to answer accurately.
I’d suggest the owners speak with a strata lawyer on the negligence piece, but as there is no obvious loss other than the cost of the inadequate fire protection maintenance over those years (and perhaps the install capital cost increase extrapolated across the years), it seems unlikely there would be a case worthy of running.
In regards to the actual works, the owners would be well served in obtaining a second opinion from a reputable contractor or fire consultant.
The writer is happy to assist if the property is within Sydney Metro area.
This post appears in the November 2022 edition of The NSW Strata Magazine.