Five Common Issues Found with Locks on Fire & Escape Doors

Five Common Issues Found with Locks on Fire & Escape Doors

Some of the most commonly found issues when it comes to locks on fire and escape doors include incorrect specification, poor installation, product modification, conflicting functional needs, and lack of due diligence.
This article introduces what these problems can look like in practice, why they matter, real-world examples of where things go wrong, and what can be done to ensure safety.


1. Incorrect Specification
Improper specification of locks for fire and escape doors can compromise both life safety and system performance.
It’s important to note that design considerations can balance different needs, for example, fire safety, egress, accessibility and security.
This issue may be identified at any point in the door’s lifecycle- whether during design, initial installation, periodic inspection, or later maintenance and remedial work, where what appears to be a minor hardware replacement, could lead to improper product selection if the specification does not match the original design intent.

It’s not uncommon for someone to alter a door- perhaps by fitting an additional or different lock for example, only to later discover that the change conflicted with the original design intent and it has to be reversed, potentially resulting in additional risk, cost and delays.
This highlights the importance of the issue and the need for a broader understanding of standards and design considerations.
It’s also essential to know when specialist advice is required.

Relevant designated standards for locks include:
EN 179 for Emergency Exit Hardware
EN 1125 for Panic Exit Hardware
EN 12209 for Locks and Latches
EN 14846 for Electromechanically operated locks and striking plates
 
Locks under the scope of these standards must carry the appropriate conformity marking (such as UKCA, CE, or UKNI), and their classification code will indicate if they are suitable for use on fire or smoke doors:

In addition to the designated standards, there are further lock standards you may encounter when working with fire and escape doors- for example BS EN 1303 for cylinders for locks, or PAS 3621 for multipoint locks.

Understanding the scope of the different lock standards and when they are required is key to navigating the correct specification and mitigating design risks.

Additional guidance from documents like Approved Document B or industry codes of practice can also be consulted.

2. Incorrect Installation

Even if a lock is correctly specified, poor installation can cause problems.

This includes issues that could invalidate supporting product documentation, such as fitting the product at the wrong height, missing or incorrect intumescent protection, or combining it with incompatible components.

Improper installation can lead to serious functional and operational issues. Common problems like misalignment often result in jamming, stiffness, or binding- all of which affect how the lock might perform with day-to-day use.

Correct installation is critical to ensure that privacy, security, compartmentation and emergency escape are available exactly when needed. The consequences of a lock failing at the wrong moment can be serious and even dangerous.

A frequently overlooked detail is the permitted installation height of locks- this is typically measured from Finished Floor Level (FFL) or the bottom of the door, ensuring a consistent height across doors for building users.

Following the manufacturer’s instructions precisely, including door preparation, fixing methods, and compatibility limitations supports the use of the product in accordance with its intended purpose.

Any deviation from instructions or intended application may compromise performance and invalidate certification.

3. Product Modification

Incompatible components could be due to modifying products themselves, or combining items that haven’t been tested together. This is an issue that is particularly common and problematic on doors where hardware must function reliably under emergency conditions.

A typical example is replacing a handle tested for use with an escape lock with an aesthetically preferred design, or pairing component parts that haven’t been tested together from different suppliers of panic hardware/emergency exit devices. These changes can alter the mechanical function and invalidate performance claims.

Products must be used in accordance with their supporting documentation, which when handed over after installation, provides essential evidence of performance, suitability, and fire safety which helps to inform the product’s ongoing operation and maintenance requirements.

4. Conflicting Needs

Product modifications aren’t always made for aesthetic reasons- they can also stem from cost-saving efforts, such as reusing existing parts, or from reactive maintenance aimed at getting a door back into service if something is broken.

In other cases, changes may be driven by how the door is used in practice- whether due to user behaviour, evolving operational needs, or occupier requirements that weren’t known or fully visible at the design stage.
As touched on in the first point, specifying locks for fire and escape doors often involves balancing multiple, sometimes conflicting, needs- security, fire safety, egress, privacy, and accessibility. When these needs clash, the solution isn’t always straightforward.

In schools, for example, they may need classroom doors to lock from the inside during a dynamic lockdown and allow for emergency escape, while also considering that some solutions can enable students to lock staff out of the classroom.

The DHF & GAI Code of Practice advises: “Where security is in conflict with easy egress, a full risk assessment should be made in order to comply with best practice.”

Resolving these tensions requires input from someone with the appropriate competence and design responsibility to be able to make such decisions. It also highlights the importance of professional collaboration to ensure that safety, usability, and compliance are all properly addressed.

5. Lack of Due Diligence

As these issues show- there’s often more to these products than meets the eye.

These details might not be immediately obvious, but they matter.

Without careful review of documentation and an understanding of key requirements, features and attributes, it’s easy to miss important information.

For example, some digital locks include a snib function that can hold the latch in a retracted or engaged position, which would prevent the door from latching if it did not retract. Manufacturer guidance will typically outline how this function can be disabled to ensure it does not compromise safety.

It is becoming much more widely accepted that installing something without reading the instructions is no longer acceptable.

Due diligence is not just something for the to do list, it’s a professional mindset that ensures products are used correctly and safely.

The volume of information around compliance can be overwhelming, and it’s easy for misinformation to spread. But as more professionals align on this issue, a common principle is emerging:

We first need to know to check. And then we need to know where to check.

That includes:

• Reviewing manufacturer documentation and installation instructions
• Understanding test evidence and classification for product suitability
• Involving competent professionals at the right times
• Referring to legislation, codes of practice and current guidance
• Building level documentation & records

Locks are not just accessories- they are part of a wider safety critical system. By taking due diligence seriously, we ensure that fire and escape doors do their job when it matters most.