Fire Door Replacement vs Repair: The Decision Framework

The integrity tests that decide

• Leaf structure: solid, undelaminated, unwarped (closes flat to stops), free of deep impact damage or unauthorised apertures (the cat-flap clause) — passing leaves repair; failing leaves replace
• Frame condition: sound timber, secure fixing, square enough for tolerance gaps — rotten/loose frames condemn assemblies whatever the leaf says (the assembly principle from the doorsets logic)
• Certification evidence: provable doors (labels/plugs/documentation per the identification hunt) justify repair investment; unprovable doors in sleeping-risk/single-stair positions tilt replacement regardless of physique — evidence is performance's legal twin
• Modification history: previous site surgery (trimming beyond limits, unrated glazing, drilled hardware) often unrepairable back to evidence — the modification rules' long shadow
• Position criticality weighting: stair doors and flat entrances judged sternly; store cupboards charitably — risk proportionality throughout (the communal triage hierarchy)

The cost crossover arithmetic

Run the numbers on a real case: a door needing seals (£80) + closer (£200) + gap correction (£150) = £430 against £850–£1,200 replacement — repair wins on a sound, provable leaf. Add glazing replacement (£300) and hinge sets (£120): £850 total — the crossover zone where replacement's fresh-evidence premium competes (new doorset = new certification, zero archaeology). The ~60%-of-replacement threshold guides programmes: below it repair; near it, let position criticality and evidence quality cast deciding votes; above it, replacement without sentiment. Block-scale corollary: batched remedials discount 15–25% while replacements carry doorset lead times — programme economics sometimes tip individual verdicts (the schedule's logic outranking the door's). What never computes: serial part-fixes on structurally failed doors — the repair-everything drift that re-fails inspections annually.

Survey-led process and honest outcomes

In practice it works like this: a condition survey grades every door against the tests (photographic, per the survey product), outputs split menus (remedial schedule priced per the menu; replacement schedule per the cost guide), criticality-ranks both (escape-route doors first — the triage), and states reasons per verdict (the ask-for-reasons right every client holds). Typical estate outcomes recur: 60–80% remedial / 20–40% replace in maintained buildings; inverted ratios where decades of neglect or modification accumulated (Victorian conversions and their fanlights, we see you). The independence point bears repeating: graders who profit only from replacements grade accordingly — our surveys price remedials and replacements alike, and stand scrutiny either way. Bring any existing schedule for a second-opinion pass; the framework above is the marking scheme.