Hi, a few more thoughts on this. My real issue is that I am being asked - by the building inspector - to accept that 'complying with building regs' = 'safe house' and that 'non compliance' = 'dangerous house' when the underlying risks are more complicated
Nakajo - you mention Grenfell. As far as I know (and I appreciate no-one will know for certain until all enquiries are complete) the tower had recently been subject to major refurbishment, which had been signed off as compliant with building regs. Aren't the deaths of 71 people evidence that our existing fire safety regime is catastrophically unfit for purpose?
You also say my statistical argument is flawed - you're right - but I disagree with your statement that we generally live in building regs compliant properties. On my way to the station this morning I walked past maybe 100 houses. One or two may have had a full rewire in the last couple of years since latest Part P/British Standards updates but the vast majority would not be compliant with current regs for electrical safety. I think the most you can say is we generally live in houses that complied with the building regs that were in force at the time they were built or subject to major work - but since then the houses have deteriorated and the regs have got stricter. A second hand car that passed its MOT 10 years ago but has not been tested since is unlikely to be safer than a 3 year old car that has just failed its first MOT because of a failed brake light.
Lastly the Part B approved document is 84 pages long. It has sections on escaping from fire, detecting fire, stopping fire spreading etc. Why is there no section, or any substantial details as far as I can see, on preventing fire from starting? Surely the first, and most important, section should be fire prevention and anything else is then just contingency planning in case the prevention fails?
Anyway, off to choose some new fire alarms...
On that point is there a reason no-one seems to make combined ionisation and optical alarms?