Firewall against one neighbor.

[Wisiano]

Double-check that there isn't already a firewall in the attic first.

In 1997, there was a large townhouse fire in Trosa that decimated quite a large area.
After that, retroactive fire safety regulations for townhouses were unusually introduced.

That is, regardless of when the house is built, regardless of whether it has been renovated or not, one *must* have installed a fire barrier in the attic more than 20 years ago.

Extensive inspections were carried out nationwide after that incident, and it should have been very difficult for previous owners to avoid this requirement.
In connection with fire safety inspections from chimney sweeps, etc., it should also be discovered, and there is a fine associated with it, so saying that you have a fireproof hatch and smoke detectors is not enough.

Otherwise, most of the fire safety regulations are only associated with new construction and renovations, meaning your walls in the house likely only have a requirement to get better fire protection the next time you renovate.

*But* the primary reason for building fireproof is not to comply with regulations and avoid fines; it is to save your family's life and property in case there's a fire at the neighbor's, so it's very unwise to skimp on.

Thanks for the info!
Apparently, there is a firewall installed in the attic against my left neighbor.
However, there is no firewall installed against my neighbor on the right side in the attic.

 

[J-banan]

Double-check that there's not already a firewall in the attic first.

In 1997, there was a major row house fire in Trosa that decimated quite a large area.
After that, retroactive rules for fire protection in row houses were unusually introduced.

I don't think they address older apartments, just last March a row burned down just outside Stockholm, burned up like a matchstick🔥

 

[Dowser4711]

I don't think they address older apartments; just last March, a row of houses outside of Stockholm burned down like a matchstick🔥

The requirement is, unusually, retroactive, as mentioned.
But just like other rules, there are people who break these as well.

 

[J-banan]

The requirement is unusually retroactive, as mentioned.
But just like other rules, there are people who break these too.

If you have bought the property, it is up to the homeowner to set fire protection, but I can imagine that such things are addressed if it is a rental apartment.

 

[Dowser4711]

Thanks for the info!
Apparently, there is a firewall installed in the attic against my left neighbor.
However, there is no firewall installed against my neighbor, on the right side, in the attic.

Then it sounds like you and the neighbor to the right should address this as soon as possible.
If the neighbor is reluctant to take their share of the responsibility, you can always ask the fire department to come by and do an inspection and issue an order.

But, if you're new to the area, that's not the right way to build good relationships with the neighbors.

 

[Dowser4711]

If you have bought the property, it is up to the homeowner to set up fire protection, but I can imagine that such things are addressed if it is a rental.

It is the property owner who is responsible for fire protection, yes, regardless of the form of ownership.

But you're probably right that it is more often neglected when you are the one bearing the responsibility, cost, and risk compared to if you just bear the risk (tenant), as it is then just a matter of contacting the fire brigade and getting a notice, and then the property owner will either have to address the problem or face a recurring fine until it is resolved.

When you yourself hold all the cards, it's easy to think that you can take on that cost "later"...

 

[Wisiano]

Then it sounds like you and the neighbor on the right should work together to address it as soon as possible.
If the neighbor is reluctant to take their share of the responsibility, you can always ask the fire department to come by for an inspection and make a directive.

But, if you're new to the area, it might not be the right way to build good relationships with the neighbors.

Haha.
I will at least do my part and install double plasterboards on the right side of the attic. From a safety standpoint, it's just as well. Since he doesn't have access to the attic, it will be difficult for him to do it, but I agree that they should share the cost, because it's also about their safety.
We are moving in January.

 

[Claes Sörmland]

The requirement is, as I said, unusually retroactive. But just like other rules, there are people who break these as well.

Where can I read more about this? Retroactive requirements for buildings are so unusual that I become interested, it's really uncommon. Boverket does not list this on their page:

https://www.boverket.se/sv/PBL-kuns...e/krav-pa-byggnadsverk-tomter-mm/retroaktiva/

 

[Dowser4711]

Where can I read more about this? Retroactive requirements for buildings are so unusual that I become interested; it's truly rare. Boverket does not list this on its page:

[link]

Wtf. I remember very well the discussion about it and the uniqueness of it being a retroactive measure.
(The fire happened 800m away from here as the crow flies, so we had quite intensive coverage of the whole thing.

But you are absolutely right, I can't find that it actually went through.

 

[Litenskit]

Haha.
I will at least do my part and install double plasterboards on the right side of the attic. From a safety standpoint, it's just as well. Since he doesn't have access to the attic it will be difficult for him to do it, but I agree that they should share the cost, because it concerns their safety as well.
We're moving in January.

But that barely helps at all. You don't achieve ei60 by installing double plasterboards. You need double plasterboards with at least a 70mm air gap and then double plasterboards again.