crown premises under the RRO

[terry martin]

i am trying to find out who's lap it falls in to inspect crown owned (but not occupied by) premises.

The RRO states :-

Application to the Crown and to the Houses of Parliament
    Article  49.
    (2) Articles 27 and 31 only bind the Crown in so far as they apply in relation to premises owned by the Crown but not occupied by it.

   (4) Nothing in this Order authorises the entry of any premises occupied by the Crown.

 I read this as follows, if a premises is owned and occupied by the crown then there are no powers of entry. But, if the premises is owned by the crown and not occupied by them then it will be inspected, but it does not say by who?
is it the crown 'fire inspector' or the 'inspector' for the enforcing authority?

Interpretation
     2. In this Order—

"fire inspector" means an inspector or assistant inspector appointed under section 28 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004

"inspector" means an inspector appointed under article 26 or a fire inspector;

this has become a bit of a contentious issue here. can anyone shed some light on the matter.

[PhilB]

The same as before, look at article 25......it details who are the enforcing authorities.


(e) a fire inspector, or any person authorised by the Secretary of State to act for the purposes
of this Order, in relation to—
(i) premises owned or occupied by the Crown, other than premises falling within
paragraph (b)(ii) and (c));
(ii) premises in relation to which the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is the
responsible person, other than premises falling within paragraph (b)(ii)).


Her Majesty's inspectors deal with Crown owned and occupied. They are 'fire inspectors' . Local fire authority inspectors are 'inspectors' appointed under article 26. T'was ever thus.

[terry martin]

Ah! great. the debate is still raging here. it seems a shame to interupt them so i might just let them get on with it. at this rate i might end up with a ringside seat at an RRO title fight. :lol:

[jokar]

Whilst a number of premises are owned by the crown, the actual owner may be the agent because of the rules on rackrent, see the defintion in Article 2 of RR(FS)O,  Therefore they would be Crown Property but inspected by FRS as opposed to HMI.

[AnthonyB]

It was rumored that they were supposed to be dumping this Crown anomaly but it obviously never happened.

It was quite comon to find a building with two or three different but current fire certificates, as there would be a civilian owner, some civilian tenants, but on one (or more) floors a Crown agency, thus there were both LA & HMIFS certs in place, inspections by both LA's & HMIFS and often contradiction or conflict!

The certs have gone, but we still have the mixed inspections!

[PhilB]

Whilst a number of premises are owned by the crown, the actual owner may be the agent because of the rules on rackrent, see the defintion in Article 2 of RR(FS)O,  Therefore they would be Crown Property but inspected by FRS as opposed to HMI.

That also has not changed, the definition of owner was identical under FP Act