FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: William 29 on March 14, 2012, 04:31:10 PM
-
Has anyone heard of a fire risk assessment under the RRFSO on a HMO being rejected as not suitable and sufficient based on the “fact that the Housing Act 2004 is the primary legislation therefore the assessment conducted under the Order in non complaint”. I am dealing with a housing officer and I assume she means the assessment is non complaint with the Housing Act?
There are various discrepancies in what our FRA has come up with to what the housing officer says is “required” under the Housing Act. The alarm system being one, the existing fire alarm in the building is a BS5839 Pt 6 system with smoke/ heat detection in the common areas and smoke detection in the bedrooms which in our opinion, when considering the size, occupancy and layout of the premises is suitable and sufficient for the risk to be protected. (Originally three terraced houses, converted to a hostel) There is a no smoking policy in bedrooms and no cooking facilities in bedrooms.
The premises is the subject of a prohibition notice served by the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer which requires a BS5839 Pt 1 L2 system with smoke detection in the bedrooms replaced by heat detection and supplemented by independent BS5839 Pt6 smoke detectors, (in effect therefore, the principle life safety system proposed offers the same level of protection as that already installed in my view).
Any thoughts?
???
-
Has anyone heard of a fire risk assessment under the RRFSO on a HMO being rejected as not suitable and sufficient based on the “fact that the Housing Act 2004 is the primary legislation therefore the assessment conducted under the Order in non complaint”. I am dealing with a housing officer and I assume she means the assessment is non complaint with the Housing Act?
There are various discrepancies in what our FRA has come up with to what the housing officer says is “required” under the Housing Act. The alarm system being one, the existing fire alarm in the building is a BS5839 Pt 6 system with smoke/ heat detection in the common areas and smoke detection in the bedrooms which in our opinion, when considering the size, occupancy and layout of the premises is suitable and sufficient for the risk to be protected. (Originally three terraced houses, converted to a hostel) There is a no smoking policy in bedrooms and no cooking facilities in bedrooms.
The premises is the subject of a prohibition notice served by the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer which requires a BS5839 Pt 1 L2 system with smoke detection in the bedrooms replaced by heat detection and supplemented by independent BS5839 Pt6 smoke detectors, (in effect therefore, the principle life safety system proposed offers the same level of protection as that already installed in my view).
Any thoughts?
???
Which technical guidance did she refer to when making this requirement?
I assume she consulted the F&R Service before issuing the Notice?
-
Not sure re the guide but the matter was reffered to the housing officer by the Fire Authority.
-
Sounds like the blind leading the visually impaired.
-
I don't think you are far off there kurnal! The housing officer states the FA agree with the contents of her notice. In short the client will bow to the notice, rip the existing system out and install a new one that will essentially do the same job. But at least the building will be code compliant so that’s something. ::)
-
And as the enforcers obviously believe, lacors and BS are the Law of the land.
More than me jobs worth to consider that there could be any alternatives to the book.
I would push it and go back first to the fire service and ask why they see it the way they do.
-
Thanks for the advice. I am more concerned with that fact that the housing officer requires an assessment under the Housing Act and not the RRO as this is the "primary legislation". I can't see that a housing act FRA would or should come up with differing view points?? According to the client the HO has 30 points on our FRA that she disagrees with even though our assessor met her on site and verbally explained our position and what we would advise in the FRA. So far I have told our client to ask for everything in writing and see what she has to say.
-
And as the enforcers obviously believe, lacors and BS are the Law of the land.
More than me jobs worth to consider that there could be any alternatives to the book.
I would push it and go back first to the fire service and ask why they see it the way they do.
I have seen this on a number of occasions with my local housing officer. The HMO owner and me as the FSO agree but the housing officer can`t find our solution in the book so disagrees. Normally a quiet word in private has worked. Fortunately he has moved on to other things.
However, in his defence hugging the code is generally down to a lack of experience.
-
There are two aspects to this in my opinion.
Firstly there is no reason why an FRA couldn't or shouldn't consider the requirements of both the RRO and Housing Act, because as you risk assessor types keep telling me a good assessor and assessment considers not the minimum to comply with legislation (the RRO) but will consider anything that can make the people and property safer.
Stay with me - in terms of fire precautions in HMOs if you satisfy the RRO you should by default satisfy the housing act - this is the reason Lacors was produced. The only difference being that housing officers can enforce the provision of standalone smoke detectors in each bedroom. Any good assessor would ask for that anyway in a HMO without a fire alarm system already fitted, UNLESS, of course you have a situation which William talks about here - you have an existing system which, as he says, should be perfectly suitable. Thats where your EHOs (Housing Officers) need to exercise common sense, and Im afraid many of them have little experience of BS5839 Part 1 systems and how they compare with BS5839 Part 6.
.
-
I would suggest that there could be an element of empire building involved as well.
The RRO states that the RP has a duty to carry out a FRA. Does this not make a difference?
Has the Council not carried out a fire safety audit of compliance with their specifications for standards in HMOs?
-
I had a very long chat with the housing officer and it seems that the issues are not with the quality or quantity or the info we have provided in the FRA. There are several (over 30) points that the HO states would not be acceptable under the Housing Act in our FRA. A typical example is where we have identified that testing records are not maintained and under then RRO are not enforceable but we have strongly recommended that they do record all tests. The HO wants the FRA to state that there is a requirement to make records under the Housing Act. Also where we have identified a breach under the RRO and provided the relevant Article number and reference the HO wants the FRA to state that it is also a breach of the relevant section of the Housing Act….and so it goes on through every section of our FRA. I just haven’t come across this approach before in dealing with HO’s when in the fire service and as a fire risk assessor? As Midland states a suitable FRA done under the RRO would normally be adequate and satisfy the requirements of the fire legislation of the Housing Act. ???
-
Hi William
In my opinion the EHO is exceeding their authority, and is asking for things to be included that aren't required under the RRO - legislation which they do not enforce.
I recommend you speak to the Fire Authority, explain the problem and ask them to liaise with the EHO to achieve a favourable outcome and suitable response.
I am very confused about the EHO asking for an L2 system. Is the EHO using HMG Sleeping guide I wonder? As this does recommend L2 in Hostels.
-
I agree Midland. The housing officer is being unreasonable. Not sure what Kurnal means about the blind leading the visually impaired.
That said Hostels are a funny one. You have hostels like the YHA and YMCA which are dumb downed hotels offering cheap accomodation where you kip in dormitories. Then you have things like bail hostels and hostels for domestic violence victims. Blurry lines. I think L2 is recommended in purpose built hostels ala the sleeping accom guide and part 6 is ok for HMO hostels. Ok an L2 is great and ticks all the right boxes but if I came across a hostel with a part 6 ld2 grade a system would i be worried. I think not.
-
Thanks Midland and Cleveland (sounds like a name for a band?) you have confirmed my thoughts re the alarm system required. The client will not appeal for various reasons and is in the process of installing the alarm as per the housing authorities Notice at a cost of around the £8,000 mark. ::)
-
I wonder if a defence against such action by a LHA might be found in Article 43 (2) of RRO?. Hypothetical now, I know, if the client is already replacing a perfectly good fire alarm, but has any got any comments?
-
A different aspect of this is the superior legislation. A colleague had a similar case involving the DDA where there was a conflict with that and the RRO. He was expecting a fight but the result was that the RRO was superior to the DDA. The reason being that the importance of the legislation is determined by the penalties imposed by the legislation. In the case of the DDA the only access is via the Civil Courts and damages are determined. The RRO however is criminal law governed by the criminal courts and the penalties are fines and imprisonment, the RRO wins.
Looking at the Housing Act this is dealt with in the Civil Courts like the DDA, hence I would think the RRO is the superior legislation.
Anyone got a pet lawyer?
-
You are not alone Willaim 29, I wonder if anyone has considered the words 'Regulatory Reform' in all of this! Good luck, I think your EHO has moved to my area!!!
-
Law is law, they don't have leagues divisions etc. You have to comply with all of them.
If you lock wheelchair users out of your building and cite the RRO as a defense against the DDA (or what its called now) then you will be on a sticky wicket.
The issue here is about proper application.