FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Ricardo on January 09, 2008, 01:41:27 PM
-
Would appreciate the views of the forum on this one, a guest house scenario, whether single/ground and first or ground first and second, a typically big house, plenty of them up and down the land, where the owners live within the house, and let out various berdooms as the business.
The owner can occupy entirely the ground floor, and let out the upper floor/s or occupy part of the premises and let out other parts.
In the old days of fire certificates many stated the areas occupied by the owners as "private" and many owners would tell you this is my private accommodation, as if to say you cant touch me in here.
I have recently visited such a premises where the owners do indeed occupy the entire ground floor, and let out the upper 2 floors as guest accommodation. from the front lobby into the house 2 doors face you, 1 leads up stairs to the letting bedrooms and the other door leads through the ground floor to the owners private quarters.
My query is, are all persons - guests and owners classed as "relevant persons"? I believe they are
and is the entire premises classed as "relevant premises" or is the private quarters classed as "domestic" where they cannot be touched by fire safety law? I find this bit more tricky, I didnt think that this was a true domestic scenario as we all have at home where it a purely "private domestic dwelling" I was looking at this as almost ancillary to the business, and if there were any fire safety issues in the "domestic" part of the entire "relevant premises" then for the safety of all "relevant persons" then I would be of the opinion the owners would need to address them in their "domestic /private /do not enter part of the house.
For example, we as fire safety persons are seeking to to get an L2 standard fire alarm/AFD system. and maybe door/s upgraded, to secure the safety of all "relevant persons", but If the "domestic parts cannot be classed as "relevant premises" then maybe we end up with a system that the guides say should be L2 but due to the "domestic" areas we cant touch them, so not getting a full L2 system, or even a single escape stair where 1 room is deemed private under the owners control (bedroom or lounge) but adjactent rooms are let out, I would think that private /domestic or whatever, these areas must have adequate precautions incorporated if deemed necessary.
I hope you get my drift, and where I'm coming from, oh and by the way, this scenario is not under RRFSO terms, but the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, but would appreciate views from all sides. Thanks
-
No doubt about this, Enland or Scotland
If a fire in the owners accommodation could affect the safety of the persons elsewhere in the building then the fire precautions in the owners accommodation needs to be upgraded. Only time this will not be the case is if there is a one hour compartment floor between owners and guest accommodation and no interconnections. Only then would the owners accommodation be domestic and not need to be considered at all.
All are relevant persons. Thats immaterial to the fire safety arrangements of the building. In a block of flats all persons are relevant persons even though due to fire compartmentation only the common areas are subject to the Fire Safety Law.
-
Ricky has asked me to clarify my answer. This is my response. As I have been known to talk out my backside I would be interested in any alternative views.
I build up my case in a series of steps. This is how I see it.
1- The RRO applies to the guest house as its not a single private dwelling.
2- Part of the building may be a private dwelling but other parts are not.
3- The RRO applies to those parts that are not a private dwelling.
4- The parts of the building that are not a private dwelling and are subject to the RRO are not completely separated from private dwelling.
5- Therefore a fire in the private dwelling could affect the safety of persons in the parts that are subject to the RRO. The only way this risk can be avoided is by taking general fire precautions in the domestic parts or to completely separate them.
6- The owner is the responsible person under the RRO and has a duty to protect the relevant persons by the provision of general fire precautions.
7- The definition of a relevant person is everybody who is there legally or who is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk of being harmed by the fire.
8- The owner is there legally and could be affected by a fire in the guest acommodation that is subject to the RRO. He is a relevant person.
9- A fire in the parts of the building that are subject to the RRO could affect the safety of persons in the domestic parts that are not subject to the RRO
10-The Owner is protected by the RRO when in those parts of the building used as the guest house, and when in his own dwelling because unless the two parts are separated, he is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk from a fire in the guest house.
11- The owner therefore has to install general fire precautions to ensure that a fire in his domestic quarters could not be a risk to persons in the guest accommodation and that other persons (Himself and his family) would not be at risk from a fire in his guest accommodation.
Its all an application of articles 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and17 together with definitons of general fire precautions, responsible and relevant persons.
In a block of flats all floors are compartment floors and all flats are enclosed in compartment walls with half hour fire doors and stairs and corridors kept sterile and ventilated. This arrangement is considered so safe that in the event of a fire in a flat nobody else need be alerted or evacuated. Thereofre the common areas only are subject to the RRO because a fire in a flat will not affect anybody else. In theory.
-
Kurnal
Many thanks for your most detailed reply, I fully agree with your observations, Its what I believed anyway, its the attempt to convince others that I need to overcome.
-
Ricky has asked me to clarify my answer. This is my response. As I have been known to talk out my backside I would be interested in any alternative views.
I build up my case in a series of steps. This is how I see it.
1- The RRO applies to the guest house as its not a single private dwelling.
2- Part of the building may be a private dwelling but other parts are not.
3- The RRO applies to those parts that are not a private dwelling.
4- The parts of the building that are not a private dwelling and are subject to the RRO are not completely separated from private dwelling.
5- Therefore a fire in the private dwelling could affect the safety of persons in the parts that are subject to the RRO. The only way this risk can be avoided is by taking general fire precautions in the domestic parts or to completely separate them.
6- The owner is the responsible person under the RRO and has a duty to protect the relevant persons by the provision of general fire precautions.
7- The definition of a relevant person is everybody who is there legally or who is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk of being harmed by the fire.
8- The owner is there legally and could be affected by a fire in the guest acommodation that is subject to the RRO. He is a relevant person.
9- A fire in the parts of the building that are subject to the RRO could affect the safety of persons in the domestic parts that are not subject to the RRO
10-The Owner is protected by the RRO when in those parts of the building used as the guest house, and when in his own dwelling because unless the two parts are separated, he is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk from a fire in the guest house.
11- The owner therefore has to install general fire precautions to ensure that a fire in his domestic quarters could not be a risk to persons in the guest accommodation and that other persons (Himself and his family) would not be at risk from a fire in his guest accommodation.
Its all an application of articles 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and17 together with definitons of general fire precautions, responsible and relevant persons.
In a block of flats all floors are compartment floors and all flats are enclosed in compartment walls with half hour fire doors and stairs and corridors kept sterile and ventilated. This arrangement is considered so safe that in the event of a fire in a flat nobody else need be alerted or evacuated. Thereofre the common areas only are subject to the RRO because a fire in a flat will not affect anybody else. In theory.
Kurnal
Would you not consider that the relevant persons are staff and guests only and the priority is to protect them from a fire in the domestic area, and not neccessarily vice versa?
AS you say AFD in domestic area and manual call point on any independant entrance / exits and fire seperation between domestic and staff/guest escape routes.
-
Hi Ricardo
I agree with Kurnel. All persons legally in a premises, that falls under the FSO, are relevent persons regardless of their position...
Even Gordon Brown in the Big House in London falls under the order only others enforce!
If some people consider the owner does not fall under the order what about his/her mum visiting or his/her own family...they may be placed at risk from any fire. I and most of my colleagues do not want to explain to a coroner that we protected the guests and staff but not the owner or his family.
This situation also brings in all sleeping/living accommodation above pubs and any accommodation above small restaurants and take away food establishments...The FSO covers every thing except the open field and forests but then ...Some-one may have an exception thats not on the official FSO application lists or in Clog guidance?
Regards Davio
-
Whilst I agree with Kurnal that the safety of relevant persons relys on the fire safety measures in the domestic premises, you all seem to be missing the point that this is in Scotland and the Fire Safety Order (RRO is not really the correct term as there are many RROs) is not the relevant legislation.
The Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 defines relevant premises.....unlike the Fire Safety Order which does not.
Relevant premises excludes domestic premises. The private areas of the B&B are domestic premises as they are not shared with anyone else.
Yes the guests and the owners are all relevant persons but under Scottish law you can only make requirements in relevant premises.....the domestic parts are not such premises.
The Fire Safety Order requires, by virtue of article 17, fire safety measures to be maintained even if those features are in domestic premises. The Scottish legislation doesn't appear to have that power.
So someone please explain how you would require anything to be done in the domestic premises in Scotland.
In my opinion all you could do would be to prohibit the use of the relevant premises.
Kurnal you mention single private dwelling. In England and Wales we can prohibit the use of certain single private dwellings...we always could and we still can.
In Scotland they used to be able to prohibit the use of certain SPD but now it appears they cannot...they can only prohibit the use of relevant premises.
All the above is my opinion only of course, and I would be interested in anyones views particularly someone who knows more about Scottish law.
What would happen if the owner took his fire doors off the domestic premises and commenced to juggle petrol.....in England and Wales we could prohibit the use and serve an enforcement notice on the owner.....could you do the same in Scotland??
-
Hi Ricardo
I agree with Kurnel. All persons legally in a premises, that falls under the FSO, are relevent persons regardless of their position...
Even Gordon Brown in the Big House in London falls under the order only others enforce!
If some people consider the owner does not fall under the order what about his/her mum visiting or his/her own family...they may be placed at risk from any fire. I and most of my colleagues do not want to explain to a coroner that we protected the guests and staff but not the owner or his family.
This situation also brings in all sleeping/living accommodation above pubs and any accommodation above small restaurants and take away food establishments...The FSO covers every thing except the open field and forests but then ...Some-one may have an exception thats not on the official FSO application lists or in Clog guidance?
Regards Davio
What about blocks of flats where the only area for RA is the common escape route?
-
Is the 'private residential accommodation' a separate premises or part of one larger premises incorporating guest house provision? If the former is considered to be the case (considering the adequacy of fire separation, access arrangements, etc - ie following Kurnal's logic), the persons and premises appear to be 'relevant' and a common approach seems to be required.
-
Is the 'private residential accommodation' a separate premises or part of one larger premises incorporating guest house provision? If the former is considered to be the case (considering the adequacy of fire separation, access arrangements, etc - ie following Kurnal's logic), the persons and premises appear to be 'relevant' and a common approach seems to be required.
It is a separate premises and it is in Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Forget fire separation, access arrangements and Kurnals logic....(with all due respect Kurnal of course!!).
Which part of the Act requires measures to be taken in the domestic premises???
-
Oops, Phil - I should have written 'latter' rather than 'former'. Is there clarity of interpretation in how to determine whether accommodation is separate these days?
-
No Ken but the legislation differs in Scotland. The Fire Safety Order enables notices to be served on any premises for the safety of relevant persons...........the Scottish Act only applies to relevant premises....domestic premises are not relevant premises.
"54 Duties in relation to relevant premises (1) Where a person has control to any extent of relevant premises the person shall, to that extent, comply with subsection (2).
(2) The person shall—
(a) carry out an assessment of the relevant premises for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises; and
(b) take in relation to the relevant premises such of the fire safety measures as in all the circumstances it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises."
The private parts of the B&B are clearly domestic...and therefore not relevant premises...even though the occupants are relevant persons. I think!
-
The point I'm feebly trying to make (and understand) is that in any particular building there may be one or more premises and, perhaps, the residential accommodation may or may not be regarded as a separate premises and, therefore, may or may not be 'relevant' and, presumably a judgement needs to be made depending upon such matters as the degree, if any, of fire separation, access arrangements, etc. The owners might be living in a room off the guests' corridor that also provides an escape route and sharing the guests' bathroom or might have their own private entrance from the street with 1hr separation all round - or something between the two extremes. Presumably the first question will be something like 'Is the owner's accommodation a separate premises?' and, if not clearly so, a common alarm, AFD, etc will be needed. Or am I wrong?
-
In England and Wales premises is defined as any place, and that would include parts of buildings. The Fire Scotland Act does not define premises but does define relevant premises and domestic premises.
Relevant premises does not include domestic premises.....domestic premises....defined exactly the same as the Fire Safety Order...definition taken from HASAW Act....i.e premises or parts of premises that are not shared.
Fire separation does not come into it....consider an open air market....each stall could be a separate premises.
As far as I can see...in Scotland requirements can only be made in relevant premises. In England & Wales requirements could be made in any premises.....even premises to which the order does not apply by virtue of article 17.
-
I'm thinking Scotland too, Phil - only out of academic interest of course as you know I'm rather a long way from dear old Scotland. Without clear instruction as to what constitutes a premises and with interconnection and interrelationship within a building there needs to be judgement as to where one divides between domestic and non-domestic and whether it's within the intention (or letter) of the law to exclude what's within reasonable risk assessment necessary for the safety of persons present (relevant or otherwise). I do find it interesting, from this forum, to note the uncertainty that exists among those seeking to enforce current fire legislation and the associated lack of clear guidance. For those of us seeking to meet the duties or see that our clients do it remains even more so at times.
-
I quite agree Ken, what is needed is some case law as this is a common scenario both here and north of the border.
-
Great debate,and thanks to all for some fine comments, without going into too much detail again to bore you , this is in simple terms 1 large house,of 3 floors,after I ring the front doorbell and walk over the threshold, I am in an entrance vestibule with 2 doors facing me, the left door leads to first and second floor guest bedrooms, to my right leads to private owners accommodation entire ground floor, my worry as an officer attempting to enforce correctly and for the safety of all "relevant persons" is to take a look in the private part of this house, to see what is going on in there, just in case a fire could start remotely at the rear and take an age to be discovered as my private house has no AFD, and I have guests sleeping directly above my private house.
And since this is a single escape stair, I am attempting to improve the escape for the guests by providing them with a lobby at ground floor within the domestic part.
Could a fire possibly break through the ceiling and affect them? what if the owner has had a problem with leaking central heating and a ceiling has indeed been taken down temporarily, that would surely affect the "relevant persons" above in case of fire below? So I believe I need to have a look inside the domestic part to see if there is any potential hazards that could affect the "relevant persons above" I feel I may be negligent If I don't.
As an old friend put to me, the intention of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 is not trying to protect the owner of a guest house in their private accommodation, any more than it is trying to protect me in mine.
But since a fire in the private part may affect a guest or two, the guests need to be protected from a fire starting in both the "relevant part" and the private part.
So although I am being told that the owners private accommodation is not a "relevant premises" for the safety of the real "relevant persons" I can enter the domestic part of this house and insist on fire protection measures such as AFD and a fire door,
but this is not in any way to protect the owner and his family in their domstic areas but for the protection of the guests who are the real "relevant persons. Thats how it has been put to me for Scotland.
Furthermore the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Circular no 17?2007 ( I have a copy if anyone wants one)
details Policy intent
Quote -We are aware that there has been confusion amongst some dutyholders and enforcing authorities as to the extent of the application of Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act. While it is not for the Scottish Government to provide an interpretation of the legislation, we are able to provide clarification of Scottish Ministers’ policy intention in respect of the extent of application of the new fire safety regime.
The proposals to reform fire safety legislation which were the subject of consultation in 2002-03 and were later used to instruct the drafting of the Fire (Scotland) Act were based on extending the coverage of the new regime to all premises, with the exception of domestic premises (defined as premises occupied as a private dwelling including common areas, such as stairs).
-
I agree guidance is needed but I cannot see case law helping as very few cases ever get past the magistrates court. What’s needed is something like the old FPA circs and the RR(FS)O guidance notes may be the way forward? However I accept this would not help the Scots.
-
The point I'm feebly trying to make (and understand) is that in any particular building there may be one or more premises and, perhaps, the residential accommodation may or may not be regarded as a separate premises and, therefore, may or may not be 'relevant' and, presumably a judgement needs to be made depending upon such matters as the degree, if any, of fire separation, access arrangements, etc. The owners might be living in a room off the guests' corridor that also provides an escape route and sharing the guests' bathroom or might have their own private entrance from the street with 1hr separation all round - or something between the two extremes. Presumably the first question will be something like 'Is the owner's accommodation a separate premises?' and, if not clearly so, a common alarm, AFD, etc will be needed. Or am I wrong?
That is the whole point Ken et al. Yes, I would agree that common alarm, AFD would be a requiste in the "private domestic" to warn relevant persons in the guest area, that there is a fire in the building that could effect them.
Then you say "etc". How much etc did you mean? Would you expect the RA to take into consideration the general fire safety of the private domestic area? If you do then the RA of a block of flats should include each occupier.
Does anyone know the legal definition of Premises in this regard? Are premises a building or part thereof?
-
Premises is defined in the Fire Safety Order.....but not in the Scottish Act.
I think the problem is not the definition of premises but the fact that the Scottish Act unlike the Fire Safety Order does not allow for requirements to be made in domestic premises.
Article 17 requires measures to be maintained in all premises....but a problem would still occur if we wanted something new to be provided as article 17 only deals with maintenance of existing provisions.
-
Nearlythere, the definition of a premises is exactly that either the whole of a premises or part of a premises. The Order precludes the term building by default which is messy when a building is built to Building Regulation standard but when it is existng it becomes a premises.
-
Are we all coming to agree that in the case of the building which is a guest house with private residential the latter is not included in the RA unless for an automatic and manual fire alarm system which would be throughout and fire seperation between it and the guest house escape routes?
-
No, I think this post shows that it is not that simple and it also depends where you live.
-
A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.
-
A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.
What about purpose built guest houses with private residential attached with internal communication between the two? Many guest houses are specifically built this way nowadays due to the availability of Tourist Board grants.
-
Well!!!!
I thought this was a straightforward one and made two fatal mistakes- first to think I was sure about something in fire safety and two to assume that common sense would prevail in the writing and implementation of the law.
Phil thanks for your explanation- I had scanned the Scottish legislation but had not appreciated the significant difference in this case.
So the crux is this:
I take the view that the domestic premises in this case are those areas occupied solely by the owner as his living accommodation. The staircase and guest rooms are relevant premises. ( The staircase not being solely used in connection with domestic premises.)
1- the most important- in practical terms what fire safety provisions need to be made in this building to ensure a reasonable standard of safety for relevant persons? IMO this must involve protection to the staircase and fire detection.
2- If the boundary between the domestic premises and the relevant premises is demarcated by a door, is this door part of the domestic premises or part of the relevant premises? (I say its part of the relevant premises as it creates a protected stairway which is an essential component of the relevant premises)
3- Applying the same logic what standard of door do we need in order to create the protected stair- two half hour doors or a single door with detection in the domestic premises? Remember what its there for- we are not seeking to protect or cover the domestic premises we are seeking to protect the relevant premises. Just in the same way that the walls have to be strong enough to support the floors above.
4- What enforcement action can we take to ensure that this provision is installed? A notice on the responsible person for the relevant building to arrange for the installation of adequate fire safety measures to protect the relevant persons from a fire hazard that may arise elsewhere in the building.
The Responsible person for the guest house wants to run a business. If he cant persuade other users of the building to install the basic safety provisions to make his guest house safe to use then his guest house should not be operating. So we serve the notice on him.
If he says his duties in respect of fire safety only extend to the extent he has control I say you have control over whether you operate or not.
In my ( often flawed) opinion of course.
-
I would say it is up to the potential b&b owner to protect the other bld users, not them to dosh up! Putting that across without getting a bif on the beak may be difficult.
-
A block of flats, Nearlythere, will usualy have been purpose-constructed to a standard whereby individual flats wil not be considered as presenting an unacceptable fire risk to other flats. However, with guesthouse situations this may not be the case and they may well have not been constructed for that purpose. So I'm saying that, as the occupants of the guest accommodation are intended to be protected under this legislation, any significant fire risk to them from the private residential accommodation needs to be taken into account. Interconnected AFD should normally deal with their risk from 'conventional fire' in terms of enabling them to escape provided that there is adequate fire separation - so that is also a factor to consider. Beyond that, I threw in the 'etc' in case there are other significant factors that are not addressed by the foregoing. Presumably each case will be assessed on its merits but I'm certainly not trying to build a case for fire risk assessments in private residential premises as such - just for assessing the risks to those intended to be protected.
What about purpose built guest houses with private residential attached with internal communication between the two? Many guest houses are specifically built this way nowadays due to the availability of Tourist Board grants.
Your example will, presumably present as two clear properties of which that forming the purpose-built guest house accommodation alone will be subject to the Scottish Act duties - but including the adequacy of the interconnection in terms of fire safety - unless this also provides a means of escape (in which case, I take it that this route would also be included).
-
The Responsible person for the guest house wants to run a business. If he cant persuade other users of the building to install the basic safety provisions to make his guest house safe to use then his guest house should not be operating. So we serve the notice on him.
If he says his duties in respect of fire safety only extend to the extent he has control I say you have control over whether you operate or not.
In my ( often flawed) opinion of course.
I think that's the answer Kurnal. We may not be able to require measures to be taken in the domestic parts, but this may mean that the relevant premises cannot operate. I'm sure faced with that dilemma the responsible person will do all he can to improve matters.
-
With regards to all the above, I was wanting to discuss "Prohibition notices" for premises that comprise guest house accommodation and also private domestic premises together in one large house.
The Fire (Scotland)Act 2005 tells us the following in:
Sec 63 Prohibition notices, is served on the “occupier of relevant premises”,
So that excludes the domestic owner/occupier ( unless of course it is the same person)
Subsection 2 says if the enforcing authorities consider that the use of the “relevant premises” involves "risk" to relevant persons that the use of the relevant premises ought to be prohibited or restricted.
and
Subsection 3 says the "risk" is anything affecting relevant person’s means of escape.
now
My thought process with the above would include, as a result of what I have discovered by being nosey during an inspection, and asking if I can possibly look in past the domestic part of this house, a fire risk has been discovered,that could affect the means of escape of the relevant persons within the relevant premises.
There is structural damage either to the ceiling or separating wall and I believe that this could have an impact on the escape of the relevant persons from the relevant premises in case of fire in the domestic part.
Now
I cant serve any notice on the owner/occupier of the domestic dwelling, the Act doesn't allow that, so my only option is to serve a notice on the responsible person of the guest house above (dutyholder in Scotland)
Although they have not actually committed any breech of the Act, I inform them that it is considered that a fire in the domestic property located directly below/adjacent to the relevant premises, could affect the means of escape of relevant persons in the relevant premises.
I also inform the responsible person that I have no powers over the owner of the domestic premises under my legislation, so I have no choice but to serve a notice on them, to retrict the use of their guest house explaining that I am of the opinion that a fire in the adjoining domestic premises could impact upon the safety of the relevant persons in their guest house.
I advise them to seek their own independant legal advice if they think it is necessary regarding what as the enforcing authority I intend to do here.
Any thoughts?
-
Just to add if I may without higjacking your thread- As I read the Scottish Act, there are no powers under section 63 to prohibit or restrict use of domestic premises unless a licenced HMO???
-
The Scottish Act & Regulations are targetted on the 'relevant person' concept and Section 79 of the Act state(as a definition of 'relevant person'): -
relevant person”, in relation to premises, means—
(a)any person who is, or may be, lawfully in the premises; or
(b)any person—
(i)who is, or may be, in the immediate vicinity of the premises; and
(ii)whose safety would be at risk in the event of fire in the premises;
I would have thought that subsection (b) would cover the safety arrangements necessary for the 'domestic' occupants in the guest house, as depicted in Ricardo's thread starter.
-
The Scottish Act & Regulations are targetted on the 'relevant person' concept and Section 79 of the Act state(as a definition of 'relevant person'): -
relevant person”, in relation to premises, means—
(a)any person who is, or may be, lawfully in the premises; or
(b)any person—
(i)who is, or may be, in the immediate vicinity of the premises; and
(ii)whose safety would be at risk in the event of fire in the premises;
I would have thought that subsection (b) would cover the safety arrangements necessary for the 'domestic' occupants in the guest house, as depicted in Ricardo's thread starter.
I think it all hinges on what is considered in law to be the premises. The premises might, as I believe, only be the areas where guests have access to eg bedrooms, WCs, dining room sitting room etc. The premises are part of the building. The protection of the guest house end from what might happen in the domestic would be covered by the provision of a L1 AFD and protection of escape route from it.
If you can enter the private areas and extend the RA then, by applying the same principle, when you are Risk Assessing the common areas of a block of flats you should also include the adjoining flats.
-
Just to add if I may without higjacking your thread- As I read the Scottish Act, there are no powers under section 63 to prohibit or restrict use of domestic premises unless a licenced HMO???
I believe that to be an accurate quote.
-
the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.
maybe, perhaps
-
the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.
maybe, perhaps
As would the ocupiers of the private flats enclosing a common escape route?
-
that's a cracking question nearlythere.
The common escape route from private flats could alos be construed as the ingress route for firefighters and therefore any protective measures applied to the staircase (probably through the Building Standards) would fall into the Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations, reg 23 regarding maintenance for the firefighters.
I suppose what we're trying to get a handle on is where does the legislative power stop and who is left at risk. the problem being is that neither our Scottish legislation nor the RRO has been tested much in Court, so we're interpreting guidance and legislation. Ricardo's original question and this whole thread shows how many similar opinions can come from one query, but the variations are very interesting.
-
the point about Section 79 is that although the owner and their family are not 'relevant persons' in terms of the relevant premises they are 'any person in the immediate vicinty' and 'whose safety would be at risk', therefore they come within the scope of the FRA.
maybe, perhaps
Yes I agree tottaly Afterburner that these people are in the vicinity, I just don't think that we can take them into account under the fire legislation, (IMHO) as the legislation is not there to protect them, any more than its there to protect you and me in our domestic abodes. Its there is it not to protect "relevant persons" only.Meaning:
Those people who have a legal right to be in or in the vicinity of a relevant premises. I am thinking when section 79 says an person I am thinking that means any relevant person, but dont scream , I may be tottaly wrong.
And I just dont think that Joe Public in his private domestic dwelling which is right next door to a relevant preimses, can demand or expect the protection of the Act.( but anyway as you say Afterburner, maybe just one day we'll get a difinitive answer from the courts.
This confuses me so much, but its great to hear all the views.
-
By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun
-
By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun
Good luck Colonel, I am getting good at these, so If I can provide any advice please get in touch.
-
By coincidence just been asked to carry out fire risk assessments on two B&B establisments in large country houses (England) where the domestic accomodation and the guest accomodation are all part and the same, all areas exept owners bedrooms are available to all. Could be fun
Thats probable one of the easy ones. Cant see must heat generated in a bedroom, except mine of course.