FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on February 27, 2008, 06:14:10 PM
-
Have come across a small guest house with 4 letting bedrooms with communal toilet. breakfast is offered and evening meal.
Two storey detached building with a beautiful staircase open at the bottom to a very large and attractive furnished entrance hallway about 12m by 8m, with upholstered furniture, gas fire, walnut grand piano and original oil paintings. Total travel distance from furthest bedroom door down open stairs to final exit about 14m. Very nice building and beautifully furnished including the rooms but in a unique time warp - 1930s feel throughout. (Historically used to be three bedrooms - non cert hotel)
Window exits available from first floor let bedrooms onto small bay windows, Grade 2 listed building.
As the guest House only takes guests from two local companies by arrangement- invariably able bodied young men and women on corporate training courses and is not open to general public would it be reasonable to apply HMO guidance and allow the window exits?
Do you think it could be legally possible to classify it as HMO in view of the resticted clientele who are referred by their employer?
-
Whether or not it is an HMO is irrelevant as far as I can see.
If a risk assessment can justify emergency egress windows are they not acceptable in a hotel, a hostel, a house, a dwelling, a single private dwelling or indeed any building?
I know ADB only accepts them for flats & houses but I would live them in the situation you describe.
-
Is this a window escape onto a balcony or stairs to a place of safety? or wait for the Brigade type escape window?
-
Hi Phil
The local brigade are talking prohibition which wouldn't be the first time they have done this in this particular authority. They take the robust view that for a hotel or guest house, if the layout is open plan then only a conversion to create a protected route or sprinklers will do. (Canrt see how sprinklers will help people to pass though the open plan staircase myself but it will suppress the fire so give them longer to contemplate use of the window escape). They justify this by saying that in offering a hotel bed the escape routes must be capable of use by anyone who may present themselves at the door. I do respect their view and having aired it on this forum a couple of times in the past it seems to be the commonly held view of most contributors. Personally I make a value judgement and in guest houses that feel like someones private home I apply domestic standards as per ADB with additional detectioon , and in places that feel more like a hotel business I generally strive to apply the sleeping guide standard. So if it is really a HMO because of the limited clientele, it would be appropriate to apply the HMO guidance which in this particular area, and in the LCORS draft guidance, specifically allows a window exit.
Is it a guest house or HMO is the question I think.
Messy- the windows are casements 700mm x 600mm 3m above surrounding ground which lead out onto 1.5m x 400mm shelves which form the roof of the bay windows below at a height of 2.5m above the ground.
-
According to Housing Act 2004 - 254 (c) the living accommodation is occupied by those persons as their only or main residence or they are to be treated as so occupying it (see section 259)
Because it does not conform to that clause it does not appear be a HMO but there is a loophole if you check out.
Section 259 (2) A person is to be treated as so occupying a building or part of a building if it is occupied by the person—
(a) as the person’s residence for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education;
I understand this to be student flats but I cannot find any definitions so I guess its how you interpreted it.
-
Point to note - there arent any HMO standards. Unless you want to cal, the HHSRS a standard!
I'm with Kurnal on this one, the brigade is being disproportionate (again) I hope the owners appeal. Or better still go to the Sof S for a determination.
-
Thanks Thomas
I wonder how the housing act definition covers migrant workers who certainly have another residence albeit abroad?
-
The Housing Act is probably the worst piece of legislation ever written in the UK. If anybody can work out what it means then they are genius.
-
Good point Wee Brian- but I was tending to use the new LACORS consultation draft as a benchmark, as you know many local councils have written their own standards documents to be used as a benchmark for compliance with HHSRS- of course they probably would not stand up to legal scrutiny
-
Kurnal
I think it is quite obvious that it is a guest house. As much as you want it to be a HMO to allow the window escapes I am sure that you know it is not a HMO.
PhilB hit the nail on the head. Basically use the risk assessment process as intended. You may have to be brave and take the fire service on though. (Or they will have to be brave and take you on, depending on which way you look at it) Remember your/their defence is to be able to prove "It was not reasonably practicable to do anything more"
twSutton, I think that section is pointing towards full time students and wherever they may live, not a particular type of premises. So wherever they live, if they are away from what they may class as their home (i.e. Parents house) but living in digs, they are occupying that premises regardless of it being a HMO, student flats or house etc.
-
Thanks Thomas
I wonder how the housing act definition covers migrant workers who certainly have another residence albeit abroad?
It seems that the local authority can just 'declare it' a HMO. "Because I say so!"... Nice touch really. That would stop any arguments.
-
Thanks CivvyFSO
No you read me wrong. I have no axe to grind with the fire officer and I have no intention of taking him on. Like him I want the right standard for the protection of the persons who use this building. I have not yet made my own mind up what I think that standard is. I would not want my mum having to climb out of a window to escape a hotel fire.
But to identify correct benchmark I am just seeking to clarify the legal position. Under the Fire Precautions Act the circulars used to give us a defintion of a hotel. Thus the sleeping accommodation blocks at the Fire Service College were deemed not to be certifiable Hotels and Boarding Houses. In a similar way this private "Hotel" is only used by two major local employers to put up overnight visitors. They do no marketing and there is no sign at the end of the drive. There is no entry in the local tourist information leaflet. The sleeping accommodation guide may well be the correct benchmark- but to be fair I want to explore all options.
-
Kurnal, just to swap the fire service's arguement around. If they are saying that in offering a hotel bed the escape routes must be capable of use by anyone who may present themselves at the door, do they mean that if I present myself at the door of any guest house in their area in a wheelchair I will be able to use all the escape routes?
I am not sure of the legislation but isn't there a definition that if you call yourself a hotel etc. you must accept anyone who presents themself at the door. Therefore as the house in question does not accept anybody it cannot be defined as a hotel etc. so the requirements cannot be applied.
-
Mike
I would suggest that their reply may simply be that the requirements can be applied by virtue of it not being a "single private dwelling".
Kurnal
I would say the legal standing as far as the fire safety order goes is that is is definitely not a single private dwelling, so your only hope as you are aware is it being a HMO thus changing the enforcing authority to LA. But remember, even then the FRS could enforce their standard over the common areas to protect relevant persons which they may well do since it is an issue they are aware of so it is harder to 'wash their hands of it'.
-
It seems that the local authority can just 'declare it' a HMO. "Because I say so!"... Nice touch really. That would stop any arguments.
CivvyFSO they can, but have apply section 255 HMO declarations
(1) If a local housing authority are satisfied that subsection (2) applies to a building or part of a building in their area, they may serve a notice under this section (an “HMO declaration”) declaring the building or part to be a house in multiple occupation.
However whether a HMO or not. part 1 chapter 1 of the act applies to all residential premises and HHSRS guidance applies.
HHSRS is a risk assessment procedure introduced by the Housing Act 2004 to replace the old fitness standard which formed part of the ‘Decent Home Standard’. The underlying principle of HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor - including freedom from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
I fully agree with your submission #14
-
CivvyFSO
I think my client would have no difficulty in implementing the benchmark standards recommended in all HMO guidance documents, because for a two storey HMO building window exits would be permitted. In fact they are compliant already apart from the need for the smoke detectors to be interconnected.
I agree it is not a single private dwelling and therefore the RRO may apply to all of the building if a hotel or just the common parts if it is an HMO. From the RRO point of view the fire authority have no problem with the common areas- relevant persons are not at risk in the common areas.
The fire authority view is that window exits are not appropriate means of escape from hotel bedrooms. And I agree with them. But still not sure that this is a hotel because accommodation is not offered to Joe Public. If you dont work for Company A or Company B you will not be offered accommodation here.
Hey and thanks to all for helping me get my head round the issues here.
-
Hi Kurnal
I have to agree with the majority of posters whom say this wouldn't be a HMO
I accept the argument about it not being a true guest house because Joe Public can't just turn up on spec.
It sounds almost like a "hostel" in a funny kind of way (not a hostel in the traditional sense, but in as much that a specific group of people use it for short term accomodation).
For it to be classed as a HMO then I would suggest long term residency would be a key factor (ie to the people staying there stop for a long period of time) and it would have to be the main residence for the tennants which occupy it.
So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.
Furthermore I cant understand how sprinklers could help in this scenario.
-
Thanks again.
Another of my clients has a national retail training centre. The company owns four new three storey houses for use by company staff whilst on courses- which range from 2 days to 1 month. This local council (a different one) says they are HMOs and has licenced them.
Housing Act 2004
259 HMOs: persons treated as occupying premises as only or main residence
(1) This section sets out when persons are to be treated for the purposes of section 254 as occupying a building or part of a building as their only or main residence.
(2) A person is to be treated as so occupying a building or part of a building if it is occupied by the person—
(a) as the person’s residence for the purpose of undertaking a full-time course of further or higher education;
(b) as a refuge, or
(c) in any other circumstances which are circumstances of a description specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the appropriate national authority.
In (a) above it does not specify how long a full time course of further education is- could this be one full day, one full week or one full month?
Does vocational training constitute further or higher education? Or apprenticeships?
-
So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.
Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?
Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?
By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??
-
"Hostel" does seem to fit the building use much better, but still applies the CLG guides and RRO to all areas/rooms. BUT the CLG guides acknowledge in them that premises do differ, and also the whole point of the guides and the RRO is that risk assessment is the methodology in deciding what protection/facilities are required. I personally would not accept window escapes, but... It's only 2 storey... Decent AFD, decent fire doors and control of ignition sources/combustibles in the entrance hall could possibly ensure that nobody is jumping out of windows in the first place.
For what its worth: The persons in their rooms are relevant persons even if the rooms could be classified as single private dwellings, and it is possible to enforce standards in the common areas that protect the people in their rooms from a fire in the common areas/kitchens etc. Don't forget, if someone can be affected by a fire in the premises then they are a relevant person and the RP should take steps to protect them. (As far as reasonably... blah) IMO, there is nobody more relevant or more in danger than the sleeping guests.
>>In (a) above it does not specify how long a full time course of further education is- could this be one full day, one full week or one full month?<<
>>Does vocational training constitute further or higher education? Or apprenticeships?<<
Hmmm... I shall argue the case that anywhere I stay can be a refuge... It is my refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life, so me stopping at your hotel makes it a refuge. :) Do we really need definitions for everything? If we revert to common sense we do (somewhere inside our heads) know that a full time course is a full year and takes a similar chunk of a week to a full time job.
-
I personally would not accept window escapes, but... It's only 2 storey... Decent AFD, decent fire doors and control of ignition sources/combustibles in the entrance hall could possibly ensure that nobody is jumping out of windows in the first place.
But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.
There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??
-
So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.
Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?
Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?
By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??
Are you questioning me Mr B?
Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"
Joking aside it is a fair point you make PhilB, but I just wouldn't be comfortable accepting window escapes in this instance.
I wouldn't allow escape windows in a hotel, and furthermore you would need to inform the guests that they should use the windows for means of escape purposes. Would guests be happy in doing that?
Im fairly fit (for a 25 stone man) young and able, but I wouldn't be too keen on dropping from a first floor window.
Guest Houses, Hostels and the like In my opinion differ slightly to HMOs
In a HMO the aim is to try and retain a more "homely " atmosphere. Several guides allow HMOs to have escape windows because it is easier than trying to form protected routes in victorian terraced houses for instance.
I don't know... with a risk assessment yes you might be able to justify it but as an I.O. im not sure Id be happy with it and there would be a lot of additional factors to consider before I gave it the thumbs up.
-
Are you questioning me Mr B?
Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"
Thanks Retty. Dear old Toddddddy the forum has never been quite the same since he left.
-
Hmmm... I shall argue the case that anywhere I stay can be a refuge... It is my refuge from the hustle and bustle of daily life, so me stopping at your hotel makes it a refuge. :)
Sorry CivvyFSO they have that one covered.
(3) In subsection (2)(b) “refuge” means a building or part of a building managed by a voluntary organisation and used wholly or mainly for the temporary accommodation of persons who have left their homes as a result of—
(a) physical violence or mental abuse, or
(b) threats of such violence or abuse,
from persons to whom they are or were married or with whom they are or were co-habiting.
Unless there is something you are not telling us. :(
-
So in conclusion I would have to suggest window escapes are insufficient.
Why Retty??? just because a guide says so?
Why can't Kurnal risk assess the situation and come up with a reasonable solution that provides an adequate degree of safety for the persons who reside there?
By the way the legislation covering hotels is the Hotel Proprieters Act of 56 I think. Under that Act they must provide food drink and maybe a bed to anyone who presents themselves in a fit state to be admitted...i.e. not drunk or smelly. ......but they do not have to let you in if you have a ferocious animal with you....where did I leave my anorak??
Are you questioning me Mr B?
Having done my CS Todddddd and FSC courses I feel im more than qualified to determine that window escapes are insufficient here, and by the way you left your anorak over by that dusty copy of "My first ladybird book of fire risk assessment"
Joking aside it is a fair point you make PhilB, but I just wouldn't be comfortable accepting window escapes in this instance.
I wouldn't allow escape windows in a hotel, and furthermore you would need to inform the guests that they should use the windows for means of escape purposes. Would guests be happy in doing that?
Im fairly fit (for a 25 stone man) young and able, but I wouldn't be too keen on dropping from a first floor window.
Guest Houses, Hostels and the like In my opinion differ slightly to HMOs
In a HMO the aim is to try and retain a more "homely " atmosphere. Several guides allow HMOs to have escape windows because it is easier than trying to form protected routes in victorian terraced houses for instance.
I don't know... with a risk assessment yes you might be able to justify it but as an I.O. im not sure Id be happy with it and there would be a lot of additional factors to consider before I gave it the thumbs up.
I agree with you MR (not about the whereabouts of the users anorak though). This isn't a HMO and window escapes arent acceptable. The case described is no different to a hotel and risk assessment junkies out there had better come up with a damn fine justification for the use of window escapes. In the 21st Century I don't think window escapes should be accepted anywhere. This is one of those cases where it kicks itself up the backside perpetually.
-
I agree with you MR (not about the whereabouts of the users anorak though). This isn't a HMO and window escapes arent acceptable. The case described is no different to a hotel and risk assessment junkies out there had better come up with a damn fine justification for the use of window escape.
In the 21st Century I don't think window escapes should be accepted anywhere. This is one of those cases where it kicks itself up the backside perpetually.
So risk assessment is out???
Should ADB be amended to delete the recommendations for emergency egress windows???
If the risk assessment junkies (or the competent professionals) can justify deviating from a guide may an alternative solution be considered???
Is code hugging the way forward???
-
I think you have taken me out of context. Nope in my world window escapes havent got a place in todays environment (other than perhaps ground floor). By the same token no I dont think risk assessment should be ousted. Yes I think ADB should be ammended, but code hugging is a definate no no. Im a great fan of " competent professionals" but there are too many "risk assessment junkies" out there who think recommending less than the minimal requirements would be acceptable. Window escapes are troublesome. The term able bodies is banded around alot. Define the term able bodied for me. I am overwieght. Will I fit through the window? will i risk injury if I fall from height? Would my 3 year old daughter be ok if I dropped her out the window using a matress to soften the blow?. Would my 80 year old mother in law be able to use a window escape? SHe isnt classed as less abled and is in good nick as 80 year olds go!
-
But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.
There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??
I shall clear this one up for you then. By "accept" I mean it is possibly of a standard where I do not believe that relevant persons are at risk of death of serious injury in the event of a fire, and therefore I would not be serving an immediate prohibition/restriction notice and initiating a prosecution. If prohibition/enforcement was necessary then I would serve the notices and wait for an appeal and happily let the courts decide.
I would suggest that dropping from a 4.5m high window quite simply does not fit in with the requirements of article 14 or any CLG guidance. If something went seriously wrong and the windows were an absolute last resort then that may be fair enough, but I would still look at making the main route in/out as safe as possible.
Just to be extra awkward: If the window escape was above another window I may also insist on that window below being 30min FR since it is within 1.8m of what you would be dropping past. So there. :-p
-
But it is not for you to accept Civvy..the responsible person has to risk assess and come up with a solution...if you don't like that solution you may serve a notice on him but it would be for a court to decide if what he has done is acceptable.
There are many small B&Bs that were designed as houses and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out. If all guests are able bodied, what is wrong with egress windows??
I shall clear this one up for you then. By "accept" I mean it is possibly of a standard where I do not believe that relevant persons are at risk of death of serious injury in the event of a fire, and therefore I would not be serving an immediate prohibition/restriction notice and initiating a prosecution. If prohibition/enforcement was necessary then I would serve the notices and wait for an appeal and happily let the courts decide.
I would suggest that dropping from a 4.5m high window quite simply does not fit in with the requirements of article 14 or any CLG guidance. If something went seriously wrong and the windows were an absolute last resort then that may be fair enough, but I would still look at making the main route in/out as safe as possible.
Just to be extra awkward: If the window escape was above another window I may also insist on that window below being 30min FR since it is within 1.8m of what you would be dropping past. So there. :-p
I think I love you! You meet my criteria as being a "competent proffesional" but it is surely way passed your bedtime get some sleep! :D
-
as these residents are employees then surely the employer should be asking for a copy of the significant findings from the B&B/HMO. these need explaining in some detail as to how they are or not compliant. then the argument of what is reasonable or not may become a business perspective. it may be that the employer is happy to send his normally ambulant persons to these premises but to send his employees with physical impairments elsewhere. he should however be given all the information he needs to make his decision on the safety of his relevant persons. if he is to move his business elsewhere then it may be reasonable or appropriate to spend money on more general fire precautions.
-
Window escapes are troublesome. The term able bodies is banded around alot. Define the term able bodied for me. I am overwieght. Will I fit through the window? will i risk injury if I fall from height? Would my 3 year old daughter be ok if I dropped her out the window using a matress to soften the blow?. Would my 80 year old mother in law be able to use a window escape? SHe isnt classed as less abled and is in good nick as 80 year olds go!
I agree with you Clevelandfire but in this case the people are able bodied. I don't like window escapes but many pposters on here will be living in houses designed in accordance with the building regs that rely on emergency egress windows for satisfactory means of escape.
There are many many B&Bs around the UK that were also designed in that way and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out.
What do we do? Should they all be put out of business??
Please don't think I'm recommending window escape as the definitive solution, but various solutions will have to be considered that are outside the CLG guides. As many of us know those guides are full of errors anyway and written and coloured in by some strange cow and horse loving junkies.!
Civvy you really should borrow Midland Retty's "My First Ladybird Book of Fire Law". You don't have to wait for persons to be placed at risk of death or serious injury before you serve a notice. You could use an enforcement notice.
-
Civvy you really should borrow Midland Retty's "My First Ladybird Book of Fire Law". You don't have to wait for persons to be placed at risk of death or serious injury before you serve a notice. You could use an enforcement notice.
How very amusing.
Do you seriously think that I am unaware of the process behind serving an enforcement notice? Was it not made clear in that post that I just may have a reasonable grasp of the RRO?
-
Window escapes are troublesome. The term able bodies is banded around alot. Define the term able bodied for me. I am overwieght. Will I fit through the window? will i risk injury if I fall from height? Would my 3 year old daughter be ok if I dropped her out the window using a matress to soften the blow?. Would my 80 year old mother in law be able to use a window escape? SHe isnt classed as less abled and is in good nick as 80 year olds go!
I agree with you Clevelandfire but in this case the people are able bodied. I don't like window escapes but many pposters on here will be living in houses designed in accordance with the building regs that rely on emergency egress windows for satisfactory means of escape.
There are many many B&Bs around the UK that were also designed in that way and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide a protected route out.
What do we do? Should they all be put out of business??
Please don't think I'm recommending window escape as the definitive solution, but various solutions will have to be considered that are outside the CLG guides. As many of us know those guides are full of errors anyway and written and coloured in by some strange cow and horse loving junkies.!
Civvy you really should borrow Midland Retty's "My First Ladybird Book of Fire Law". You don't have to wait for persons to be placed at risk of death or serious injury before you serve a notice. You could use an enforcement notice.
Mr PhilB will you please :-
a) Stop nicking my ladybird books
b) Read Civvyfso's post again and you will see s/he knows what notices are issued and when tut tut.
c) accept our point of view and admit you are wrong :D
Window escapes are acceptable in someone's home to retain "homely atmosphere", save space, cut down on materials used in construction plus not many authorities have jurisidiction to enforce standards in single domestic dwellings anyway so.. .
But yes I do take on board your point that sometimes window escape may be the only option due to the layout of the building not lending itself to any other form of fire precuations.
-
My many learned and occasssionally agumentative colleagues.
When the FSO came about did we not salute the central governement for providing us all with ONE set of guidance documents that all clearly state risk assessment, getting rid of that prescriptive stuff about guilty within the FP Act for contraventions and allowing fire officers to ensure all relevent persons are safe.
Why then are different authorities accepting local documents when the chosen few in CENTRAL GOVERNMENT have gone to such vast expense and time and effert in getting some reasonble (note small print) guidance documents.
If your local authority have moved away from the national guidance or not accepted the national guidance in the first instance, is it no wonder this question about jumping through a squar'ish hole in a wall 15 feet above the ground, landing who knows where, and...well its just rubbish, I say again Rubbish standards in the 21st century.
Sir Coroner. I am employed by a FRS and had the enforcement authority placed upon my shoulders to ensure people who are classed as relevent persons were safe and I did nowt! I let these people jump, one at a time, on to the ...railings...parked cars...bins...bottle store...small spikey bushes whilst the remainder persihed in the room above from fire.
Gentlemen refer to the national published guidance document.
Lacors is only draft and currntly only for comment.
Right now on my shelf I have a robust "reasonable" standard national document. Lacors does not recognise the British standards for Fire alarms...but then neither does the national guidance document! But thats for another time.
Ask yourselves where are most people dying or being seriously injured. Then look again at Lacors will it make a difference to life safety or only to landlords pockets!
Its friday aftenoon what are you all still doing at work.....ahhhh money for newer anaraks
Regards to you all
Davio
-
My many learned and occasssionally agumentative colleagues.
When the FSO came about did we not salute the central governement for providing us all with ONE set of guidance documents that all clearly state risk assessment, getting rid of that prescriptive stuff about guilty within the FP Act for contraventions and allowing fire officers to ensure all relevent persons are safe.
Why then are different authorities accepting local documents when the chosen few in CENTRAL GOVERNMENT have gone to such vast expense and time and effert in getting some reasonble (note small print) guidance documents.
If your local authority have moved away from the national guidance or not accepted the national guidance in the first instance, is it no wonder this question about jumping through a squar'ish hole in a wall 15 feet above the ground, landing who knows where, and...well its just rubbish, I say again Rubbish standards in the 21st century.
Sir Coroner. I am employed by a FRS and had the enforcement authority placed upon my shoulders to ensure people who are classed as relevent persons were safe and I did nowt! I let these people jump, one at a time, on to the ...railings...parked cars...bins...bottle store...small spikey bushes whilst the remainder persihed in the room above from fire.
Gentlemen refer to the national published guidance document.
Lacors is only draft and currntly only for comment.
Right now on my shelf I have a robust "reasonable" standard national document. Lacors does not recognise the British standards for Fire alarms...but then neither does the national guidance document! But thats for another time.
Ask yourselves where are most people dying or being seriously injured. Then look again at Lacors will it make a difference to life safety or only to landlords pockets!
Its friday aftenoon what are you all still doing at work.....ahhhh money for newer anaraks
Regards to you all
Davio
You can't go round saying things like that on a friday afternoon - it's too much like common sense
Did I hear on the grapevine that things like the HOMESTAMP guide (used in the West Mids) and similar localised guidance around the country will be phased out and replaced by a nationally agreed guidance document relating to Fire Safety in HMOs.
-
Retty
Yes, there is a consultation document doing the rounds from LACOR which I understand has the backing of CFOA
-
The cost of producing this document, (wages for author) was shared equally between LACORS, CFOA and CIEH. The production was only managed by LACORS. The consultation period finished today.
Those responses, (I hope you all contributed), will be worked up over the next two months and the document will then, hopefully be badged by every interested stakeholder including landlord's representatives. CLG which covers both fire and housing will be closely involved.
It will not be perfect, nothing ever is, especiaslly in a risk assessment world. Have you any better suggestions.
I seem to remember that the very documents you are supporting were being torn apart twelve months ago.
-
Friday afternoon/evening we of the anarak brigade do not require sleep...pass me another double espesso coffee!
Midland Red your local guidance may well be superceded as ours was 18months ago by the current national guidance.
Val the varoius associations you mentioned have supported the theory of the draft document and allowed us minows to comment...and from my area...how we have commented and taken forward our arguments.
I have no doubt that Lacors is a done deal but please lets make sure that people are safe by walking to safety, down stairs and not acting like spider man cos I have yet to see a squirty thing leave anyones lower arm that allows a controlled descent to a perfectly soft and smooth paved area. I only see...well it aint nice and its right outside my comfort zone. We have something like 18,000 HMO in my immiediate area. Thats a lot of "incidents"!
Previously we had a chance to get it right and some people just don't like it.
We can "Take 2" lets get it right this time.
My FRS has certainly made our voice heard nationally through CFOA.
Regards Davio1960
-
Like all things risk assessed, some want prescription whilst others want to do away with standards to help themselves. What we all have to ask is what is the risk? If an a ssessment can prove that there is risk but it is manged then that is all we can ask. the prohibitive cost of prescriptive fire safety for the sake of a lot of ifs and buts need to be balanced against what can happen. The assessment should be just that an assessment of the fire risks for a premises type against a published guidance document that is only one method of doing something in a type of premises. there are many that do not fit the guides and thats where the professional makes a judhement based on the hazards and the risks that ensue from those. Article 34 is quite exact when it states that the RP has the onus of responsibility in accordance with ALARP.
-
How do the building owners insure themselves? Ie, are they insured as a hotel or hmo?
-
Sir Coroner. I am employed by a FRS and had the enforcement authority placed upon my shoulders to ensure people who are classed as relevent persons were safe and I did nowt! I let these people jump, one at a time, on to the ...railings...parked cars...bins...bottle store...small spikey bushes whilst the remainder persihed in the room above from fire.
Gentlemen refer to the national published guidance document.
Davio
So if I refer to the national published guidance document I will be ok? Regardless if that document has errors or has been written by people with questionable competence?
Competent persons appointed by competent enforcing authorities will hopefully be able to make decisions based on professional judgement and common sense rather than hugging a code.
-
How very amusing.
Do you seriously think that I am unaware of the process behind serving an enforcement notice? Was it not made clear in that post that I just may have a reasonable grasp of the RRO?
No Civvy it was not made clear...but that was probably my fault.....no offence was intended. You must remember that I spend my life hugging my Janet & John fire safety books and trying to trip up anyone who may not conform to my prescriptive regime........just for fun!!
But if you need further cuddling let's don our anoraks and start a new thread!!!!
-
I do thank you all who have responded to this thread, and am grateful for your comments and advice. I am pleased that there is a spectrum of strongly held views often differing from my own.
Why do I post this type of query on the forum? I am only too well aware of my own responsibility as a risk assessor and that if any one gets hurt in premises in which I have given advice I will be in the dock alongside the RP.
Some have suggested that I do it to give the local brigade a slating- a them and us situation- honestly nothing could be further from the truth. I was privileged to be a fire service officer for 31 years - it was and remains the best job in the world and I very often wish I was still at the sharp end still working with you guys- la creme de la creme.
I dont usually post on the forum to seek specific advice on how to deal with a particular premises - I use it to explore grey areas- and there are many, and to expose and explore inconsistencies in guidance and standards. In doing this I use examples I come across in my work- but often have to introduce a little poetic licence to fully explore an issue that based on the real life case may be overlooked.
So in truth in this case yes it is currently a small hotel, and all I have done so far is give free advice.
My view is as most of yours- I would not have my mum sleep in a first floor hotel room with a window escape. And I agree fully with the fire officer on this. So I gave three or four seperate options for improvement- all of which were difficult and probably not economically viable for this small business.
But when we considered the persons at risk - and found that more or less all clients were able bodied young and fit people on apprentice schemes, and that the windows are all large and easy to open onto a bay window, that storey height is fairly low, and realised that if they were not staying in this rather nice building they could equally be instead in some seedy bedsit in the city centre relying on a window for escape (in accordance with National guidance) I suggested to the owner that they investigate and explore the reclassification from hotel to HMO because they are already almost in compliance with the latest draft standards published by LACORS currently under consultation.
If it will work for them its an option to consider - otherwise they will need to upgrade the accommodation to hotel standard.
I find the Housing Act a nightmare and the definition of a HMO unclear, and I believe the reason for accepting means of escape via windows in a HMO is purely political expediency. I think that otherwise by nature of the style of enforcement by Environmental Health Departments many people would otherwise be made homeless. I fail to understand why we still accept window exits from the first floor of new dwelling houses though. I posted this thread to seek your views and broaden my understanding of the Housing Legislation and the definition of HMOs- and you have not let me down!
Like all of you I want to reduce risk ALARP in all premises I work in. And this is where the discussion starts. We do have a legal definition of reasonably practicable and it does involve the balancing of risk, difficulty, cost, upheaval, and sometimes political expediency. I accept also sometimes you do have to say it cant be done- the building is unsuitable for purpose.
-
Spot on Kurnal...that is what this forum is all about.
No one has all the answers...not even me!!!!....... but if you have a question it's worth posting because there is a wealth of knowlege on here..
......You do have to put up with the ocassional flippent remarks from the likes of Civvy & Retty .......and many others .......but my anorak has sufficient lining to deal with such wipper-snappers!!
What I like most about this site is the opportunity to discuss such a vast subject area......with so many....
.....long may it continue.
-
It's interesting that CLG now supports national guidance. In the run up to the introduction of the Housing Act both LHAs and others were begging the (then) ODPM to produce some guidance. They flatly refused to do so saying that the RRO guide would be sufficient. One of the effects of the final delay to the Order was that the Housing Act came into effect with LHA officers feeling that there was no guidance whatever. (NB risk assessment/common sense approach to Fire Safety was a completely new concept to many housing officers. We had been getting used to it since 1997). Unsurprisingly a great many LHAs began to produce their own guides, many in consultation with either their local FRS or consultants.
My concern is that this new national guidance is far too late and will not be adopted by most.
-
theres a lot of Love in this forum
-
As a child of the flower power era Im all for it. As someone once said - All you need is Love- and Love overcomes.
Provided we are safe from fire of course.
-
Im rather tearful and slightly philosophical now that was beautiful
-
flippent remarks from the likes of Civvy
Flippa[/u][/i]nt
.....long may it continue.
Amen!
-
ocassional flippent remarks from the likes of Civvy & Retty .......and many others .......
I resemble that comment Mr Barry
-
Kurnal's view of posting threads that command responsive debate is highly commendable.
I've carried out FRA's in both uniform & civvies, sometimes we think we know the answer to a situation purely by the unwritten legacy of "older hands" that we learned our skills from, only to find that the particular phrase or words you have used for years don't exist anywhere in print.
Fire safety is a dynamic subject, forever changing with trends, legislation, fire situations and new building materials & design & fire engineering techniques, I find that bouncing issues off your peers in a forum such as this extremely useful....long may it continue, (PS is it safe to throw out my Yellow Blue & Pink Guides now!)
-
No- I reckon you should keep them keep em along with the red brown an lilac ones, cp3 and your post war building studies. Its really interesting to trace the development of standards and as evidence to show those following us that sometimes standards are changed for no good reason at all. Take the calculation of exit capacity and then try and apply current guidance to situations that you encounter such as a 600mm restriction on an exit route. Or the 13m long dead end in an old hotel bedroom corridor. At least the old guides help you make sense of it and apply perspective.
-
No- I reckon you should keep them keep em along with the red brown an lilac ones, cp3 and your post war building studies. Its really interesting to trace the development of standards and as evidence to show those following us that sometimes standards are changed for no good reason at all. Take the calculation of exit capacity and then try and apply current guidance to situations that you encounter such as a 600mm restriction on an exit route. Or the 13m long dead end in an old hotel bedroom corridor. At least the old guides help you make sense of it and apply perspective.
I agree whole heartedly with that statement. Whilst some of the requirements contained in the old guidance documents was over prescriptive and unrealistic, other parts of it was good honest common sense stuff which can be carried forward to the modern day.
The debate and opinions that people have given on this website has helped me no end and in some cases has transfomed my own outlook about safety and the way I approach things. And this is coming from someone who has done thrity years in the fire service , ten of which have been in fire safety. Who says leopards can't change their spots, or you can't teach old dogs new tricks.