FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: wizzer on March 14, 2008, 05:15:34 PM
-
If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?
-
Thats a very good question. To find the answer would be the golden grail for most fire safety and housing inspectors.It will take a test case to define whats what, to what extent a resident could be enforced upon.
-
I'm a little confused with this question.
How can it be a single private dwelling and have common areas
sorry if this is obvious to the experts
-
Where you have a block of flats that are all privately owned individually. The corridors leading to the flat door is a common area
-
If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?
I hate to repeat myself on the subject of single private dwellings so I won't....please read related posts
Answer to question...yes...read article 32(10)...anyone including flat owner could be prosecuted....anyone who has to any extent control...could be served an enforcement notice....(that would in my opinion include the owner of the flat).
Does anyone send their FSOs on training courses????????????? the newish fire safety order is quite good and far simpler than previous fire law......why does this subject always seem to confuse....serious question???!!!!
-
If an occupier of a self contained flat (single private dwelling) changes the entrance door to the common areas to a non fire resisting type can enforcement action be taken? And if so who would the notice be served on, the managing agent might say they have no control inside the flat?
I hate to repeat myself on the subject of single private dwellings so I won't....please read related posts
Answer to question...yes...read article 32(10)...anyone including flat owner could be prosecuted....anyone who has to any extent control...could be served an enforcement notice....(that would in my opinion include the owner of the flat).
Does anyone send their FSOs on training courses????????????? the newish fire safety order is quite good and far simpler than previous fire law......why does this subject always seem to confuse....serious question???!!!!
Yes as you say IN YOUR OPINION sunny Jim
Instead of sitting there all righteous and wise can you give me one occassion where that has actually happened. You try and take a private resident to court matey boy because I have a strange feeling it will be case law that decides this not the law according to you.Is no body sending Fire Service College instructors on common sense courses these days ?????????????????????
I am absolutely fuming. What an absolutely daft post. Thats what I call a urinating in the wind post and you haven't just sprayed yourself you have managed to spray a few innocent bystanders whilst you are at it.
-
Yes as you say IN YOUR OPINION sunny Jim
Instead of sitting there all righteous and wise can you give me one occassion where that has actually happened. You try and take a private resident to court matey boy because I have a strange feeling it will be case law that decides this not the law according to you.Is no body sending Fire Service College instructors on common sense courses these days ?????????????????????
I am absolutely fuming. What an absolutely daft post. Thats what I call a urinating in the wind post and you haven't just sprayed yourself you have managed to spray a few innocent bystanders whilst you are at it.
First point, I'm not a fire service college instructor.
I was asking a serious question, why when the Fire Safety Order is a lot simpler to read and understand than previous fire law do people get so confused on the subject of domestic premises?
Yes it is my opinion and no I don't know of any case law because in my common sense world the problem doesn't often happen so there is unlikely to be any case law.
Artcile 32(10) is clear, any person can be prosecuted, if an offence of one person is caused by the act of another.
Another FACT is that anyone with ANY EXTENT control can be served an enforcement notice. So in this scenario if the owner of a domestic premises removed a fire door that protected relevant persons, and he is also a relevant person, why do you not think he could be served with a notice to replace it, or prosecuted if he placed persons at serious risk?
Last point, if the best you can do is base your arguement on a 'strange feeling' that you have perhaps you have a training need, the FSC might be able to help if they have any fire safety instructors left.
.....and you should go to bed earlier Cleveland you get very grumpy in the early hours!
-
Getting back to the discussion some of you will remember the old FP Act. When we isssued 5(4) notices we could make requirements in dwellings if they could effect the means of escape from the premises we were certificating.
Example would be a caretakers flat in an office block, we could require detection, but not a sounder in the flat. We could require the front door to be a fire door and we often did.
If he removed the detector or the door we could serve an 8(4) notice to make him replace it. The situation is no different in your scenario Wizzer, except that now we have no power of entry to the flat, under the 71 Act we did have power of entry if 24hrs notice was given. I think it unfortunate that they didn't retain that power in the fire safety order.
-
An interesting scenario in the original question. And a new twist as a result of the Fire Safety Order which does not apply to domestic accommodation but does apply to the common areas. NB we must remember that things are different in Scotland, as the Fire Scotland Act also does not cover the common areas but this is to some extent balanced by the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 which makes it very clear exactly what the dutes and responsibilities of title involve.
In England it brings us back to the old chestnut- is the flat entrance door part of the common areas or part of the domestic accommodation. In privately owned flats it may be the owner of the flat or it may be the management body and in practical terms I dont think it would matter.
It is important though that for new developments and conversions that solicitors should consider this to make it easier for the future or maybe we need a title conditions bill as the Scots have?
I would see it working like this. If the person removed the door from their flat - and there were other flats in the block above their own level then removal of the door may create dangerous conditions for all levels above the one affected.
A prohibition notice would be served on all flats and common areas above the level affected including on the management body prohibiting use until the door was replaced.
The management body or owner of the common areas would ensure steps were taken quick as you like to replace the door and would then seek redress in the civil courts to recover the costs from the person who removed the door and if necessary an injunction to prevent it happening again.
The flats are subject to article 31 and a prohibition notice can be enforced as article 31 applies to ALL premises EXCEPT those comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling.
-
I would see it working like this. If the person removed the door from their flat - and there were other flats in the block above their own level then removal of the door may create dangerous conditions for all levels above the one affected.
A prohibition notice would be served on all flats and common areas above the level affected including on the management body prohibiting use until the door was replaced.
The management body or owner of the common areas would ensure steps were taken quick as you like to replace the door and would then seek redress in the civil courts to recover the costs from the person who removed the door and if necessary an injunction to prevent it happening again.
The flats are subject to article 31 and a prohibition notice can be enforced as article 31 applies to ALL premises EXCEPT those comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling.
Quite agree Kurnal but if it wasn't so serious to warrant a 31 notice do you not agree that an enforcement notice could be served...you would need to make sure it was served on the right person but I can see no problem with serving it.
-
Yes and it would be served on the Responsible person - probably the Company Secretary of the management company or the chair of the management committee.
It would not be served on the owner of the flat in my view. You would have to be prepared to demonstrate to the court, on appeal, that they " had to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." To do that you would have to refer to the title deeds and rely on there being such a clause giving this responsibility. Unlike in Scotland.
-
I do not think it would be prohibitable, afetr all, all doors will provide protection against fire to some degree and therefore an enforcment notice should suffice.
-
Yes and it would be served on the Responsible person - probably the Company Secretary of the management company or the chair of the management committee.
It would not be served on the owner of the flat in my view. You would have to be prepared to demonstrate to the court, on appeal, that they " had to any extent, control of those premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control." To do that you would have to refer to the title deeds and rely on there being such a clause giving this responsibility. Unlike in Scotland.
But if you remove your front door surely you are exercising control.
Lets take it a step further, you serve the notice on the RP and he replaces the door, the next day the owner of the flat takes it off again and so it continues.
The RP has failed to comply with the notice and is committing an offence. But if he can demonstrate due dilligence he has a defence and the flat owner could be prosecuted onder 32(10).....in my humble opinion of course.
-
Yes of course and that is where action article 32 may be used. In the same way a vandal could come along and take off the front door and you would not serve a notice on the vandal.
What would you require as the steps to be taken in your notice on the tenant who has already shown such ignorance and recklessness for the safety of others? Is this person likely to be diligent in meeting the requirements? You cant serve an enforcement notice to stop someone from doing something, an enforcement notice is all about remedy. This tenant is no better than a vandal. The worse possible outcome would be that they could appeal and with legal aid they may win on the grounds that in issuing the enforcement notice you have not shown that they have responsibilities under article 5. Where would that leave the authority?
No I would say back the sure winner and go for the Responsible person for the common areas. As someone said earlier a flat on its own is a bungalow. A bungalow does not need a fire resisting entrance door. So the fire door at the entrance to the flat must be part of the common areas M'Lud.
-
Yes good points Kurnal I mostly agree but I still think that if the owner is not a vandal as you describe and has just done something to his door that rendered the means of escape inadequate we may be able to serve anotice on him.
Who is the responsible person in a block of private flats, lets say four private owned flats and the owners between them manage the common parts...the plot thickens!!
I think the most important point in answer to the original question is that something could be done to remedy the problem eventhough the premises are domestic and not subject to the Fire Safety Order.
I'll don my anorak and dissappear now before that scarey Mr Cleaveland wakes up.
-
Yes it is my opinion and no I don't know of any case law because in my common sense world the problem doesn't often happen so there is unlikely to be any case law.
"doesn't opften happen" - you are kidding, we are getting this all over the place now. This problem is getting more and more frequent. There are hundreds of thousands of privately owned flats where the owner has changed their front door and there arent any other provisions as counter measures. Believe me we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
-
No I would say back the sure winner and go for the Responsible person for the common areas. As someone said earlier a flat on its own is a bungalow. A bungalow does not need a fire resisting entrance door. So the fire door at the entrance to the flat must be part of the common areas M'Lud.
Indeed Kurnal but in some blocks of privately owned flats there is no defined RP as tthe residents havent set up their own committees, or dont employ a managing agent. As you say we wouldnd't serve an enforcement notice on a private resident as PhilB thinks we could. That is just a dead end scenario.
-
The situation is no different in your scenario Wizzer, except that now we have no power of entry to the flat, under the 71 Act we did have power of entry if 24hrs notice was given. I think it unfortunate that they didn't retain that power in the fire safety order.
But we do still have powers of entry under the FSO if 24 hours notice is given
-
Just to confuse the debate further I have come across this situation in a block where we have done an FRA this week. The block comprises of ground first and second floors with 2 flats on each floor (single stair). Nearly all the doors or doors and frames have been replaced with non FR doors or the glazing is not FR. Also doors to the electrical intake cupboard are non FR.
We have been dealing with the property management company - lets call it Bloggs Property Services Ltd who manage a portfolio of 65 residential blocks. There is also a residents association on the block in question called “Woodbine Court Residents Management Ltd”
Before serving your notice it transpires that some of the doors have been changed by the current residents, other were already changed before the resident moved in. In all cases the doors have been changed without the consent or knowledge of the Residents association or Bloggs Management. This is due to ignorance of the fire safety requirements in that they would be unaware that the doors should not be changed. (I understand that ignorance would not be a suitable defence)
Who and how would you serve a notice on and how would you enforce it?
-
The situation is no different in your scenario Wizzer, except that now we have no power of entry to the flat, under the 71 Act we did have power of entry if 24hrs notice was given. I think it unfortunate that they didn't retain that power in the fire safety order.
But we do still have powers of entry under the FSO if 24 hours notice is given
No we don't Cleveland there is no power of entry to domestic premises other than for article 31 purposes. Do I detect a training need?
-
Yes it is my opinion and no I don't know of any case law because in my common sense world the problem doesn't often happen so there is unlikely to be any case law.
"doesn't opften happen" - you are kidding, we are getting this all over the place now. This problem is getting more and more frequent. There are hundreds of thousands of privately owned flats where the owner has changed their front door and there arent any other provisions as counter measures. Believe me we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
by 'doesn't often happen' I mean the problems can usually be resolved without serving notices. If you are having many situations like this perhaps you should try serving a few notices...what else do you propose?
-
Yes it is my opinion and no I don't know of any case law because in my common sense world the problem doesn't often happen so there is unlikely to be any case law.
"doesn't opften happen" - you are kidding, we are getting this all over the place now. This problem is getting more and more frequent. There are hundreds of thousands of privately owned flats where the owner has changed their front door and there arent any other provisions as counter measures. Believe me we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
by 'doesn't often happen' I mean the problems can usually be resolved without serving notices. If you are having many situations like this perhaps you should try serving a few notices...what else do you propose?
From the perspective of being able to get things resolved then yes I agree.
but we still do have access rights look again PhilB we can gain access even if we do not wish to take action but instead inspect or assess what is in individual flats
-
We have been dealing with the property management company - lets call it Bloggs Property Services Ltd who manage a portfolio of 65 residential blocks. There is also a residents association on the block in question called “Woodbine Court Residents Management Ltd”
Who and how would you serve a notice on and how would you enforce it?
Bloggs property services and the secretary of the woodbine management ltd. Serve it in the conventional way.
But follow the normal protocols first and see if you can agree an action plan before serving.
The powers on Article 27 and offiences in article 32 should enable you to do this effectively
Why are there so many problems with these premises and such a kerfuffle at the moment? Because they have been there for years and the fire authorities- under the previous legislation -had no direct responsibility or duty to enforce. They still dont in Scotland. We never went looking for problems and only visited in response to a complaint.
But the problems were there and have been for years.Its not really surprising that standards are dire where there has been no enforcement. And people who have been allowed to totally ignore their own duties and responsibilities are aggrieved when they have to step into the real world. It all really proves your worth.
So now you have the tools do do a good job and reduce the risk in the community, I just hope you also are given the necessary resources to do it- without neglecting other areas.
-
but we still do have access rights look again PhilB we can gain access even if we do not wish to take action but instead inspect or assess what is in individual flats
You have no power of entry uder the Fire Safety Order. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. Please explain why you believe there is such a power.
-
I know which section of which order or act gives us powers of entry in this respect, if you don't i suggest you look it up.
-
Let get this right, there are no powers of entry to domestic premises in the Order.
Flats are owned or leased and as such where comon areas exist, the owners or leaseholders become the Rp and as such can have a notice served upon them to uphold the fire protection of these areas which they would have to comply with.
As a point of interest, I understand why individauls and companies are involved in FRA's of these type of premises but why are FRS getting involved, surely they are low risk areas.
-
Yes as you say IN YOUR OPINION sunny Jim
I know which section of which order or act gives us powers of entry in this respect, if you don't i suggest you look it up.
Is no body sending Fire Service College instructors on common sense courses these days ?????????????????????
I am absolutely fuming. What an absolutely daft post.
Clevelandfire, there are, as far as I know, no powers of entry into domestic premises under the FSO other than for article 31 purposes. If there are and only you are aware of them why not educate those of us that are not as knowledgeable as you.
Before you accuse people of submitting daft posts, wrongly assume they work where they don’t and use terms such as “sunny jim” , may I respectfully suggest that you get your facts right and that you know what you’re talking about!
If you make such comments and then claim to know sections of the FSO that don’t exist....you tend, in my opinion only of course, to make yourself look rather silly.
-
Take a look in the order and see what it describes as constituting a domestic premises
-
Cleveland, I know how the order defines domestic premises.
It is as follows...."domestic premises" means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden, yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling);
The order does not apply to domestic premises, a flat in a block of flats is a domestic premises, you have no power of entry.
Please explain why you think you do.
-
a flat in a block flats is a single
domestic premises is it?
-
yes
-
are you sure?
is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?
-
are you sure?
is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?
Yes Sunny Jim, we're sure. What do you consider it to be Matey Boy?
-
There must be something in the water in Cleveland!
-
are you sure?
is it a SINGLE domestic dwelling?
Can't see what you are driving at.... have you urinated in the wind perhaps?
A flat meets all the criteria of being a domestic dwelling as defined in the RRFSO
Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.
I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.
In terms of actually prosecuting a resident I fully understand that there is the legal / legislative framework there in which to do it. Alas in reality I don't think it will be all that easy to follow through.
The managing agent scenario is much easier to deal with, but actually enforcing on an individual tennant or residents association maybe a toughie. But it is a scenario that will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later as Im finding a lot of my work now involves private flats and HMOs etc and Im sure many other Insp. Officers are finding the same. We will soon be needing definative guidance on how to approach these situations.
-
Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.
I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.
Sorry Retty there is in article 31(10) but I am still with PhilB on this one.
-
Infact there is no mention of the specific term "single domestic dwelling" whatsoever.
I think you have got that mixed up from the Workplace Regulations.
Sorry Retty there is in article 31(10) but I am still with PhilB on this one.
Shhhhhhh dont tell him that !!!
No quite right but I was refering to the fact it isn't mentioned as a single domestic dwelling anywhere in the "interpretation" section in Part 1, but I recognise in hindsight that I should have been clearer in what I said :)
-
No doubt you are all aware of this document that I was pointed in the direction of on here recently
Not sure if it covers doors to flats though as i've not read it all yet
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/16886.doc
-
yes it does
-
a flat in a block flats is a single
domestic premises is it?
Still a bit puzzled with where you are coming from on this one clevelandfire, would you by any chance be getting mixed up with HMO's at all?
as far as I can see from what PhilB has already said: Quote,
domestic premises" means premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any garden, yard, garage, outhouse, or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling);
it is the words in brackets that are the important bits, by excluding from the definition , common parts of blocks of flats, and similar premises , such as HMO's, such common parts fall within the scope of the FSO.
And Article 31(10) of the FSO, allows for a prohibition order to be served on an HMO, and this power is not limited purely to the common parts.
-
There may be some confusion here between a "private dwelling", and a "house which is occupied as a single private dwelling" as mentioned in article 31(10), and the latter being the key to the FRS/LA being able to prohibit/restrict the use of flats despite them being private dwellings.
Just a thought for 'discussion'.... From article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular..."
The 'in particular' being a key to suggest that the list that follows is not exhaustive.
So, in my opinion, if we have a need to enter any premises to be able to enforce the RRO then we can, BUT... That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever for us to require to enter domestic premises. If there is a reason there that would warrant entry, I would suggest that it is not a domestic premises in the first place and the reason for entry would be to prove that it is not a domestic premises. i.e. A workplace or similar.
(I would take advice from higher up before I went stamping around telling people to let me into what is potentially their home though.)
(And by 'higher up' I do not mean PhilB.)
-
Just a thought for 'discussion'.... From article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular..."
The 'in particular' being a key to suggest that the list that follows is not exhaustive.
So, in my opinion, if we have a need to enter any premises to be able to enforce the RRO then we can, BUT... That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever for us to require to enter domestic premises. If there is a reason there that would warrant entry, I would suggest that it is not a domestic premises in the first place and the reason for entry would be to prove that it is not a domestic premises. i.e. A workplace or similar.
(I would take advice from higher up before I went stamping around telling people to let me into what is potentially their home though.)
(And by 'higher up' I do not mean PhilB.)
No far better to listen to others, I know nothing!
But in my opinion you cannot enter any premises, that is made clear in Artcile 31(10). In that article only premises includes domestic premises....
"(10) In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly."
So powers of inspectors only apply to domestic premises in article 31 purposes i.e. prohibition or restriction.
I agree that if the premises is not being used as a domestic premises then no problem you can enter.
There may of course also be reasons to enter a domestic premises that is being used as a domestic premises e.g. a flat above a shop or a pub, to make sure relevant persons are not at risk....but unfortunately you cannot.
Under the 71 Act you could if 24hrs notice was given and unfortunately that power was not included in the Order.
-
I refer you once again to article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order"
Is that not quite a broad sword?
-
The problem here is that the term "anything necessary" could be taken in many ways.
Could it mean that as an inspector I could kill someone for the purpose of carrying out this order? (Of course not we would all say thats totally ridiculous).
Going on from that then does it mean that we are allowed to enter any premises, domestic included, at anytime? It's where things start to get a bit grey isn't it. Who decides what is ridiculous or definative? Its basically a Judge and a Jury at the end of the day.
I would suggest that possibly yes we are able to access a domestic dwelling. In order to ensure relevant persons aren't put at risk for instance (Im thinking of PhilB's example of a private flats above a commercial premises) then we would have no option but to potentially enter that domestic premises (the flat)
Im just trying to think if anything in the Fire and Rescue Services Act would help us here with powers of entry but I don't think it would, even if it did the FRSA isn't used for fire safety enforcement and could be seen as abuse of process.
The term "anything necessary" is so wooley that if you stuck tusks on it you'd swear it was a mammoth
Whatever your opinion you can see how a clever Barrister might start twisting those words "anything necessary" to his / her advantage .
So to conclude I think that in any event until an official definition is forthcoming I would always try to get myself "invited" into the domestic premises rather than demand entry. The nicey nicey approach does work sometimes.
-
I have only quickly skim read all the previous posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned by someone else...
Article 17 (2), (3) & (4) deal specifically with this point.
-
I refer you once again to article 27: "an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out of this Order"
Is that not quite a broad sword?
It is Civvy, very broad but that article and the rest of the Order does not apply to domestic premises by virtue of article 6....
6. —(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
So only for article 31 purposes...oh blimey I'm repeating myself!!!
It really is very clear...ask Clevelandfire to explain it.
-
No one ever said that legislation was knowingly made that satisfied every conceivable situation. There will always be anomolies. Its part of the price we pay for politicians giving more thought to their expenses claims that the provision of good sensible and workable laws. Remember dangerous dogs and firearms legislation.
The issue of right of entry to dwellings because every Englishman's home is his castle is a little outdated. You will probably find that more people have right of entry than you care to imagine. If someone is doing something in their own home and it could have an effect on the safety of persons outside that home then the right of entry is justified.
If you lived in a terrace house and you started bottling LPG in your spare time, would you not think that there is a enforcement authority somewhere who have a right to enter and stop the process. i.e. make it safe for other resident in the row? Why should an EA not be able to make a situation safe for other residents of a block of flats?
-
I have only quickly skim read all the previous posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned by someone else...
Article 17 (2), (3) & (4) deal specifically with this point.
It does peanut but it does not confer any power of entry.
So there is a duty to make arrangements for maintenance with occupiers of other premises even if the Order does not apply to those other premises, and the occupier of those premises must co-operate with the RP.
Hence my point earlier in this post saying that notices could be served on occupiers of domestic premises!!!!
......but...having said that, the ENFORCING AUTHORITY HAVE NO POWER OF ENTRY!!!!!
sorry didn't mean to shout.
-
I would suggest that it is not a domestic premises in the first place and the reason for entry would be to prove that it is not a domestic premises. i.e. A workplace or similar.
can anyone tell me if offices in domestic premises...ie working from home....is domestic or workplace?
Thanks
-
If you lived in a terrace house and you started bottling LPG in your spare time, would you not think that there is a enforcement authority somewhere who have a right to enter and stop the process. i.e. make it safe for other resident in the row? Why should an EA not be able to make a situation safe for other residents of a block of flats?
There is such a power in The Housing Act, Section 239 I believe.
-
can anyone tell me if offices in domestic premises...ie working from home....is domestic or workplace?
Thanks
Not black and white I'm afraid. There will be some buildings where part is domestic and part is not. Consider Mrs Prendergast corner shop.
You walk in the shop...not a domestic premises.......and she walks from her lounge through the beaded curtain to serve you...her lounge is domestic as no-one shares it and it is her dewelling.
If I work from home in my office, my office is in my domestic premises.......what if I start manufacturing widgets in my front room??...when does it become a factory???
In reality the situation will rarely bother the enforcing authority. If the Order does apply it is unlikely that five or more will be employed so although a FRA is required, there is no need to record the precribed information.
-
6. —(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
So only for article 31 purposes...oh blimey I'm repeating myself!!!
That simply states whether the order applies to the premises or not. It does not stop them from being "premises"
The Order defines "premises" as "any place".
Article 27(1): Anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order
Article 27(1)(a): "to enter any premises"
NOT "to enter any premises to which the order applies"
I also seem to be repeating myself.
:)
-
I think I want a change of career *reaches for bottle of whiskey*
-
The Order defines "premises" as "any place".
Article 27(1): Anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order
Article 27(1)(a): "to enter any premises"
NOT "to enter any premises to which the order applies"
I also seem to be repeating myself.
:)
Yes but article 31(10) qualifies that by saying "in this article" so therefore only in this article does premises include domestic premises....and ...........powers of entry shall be construed accordingly....but only in this article
If that wasn't the case why did they have to add article 31(10)...the power would have already have been there.
Article 31(10) was the last amendment before the Order received Royal Assent.......it was added for a purpose.
..........(10) In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly.
If we could enter any premises......the last 10 words would not be needed.
I'm going to lie down in a darkened room now...nite nite!
-
So there is a duty to make arrangements for maintenance with occupiers of other premises even if the Order does not apply to those other premises, and the occupier of those premises must co-operate with the RP.
Hence my point earlier in this post saying that notices could be served on occupiers of domestic premises!!!
Not convinced about this Phil. Yes Article 5(3) and 5 (4) and particularly article 17 reads as though it could apply to blocks of flats- especially 17(3) but article 6 is specific
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
there are no references to article 5 or 17 just to article 31. Thats clear enough for me.
In any case if article 5 or 17 did apply how could this be enforced as there is no provision for enforcement and no offences are defined that would cover the failure of tenants to implement the arrangements made by the Responsible Person in their persuance of article 17 (2,3 and 4)
-
That 'qualifies' it? Or that 'could be construed as qualifying' it?
Is that the closest you can come to proving that the word "premises" only applies if the Order applies?
On a truly pedantic level I feel the best argument would be:
There is a completely seperate definition for "domestic premises" therefore if just "premises" is mentioned then that is clearly NOT "domestic premises" that is being mentioned. :)
So I will stop arguing a point I don't actually believe now. Sorry etc. heh :)
-
So there is a duty to make arrangements for maintenance with occupiers of other premises even if the Order does not apply to those other premises, and the occupier of those premises must co-operate with the RP.
Hence my point earlier in this post saying that notices could be served on occupiers of domestic premises!!!
Not convinced about this Phil. Yes Article 5(3) and 5 (4) and particularly article 17 reads as though it could apply to blocks of flats- especially 17(3) but article 6 is specific
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
there are no references to article 5 or 17 just to article 31. Thats clear enough for me.
In any case if article 5 or 17 did apply how could this be enforced as there is no provision for enforcement and no offences are defined that would cover the failure of tenants to implement the arrangements made by the Responsible Person in their persuance of article 17 (2,3 and 4)
Blood hell don't you start Kurnal, could we not all meet in a pub and thrash this out???....my typing finger hurts!!
Yes article 6 is specific and the order does not apply to domestic premises except for article 31(10).
However article 17 is also specific with regard to maintenance if the domestic premises is in the same building as premises to which the order applies.
Consider a premises where the order does apply, lets say an office in a block. And in this office adjoining the escape route is a caretakers flat…(domestic premises).
By virtue of article 17 measures that are in the domestic premises that are required for the safety of persons by any enactment may need to be maintained,
e.g. FP Act 71 may have required a detector in there, or building regulations may have required the front door to be a fire door and self-closing.
If following the fire risk assessment those measures are still required they need to be maintained.
If those measures are not maintained there may be a contravention of the fire safety duties (article 8 -22), the enforcing authority could then serve an enforcement notice on any person who has to any extent control…probably the managing agent but maybe…just maybe the flat occupier.
If the managing agent tried to put things right but was prevented from doing so by the occupier of the domestic premises…he fails to comply with the notice…which is an offence….but he may have a defence of due diligence if the occupier was causing the problem….perhaps he’s an objectionable so and so from Cleveland!
The offence of not complying with the enforcement notice would therefore be the fault of Sunny Jim and he could be prosecuted under 32(10).
If the contravention puts persons at serious risk an offence has been committed, and if the offence is the fault of the flat owner he can be prosecuted by virtue of article 32(10).
-
So what exactly are you trying to say?
* CivvyFSO runs away laughing
-
I am more than happy to accept your offer of a pint Phil - thanks.
Yes I can see your point and we have discussed the pros and cons of serving a notice on a flat occupier earlier in this thread and the benefits of the Scottish approach.
I very much doubt we will ever see any case law on this- the way the order is written would make a fortune for the lawyers and an appeal would very likely be beyond the resources of the unfortunate recipient.
-
but he may have a defence of due diligence if the occupier was causing the problem….perhaps he’s an objectionable so and so from Cleveland!
Im not objectionable matey boy. I have ignored most of your jibes and will let that one pass as well. My verbal attack on you was extreme. I reacted because of one of you posts came across that you thought most people on here were thick and that you had to keep on explaining yourself.
That really frustrated me but perhaps I took it the wrong way. On reflection I wish I hadnt reacted like that but it was the way I felt at the time. I am man enough to offer you a pint should this pub meeting ever take place but please dont go outside to take a leak, the wind up here can be most blustery. The phrase to P*ss in the wind will be familiar to you , the secondary addition indicating that you might well have splashed other people is a Cleveland saying and I won't bore you with its origins but you can guess its meaning. I'd like to bury the hatchett (in your head) but offer solomn apologies instead.
Personally i think Kurnal is wrong in saying case law wont ever come to light. There are enough firms of solicitors out there now who will take cases free of charge if they feel they are going to win. Furthermore a lot of large companies own flats in swish blocks to temporarily house relocated high fglying employees and can afford to contest any litigation. Im weary of this subject now for we will never know the true answer until case law is written. Which pub are we visiting.
-
but he may have a defence of due diligence if the occupier was causing the problem….perhaps he’s an objectionable so and so from Cleveland!
Im not objectionable matey boy.
What ever made you think I was refering to you Clevelandfire????
No offence was taken it's good to debate on here.
When the Civvy & Retty finalise the details of the pub meeting....not too near any conifers....with no reliance on emergency egress windows........and Kurnal & Wee Brian put a few quid behind the bar...well they are very principle members....I will don my anorak and join you for a pint....but none of that weak northern bitter with loads of froth on the top that you Cleveland types like to sup.
-
Personally i think Kurnal is wrong in saying case law wont ever come to light. There are enough firms of solicitors out there now who will take cases free of charge if they feel they are going to win. Furthermore a lot of large companies own flats in swish blocks to temporarily house relocated high fglying employees and can afford to contest any litigation. Im weary of this subject now for we will never know the true answer until case law is written. Which pub are we visiting.
I hope your right Cleveland we need case law. But an appeal against an enforcement notice is only likely to be awarded costs rather than compensation as is the case in the civil courts. I have never yet met a client with appetite for an appeal. The big boys and multi nationals may well take one on but are more likely to contest the colour of exit signs clashing with the corporate image than a fire door in a decrepit tower block.
Where does Cleveland sit on the Ale trail? Just south of the famous Brown Ale of the Tyne that would make such a mess on PhilBs white casual slacks?
-
but none of that weak northern bitter with loads of froth on the top that you Cleveland types like to sup.
look dont start me off again we were just becoming good friends
-
Do I need to buy a hat?
-
No I wouldn't come inbetween you two
-
[When the Civvy & Retty finalise the details of the pub meeting....not too near any conifers....with no reliance on emergency egress windows........and Kurnal & Wee Brian put a few quid behind the bar...
Right Mr Phil " Tony Stamp / Matey Boy" Barry
It would be marvellous to drink with such fire safety legends as you, Kurnal, Wee Brian, Civvy FSO,Jokar, Wiz and the other regulars here but alas Mrs Retty would have none of it (Unless great uncle colin of todddddd was around to keep an eye on me)
Now considering that after a few gallons of the brown stuff you would probably kick off with both Colin Todddd and Clevelandfire (with his infamous bodily function related retorts) Mrs Retty's dynamic risk assessment would tell her I should be kept indoors and made to regrout the tiles in our bathroom rather than getting involved in any of that sort of thing.
Not only that Im in the dog house for saying Rose Everton's name out loud in my sleep - quite innocent but you try telling Mrs Retty that!
I suggest therefore we meet at my local pub handily called " The Office". That way I can phone the 'mrs' up late one friay afternoon and tell her "im stuck in the office".... and technically I would not be fibbing [hic]
The first round is on Chris Houston , being Scottish his wallet could do with some excercise, look out for the moths though.
I must point out however that persisiting in the wind Clevelandfire is forbidded at the bar accept on bank holidays..
Gank you and thoodnight
PS: PhilB the Bacontree sandwiches there are the best youve ever tasted.
Shhh must be quiet now, the connifers are out to get me, the connifers i tell you.... theyre coming!!.
Nuuuurrrrrrssse Im out of bed again!
-
[When the Civvy & Retty finalise the details of the pub meeting....not too near any conifers....with no reliance on emergency egress windows........and Kurnal & Wee Brian put a few quid behind the bar...
Right Mr Phil " Tony Stamp / Matey Boy" Barry
It would be marvellous to drink with such fire safety legends as you, Kurnal, Wee Brian, Civvy FSO,Jokar, Wiz and the other regulars here but alas Mrs Retty would have none of it (Unless great uncle colin of todddddd was around to keep an eye on me)
Yee the fun you can have in fire safety...tell them hairy backed ops guys...and they won't believe you.
Perhaps...just perhaps ...it's not such a silly idea.......why not a Fire Safety Forum get together one day in the distant future...I promise to be nice to Toddy & Cleveland...Civvvy can don the hat...I like the idea of Chris as moderator buying most of the drinks..followed by the principle members......the number of rounds bought being proportional to the number of posts....Slubberdegullion could do the sums for that.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is the venue, as this is a uk wide forum, it must be central, by my calculations that puts it in Gloucestershire.
...and we should have a raffle...think of the prizes......Prof Everton could draw the tickets!!!
-
Now considering that after a few gallons of the brown stuff you would probably kick off with both Colin Todddd and Clevelandfire (with his infamous bodily function related retorts) Mrs Retty's dynamic risk assessment would tell her I should be kept indoors and made to regrout the tiles in our bathroom rather than getting involved in any of that sort of thing
For safety reasons I don't think i should be allowed within a 50 mile radius of PhilB
If your wife's dynamic risk assessment means you grout tiles then so be it, the rest of us will be down the pub. if I were you show her who wears the trousers
Yee the fun you can have in fire safety...tell them hairy backed ops guys...and they won't believe you.
Fire Safety still appears to be a thing of black magic wizzardry and taboo to the ops personnel, you can't say guys these days by the way
...and we should have a raffle...think of the prizes......Prof Everton could draw the tickets!!!
Yeah whoppeedoo !
First prize = A replica PhilB anorak
Second Prize= Signed copy of "how to wee in the wind and influence people" by myself
Third Prize = All expenses paid trip to Fire Service College stopping in the top class accommodation there
-
Wow,
whose safety?
all shades of grey, no ethnis colours involved unless you count the dead!
I have my own anorak, done that, not very succesful, I got wet and have been there to many times in a long past.
-
I've been in the bar at the college - Its not nice and the beer has suspicious lumps in it.
-
do they have bars at the college?? I hadn't noticed.
-
I've been in the bar at the college - Its not nice and the beer has suspicious lumps in it.
There you go you see- even the lumps in the beer at the college are cynical!
Get it down yer neck- protein is good for you
-
I promise to be nice to Toddy & Cleveland...Civvvy can don the hat...
Would the hat in question have a big 'D' on it?
I assure you that any failings in my knowledge can be firmly blamed on the Moreton instructors. 1) A scottish fella and 2) a shorter, dark haired, well spoken, southern(ish) fella named Phil. (I shall resist the temptation to say 'ever so slightly tubby looking')
I am quite possibly returning to good ol' Moreton this year for more 'learning of stuff' so with some good timing this may all be possible for me. Mine's a Boddingtons.
-
We were taught by a tubby side leaning cockney PC Tony Stamp look a like when we attended the college
I also "had" (that is to say was instructed by) two scottish fellows.
One called Slim Jimmon who constantly got lost and another unweildy feiry spikey blonde chap called Marty who regaliled us about his drunken shannigans in the deep Scottish ghettos. Its was all very "Taggart"
Alas none of these guys haunt those corridors at the college anymore.
-
I promise to be nice to Toddy & Cleveland...Civvvy can don the hat...
Would the hat in question have a big 'D' on it?
I assure you that any failings in my knowledge can be firmly blamed on the Moreton instructors. 1) A scottish fella and 2) a shorter, dark haired, well spoken, southern(ish) fella named Phil. (I shall resist the temptation to say 'ever so slightly tubby looking')
I am quite possibly returning to good ol' Moreton this year for more 'learning of stuff' so with some good timing this may all be possible for me. Mine's a Boddingtons.
Well that couldn't possibly be me I'm not short, dark haired or well spoken, unless I was the Scottish person....no definately not me.
and I've told Retty before I look nothing like that PC Stamp blokey....it's him that looks like me.
Slighlty Tubby indeed...how very dare you!!!
-
"Rotund" or well built would perhaps be more appropriate terminology
Ah no just been informed by my colleagues in the equality and diversity department that that is innappropriate
You are " generously proportioned" apparently or "short for your weight"
My quips aside for a moment I do think a Firenet get together would be fantastic.
I know there's already another thread on this topic so won't go on too much, but rather than it being just a good excuse for a jolly knees up I think it would be a great place to share ideas, thrash a few things out, and get the perspective from all occupations involved in fire safety.
Plus putting a few faces to a few names would be good. Ive already seen Kurnal's mugshot courtesy of his website, Chris Houston is a damn fine looking creature with the physiqyue of a racing snake, PhilB is erm... anyway enough.
Me thinks we hath strayed merrily from the original thread
-
Phil ....... "The most important thing, in my opinion, is the venue, as this is a uk wide forum, it must be central, by my calculations that puts it in Gloucestershire" ........ sorry but Gloucestershire is in the deep south. It not even Central South but the way down the M74 / M6 / M5 type south. Could we have a more central south or even a northern south? Or even better a southern north venue?
-
But Dennis Gloucestershire is lovely and a long way from that Clevelandfire blokey........by the way he can only come if he promises not to call me Sunny Jim.
Is offering to bury a hatchet in someones head a term of endearment in Middlesborough?...I expect it is.
Where would be convenient for you...Dundee perhaps??? any way I don't like Iron Bru even when it is mixed with vodka.
No I reckon it should be in the Welly.......not too late Mrs Barry is quite strict about my home time.
-
Phil ....... "The most important thing, in my opinion, is the venue, as this is a uk wide forum, it must be central, by my calculations that puts it in Gloucestershire" ........ sorry but Gloucestershire is in the deep south. It not even Central South but the way down the M74 / M6 / M5 type south. Could we have a more central south or even a northern south? Or even better a southern north venue?
At which point does southern north and northern south meet then?
I often bury hatchetts in peoples heads. Its a good way of commanding respect on a watch. I've rteired from all that now.
-
"Rotund" or well built would perhaps be more appropriate terminology
Ah no just been informed by my colleagues in the equality and diversity department that that is innappropriate
You are " generously proportioned" apparently or "short for your weight"
Do you write your own material or does someone actually get paid to come up with this?
-
Here's an interesting one on the subjest of common areas of flats following a fire in common areas of flats in Redditch, Worcestershire.
http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/ranewslatest/display.var.2144409.0.babies_rescued_from_flats_blaze.php
-
Here's an interesting one on the subjest of common areas of flats following a fire in common areas of flats in Redditch, Worcestershire.
http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/ranewslatest/display.var.2144409.0.babies_rescued_from_flats_blaze.php
Luckily no-one was hurt
Rubbish in communal areas ! Just goes to show doesn't it.
I will be printing that article off to keep in my folder, and everytime a resident or tenant moans at me when I ask them to remove rubbish from common areas Ill show them that
-
A good job then that there were no extinguishers in the communal areas otherwise someone may have been tempted to put theirs and others lives at risk by trying to extinguish the fire before calling the professionals out. Goes to demonstrate that the occupiers do not understand what to do with refuse.
-
A good job then that there were no extinguishers in the communal areas otherwise someone may have been tempted to put theirs and others lives at risk by trying to extinguish the fire before calling the professionals out. Goes to demonstrate that the occupiers do not understand what to do with refuse.
Absolutely