FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Midland Retty on April 09, 2008, 10:16:15 AM
-
We are seeing a trend in our local area where sheltered housing providers are redesignating their schemes as being "very sheltered" or even "Very very sheltered".
As you will appreciate residents may have been in good health when they first purchased or rented an apartment in a scheme but overtime,as they have got older, their health has deteriorated and outside carers have been brought in to look after them.
Alot of residents seem to have almost 24 hour care, Some residents are bed bound!
It just seems to me very sheltered schemes are in a sense "residential care on the cheap"
In some cases sheltered schemes look more like residential care homes nowadays and this leads me onto my question.
Often sheltered schemes are manned by a warden monday to friday between 9 and 5
In very sheltered schemes do you expect the warden or scheme providers to be looking at assisting the evacuation of bed bound residents or residents who's mobility would impare them from evacuating qucikly enough.
-
Would depend on level of compartmentation Retty. If they are fire resisting boxes why evacuate, unless the fire is in your box. Is each box a domestic premises? Probably, in my opinion so the Fire Safety Order does not apply inside each box but does apply to the common parts only.
I know in the real world it is not as simple as that. I have come across similar premises and the main problem in my experince is finding an authority who will take responsibility, often lies somewhere beteween Care Standards Act and Housing Act.
-
Hi Phil
I agree with you in principle, particularly where the resident actually owns their own flat within the scheme, but what about those who rent?
The other side of the coin is that we cannot guarantee the fire stopping within the schemes. We have seen some schemes of modular construction, some have common roof voids, some are designed to the flats and masionette standard (ie concrete walls and floors).
You get contractors knocking through walls when addidng or repairing services and not making good fire stopping
Plus we can't control what is actually going in the flat (personal posessions, smoking).
Furthermore "stay put policies" don't mean that residents should stay put indefinately , when a common alarm sounds residents should prepare to be evacuated (ie put on coats, dressing gowns etc) and await further instruction from fire service or warden etc.
Sheltered schemes suit people who dont want the hassle of the upkeep on their own property, want the security of living in a sheltered environment and for pehaps better social interaction. They were designed for generally able bodied people with fair mobility.
Thats all well and good but I think this needs greater debate. We encountered a sheltered scheme with 30 residents, 15 of which were bed bound or wheel chair bound. The scheme operator was proactive in installing provision for hearing / sight impaired residents, but mobility impairments seem to be forgotten.
In a nursing home with a true "stay put policy" we would expect every compartment to be 60 minutes FR with a member of staff present with the patient.
But shelterd schemes mostly have 30 mins FR and we can't have a situation where fire crews are trying to rescue 15 residents
What level of responsibility / control regards to this should the sheltered operators have?
-
If theyre renting an apartment I feel its the duty of the sheltered accomodation operators to lok after them and they have already assumed duty of care if they have fitted measures for hearing or visually impaired persons so why any different for mobility impaired or bed bound residents
-
I would speak to CSCI, if the "owners" are providing 24 hour care to soem residents then they may well be redesignated to a care facility. It does seem to be care on the cheap, either way, FSO or RA you will need to ensure that the RP is fully aware of what differences are to be expected in fire safety standards for the differing models.
-
What level of responsibility / control regards to this should the sheltered operators have?
Lots in my opinion Retty, as you correctly point out, often this is residential care on the cheap. I hate to revert to this stance but I think we need some case law. No doubt there will be fire deaths as a result of this lack of control/care and then we may move forward.
-
I have 2 quick points to make.
1. I have had experience recently of 2 “very sheltered” housing schemes also referred to as “extra care” facilities; both properties are part of a national chain. Both are large converted houses into appox. 12 “dwellings”. In both cases the wardens have been removed (this has been done in all properties UK wide) for reasons to do with the working time directive.
In short the FRA’s we conducted in both premises stated that the removal of the wardens was an intolerable risk (some “residents” could not self evacuate) and that they should be reinstated or fit residential sprinklers. Neither could be done due to cost and both premises are in the process of being sold.
2. Phil B, are you saying that the FSO DOES NOT apply to the flat/dwelling as I know of one Fire Authority that would challenge this and would enforce certain fire alarm provisions. E.g. L2 fire alarm system throughout with a heat detector just inside each flat and a Grade C 5839 Pt 6 smoke detector within the flat itself.
-
2. Phil B, are you saying that the FSO DOES NOT apply to the flat/dwelling as I know of one Fire Authority that would challenge this and would enforce certain fire alarm provisions. E.g. L2 fire alarm system throughout with a heat detector just inside each flat and a Grade C 5839 Pt 6 smoke detector within the flat itself.
William you miss the point PhilB is trying to make. L2 Grade C has always been enforced. Fire Authorities can do that (they say it is to protect the commons MOE) and not only that it is in Government RRO the sleeping guide!
The point made is regarding assisted evacuation. In a care home service users dont self evacuate, it is the duty of staff to assist them. What Midland Retty is asking, quite sensibly in my opinion, is that many sheltered housing schemes are so close to residential care homes now (or even nursing homes) should it not be the case that wardens are on site 24 / 7 to assist in evacuation? or should additional fire safety measures be installed to protect the bed bound?.
One way these sheltered schemes have gone under the radar is to allow third parties to provide the domicillary care provided to the residents. One part of me feels this is deliberate. Another part of me feels im being unfair in saying that.
Also MR asks whether or not a duty of care is required where residents rent an apartment (as some do). Most residents own their own apartment / flat and that becomes a very grey area and I think PhilB is right in his assumption that the RRO would not apply. That said lets not forget these places have common areas. What if a resident is stuck in one of the common areas when the alarm activates?
This is a very big can of worms and I firmly believe the crap will hit the fan one of these days. Test case alert!
On one hand some residents need help in evacuating in on the other sheltered housing is supposed to be no different than Grandma living in her own house.
I just wonder if anyone who designed these places realised the residents would grow old and their health would deteriorate.
-
I have 2 quick points to make.
1. I have had experience recently of 2 “very sheltered” housing schemes also referred to as “extra care” facilities; both properties are part of a national chain. Both are large converted houses into appox. 12 “dwellings”. In both cases the wardens have been removed (this has been done in all properties UK wide) for reasons to do with the working time directive.
In short the FRA’s we conducted in both premises stated that the removal of the wardens was an intolerable risk (some “residents” could not self evacuate) and that they should be reinstated or fit residential sprinklers. Neither could be done due to cost and both premises are in the process of being sold.
You are bang on the money there William
-
Does anyone know where we may find the official meaning and interpretation of the terms "Extra care" and "sheltered housing"
There appears to be a huge variation in terms of the actual service levels provided by local authorities and private operators ranging from "Zero care" and "couldnt care less" through to a valuable service with good supervision and care and support available.
I have found definitions on the following links but the fundamental problem of which design standard to apply and therefore the evacuation strategy to adopt remain a very grey area.
http://www.housingcare.org/jargon-extra-care-housing.aspx
http://www.housingcare.org/jargon-sheltered-housing.aspx
-
Thanks for all your replies / help so far gents.
It seems that we all feel this is a potential problem, and as Phil points out we will probably need case law for definative answers.
-
2. Phil B, are you saying that the FSO DOES NOT apply to the flat/dwelling as I know of one Fire Authority that would challenge this and would enforce certain fire alarm provisions. E.g. L2 fire alarm system throughout with a heat detector just inside each flat and a Grade C 5839 Pt 6 smoke detector within the flat itself.
William you miss the point PhilB is trying to make. L2 Grade C has always been enforced. Fire Authorities can do that (they say it is to protect the commons MOE) and not only that it is in Government RRO the sleeping guide!
Also MR asks whether or not a duty of care is required where residents rent an apartment (as some do). Most residents own their own apartment / flat and that becomes a very grey area and I think PhilB is right in his assumption that the RRO would not apply. That said lets not forget these places have common areas. What if a resident is stuck in one of the common areas when the alarm activates?
This is a very big can of worms and I firmly believe the crap will hit the fan one of these days. Test case alert!
On one hand some residents need help in evacuating in on the other sheltered housing is supposed to be no different than Grandma living in her own house.
I just wonder if anyone who designed these places realised the residents would grow old and their health would deteriorate.
I do understand Phil B's point I was just pointing out the some fire authorities would challenge that in sheltered housing that the individual flat does not come under the RRFSO based on the fact that there are shared facilities I guess. I know what the sleeping guide says re AFD as it also says that the guide only applies to the common parts. My point being that this is open to challenge and as several have said will only be decided by a test case in law........
I am not sure about when you say the fire authority enforcing a part 6 detector in the dwelling is to protect the M of E? when this would only sound in the flat of origin?
-
I am not sure about when you say the fire authority enforcing a part 6 detector in the dwelling is to protect the M of E? when this would only sound in the flat of origin?
resident falls alseep on chair, has left chips in chip pan which has overheated, alarm sounds, wakes up resident, who call fire services, fire service put out fire before MOE are compromised
-
old lady living in a flat....... whats the difference?
-
Standard of construction / level of fire resistance perhaps?
-
The FR levels would be similar either 60 or 30 min fire cells to each dwelling so not sure what Clevelandfire is getting at. Would the heat detector if fitted be installed to protect the M of E and the stand alone part 6 in the dwelling to warn the occupant?????????
-
You're not wrong William, I think that what Clevelandfire may have been elluding to was the fact that the smoke detector will activate first and hopefully prompt an action by the resident.
-
I was talking to a local care provider this morning, and the nature of residential care is changing and a lot of services are provided in the client's own home, and dementia care units are being provided instead.
Playing devil's advocate here, a sheltered housing scheme is set up where an occupier owns or rents a flat, and when they move in they are ambulant etc. 10 years down the line, their site deteriorates, or they're waiting for a hip replacement etc - how is this different to anyone's private home - you can't stop someone from buying a house because sometime in the future someone may not be able to use the stairs. Fire safety legislation does not (and should not) impose controls within a single private dwelling, the only protection that should be provided is to protect the means of escape provided - ie compartmentation, or should the enforcing authorities evict someone from their own home on the basis of a risk assessment? If that person becomes so imobile that they cannot use the means of escape provided, than should it not be up the resident or the families to decide if that scheme is suitable place for that person to live - the same as any private home (any for people with any disability, not just age related). As it is someones's own home, is it the on-site staff's job to evacuate people? Or to assist those that have decided to evacuate? Depends upon the level of service provided. At least sheltered housing schemes usually have alarm systems that call a warden/monitoring service to allow the brigade to be called out if a detector goes off within a dwelling, which is arguably better than being in a bog standard tower block.
-
I agrre, the difficulty is if care is being provided to the resident by staff at the site, then the situation becomes a bit vague as to whether it is sheltered housing or a care facility.
-
AM ...or should the enforcing authorities evict someone from their own home on the basis of a risk assessment?
No FRS would attempt, or comtemplate that.
My view is that all the residents live in a communal building, each at risk, and posing a risk to all others in that building. They are therefore relevant people whilst in their accomodation by dint of being 'in the vicinity' and as we all agree, are relevant people when they step into the common areas. The type of tenancy is irrelevant. (This concept is enshrined in the HHSRS and Housing Act).
I agree with the view that these premises should be subject to registration under the Care Standards Act and the next one that gets shirty with me will be rewarded with a challenge to the NCSC (I think they have changed their name again), to demand registration.
There is a head of steam building up to start challenging the risk assessments, particularly those that accept 'stay-put' with no resident staff. Taken to its conclusion, this means that the Fire and Rescue Service becomes part of their evac plan.
-
AM ...or should the enforcing authorities evict someone from their own home on the basis of a risk assessment?
No FRS would attempt, or comtemplate that.
My view is that all the residents live in a communal building, each at risk, and posing a risk to all others in that building. They are therefore relevant people whilst in their accomodation by dint of being 'in the vicinity' and as we all agree, are relevant people when they step into the common areas. The type of tenancy is irrelevant. (This concept is enshrined in the HHSRS and Housing Act).
I agree with the view that these premises should be subject to registration under the Care Standards Act and the next one that gets shirty with me will be rewarded with a challenge to the NCSC (I think they have changed their name again), to demand registration.
There is a head of steam building up to start challenging the risk assessments, particularly those that accept 'stay-put' with no resident staff. Taken to its conclusion, this means that the Fire and Rescue Service becomes part of their evac plan.
The question was rhetorical - I know no fire authority could attempt such a thing, but the question in the original post was regarding the position of wardens in a scheme where there are bedbound people in their own homes but the Responsible Person's duties only extend to common areas. These sites normally have an alarm system that is linked to a warden, so if there is an activation, is that warden supposed to go into that flat an evacuate the resident, whose condition they have no control over, from an area that they have no responsibility for? Or are they just supposed to call the FS and direct them to where the fire is?
-
Many sheltered housing schemes were built by local authorities often to a poor design standard. One near me has a single open stair leading from communal entrance hall, kitchen and community room, the stair opens onto a landing at first floor level with two unprotected dead end corridors serving flats each of 45m, with unprotected refuse stores off the corridor. Plain glazed panels to flat entrance doors, detection to L4 only. When it was built it had a resident warden, but now there is just a distant control room. I recommended enclosure, protection and alternative means of escape 25 years ago, it was costed but nothing has changed except the warden has been made redundant.
It frightens me that the politicians who dream up these extra care schemes have no idea as to the safety standards of some of these places. And if they did they probably wouldn't care.
-
Its all a bit fuzzy these days, but a sheltered housing scheme is just a block of flats with knobs on.
Theres no difference between an old lady getting a visit once a day (or whatever) in her own flat or once a day in a sheltered housing complex.
I suppose the question that we need to ask is; if and when should a person be rehoused because they are unable to escape from the home they live in?
Many of them would object to being booted out of their homes and even if they didnt there problably isn't enough capacity in the res-care sector to take them.
-
Its all a bit fuzzy these days, but a sheltered housing scheme is just a block of flats with knobs on.
Theres no difference between an old lady getting a visit once a day (or whatever) in her own flat or once a day in a sheltered housing complex.
I suppose the question that we need to ask is; if and when should a person be rehoused because they are unable to escape from the home they live in?
Many of them would object to being booted out of their homes and even if they didnt there problably isn't enough capacity in the res-care sector to take them.
W B
Can't agree with you there. Not many blocks of flats have;
1. Furniture in the corridors
2. Lounge areas, some with kitchens
3. Such a high preportion of elderly, physically disabled, people with senility
4. Commercial companies offering a service, and making a profit to people described in 3 above
No-one is really asking them to be re-housed...only for the houses/flats they have to be made as safe as is reasonably practicable. There is often little or no difference in the risk to residents between sheltered housing and residential care...except there is no staff in the first.
-
W B
Can't agree with you there. Not many blocks of flats have;
1. Furniture in the corridors
2. Lounge areas, some with kitchens
3. Such a high preportion of elderly, physically disabled, people with senility
4. Commercial companies offering a service, and making a profit to people described in 3 above
No-one is really asking them to be re-housed...only for the houses/flats they have to be made as safe as is reasonably practicable. There is often little or no difference in the risk to residents between sheltered housing and residential care...except there is no staff in the first.
1&2 are minor technical issues
1. Probably shouldnt be allowed.
2. Lots of blocks have shared facilities these days - gyms and all sorts - it aint hard to deal with.
3&4 are the sticky bits
As usual you seem to have it in for anybody who may make a profit - is everybody here a communist ??? (not that that makes you a bad person)
The service they offer and what responsibility that incurs is the million dollar question. I think this comes down to who it is that decides that they should live there. If a care provider puts them there then they should only do that if the resident is modbile and able to look after themselves.
However in most cases the residents decide they want to live in sheltered accom. Perhaps in your police state these companies should refuse to house anybody who is unable to make their own escape and throw them into the street when they get a bit too old.
Theres nothing wrong with these buildings - but it is wrong for health authoriteas to use them as cheap care homes.
Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble - feel free to pick the bones out of it.
-
Here'a another twist to the story....
How do you feel about a sheltered housing provider whom supplies its own carers to look after the residents on site but still class the premises as being sheltered.
This seems like its really pushing the boundaries.
What are you thoughts?
-
We are seeing a trend in our local area where sheltered housing providers are redesignating their schemes as being "very sheltered" or even "Very very sheltered".
As you will appreciate residents may have been in good health when they first purchased or rented an apartment in a scheme but overtime,as they have got older, their health has deteriorated and outside carers have been brought in to look after them.
Alot of residents seem to have almost 24 hour care, Some residents are bed bound!
It just seems to me very sheltered schemes are in a sense "residential care on the cheap"
In some cases sheltered schemes look more like residential care homes nowadays and this leads me onto my question.
Often sheltered schemes are manned by a warden monday to friday between 9 and 5
In very sheltered schemes do you expect the warden or scheme providers to be looking at assisting the evacuation of bed bound residents or residents who's mobility would impare them from evacuating qucikly enough.
Private residents in their own homes can also get outside carers in, sometimes for up to 24hr. Is this an area we want to poke our noses into also? If a resident in a block of flats gets a carers attention for a few hours a day does that make it a relevant building.
Please stop trying to regulate the world.
Sheltered/Fold schemes do not require wardens. The residents are not in care.
-
Blimey - somebody on my side!
I think there is a bit of "mission creep" with some of these places - maybe somebody ought to get a grip. Trouble is that things can be counter productive. Sheltered accom is better than a normal flat so we dont want to make these schemes unviable.
-
Please stop trying to regulate the world.
Sheltered/Fold schemes do not require wardens. The residents are not in care.
Im not Im gathering opinion Nearlythere
Been to a sheltered scheme where third party care isn't provided instead its provided directly by the same people who operated the sheltered scheme, to me theyre res care on the cheap.
Not only that all the residents are bed bound, and in thirty minute fire resisting compartments which I think is ridiculous
-
Sheltered accom is better than a normal flat so we dont want to make these schemes unviable.
Wee Brian I expected more from you!
Flats and maisonettes should have 1 hr fire compartmentation, sheltered schemes dont.
Ordinarily not a problem, but where all residents are bed bound Im starting to think someone is taking the mickey a little bit personally. If they're bed bound and no one is available to assist them you would want atleast 60 minutes FR in my view.
I dont want to regulate the world, but firefighters wont be able to rescue that many residents who are bed bound. Thats my primary concern.
-
As usual you seem to have it in for anybody who may make a profit - is everybody here a communist ??? (not that that makes you a bad person)
Thanks for the compliment WB. :-)
Laissez-faire capitalists, (def. People who support a laissez faire system are against minimum wages, duties, and any other trade restrictions), always struggle to see any link between profit and responsibility.
Whether these residents are 'in care' or not is a matter of semantics. The risk they face is comparable to a care home and yet we are asked to accept far lower protective measures. Give the Care Quality Commisssion some grief and ask them to assess them for registration.
-
Sheltered accom is better than a normal flat so we dont want to make these schemes unviable.
Wee Brian I expected more from you!
Flats and maisonettes should have 1 hr fire compartmentation, sheltered schemes dont.
Ordinarily not a problem, but where all residents are bed bound Im starting to think someone is taking the mickey a little bit personally. If they're bed bound and no one is available to assist them you would want atleast 60 minutes FR in my view.
I dont want to regulate the world, but firefighters wont be able to rescue that many residents who are bed bound. Thats my primary concern.
Exactly in many ways actually a block flats is better than sheltered schemes
-
Sorry - I'm obviousely thinking of Sheltered schemes that comply with some form of standard - if you dont have any compartmentation and they don't evacuate - then they will all die when theres a fire - what are you guys all playing at?????
-
Sorry - I'm obviousely thinking of Sheltered schemes that comply with some form of standard - if you dont have any compartmentation and they don't evacuate - then they will all die when theres a fire - what are you guys all playing at?????
They have 30 minutes compartmentation!
-
Where did that come from?
Is there yet another book I havent read?
-
Sleeping Accomodation guide, has always been the case for years. What did you think it was Wee Brian?
-
Sleeping Accomodation guide, has always been the case for years. What did you think it was Wee Brian?
Which of these sheltered houses have been built in accordance with the CLG sleeping accomodation guide????? Am I missing something here?
-
they havent but im just saying thats what the current RRO guide says , and plus Building Regs asks for 30 mins FR
-
Not in my building regs it doesnt - am I missing something here? Sheltered accome should be built to the same spec as flats -shouldnt it?
-
Sounds like Im being sarcastic and I promise but out of intrest are you looking at a current copy of Building Regs?
-
Yup ADB 2007 treats Sheltered accom like flats. OK it's 30 mins for low rise (5m tall).
That's the same as flats. 30 mins in anything taller would be crazy for flats let alone sheltered accom.
I'm not being sarcastic either (I know that makes a change) we seem to be talking at cross purposes and this is important. That's why this forum is so useful.
-
Hi Folks
No you arent talking at cross purposes at all you are both saying the same thing
In fact we all are.
Bed bound residents need greater protection than 30 minutes FR to allow for a stay put policy. Thats why I've flagged this matter up in the first place.
-
Just had a look at the sleeping accom guide. It talks about 30 mins but not specifically for Sheltered accom.
That's the problem with this guide - it mixes hotels with flats without any real explanation of the difference.
I would adopt 60 mins compartmentation as in ADB (over 5m high). If it isnt 60 then they aint flats and they will need a simultaneous evac strategy - which won't work.
-
Just had a look at the sleeping accom guide. It talks about 30 mins but not specifically for Sheltered accom.
That's the problem with this guide - it mixes hotels with flats without any real explanation of the difference.
I would adopt 60 mins compartmentation as in ADB (over 5m high). If it isnt 60 then they aint flats and they will need a simultaneous evac strategy - which won't work.
You're absolutely spot on Wee Brian.
This is the dilema we had.
It just doesn't sit well with us that sheltered schemes only require 30 mins FR (if under 5m) (which is fine if the residents are all mobile)
But as the residents get older and their health deteriorates and they become less mobile it seems the sheltered organisations tell their residents to "stay put" - which you just cant have unless 60 mins FR is provided.
We have looked at the residential care guide. It states that it doesn't cover sheltered housing UNLESS care is provided with a ryder that states 'unless care is provided in a single domestic dwelling'.
-
Now I see where you are coming from - most of the sheltered accom I've dealt with is over 5m (that's not very tall).
A block of flats (we're only talking 2 stories here <5m) with 30m would still be designed on a stay put strategy. I expect the building regs assume that people can escape/be rescued from windows (bit olde worlde I suppose) so take a less stringent approach.
I'm still not sure how this should be dealt with under the RRO though. Strictly speaking the "flats" in sheltered accom are domestic premises.
-
To compound this even further if you look at the RRO guides here is what they say:-
The Sleeping Accomodation Guide states that it covers "the common areas of sheltered accomodation where care is not provided" (p4 Introduction)
The Residential Care Guide States : The guide is not intended for use in Sheltered Accomodation where no care is provided (p4 Introduction)
Both infer that in sheltered accomodation where care is provided then higher standards are required.
Again everyones thoughts would be most welcome.
-
Yup ADB 2007 treats Sheltered accom like flats. OK it's 30 mins for low rise (5m tall).
That's the same as flats. 30 mins in anything taller would be crazy for flats let alone sheltered accom.
I'm not being sarcastic either (I know that makes a change) we seem to be talking at cross purposes and this is important. That's why this forum is so useful.
I do get things right occassionally
To compound this even further if you look at the RRO guides here is what they say:-
The Sleeping Accomodation Guide states that it covers "the common areas of sheltered accomodation where care is not provided" (p4 Introduction)
The Residential Care Guide States : The guide is not intended for use in Sheltered Accomodation where no care is provided (p4 Introduction)
Both infer that in sheltered accomodation where care is provided then higher standards are required.
Again everyones thoughts would be most welcome
My thoughts are simple. It is residential care on the cheap.
I am of course talking about care organisations that pose as sheltered schemes, and whom provide direct care staff.The ones that don't IMHO still need to consider their residents and how they can assist them during a fire especially if the flats are rented and not occupier owned. There is absolutely no way in the world thirty minutes fire resistance offers enough protection for a stayput policy for bed bound residents, no way whatsoever. Retty / Val I notice those people who claimed you were a commie and trying to regulate the world have all of a sudden gone very quiet. That in itself speaks volumes.
Sheletred should mean sheltered not very sheltered not very very sheltered. Any existing residents who have detiorated presents a minefield legally as afterall it is their home, and I would never wish to take anyone out of their own home.But that isnt an excuse to leave people in danger and i think people need to get real on this. These arent single domestic dwellings and therefore for the protection of bed bound residents from other the common areas and party walls I think should all be 60 minutes FR because other residents may pose a risk to them.
-
Cleavelandfire
I don't mind being called a commie. Really!
Maslow and self actualisation spring to mind. (Did I spell that right?)
-
Val, I feel pedantic this morning, Mazlow has a Z in his name.
-
Val, I feel pedantic this morning, Mazlow has a Z in his name.
No F in way.
-
Cleveland may have put his finger on this when he says that they are not domestic premises.
I think most of them probably are domestic, but at some point (when they get very sheltered??) they may not be. When this line is crossed, then the Order comes down on them like a tonne of bricks. One for the lawyers I think.
-
Cleveland may have put his finger on this when he says that they are not domestic premises.
I think most of them probably are domestic, but at some point (when they get very sheltered??) they may not be. When this line is crossed, then the Order comes down on them like a tonne of bricks. One for the lawyers I think.
Also what about when you have a sheltered housing sheme where some of the occupants own the flats and others do not.
-
The plot thickens. In a block of flats the landlord isnt expected to assist in the evacuation of the residents regardles of whether they rent or own their flats.
Sheltered accom is (or at least its supposed to be) a block of flats with some added facilities and services. So the same rule would apply.
But there's an increasingly grey area where these places are stepping into a sort of cut-price res-care.
-
Big thanks to everyone who contributed.
From what I've read I think we all agree this is a really grey area
Im going to write to CSCI and get their stance on this subject.
Will keep you posted.
If anyone in the meantime hears of any test cases going through let me know (shouldnt think it will be too long until Lancashire F&R Service deal with one of these)
-
MR
Tyne and Wear FRS are on to this with the CQC (my turn to be pedantic). You may want to liaise with their fire safety department.
-
Excellent cheers for that Val
-
MR, just wondering, did you ever get a response from CSCI?
-
Hi Username
No not as yet, that said it will probably take a while, there are a lot of grey areas to debate and pour over, then they will probably need to consult their legal eagles for final approval
-
Just to throw another semantic spanner in the works herem you will find now that most accommodation that was considered 'sheltered' is now being redesignated as 'assisted living'!