FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on October 15, 2008, 03:55:25 PM
-
When will Northern Ireland Fire Legislation come in line with the rest of the UK and which department is responsible for implementing it ?
Do they have a web site which keeps you up to date on how it progresses like the CLG web site?
-
When will Northern Ireland Fire Legislation come in line with the rest of the UK and which department is responsible for implementing it ?
Do they have a web site which keeps you up to date on how it progresses like the CLG web site?
Latest is April 2009.
Enforced by NIFRS.
Look at NIFRS Website.
There is the existing Fire Precautions (Workplace)(N.I.) Regs 2001 which is as it says workplace based and a FRA is required. The new regs will be very similar to your 2005 ones.
-
Thanks NT just what I wanted.
-
When will Northern Ireland Fire Legislation come in line with the rest of the UK and which department is responsible for implementing it ?
Do they have a web site which keeps you up to date on how it progresses like the CLG web site?
Latest is April 2009.
Enforced by NIFRS.
Look at NIFRS Website.
There is the existing Fire Precautions (Workplace)(N.I.) Regs 2001 which is as it says workplace based and a FRA is required. The new regs will be very similar to your 2005 ones.
By latest you surely mean earliest??
-
When will Northern Ireland Fire Legislation come in line with the rest of the UK and which department is responsible for implementing it ?
Do they have a web site which keeps you up to date on how it progresses like the CLG web site?
Latest is April 2009.
Enforced by NIFRS.
Look at NIFRS Website.
There is the existing Fire Precautions (Workplace)(N.I.) Regs 2001 which is as it says workplace based and a FRA is required. The new regs will be very similar to your 2005 ones.
By latest you surely mean earliest??
No. Latest means the latest update I have.
-
Latest is April 2009.
Enforced by NIFRS.
Look at NIFRS Website.
There is the existing Fire Precautions (Workplace)(N.I.) Regs 2001 which is as it says workplace based and a FRA is required. The new regs will be very similar to your 2005 ones.
By latest you surely mean earliest??
No. Latest means the latest update I have.
Sorry,was playing on words with reference to the speed and efficiency of our local government.
-
By latest you surely mean earliest??
No. Latest means the latest update I have.
Sorry,was playing on words with reference to the speed and efficiency of our local government.
Buzz
You seem to have used contradictory terms. "Speed and efficiency of our local government" I know that when you use the words speed and efficiency it wasn't specifically in the context of the abundance of it?
The only speedy and efficient requirement of local and national government is the expenses office.
-
No. Latest means the latest update I have.
Sorry,was playing on words with reference to the speed and efficiency of our local government.
Buzz
You seem to have used contradictory terms. "Speed and efficiency of our local government" I know that when you use the words speed and efficiency it wasn't specifically in the context of the abundance of it?
The only speedy and efficient requirement of local and national government is the expenses office.
...and getting in the queue for the subbied lunches up in the big house on the hill!
-
Sorry,was playing on words with reference to the speed and efficiency of our local government.
Buzz
You seem to have used contradictory terms. "Speed and efficiency of our local government" I know that when you use the words speed and efficiency it wasn't specifically in the context of the abundance of it?
The only speedy and efficient requirement of local and national government is the expenses office.
...and getting in the queue for the subbied lunches up in the big house on the hill!
To right. No fish suppers and mushy peas up there.
-
The people of NI are good and decent folk, who like to watch England get things in a total mess and learn from it, so getting it right first time in NI. That is exactly what happened with the Workplace Regs. The good thing about the new NI legislation is that it does not copy the English legislation, but is virtually identical in wording to the Scottish legislation. Thus, in NI there will be no responsible person, so mirroring the streets of Belfast at closing time.
-
The people of NI are good and decent folk, who like to watch England get things in a total mess and learn from it, so getting it right first time in NI. That is exactly what happened with the Workplace Regs. The good thing about the new NI legislation is that it does not copy the English legislation, but is virtually identical in wording to the Scottish legislation. Thus, in NI there will be no responsible person, so mirroring the streets of Belfast at closing time.
I was going to protest against that last statement but cannot find any grounds to do so!!!
-
The people of NI are good and decent folk, who like to watch England get things in a total mess and learn from it, so getting it right first time in NI. That is exactly what happened with the Workplace Regs. The good thing about the new NI legislation is that it does not copy the English legislation, but is virtually identical in wording to the Scottish legislation. Thus, in NI there will be no responsible person, so mirroring the streets of Belfast at closing time.
There may not be a Responsible Person Colin, but there will be a person responsible. That being the person with duties under Art 25 and 26 of the Order, ie the employer or a person who has control to any extent of relevant premises respectively.
I have been a responsible person at closing time in Belfast. I may not have been in control but I was responsible. I think?
-
Yes, I know - these articles are a straight copy of Sections 53 and 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act. But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference. I told you, its all the schools' fault. Anyway, you dont need to worry cos there is no RP in the NI Order, they still have grammar schools in NI, and the nice chaps of the NI F&RS never get confused by anything (other than where their equipment has disappeared to after they attend fires on some of the estates).
-
Yes, I know - these articles are a straight copy of Sections 53 and 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act. But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference. I told you, its all the schools' fault. Anyway, you dont need to worry cos there is no RP in the NI Order, they still have grammar schools in NI, and the nice chaps of the NI F&RS never get confused by anything (other than where their equipment has disappeared to after they attend fires on some of the estates).
Don't know about that. I have seen many nice chaps of the NIFRS very confused at times. It seems to be linked to the level of promotion.
-
But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.
The use of a title to identify an individual or group could mean the use of a couple of words instead of a paragraph I would choose the title. If this is the case what title would you use to identify the Person or Persons who has the Responsibility to implement the order.
As to the FRS being confused then that could be up to the calibre or poor training of the new entrants into fire safety, also the lack guidance from government similar to that provided when the FPA was introduced.
-
But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.
The use of a title to identify an individual or group could mean the use of a couple of words instead of a paragraph I would choose the title. If this is the case what title would you use to identify the Person or Persons who has the Responsibility to implement the order.
As to the FRS being confused then that could be up to the calibre or poor training of the new entrants into fire safety, also the lack guidance from government similar to that provided when the FPA was introduced.
The "person who has to any extent control" could be identified as just that or by name, position or title. That could vary within some premises especially one with differing uses throughout the day.
I am going to FRA a church shortly and on considering this matter I would be inclined to think that, say for example when part is being used for the weekly Boys Brigade meeting, the persons who have to any extent control will be the church committee, as it controls the premises, and the person in control of the activity, the BB or GB captain.
I don't think it is an important administration issue really as, in the event of an enforcement or prosecution, regardless of who tries to blame who or what is on a FRA, the F&RS will decide who it deems to be the person who had control at the time to any extent.
-
NT I don’t see "person who has to any extent control" as a title that could be used. It could be used as part of the definition or the interpretation of the definition and as we know it is the courts that will finally decide the meaning.
-
NT I don’t see "person who has to any extent control" as a title that could be used. It could be used as part of the definition or the interpretation of the definition and as we know it is the courts that will finally decide the meaning.
True tw but I see the matter of a title as irrelevant as the need for a title of a person driving a car. When it comes to the F&RS deciding who to prosecute it will be who they see as being the person in control at the time.
-
I see that NT but when Colin said "responsible person is a stupid word and it confuses the FRS in England" then I disagree I think it is an acceptable title. I do accept that the definition may confuse some people and cause problems for the FRS especially if they are not trained as well as they should.
-
With regard to what title COULD be used, this is not hypothetical. As I pointed out, the term RP is not used in Scotland, nor will it be used in NI. So, it is not a matter of what title would I (or anyone else) use, the legislation has been in force in Scotland since the same day as it took force in E&W and manages fine without the term RP. In referring to the person who has duties under s53 or 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act, the Scottish Government refer to the "duty holder". It is a more precise term than responsible person. And as for training, no less than the deputy senior fire safety officer of a large northern county fire and rescue service that has an inclination to serve enforcement notices like handing out sweeties told me it was ok that they had served one on a lowly duty manager who happened to be there at the time, as they dont deal with what he chose to describe as "some bod sat in London", but they, the FRS, MAKE whoever they consider responsible at the time the RP. Sadly, when I asked what Article 3 had to say about the subject of RP, he said he had no idea. If he had been faced with the term duty holder, it might have occurred to him to find out who actually did have duties imposed upon them. People tend to confuse the RP of the Order with anyone they happen to think has responsibility in the English, as opposed to legal, sense of the word. Such a person just MIGHT be a person in control of premises, but what they most certainly are not is the RP.
-
Thanks Colin very interesting and food for thought but RP is something in E&W we are now stuck with. However even if the term duty holder had been used I do not think it would have made any difference to the deputy senior fire safety officer you spoke of.
I believe it’s more about the apparent lack the necessary knowledge of some FRS fire safety departments and the standard of training, more than the use of the terminology in legislation.
-
Training is clearly an issue, but, subtle though it may be, the concept of duty holder, implies duties under the legislation and focusses the mind on the question as to who actually does have such duties. Responsibility is a term that is in more common and less precise use. Clearly the duty manager was responsible for the hotel operation at the time the fire safety officers arrived to demand, via an enforcement notice, intumescent strips on all existing fire doors, a manual call point sign beside a manual call point as it was stated by the FRS that its absence was, in any case a breach of the H&S(SS&S) Regs, even though these regs do not cover manual call point signs, and a raft of other tat, including an allegation that a lick of paint on an intumescent strip stops it from expanding. However, the question is quite simple, namely who did she employ under a contract of employment. Answer: No one. So, by definition, she was not the RP in the case of a workplace. One F&RS has had 3 enforcement notices sent back because of errors in completion, including the correct RP. In theory, it should be simple, and it actually is, provided you have people who know what they are doing completing them.
-
Further to the above, I have just read an "elightening" article in Fire Risk Management that states that a manager can be the responsible person and that if a sub-contractor changes a cable and a fire ensues because of a fault in it, then the responsibility for the outcome can rest with this responsible person. QED!
-
Yes, I know - these articles are a straight copy of Sections 53 and 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act. But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.
The term "responsible person" is not that confusing Collllin...well not to the better trained. In many cases is not really very relevant because offences can be committed by anyone and any person who has to any extent control has to comply with the Order whether or not they are the responsible person.
So the Engish are quite correct to think that any person who has some control may be the person who has certain duties.
Serious question....why do you think the FRS are confused on this issue, has it caused any recent problems?
...........and why have you Scottish persons confused the issue of what is and what is not a domestic premises??
The definition in the Fire(Scotland) Act is different to the Order, do you know why old boy??
-
Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:
1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!
2. It IS relevant because a lot of notices get it wrong. And the duty imposed on a person having control is not an absolute one, whereas that of the RP employer is. That is a fundamental aspect of the Order.
3. I know that the English may perceive that certain duties may be imposed on certain persons, but, again, that does not make them the RP and there are subtle distinctions between the RP and the person in control.
4. I am totally convinced (and have a lot of evidence to show) that enforcing authorities (and, to be fair, many others) are horrendously confused about this.
5. Yes, i do know why, but the reason is not that suggested at one training seminar by some herberts from a well-known seat of learning with which you may have some familiarity, namely that it might just be a typo by the Scottish Government that somehow not one of the 6 million people in Scotland had noticed over the last two years.
6. The question is why did the English confuse the issue of what is domestic premises, so causing all the problems described in these BBs about doormats in the common parts and fire extinguishers for wrinklies to allegedly fight there way out of infernos in the common parts of blocks of flats.
ps rumour has it that you once confused Dumfries with Gullane-its a darned confusing place that Scotland is it not??????
-
Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:
1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!
2. It IS relevant because a lot of notices get it wrong. And the duty imposed on a person having control is not an absolute one, whereas that of the RP employer is. That is a fundamental aspect of the Order.
3. I know that the English may perceive that certain duties may be imposed on certain persons, but, again, that does not make them the RP and there are subtle distinctions between the RP and the person in control.
4. I am totally convinced (and have a lot of evidence to show) that enforcing authorities (and, to be fair, many others) are horrendously confused about this.
5. Yes, i do know why, but the reason is not that suggested at one training seminar by some herberts from a well-known seat of learning with which you may have some familiarity, namely that it might just be a typo by the Scottish Government that somehow not one of the 6 million people in Scotland had noticed over the last two years.
6. The question is why did the English confuse the issue of what is domestic premises, so causing all the problems described in these BBs about doormats in the common parts and fire extinguishers for wrinklies to allegedly fight there way out of infernos in the common parts of blocks of flats.
ps rumour has it that you once confused Dumfries with Gullane-its a darned confusing place that Scotland is it not??????
Collin does Mrs Todd allow you to stay up that late?, you need your beauty sleep!
1.I know you’d like to blame me for all the failings of the FSC but I didn’t personally train all the FRS inspectors, honest guvernor.
2. Most FRS use the letters drafted by Hampshire and the term responsible person is not used in the enforcement notice.
The wording is: “the Fire and Rescue Authority are of the opinion that, as a person being under an obligation to do so, you have failed to comply with the requirements placed upon you..”
Now that person is not necessarily the responsible person and no-one should be suggesting that they are. You make a good point however about the absolute duty placed on the employer.
3. Agreed but action may still be taken against them including serving enforcement notices and prosecution.
4. Lack of training I believe. Many FRS inspectors have still not received appropriate training and guidance issued by the Secretary of State is poor in my opinion.
5. No I have never believed that it was a typo. The definition used in the Order is a cut and paste from the HASAW etc Act and as you know the definition in the Act is fundamentally different. I would be interested to know why.
6. I don’t think it is confusing but lack of competence by many assessors and enforcers has caused many problems as well you know Mr Toddd.
Ah yes dear Dumfries. I spent some time there after following a set of diversion signs that led me back to where I started from....how I laughed as a arrived at my starting point for the third time!!! Was that your attempt to stop me reaching Gullane Colllin?
-
Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:
1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!
Colin in the early 90's, most Brigades had limited the number of candidates they sent to Moreton and favoured in house training, well before risk assessment and the RR(FS)O so you should be looking at those who provide the training now and in the recent past, give them some stick.
-
The action plan section of my fire risk assessment template has fallen into the trap of describing any person who has responsibility to implement an element of the plan as a person responsible.
Is this just a rather backwards Responsible Person?
I cannot perceive how, in the hotel scenario discussed by Colin, the duty manager could be held soley responsible for any breaches of the Order? Whilst the Duty Manager has control of the premises (and therefore subject to article 5(3)) if he were to breach these duties I would have expected ANY enforcement action to be replicated to the Employer in this situation, and possibly further scrutiny of the Responsible Persons compliance with articles 5 and 11?(POCMAR).
Now making the best of a bad job, for the purpose of a Fire Risk Assessment report, how could we best describe those persons who have duties under article 5(3) or 5(4). (Or 17 and 18) They currently appear in my risk assessment template as responsible persons as opposed to the Responsible Person but does this muddy the waters? We need to keep things brief but would the term "duty holder under article 5" et al be an improvement? Or doesnt it matter?
Whilst many will accuse us of engaging in somantics, it is important if we are to keep our industry out of the hands of lawyers and barristers. How often on hearing of acquittals in criminal cases on technical grounds do you ask yourself "yes but did he do it?" I do all the time. Our appeals should be focussed on the general fire precautions and we should not be allowing time and money to be wasted in persuance of technical acquittals.
-
The action plan section of my fire risk assessment template has fallen into the trap of describing any person who has responsibility to implement an element of the plan as a person responsible.
Is this just a rather backwards Responsible Person?
Whilst many will accuse us of engaging in somantics, it is important if we are to keep our industry out of the hands of lawyers and barristers. How often on hearing of acquittals in criminal cases on technical grounds do you ask yourself "yes but did he do it?" I do all the time. Our appeals should be focussed on the general fire precautions and we should not be allowing time and money to be wasted in persuance of technical acquittals.
I don't think it really matters what you call them in your document Kurnal but perhaps it would be best not to refer to them as the responsible person if they are not as defined in the order.
FRS use a form when conducting audits and it has a box for "the responsible person" now for example when auditing a store like B&Q or Sainsburys the manager will not be the responsible person as defined in the Order but the body corporate will be....but most inspectors will enter the name of the manager as the responsible person.
The authors of the form clearly don't realise the problem, nor do most inspectors ...semantics it may be but as you correctly point out the lawyers could make enforcers look very silly and if documents are not correctly worded and served they will be worthless.
-
I think I will sell up and buy a hotel in NI
-
Kurnal: We used to record "the person responsible for fire safety" as management info in all our FRAs. WE dropped the term before intro of the Order, as RP has now a special legal definition, and it is probably best to reserve the use of the word responsible as an adjective associated with the word person, in the strict legal sense of the word.
Some FRSs use the word responsible person in their enforcement notices I am afraid Kurnal.
-
Phillllip,
1. I know you arent personally responsible to use that term you like so much, but everyone needs an icon that personifies the horrors of their life. Like you probably told the little Bs about the boogie man to encompass a whole host of possible ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night. You are my icon for the horror that is a well-known establishment , thats all. Nothing personal, old boy. On the same subject, TW, problem with a lot of the training given is that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. All myopic training deserves the same stick. Its part of equality and diversity.
2. Thank you for your acknowledgment of my good point. All my points are good though, it's one of my most irritating traits, second only to forgetting to put the toilet seat back down.
3. Thats two things you have agreed about in one posting. Are you feeling well, or should I be worried about your health.
4. In view of the above, it is incumbent upon me to find something to agree with you about. This is as good as anything.
5 I know you know it is not a typo. You are not some herbert, you are Phillip. Why would the Fire (Scotland) Act follow HASWA about meaning of domestic.
6. There is a lot of poor understanding by people, but some might have been avoided by using different terminology.
I love conspiracy theories as you know, Phillip. However, the reason you could not find Gullane is much simpler. You know how we Scots revel in education. The signage was just a form if 11 plus for our English visitors. You failed. It was a test of lateral thinking. The correct answer was simply not to leave the map at home.
With regard to my late nights, Phillip, not for the first time you are behind the times. You need to do more CPD in Toddyism. I divorced (the former) Mrs Todd on 17th April 2007, although my solicitor only told me in passing some 3 days later that the absolute had come through , and even then only en passent (thats french for en passent) when chatting about something else. ( I had become an expert in unreasonable behaviour from all those years dealing with enforcing authorities, so should really have acted for myself and not used a lawyer.) Anyhow, I was in Belfast at the time, and celebrated in style at Benedicts. Put this posting in your CPD record.
-
Davidrh, NI is not God's own country, but He does spend most of his leisure time there, when not in his homeland of Scotland. A hotel there would be fine, but you could, alternatively, consider the Scottish Highlands. Both areas have beathtaking countryside, wonderful people, a major city of great nightlife, plus very friendly F&RS, who are part of the community, and take an enforcement concordat approach to enforcment of legislation that is much better written than that in E&W. I will leave the choice of the two to you, and will support your decision, whatever it is.
-
Northern Ireland's proposed fire safety regulations is now out for public consultation which closes 8 May 2009. All being well we can expect commencement of the Fire Safety elements of the Fire Safety Order 2006 around one month later.
-
But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone has any duties of running a joint, they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.
The use of a title to identify an individual or group could mean the use of a couple of words instead of a paragraph I would choose the title. If this is the case what title would you use to identify the Person or Persons who has the Responsibility to implement the order.
As to the FRS being confused then that could be up to the calibre or poor training of the new entrants into fire safety, also the lack guidance from government similar to that provided when the FPA was introduced.
I think the titles should be related to their specific job, when saying the (responsible person) RP, responsible of what? this is a general public definition, but where is the proper technical one, related to the discipline?..., quite same thing for Fire Protection engineer, it could be sprinkler engineer, fire alarm engineer, extinguisher engineer..., and above those the engineer could be designer, servicing, surveyer engineer..., also someone may say it's a fire fighter, but there is still no specific definitions to state what's what..., still the introduction of a national register for every bit, is the key point...
-
Benz you have got all confused. The RP is properly defined. IT is just no one bothers to read the definition and everyone thinks it is a person, which it normally is not.
-
Benz you have got all confused. The RP is properly defined. IT is just no one bothers to read the definition and everyone thinks it is a person, which it normally is not.
Colin; why not displaying the difinition you are refering to in this forum, then let every body see how it looks like, if its fairly clear or it needs a proper technical one :)
-
You are all kicking yourself up the backsides without the need to.The meaning of responsible persons is adequately described in the order. Even my 6 year old grand daughter could understand it. A client of mine has just received an enforcement notice and aslked me to help. The wording is as PHilB states and doesn't use the term "Responsible Person".
-
Fire & Rescue Service (NI) Order on schedule to commence 1 April 2010.
-
Fire & Rescue Service (NI) Order on schedule to commence 1 April 2010.
It's been so long - is there either a full or draft copy of it about??
-
Fire & Rescue Service (NI) Order on schedule to commence 1 April 2010.
It's been so long - is there either a full or draft copy of it about??
The Order is freely available. The accompanying Regulations are still in draft form and not available on line just yet.
-
The distinction between Order and Regulations is very important check out http://www.nifrs.org/fire_safety.php?sec=5237
Also check out http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/proposalsforfiresafetyreform.pdf for a draft copy of the Regulations.
-
Ta!
-
I'm curious to know does this compare with the rest of the UK or is it less stringent?
Excuse my ignorance in advance but I don't see the actual substance in it - will there be implications for non-third party accredited companies?
-
Buzz when it comes into force it will simple bring NI in line with the rest of the UK. One good thing is its appears to get rid of unnecessary titles and simply refers to Employer, Person having control, Owner and Employee when dishing out the duties. (Article 25 to 28 of the Order).
NT do you know who will provide the guidance hopefully not the DCLG?
-
Buzz when it comes into force it will simple bring NI in line with the rest of the UK. One good thing is its appears to get rid of unnecessary titles and simply refers to Employer, Person having control, Owner and Employee when dishing out the duties. (Article 25 to 28 of the Order).
NT do you know who will provide the guidance hopefully not the DCLG?
Yes. Have heard it is DCLG.
Another difference is that the common areas of dwellings is not a relevant place.
-
After very exhaustive and brain numbing searching over some years, I'm still trying to find an unequivocal and authoritative definition of an HMO; is there one out there? Will some buildings always be in a debatable category e.g. modern purpose built low rise student halls, with shared kitchens? I know there's been some legal action over this type of accommodation within the last couple of years, involving just this sort of argument.
P.S. This post was prompted by the NI Legislation, which includes common areas of HMOs as a relevant place, but not other dwellings.
-
This might help.
http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/yh-home/renting_privately/hmo/definition.htm
-
Thanks NT, those categories are helpful, I do have them and every other bit of HMO guidance I can find, some of which contradict others; the reason I asked is that we carry out FRAs of these buildings anyway although there's debate about whether they actually are HMOs (I think they are!); I've recently been questioned as to whether it's a necessary expense, what with cut backs an' all. Unfortunately some people see opportunities for savings in fire safety ::)
-
...and some see fire safety as a nice earner with each new piece of legislation. - it's getting the middle ground established that's the trick.
-
Thanks NT, those categories are helpful, I do have them and every other bit of HMO guidance I can find, some of which contradict others; the reason I asked is that we carry out FRAs of these buildings anyway although there's debate about whether they actually are HMOs (I think they are!); I've recently been questioned as to whether it's a necessary expense, what with cut backs an' all. Unfortunately some people see opportunities for savings in fire safety ::)
Try this link as well GM.
http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/yh-home/renting_privately/hmo/registration.htm
Notice the "exemptions from registration". Even though they are exempt the Housing Executive still refers to them a HMOs.
-
So (and taking into account the rest of the UK), will more companies be insisting on third party accreditation for fire alarm system and service providers?