FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: kurnal on July 09, 2010, 10:47:36 AM
-
I have just signed a contract to rent a flat in a Birmingham tower block.
The Maaging agent says is it not their policy to share the findings of the fire risk assessment with tenants. "The reports are far too lengthy and contain too much technical detail for their tenants to understand".
Reading between the lines I dont think they have one.
But looking at the Fire Safety Order- as a tenant do I have the right to demand that the prescribed information is shared with me?
Your views please.
-
Seems to be that the RP must carry out a FRA with consideration to relevant persons (tenents) but, unless an employee or an outside undertaking, the provision of information is not a requirement.
-
Hi Kurnal
Legally I do not believe they have any obligation to provide you with that information under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. (Repsonsible Persons only have a duty to inform employees on the specifics of the risk assessment, but not relevant persons - see art 19)
However you have made a reasonable request, and I dare say that if you requested the info again under the Freedom of Information Act they would have to supply you with that information.
As far as I'm concerned you should be entitled to the information, it is not for the managing agent to decide what is, or what isn't, too technical for a tenant to understand, and their response seems very unhelpful.
-
Does the FOI not apply to public bodies only?
If their reason is "The reports are far too lengthy and contain too much technical detail for their tenants to understand" and you show you have the necessary level of competence to understand "lengthy and technical details" regarding fire safety, and they still refuse, I would agree with you that a FRA does not exist.
-
There is another option besides them not having one. They have a good in-depth one, and there is a list as long as your arm, detailing works required to acheive compliance. :-\
-
Had a long chat with the Managing Agent, turned out to be part of a group I have done work for in the past, on knowing this their attitude changed and full information was given.
But I had never previously considered the rights of relevant persons to access the prescribed information and I see this as a big hole in the law.
A tenant of a private landlord has no right to obtain the findings of the fire risk assessment or the emergency plan and and the RP has no duty to divulge it?
-
Interesting comments on this subject and thought provoking. I am undertaking a FRA for a housing association on a small block of flats on monday because one of the leaseholders within the building is kicking up a fuss as they want details of the FRA. The association had not as yet undetaken a FRA on this particular block, though they have on some of thier stock.
We have the added benifit of a Weslh Assembly government in South Wales and the lease holder is already making his point to them, but as far as I am aware the Weslsh Assembly dont have any powers over the info in a FRA. interesting points about "relevant Persons" which I shall be passing on.
-
You having a bit of trouble with your
Wellsh Weslesh Welsh there, Colonel?
-
But I had never previously considered the rights of relevant persons to access the prescribed information and I see this as a big hole in the law.
I don't see why this is a hole in the law. Your right to live in a block of flats that is safe is written in the law. Just like when you travel on a bus/train/plane. The safety checks should have taken place, the driver/pilot vetting should have taken place. The details of those things should be irrelevant to you.
Your real problem is that you know from experience the real picture, as I bet most of the buildings you go in have works required, and you also know that some assessors competence levels are questionable, and that the FRS/LA might not have inspected the place. I suppose it is like going parachuting, if you knew how to pack a chute you would probably rather pack your own. Ignorance is bliss.
-
I don't see why this is a hole in the law. Your right to live in a block of flats that is safe is written in the law. Just like when you travel on a bus/train/plane. The safety checks should have taken place, the driver/pilot vetting should have taken place. The details of those things should be irrelevant to you.
I disagree. The airline has a legal duty to inform me of the emergency procedures on boarding a plane. Its written into the law. But when I take up a tenancy of a flat the landlord has no duty to tell me the evacuation strategy for the building and if he doesnt the Law does not give me any mechanism or rights to obtain that information from him.
The fire strategy for the building certainly requires me to do something- ie stay put, call the fire brigade, evacuate, not to use the lift or whatever. But theres no way I can find out what is required of me if the landlord chooses not to tell me.
-
Very true Civvy, but by the same token why would the managing agents or landlord choose not to divulge out such information when asked to do so?.
If they've done everything by the book, then whats the problem? It just smacks of having something to hide. I could understand a policy of not giving out that info unless someone specifically asked for it, but a blanket "no" doesn't sit right with me.
If I dont like the bus Im travelling on I can simply get off at the next stop, or I can choose not fly with that airline again. We can't always be so choosey about where we live - the place where we sleep and spend most of our time.
Clearly Kurnal has a heightened awareness of the risks involved, and I think that having made a reasonable request the Managing Agents should have been more helpful to him.
A tenant is different from an airline passenger or a customer. There is in my opinion the necessity to provide them with key bits of information to help them feel safer, be more safety concious and know what to do in the event of an emergency.
(By the way you were right about the FOA Nearlythere - applies to public bodies only)
-
Just looked at your last post Kurnal.
Youve moved the goal posts a little - are you talking about the issue of residents being informed of the action to be taken in the event of fire , or the significant findings of the risk assessment?
For what its worth I would certainly say there is a lawful requirement for tenants to be given basic instruction on what to do in the event of fire.
Not a lawful requirement to inform tenants on the findings of the risk assessment.
-
Is there something in Housing legislation which is not in the FSO to cover this?
-
Youve moved the goal posts a little - are you talking about the issue of residents being informed of the action to be taken in the event of fire , or the significant findings of the risk assessment?
For what its worth I would certainly say there is a lawful requirement for tenants to be given basic instruction on what to do in the event of fire.
Not a lawful requirement to inform tenants on the findings of the risk assessment.
Sorry for moving the goalposts Retty its just how things developed since my first posting.
Funny how if the RP employs a schoolboy to mop the floors after school he has to provide the parent with information, but not the people who live there. I accept that this is however the case and I have no such rights.
In looking into this, I have struggled to find any lawful requirement for tenants of flats to be given basic instruction on what to do in the event of fire under the Fire Safety Order. I would be grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction.
-
In looking into this, I have struggled to find any lawful requirement for tenants of flats to be given basic instruction on what to do in the event of fire under the Fire Safety Order. I would be grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction.
Simples. Article 8.
-
Thanks C3. Article 8(b) and article 4(f) working tgether I guess?
I was looking for words like information and instruction and sometimes I cant see the wood for the trees.
-
Think you're right C3. Tried not to find it in 4 & 8 but couldn't.
-
IMO C3 is correct which was further clarified by Kurnal but it doesn't address the situation about the right to know about the FRA by Relevant Persons. However if you consider who Relevant Persons are, not only tenants but friends of friends visiting tenants, customers in a shop or departmental store and even passer by, then I can see why legislators kept well away from that can of worms.
"relevant persons" means-
(a) any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; and
(b) any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises,
but does not include a fire-fighter who is carrying out his duties in relation to a function of a fire and rescue authority under section 7,
8 or 9 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (fire-fighting, road traffic accidents and other emergencies), other than in relation to a
function under section 7(2)(d), 8(2)(d) or 9(3)(d) of that Act;
-
Tom I agree but theres a big difference between someone who lives in a building and a casual visitor or customer. If I live in a building I do not have any right to see the fire risk assessment or its findings even though my life is totally dependent on the Landlords diligence. But if I work there, or if my child has a part time job there for 15 minutes a day I do have these rights.
That still strikes me as bizarre.
-
I agree Kurnal but how would you draft it into the order without making the RR(FS)0 any worse than it already is.
-
If you had a cleaner, for example, they would be an employee in the building and they might be entitled to see it. ;)
-
I agree Kurnal but how would you draft it into the order without making the RR(FS)0 any worse than it already is.
Could be easily done without opening the can of worms. I don't see why Article 19 could be amended without too much of a headache.
-
Chewing this over...
Article 5 - Duties under this order... This imposes responsibility upon anyone involved in a contract or tenancy.. as a person having control(Art's 8 - 22) becomes a responsible person.
Cannot therefore, that be used to show, although not an employee, it links them in with such and therefore disclosure of significant findings must be made available?
A Tenant is still a relevant person & therefore has the right to be informed of findings.
-
A person having control due to a contract or tenancy does not usually become a Responsible Person, they are a 'person having control' and nothing more. They are still capable of the same offences as a RP, but the duties are only placed on them in accordance level of control he/she has. Kurnal might have a duty to maintain a decent front door, (i.e. not replace it with a nice straw one) and nothing else.
-
OK. So if a tenant has an employee from another employer in to do some work, sufficient information must be made available to them. How can the tenant (as being one who has control) give them that information if the RP has not passed it on to the tenant? The other employer's employee may well have to pass over/through common arreas to carry out that work. As a defence, would the tenant be able to submit to court that they have done all they reaonably can to provide such detail? That the RP would not give them insight or copy of the findings? (Art 20 refers)
-
MR I would be interested to know how you would amend art 19 considering it only applies to employees at the moment
-
You would have to amend in order that it doesn't just apply to employees TW.
Eg:-
Article 19 Provision of Information to Employees and Tenants
19(1) The RP must provide his employees and / or tenants with comprehensive and relevant information on :-
(a) the risks to them identified by the risk assessment
(b) the preventative and protective measures
etc etc
19 (1) (c) to (d) probably dont need to be applied to tenants, just article 19 (1) (a) & (b) and possibly (e)
-
Just re-use the term 'Relevant Persons'- 19. (1) The responsible person must provide Relevant Persons with... -covers most then eh? Simples Meerkat?(I know you are watching!!!)
-
you could do Mr P, only trouble is that the term Relevant Person may open it all to the can of worms TW perviously mentioned.
-
That is fine MR but what about owner/occupiers, lodgers, delivery men, and old uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, who would all claim they have a right to this information, they would all come out the woodwork. The RP would have to provide all these people with comprehensive and relevant information. How would s/he identify them and what good would it be to most of them.
If it could be limited to a small identifiably group then i agree it may work.
As article 4 & 8 will cover the important information they need to know, I would sooner leave it to the FRS to deal with the FRA and whether the RP has one. You can always snitch or grass on the RP. :o
-
Tom
Owner/ occupiers of flats have a particular interest and should be party to the findings of the fire risk assessment. They probably are in a stronger position than tenants because the RP of the common areas will no doubt add his costs for implementing the findings of a risk assessment to their service fee. When buying their flat their solicitor will also presumably make this a ondition of purchase so there is leverage there.
Lodgers are not relevant persons I suggest? (Because domestic premises are not subject to the Fire Safety Order.)
Delivery men are employees and their employer has a duty to communicate etc
Uncle Tom Cobleigh may have a reasonable right to information but since the old Gentleman passed away in 1794 then he wont be much trouble. Uncle Tom Sutton may be more of a handful.
No I remain convinced that there is a hole in the Law and, in any building with multiple occupiers to which the Order applies, all occupiers and tenants should enjoy similar rights to information as do employees.
-
As I have said previously Kurnal I do not disagree with you but it is how you would amend the order without complicating it any worse than it is already. Also I do not think they would amend the order a regulation would be made under article 24 and that would be a wow to see.
Regards to my previous submission the following statement is the kind of augments that would be put forward.
Lodgers use the common areas and are Relevant Persons under the order, (any persons who is lawfully on the premises or in the vicinity of the premises who are at risk are Relevant Persons, except fire-fighters on duty), they have a vested interest so why shouldn't they be included?
-
Hang on TW Sutton you say one thing then change course. You shot down someone for including tenants and employees in an amended example of article 19 and also say you cant include every man and his dog wanting to know the findings of the risk assessment as this would open a can of worms. So please make up your mind. Owner occupiers are rps in their own right so should be subject to article 22 anyway. I dont understand your point, i thought i did. Perhaps ive misunderstood you.
-
Lodgers use the common areas and are Relevant Persons under the order, (any persons who is lawfully on the premises or in the vicinity of the premises who are at risk are Relevant Persons, except fire-fighters on duty), they have a vested interest so why shouldn't they be included?
Yes good point about lodgers- of course you are right.
But Clleveland 3 raises an interesting issue in regard to the role of tenants vs owner occupiers when it comes to blocks of residential flats.
I think owner occupiers MAY be persons having control depending on whether they are responsible for the ownership and maintenance of their front door. If they have the right to change their door then they are persons having control but only to the extent of their control over the door. Otherwise they are just relevant persons. What happens inside the entrance door to the flat is outside the scope of the Fire Safety Order.
Where flats are sold to individual occupiers the canny landlord will retain control over the front door. IMO it is vital that they should.
If the landlord has retained control over the front door then all owner occupiers, tenants and lodgers alike are simply relevant persons.
And I still think that relevant persons who purchase, rent or lease any part of a building with multiple occupiers should legally be party to the significant findings of the fire risk assessment of the common areas and the emergency plan
-
Ok, in order to catch that scenario Article 19 could be ammended to read: Information to employees, tenants, (leaseholders), freeholders and lodgers.
Sorry I am being a little sarcastic to a degree...
Thinking about this further I dont seem lodgers coming into this. Lodgers are normally defined as someone lodged in a single domestic dwelling where the owner lives.
If you have two or more lodgers in your house it becomes a HMO (three people forming two or more households) and they are then referred to as "tenants".
I guess an owner / occupier in a block of flats may get a lodger, but I have never known this happen and I'd lump them in the general term of "tenant"
I take your point TW about article 24 and agree. But my examples, I think, show how the order could be worded to get RPs to provide information to those with a right to see it, in whatever form that takes, without opening that nasty can of worms you mentioned.
-
Re emergency plans, I fully agree that relevant persons should be informed and would personally consider that to fall under section 8 'reasonable precautions'
I would ask kurnal though, why do you think that the significant findings of the FRA should be shared? (this is a devils advocate kind of question and not a suicidal attempt to be shot to pieces by the great man!!)
Surely any significant findings should be subject to remedial action and/or effective management systems and therefore unless the issues directly involve the tenants, i.e. storage in electrical risers, there is no need for the tenants to be told?
Ok, I am now hunkered down ready to be torn to shreds from all sides!!
-
C3 I do get myself tired up in knots and I will try to do better in the future. :-[ All I was trying to say was, I agree with kurnal, this matter should have been address when the order was drafted. To change the order now it would not be simples without making the order more complicated than it is already, although others disagree. The examples I gave was the kind of augments I believe would be raised when the drafters were considering the terminology to be used. However I am not saying it should not be done.
Also as a tenant what information would I want to know,
First would be has a FRA been conducted and is the common areas safe. If the RP refused this information then I would simply give the FRS a bell.
Secondarily what would I do in the event of a fire in the building, which I believe art 8(2) & 4(f) would require the RP to provide a fire action plan for all the occupants if s/he tried to obstruct me, the blower to the FRS?
Although not ideal there are other ways to meet your needs, because it could be a very long time before the order is amended, if ever.
MR I am too thick to see your first statement as being sarcastic in any degree but it does make the point who do you include in the group.
As for the worms, forget them, I will go fishing with them instead. ;)
-
Re emergency plans, I fully agree that relevant persons should be informed and would personally consider that to fall under section 8 'reasonable precautions'
Yes you are probably right. It will probably take a court case to determine this though.
I would ask kurnal though, why do you think that the significant findings of the FRA should be shared?
Because the significant findings may be relevant to their safety. The definition of what needs to be recorded is found in article 7:
"7) The prescribed information is—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order;"
Now as I see it this the full fire safety package in terms of active, passive and management. I agree this would be too much information for the average tenant but they should at least be told the basics.
I always put together a bespoke information pack for tenants in my risk assessments of flats explaining what to do if they discover a fire, what to do if they hear the alarms in the common areas, how important it is not to wedge fire doors or put obstructions in the common staircases, not to store things in the electrical risers, use of lifts etc etc.
Perhaps its my fault for the way i asked. On exchanging contracts for the rent of this particular flat for my son, I nicely requested, (on headed email to give them the hint) to see the significant findings of the fire risk assessment. Their reply was as follows
" I have spoken to the managing agent of the building this morning regarding the fire risk assessment and they have confirmed that they do not release such documents- due to the sheer complexity and detail of the report. The lady I spoke to, reassured me that the building is very well maintained."
Now since my son had told me that both the fire alarm panel in the common areas and a ventilation control panel were both showing fault lights there was some cause to doubt this. Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked more direct questions.
Hence my looking closely at the Order, discovering my very weak position as a tenant and the start of this thread.
As several of you have inferred, if the Landlor had provided the tenants with information, maintained the place correctly and fulfilled article 8 then my enquiry would probably not have been relevant.
-
Extremely broad but have you considered 15(2)a?
Loosely applied obviously ;)