FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Clevelandfire 3 on October 08, 2011, 01:39:42 AM
-
The Reg Ref FS Order is not suitable for dealing with HMOS. RRO doesnt allow access into domestic premises. in a hmo that means bedrooms or bedsits. so what power allows fire inspectors to see if an LD2 system is in place? your thoughts.
-
None
An Englishman’s ( and Irish and Scottish and Welsh etc ) home is his castle and personal space. No one can enter without either being invited ( like a vampire) hence the great lengths CS teams go to, to advertise their services and therefore get invited in to give advice ……
…….or with a Warrant granted by a JP .
With certain notable exceptions like powers of entry to fight a fire etc……
-
It highlights the need to work in partnership with local authority housing officers.
-
None
An Englishman’s ( and Irish and Scottish and Welsh etc ) home is his castle and personal space. No one can enter without either being invited ( like a vampire) hence the great lengths CS teams go to, to advertise their services and therefore get invited in to give advice ……
…….or with a Warrant granted by a JP .
With certain notable exceptions like powers of entry to fight a fire etc……
Not so in Scotland
-
Really ..... Why?
-
I think that the RRFSO allows us entry in to private premises if it is indeed necessary to enforce the RRFSO.
27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, shall have power to do at any reasonable time the following—
(a)to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;
...
“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any workplace;
(b) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(c) any installation on land (including the foreshore and other land intermittently covered by water), and any other installation (whether floating, or resting on the seabed or the subsoil thereof, or resting on other land covered with water or the subsoil thereof); and
(d) any tent or movable structure;
I don't see where it says we can't enter just because the RRFSO doesn't apply.
-
I think that the RRFSO allows us entry in to private premises if it is indeed necessary to enforce the RRFSO.
27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, an inspector may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying out this Order and any regulations made under it into effect and in particular, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, shall have power to do at any reasonable time the following—
(a)to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;
...
“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a) any workplace;
(b) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(c) any installation on land (including the foreshore and other land intermittently covered by water), and any other installation (whether floating, or resting on the seabed or the subsoil thereof, or resting on other land covered with water or the subsoil thereof); and
(d) any tent or movable structure;
I don't see where it says we can't enter just because the RRFSO doesn't apply.
What would be the reason to believe it is necessary? You need to have a good reason.
-
I agree with you NT. My explanation would be as follows:
I think that if an LD2 fire alarm is specified in the fire risk assessment as decribed in the first post of this thread, then I may deem it necessary to look in the bedrooms to see that it is there, and that there are no signs of tampering etc. The provision of a residential sprinkler system may be another reason. You could take it further, and in a block of flats insist on seeing the self closers which would be required on all doors. (In reality you would want to see evidence that the RP/Assessor had checked this, so in some respects I might be arguing for something that I might not pursue in 99% of cases)
Most FSO's do not consider that we have rights of entry to domestic premises at all. I believe that this is due to how the FP act was worded, where we had rights of entry to specific premises, detailed in the FP act. It seems that people often think that this is carried over, and some people will also talk about giving 24 hours notice.
The wording regarding powers of entry in the FP Act and the RRFSO are very different, and I think that the wording of the RRFSO does not discount rights of entry into premises where the order doesn't apply providing that (as you say) there is a good reason. One reason could be deemed simply to be 'to see if the order applies'.
I could be wrong, and would appreciate other opinions.
-
I know of at least one brigade whose enforcement section does not & will not use the RRO against private dwellings in buildings with common areas and will only enforce against the landlord.
Not sure how they approach HMO's though as don't deal with that class of property much.
I think it may be more appropriate for the local authority to use the Housing Act instead, I know of one case I've dealt with where that was the approach taken, the FRS taking an advisory role only.
-
I dont disagree with you Civvy but playing devils advocate lets say a housing officer contacts you and asks you to visit the premises, and sends you some plans of the property by email before your visit.
As such you already know which bits of the building are covered under the order, and thus which areas you shouldn't enter, even if to check detection is in place.
-
I agree with you NT. My explanation would be as follows:
I think that if an LD2 fire alarm is specified in the fire risk assessment as decribed in the first post of this thread, then I may deem it necessary to look in the bedrooms to see that it is there, and that there are no signs of tampering etc. The provision of a residential sprinkler system may be another reason. You could take it further, and in a block of flats insist on seeing the self closers which would be required on all doors. (In reality you would want to see evidence that the RP/Assessor had checked this, so in some respects I might be arguing for something that I might not pursue in 99% of cases)
Most FSO's do not consider that we have rights of entry to domestic premises at all. I believe that this is due to how the FP act was worded, where we had rights of entry to specific premises, detailed in the FP act. It seems that people often think that this is carried over, and some people will also talk about giving 24 hours notice.
The wording regarding powers of entry in the FP Act and the RRFSO are very different, and I think that the wording of the RRFSO does not discount rights of entry into premises where the order doesn't apply providing that (as you say) there is a good reason. One reason could be deemed simply to be 'to see if the order applies'.
I could be wrong, and would appreciate other opinions.
Might I suggest that in the interest of privacy and Human Rights you would and indeed should not be able to use this legislation in this way otherwise you could use as an excuse to enter any private premises at any time at your leisure. You could say that you want to have a look in anyones private dwelling to see that it is not being used as a hotel, just because you want to rather than having good reason to do so.
Right of entry must only be based on having good reason and if legislation allows unfettered access to anyones private space then the legislation is wrong as is guidance which requires measures to be provided and subsequently policed in private areas.
-
I agree that there are better ways of dealing with things such as using the housing act etc.
I also agree that in the case Midland put forward then there would probably be no need.
The privacy aspect of human rights legislation applies to businesses too, and we can enter a business premises at any reasonable time so why (As far as the Human Rights Act goes) would it be any different for domestic? I don't think there is anything in the Human Rights Act which differentiates between the privacy you are entitled to in your private life and the privacy you are entitled to in your business life. Any such invasion of privacy from a public body certainly has to be justified, and to be honest I don't think that a Fire Authority would ever impinge on a persons domestic privacy in this way, as they would not risk the potential PR disaster. If it was abused, and there was no good reason, THEN we have a problem under the Human Rights Act.
I am really arguing from the point of "tell me where it says we can't", and someone might actually be able to show me this.
-
The trouble is in my scenario the inspector may well have been given a plan, but who is to say that plan is accurate or displays all the information the inspector requires?
The inspector might need to check that detection has been provided in the bedrooms. And this is where the dilema arises. The detection is required to protect the MOE but in theory fire officers are not able to enter the domestic parts (ie bedrooms) to check if it is there or not - which seems rather a crazy situation.
The only place I can see it states that fire inspectors cannot access domestic parts of the building is article 6(1)
You could apply article 27 as Civvy already mentiosn but if you know the part of the building you are about to enter is domestic (i.e; if you have a plan with you, or the landlord or residents tells you that there is a bedroom behind that door) an inspector can't go in. If the inspector wasn't aware I would argue 27 applies and the inspector has done nothing wrong if s/he stumbles across a domestic part of the building.
Seems to me that it would be better if the housing authority be given full responsibility for fire (which they have anyway apart from in mixed commercial situations, or the fire authority be allowed better rights of entry under the RRO)
-
Do these help?
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/guidance1enforcement2005.pdf see page 27
http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?id=18825
-
NT no problem, Human Rights Act don't figure. In the last statement "where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force" so if the occupier tells you to go away and play with yourself you have a pleasant couple of hours ahead.
It appears you can enter domestic premises in HMO if considering a prohibition order. (Check guidance document 1 page 27)
-
Thats right Tom. Yet again another anomoly in the order. For some reason you can prohibit the use of the said domestic parts of the premises, but just not enter them. Excellent ::)
-
Again, where does it actually say in black and white that we can't enter them if it is necessary?
If an occupier tells you to go away and play with yourself then isn't that potentially just the same as a business owner refusing us entry? Obstruction of an inspector?
-
How does this all apply to fire alarm engineers that need to enter the private sections of an HMO to either find a fault or conduct routine servicing. Know we've been here before but just extending the discussion
-
Civvy It doesn't say but it does say "where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force" to me that says you must be invited in.
Yes you could prosecute for obstruction and I would take a RP or person subject to 5(3) to court, but would you take a flat owner?
-
I doubt we would, but I still say we could.
Paul, people who need access to maintain equipment are dealt with quite specifically:
17.—(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
(2) Where the premises form part of a building, the responsible person may make arrangements with the occupier of any other premises forming part of the building for the purpose of ensuring that the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.
(3) Paragraph (2) applies even if the other premises are not premises to which this Order applies.
(4) The occupier of the other premises must co-operate with the responsible person for the purposes of paragraph (2).
It is a toothless comment, as there is no offence directly linked to this requirement. However, if a fire alarm system failed to perform its function, actually creating an offence, and that could be traced back to someone who wouldn't let the engineer in to maintain the equipment, then that tenant could possibly be guilty of the offence. (In a similar way as discussed recently regarding sprinkler systems, and the recent thread regarding a hotel)
-
How does this all apply to fire alarm engineers that need to enter the private sections of an HMO to either find a fault or conduct routine servicing. Know we've been here before but just extending the discussion
Thats why I say that fire safety measures to protect common escape routes should not extent beyond the main entrance to each unit.
-
Would anyone posting on this thread be happy for a faceless inspector or engineer to enter their home in order to do whatsoever? ???
I doubt it. Picture the scene …. Excuse me I want to come in and have a look at your bedroom in order to ascertain that you are safe……or to make sure that your neighbours down the road will be safe if a fire breaks out in a home three doors down from them.
Smacks totalitarianism. We know what is best for you poor people because you live in poor housing. ::)
The problem with the legislation is it was hastily created by amalgamating several existing pieces already on the statute book. Read the spirit of the order … not the wording.
Simply put common law dictates your home is yours! No one can enter it unless you have sufficient grounds for a search warrant to be issued (with some notable exceptions like rescuing people etc)
-
If we take Article 6:
6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).
6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".
And if we now take Article 27:
27(1)(a) states "to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;"
I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).
-
If we take Article 6:
6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).
6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".
And if we now take Article 27:
27(1)(a) states "to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;"
I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).
I would suggest that 6(1)(a) has precedence over 27(1)(a) otherwise the Queen's bedroom is fair game. It is afterall an "any premises".
-
I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.
-
If we take Article 6:
6(1)(a) states that this doesn't apply to domestic premises (except for 31(10)).
6(2) then states that "Subject to the preceding paragraph of this article, this Order applies in relation to any premises".
And if we now take Article 27:
27(1)(a) states "to enter any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above and to inspect the whole or part of the premises and anything in them, where such entry and inspection may be effected without the use of force;"
I would say that the reference to "enter any premises" in 27(1)(a), after reading 6(2) would mean, in this context, that that you can enter any premises subject to the paragraph in 6(1) and therefore you can't enter domestic premises (once you are aware that it is a domestic premises).
I think that is the best argument yet to suggest that we can't enter domestic premises. (Except where 31(10) applies or may apply of course) I still think that articles are being cobbled together a little to suit a side of an argument though. The FP act was very clear about which premises we have powers of entry to, the RRFSO doesn't seem that clear. It wouldn't have hurt to simply give us powers of entry to premises "where the order applies" would it? That would be nice and clear.
I still think that article 27(1)(a)'s line of "any premises which he has reason to believe it is necessary for him to enter for the purpose mentioned above" is very wide in scope, and if the definition of 'premises' linked it to places where the order applies then I would say that your answer would be 100% right.
I think we can all agree that it is not 100% clear cut, and I don't want to sound like I am 100% sure that we have powers of entry. The chances are we don't, and we were not intended to, but I think that it could have been made crystal clear and it clearly hasn't.
-
Am I missing something here? Just get the EHO to sort it.
-
I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
Therefore domestic premises do not come under the Order for the purposes of anything other than Art 31.(10)
They are not "any premises" because they are not recognised under the Order as anything other than for Art31.
-
Am I missing something here? Just get the EHO to sort it.
Yeah good luck with that. Dont you mean when you can find one and make sure they are available the same time you are and even then if they can be bothered to take action.
-
I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
Therefore domestic premises do not come under the Order for the purposes of anything other than Art 31.(10)
They are not "any premises" because they are not recognised under the Order as anything other than for Art31.
If you follow that line of thinking then you could also say that persons in domestic premises cannot be relevant persons, since the order quite simply does not apply. (Apart from 31(10) etc)
-
Am I missing something here? Just get the EHO to sort it.
You could Wee Brian. But if an inspector has been called out on a complaint for instance and an EHO can't attend it could make life difficult for the reasons already stated.
-
I agree; but, to me, 6(2) reinforces it.
6.—(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a)domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
Therefore domestic premises do not come under the Order for the purposes of anything other than Art 31.(10)
They are not "any premises" because they are not recognised under the Order as anything other than for Art31.
If you follow that line of thinking then you could also say that persons in domestic premises cannot be relevant persons, since the order quite simply does not apply. (Apart from 31(10) etc)
From what I can read Civvy Relevant Persons are not excluded but the types of premises they are in can be. A person walking down the public street can be exposed to a risk from fire in your building because of a risk you have created and they are "relevant". That does not make the street relevant.
-
NT, If "any premises" or "premises" had a definition which specifically excluded premises where the order doesn't apply I would agree.
I still say that it isn't as clear as it could be though. How difficult would it have been to have a couple of extra words, similar to the FP act?
I may shut up soon.
-
Agreed Nearlythere.
I also agree with Clevelandfire that it isn't always possible to get an EHO out at the same time as a fire inspector. But nevertheless Wee B is correct, wherever possible the housing and fire officer should work together. Just seems a little disjointed, and attimes impractical, particularly as fire and housing inspectors have different views of risk when it comes to what they can and cannot enforce.
As regards the article 6 scenario I'll throw this into the mix:-
If you were called to a four storey HMO as a fire inspector, could see there was detection in the common areas but couldn't get into the bedrooms (the landlord says he is not allowed to go into bedrooms without giving tenants notice first) You ask the landlord if the bedrooms have detection, s/he says that they can't remember.
Would you :-
1) Ask landlord to arrange access and go back in a day or two with EHO
2) Assume the worst and consider possible prohibition / restriction
3) Say "fine you need to ensure there is detection in there before people are allowed to sleep on the premsies tonight, and if there is a fire its down to you".
What is reasonable, and how does that inspector protect themself?
-
You can do anything necessary for the purpose of enforcing the order. :P
-
Thats right Tom. Yet again another anomoly in the order. For some reason you can prohibit the use of the said domestic parts of the premises, but just not enter them. Excellent ::)
I think this clause was added to prevent tenants/occupiers from re-occupying a building that was subject to Art 31. If re-entering via the common parts they would be committing an offence anyway, but apparently there have been instances where inhabitants have re-entered their flats externally.
-
You can do anything necessary for the purpose of enforcing the order. :P
Pah! You scamp Civvy stop ducking the question.
-
I wouldn't really say I am ducking the question, I am merely throwing little bits of doubt on alternative answers. :)
-
No Im convinced that Article 6 wraps it up nicely. You cant enter domestic premises, except for the purposes of adminstering and establishing if that dwelling is to be prohibited.
-
I am happy that your are convinced.
-
the reason you dont have a right of access is because it isnt your job - let the eho deal with it
-
The problem is that often the fire officer may not have visited the premises with a housing officer to hand for various reasons.This could be oppossing workloads, the fire officer may have received a complaint which the brigade feels warrants immediate investigation due to life risk etc.
Also don't forget that the communal fire alarm also extends beyond the communal areas into bedrooms and bedsits. To check compliance you need to know if those detectors are where they should be.