RRO application

[David Rooney]

Q1/ Bed and breakfast. in the old days, the "private" or "family" accommodation was often outside the scope of the inspecting officer, and we therefore often installed L2 throughout the "let" areas with nothing in the private bits.

With the new RRO we are being asked if this is still acceptable or should these areas also now be covered?

Q2/ Houses that are let out to single families eg holiday lets. Where do these stand in the eyes of the RRO?

Q3/ Small B&B, 2 storey. Family area and 3 rooms let out. In the past the FO apparently did not require fire doors. Now the owners are worried an RA may recommend fire doors.

Comments please >>>>>?

[kurnal]

Q1
Dave- in these early days its not easy but my guess  would be that the private bits are effectively a private flat so the boundary is the inside face of the flat door. But surely it should have had something inside that door otherwise it wouldnt have been L3 never mind L2.
Other complications may be that the private bits may not be self contained and could possibly be construed as a HMO.
Practical risk assessed solution would say that if a fire in the private bits could possibly pose a threat to the let areas then they should also be covered.

Q2- again its an early guess but these appear to me to be premises that are not excluded from the RRO so will need a risk assessment but the significant findings will not need to be recorded.

Q3- The risk has not changed since Oct 1st only the Regulations. So what was safe before should be safe afterwards. Mostly the risk is little higher than a large domestic house. depending on the layout (travel distances say 9m to the front door, staircase arrangements,) and provision of detection to a good standard the risk assessment may justify the status quo.

[David Rooney]

Q1
Dave- in these early days its not easy but my guess  would be that the private bits are effectively a private flat so the boundary is the inside face of the flat door. But surely it should have had something inside that door otherwise it wouldnt have been L3 never mind L2.
Other complications may be that the private bits may not be self contained and could possibly be construed as a HMO.
Practical risk assessed solution would say that if a fire in the private bits could possibly pose a threat to the let areas then they should also be covered.

Q2- again its an early guess but these appear to me to be premises that are not excluded from the RRO so will need a risk assessment but the significant findings will not need to be recorded.

Q3- The risk has not changed since Oct 1st only the Regulations. So what was safe before should be safe afterwards. Mostly the risk is little higher than a large domestic house. depending on the layout (travel distances say 9m to the front door, staircase arrangements,) and provision of detection to a good standard the risk assessment may justify the status quo.

Thanks Kurnal.

Re 2: recorded or not, as the premises is "let out" as a single family dwelling, does it need an RA in terms of the RRO ??

Re 3: that's generally the way I think, however, the owners are concerned that they now have to put their name to it !!

[kurnal]

Yes as I see it, it  will need a risk assessment but the findings will not have to be recorded. (So how on earth you prove you have done it is beyond me).

Article 31 (10) defines premises as follows:
(10) In this article, "premises" includes domestic premises other than premises consisting of or comprised in a house which is occupied as a single private dwelling and article 27 (powers of inspectors) shall be construed accordingly.

I think it will need the risk assessment because I dont think holiday lets can de defined as being  occupied as a single private dwelling. But if someone has a different view I would be ever so pleased to hear it as I am addressing a group of landlords this week and dont want to give the wrong message!!

[jokar]

The definition of remises in the RR(FS)O is "Any Place" and therefore a FRA would be applicable to all places that are not exempted or excepted.  Article 31 refers to an enforcing authority issuing a prohibition notice and gives an explanation in para 10 as to what can be prohibited, common parts ot shared accommodation but not the single private dwelling bits.  As regards Q1, the private dwelling, surely detection is required to alert the remainder of the people in the premises to a possible fire situation.  Q2, these are not in the definition of a single private dwelling and are subject to an FRA but not recorde unless the property is licensed by the local authority, in which case it will be recorded. ( For licence in the RR(FS)O anything that is registered certificated or licensed is included in Article 42 and 43)
Q3 Undertake the FRA and see what is required as preventative and protective measures and then justify the resulst.

[AnthonyB]

OK interesting question - if you can Prohibit the coomon parts but not the private dwellings in the unlikely situation someone issuesa PN to such a common access area would this make it an offence for people to pass through it to get to the flats? And if it doesn't, why be able to prohibit anyway?

[David Rooney]

>>>>> reaches for Nurofen............

[jokar]

It is an offence for any person in Article 31 (2)(h) to fail to comply with a Prohibition Notice.  Therefore, if the occupant of the flat entered the common parts knowing that a notice had been issued then they will have committed an offence providing that it was provable.  The Notice will probably have been issued on the grounds that the escape was untenable for whatever reason.

[Mike Buckley]

Prohibition Notices, bearing in mind that to issue a PN the circumstances must be very bad, then I think it would be an offense for the RP to allow people to pass through the common areas subject to the PN to get to their flats. Afterall the people inside the flats need the common areas as a means of escape. If the people can get to their flats without having to pass through the area subject to the PN and the travel distances were ok (excluding the prohibited area) then they can be allowed into their flats.

The whole aim of the RRO is to protect people from fire and enable them to escape in the case of a fire, anything that compromises that must not be allowed.

Finally the RP may delay implementation if they are just dealing with the enforcing bodies but usually have to deal with a their irate residents.

[fred]

I think this can be resolved by taking a close look at the definition of "relevant persons"

If the occupier of a private flat within a B & B (or any other premises which clearly falls within the scope of the RRO)  is :-

"any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises"

Then surely there is no argument  - they are in - unless of course we want to argue about "immediate vicinity"

On past history it'll be tested in the courts in about 20 years time.