Author Topic: LACORS Guidance  (Read 44066 times)

Offline johnny99

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2008, 09:45:37 AM »
CivvyFSO

I apologise for trying to inject a little humour into this thread.  I was simply trying to make the point that perhaps the risks are not so high as to be frightening.  There is no evidence to suggest that any of those unfortunate fatalities occurred in a shared house or any type of HMO, or that any smoke detectors or fire doors would have prevented them dying in any case.  If none of those three people died in shared houses at all, then the odds could be infinite, which is lots higher than the chances of winning the lottery.

nearlythere

I am a little surprised by that.  Firstly, I don't see that most drivers are 'professionals'.  Secondly, I have no idea what your background is, but I would expect that Local Housing Authority Inspectors, paid Risk Assessors and Fire Brigade Inspectors should all be able to exercise professional judgement in a safe manner.  Isn't that what the Housing Health & Safety Rating System, the Enforcement Concordat and all the other legislation is about?

I am not trying to be controversial, and I do take my tenants safety very seriously.  As I mentioned the detection in my houses is LD2 (I won't be reducing it as a result of the guidance) but there is a difference between a safe property and belt, braces, piece of string and a spare pair of trousers just in case.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2008, 09:57:33 AM »
Quote from: johnny99
CivvyFSO

I apologise for trying to inject a little humour into this thread.  I was simply trying to make the point that perhaps the risks are not so high as to be frightening.  There is no evidence to suggest that any of those unfortunate fatalities occurred in a shared house or any type of HMO, or that any smoke detectors or fire doors would have prevented them dying in any case.  If none of those three people died in shared houses at all, then the odds could be infinite, which is lots higher than the chances of winning the lottery.

nearlythere

I am a little surprised by that.  Firstly, I don't see that most drivers are 'professionals'.  Secondly, I have no idea what your background is, but I would expect that Local Housing Authority Inspectors, paid Risk Assessors and Fire Brigade Inspectors should all be able to exercise professional judgement in a safe manner.  Isn't that what the Housing Health & Safety Rating System, the Enforcement Concordat and all the other legislation is about?

I am not trying to be controversial, and I do take my tenants safety very seriously.  As I mentioned the detection in my houses is LD2 (I won't be reducing it as a result of the guidance) but there is a difference between a safe property and belt, braces, piece of string and a spare pair of trousers just in case.
Only joking with my second point johnny99.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline johnny99

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2008, 10:21:26 AM »
Doh!  Apologies nearlythere.  Hoisted by my own comedy petard.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2008, 01:00:52 PM »
Quote from: johnny99
There is no evidence to suggest that any of those unfortunate fatalities occurred in a shared house or any type of HMO, or that any smoke detectors or fire doors would have prevented them dying in any case.  If none of those three people died in shared houses at all, then the odds could be infinite, which is lots higher than the chances of winning the lottery.
The odds would never be infinite as you would then simply look over the course of more years. i.e. 1 death in 5 years from a group of 400,000 people would leave odds of 1 in 2,000,000 chance of dying in such an event over the course of a year. Still less than the lottery and far from infinite.

34.8% of all fire deaths and 39.2% of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. With 448 fire deaths in a 12 month period, that equates to approx 155 HMO deaths in a year. The fatality rate rises according to the number of floors, so shared 2 storey houses themselves will have low fatality rates and the guidance reflects this.

I also suspect that if you were able to dig deep into where the deaths have occurred then early warning coupled with a good protected route out of the building could have easily avoided the death in a majority of cases where the person was ambulant and coherent.

Offline johnny99

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2008, 07:12:00 PM »
Why oh why did I use some stats with my tongue firmly in my cheek??  CivvyFSO, as I noted in my first ever post on this forum, I was being flippant and stretching statistics.

My overall point is that with regard to shared houses, whether two storey, three storey or even, dare I say it, more storeys, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the occupants of shared houses are at any more risk than those in similar, single occupancy dwellings.  Because of my friendly local EHO, I have had to carry out a considerable amount of research into the risk in shared houses (The sort of places where the LACORS guide recommends LD3 for up to four storeys) and there is nothing to suggest that there is any raised risk in these properties.  To look at the death and injury data for HMOs and to conclude that all HMOs are dangerous is like looking at fireworks factories and concluding that all factories are dangerous.  There is a vast range of risk in HMOs.

If you read the ENTEC report (sadly I have) you will find that it contains no evidence whatsoever to conclude that shared houses of three storeys pose any particular risk.  You do have to read the full report to get to the detail.  As johno67 (no relation) rightly points out it's not the buildings that pose the risk, it is the occupants.

The Small Landlords Association report referred to by johno67 concluded, as far as I can recall that shared houses are 'stunningly safe' by comparison with all other dwelling types.  If my memory serves me correctly it looked at fatalities in London over about 7 years and in those 7 years there were 5 fatalities, among a shared house population of about 500,000 people.  One was a murder and two were suicides, so not much that any housing authority inspector could do about those.  One was an alcoholic epileptic man who had a fit while drunk and fell on an electric bar fire.  Perhaps the safety measure was central heating?  The final death was a woman who set fire to her clothing while lighting candles in her room at 4am.  I think I recall that she was drunk also.  Perhaps she could have been saved, perhaps not.

You could have two absolutely identical buildings next door to each other.  One occupied by five young, fit and healthy friends who have chosen to live, cook and eat together for a significant period of time and one occupied by five strangers who regularly move on, are alcohol and drug dependent and live, cook and eat in their own rooms.  Which one is the fireworks factory and which one is the small family business making garden gnomes?

Offline jokar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #65 on: August 07, 2008, 08:25:28 PM »
Val,

Does not the BS say fail safe to open on a power failure, fail safe on the actuation of the FA and have a manual override, not one or the other.

Offline Big T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2008, 08:43:13 AM »
Quote from: johnny99
My overall point is that with regard to shared houses, whether two storey, three storey or even, dare I say it, more storeys, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the occupants of shared houses are at any more risk than those in similar, single occupancy dwellings.
Correct but the government doesn't have control over single occupancy dwellings. And cannot improve the safety retrospectively in a normal dwelling. HMO's are covered by the government and they can (quite rightyly) demand them to be safer.

Quote from: jokar
Val,

Does not the BS say fail safe to open on a power failure, fail safe on the actuation of the FA and have a manual override, not one or the other.
Jokar. quite right, BS says you have to have both

jakespop

  • Guest
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #67 on: August 08, 2008, 09:39:28 AM »
On subject of shared housing>

Anyone any views on the relaxation of standards in "shared housing"? Seems a backward step but assume risk assesssment would identify if greater degree of fire safety would be required. However didnt I read somewhere that a risk assessment not required in shared housing.

Any comments  welcome!

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #68 on: August 08, 2008, 11:10:10 AM »
Quote from: johnny99
Why oh why did I use some stats with my tongue firmly in my cheek??  CivvyFSO, as I noted in my first ever post on this forum, I was being flippant and stretching statistics.
I was simply pointing out that the use of statistics was blatantly wrong. Call it tongue in cheek or stretching statistics or whatever, it gave a completely false representation of the point you were trying to make. I am not disagreeing with you that shared houses are a world away from 3-4 storey HMO's though.

The risk assessment may not be required in shared housing as the 'single private dwelling' may be applied from the fire safety order, however housing act still deems it a HMO but there is a guidance note somewhere (Prior to LACORS guidance) that recognises the lesser risk involved when a house is occupied in such a fashion.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
LACORS Guidance
« Reply #69 on: August 08, 2008, 11:21:36 AM »
Quote from: Big T
Quote from: johnny99
My overall point is that with regard to shared houses, whether two storey, three storey or even, dare I say it, more storeys, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the occupants of shared houses are at any more risk than those in similar, single occupancy dwellings.
Correct but the government doesn't have control over single occupancy dwellings. And cannot improve the safety retrospectively in a normal dwelling. HMO's are covered by the government and they can (quite rightyly) demand them to be safer.
Just because you can doesnt mean you should.