Forcing residents to replace front entrance doors

[Suttonfire]

Hi all,

I seem to remember some discussion on here around the ability of managing agents and the fire authority enforce the above if it is identified that non rated door sets are in place to flats.

Would anyone be able to send me a link to this (I believe that the Fire Authority have powers to serve a notice under the RRO; however, I understand that it has not yet been considered to be in the public interest).

Which options would you see that a managing agent has if they have taken on a property where flat owners have not historically been required to fit/maintain fire rated flat entrance doors, and where the local Fire Officer is now demanding that the managing agent replaces non fire rated flat entrance doors which have been identified?

Thanks

[colin todd]

How long have you got?

[Suttonfire]

It seems to be an issue causes a continuous problem for Managing Agents etc, and I've heard several conflicting views. I'd be only too happy to hear some more!

Is anyone able to confirm the specific article in the FSO which gives the authority (in theory) the powert to serve a notice on flat owners if they refuse to change a non fire rated door?

[Tom Sutton]

Chgeck out http://housingexcellence.co.uk/news/croydon-council-serve-injunction-gain-access-selhurst-flat-after-leaseholder-refused-let-it but I cannot find the result.

[William 29]

I am aware that several housing groups are looking at section 20 of the housing act to enforce?

It could be enforced under the RRFSO, I assume you could use a range of Articles based around "General Fire Precautions". As I understand several FA's have prepared the documentation but so far no one has served notice on an occupier? Colin may know more, he normally does! 

[Dinnertime Dave]

Is anyone able to confirm the specific article in the FSO which gives the authority (in theory) the powert to serve a notice on flat owners if they refuse to change a non fire rated door?

Article 5(4)

[Tom Sutton]

The flat is a domestic premises and exempt from the RR(FS)O and if it is owner/occupied you have no right of entry. Is the front door part of the flat or the commons areas? This why Croydon Council had to go for an injunction, the FRS chickened out. I am aware of art 31(10)

[Mike Buckley]

See

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/fire-safety-leaseholder-case-offers-legal-remedy/7005783.article

Looks as if Croydon got it.

[Mike Buckley]

Sorry just checked and the link needs you to log in. If you goggle you get the article as follows:

Landmark ruling could give landlords more rights to enforce fire safety rules

Fire in Southwark council block, 2009

A ?milestone? legal judgment that allowed a council to replace a leaseholder?s ?highly combustible? door could arm social landlords with a new means of enforcing fire safety rules.

In the case, believed to be the first of its kind, Croydon Council was last month granted an injunction to gain access to a leaseholder?s property without consent, to change a UPVC door that did not meet its fire safety standards and posed a risk to the building?s wider ability to resist a fire.

Councils have been under increased pressure to meet fire safety rules since the 2009 Lakanal House fire in south London, which killed six people, and many landlords continue to be issued fire safety notices for non-compliance.

Local authorities could face prosecution for trespass if they enter a leaseholder?s property without consent.

However, Croydon successfully argued that the leaseholder?s door remained the council?s responsibility as freeholder and needed replacing for communal safety reasons.

In a judgment, given the same day as the hearing on 1 August in Croydon County Court, circuit Judge David Ellis granted Croydon an injunction to carry out the repairs.

Croydon referred to the decision as a ?test case? that sets a ?precedent?.

Although technically only High Court decisions are legally binding for other judges in lower courts, experts agree the case is important to landlords seeking to enforce fire safety requirements.

Jan Taranczuk, a housing consultant, said: ?It?s an encouraging milestone in attempts to enforce fire safety and will also help landlords persuade leaseholders not to resist their attempts to change unsuitable doors.

?It?s a problem that is faced by nearly every social landlord across the country - not just councils.?

Alison Butler, cabinet member for homes and regeneration at Croydon, said: ?We believe this is the first case of its kind, and a vitally important one - it could potentially save lives.?

[Clevelandfire 3]

As others have already said there are various routes of enforcement (using civil penalties and regulatory -read criminal-  law) and they have given examples

In terms of the fire safety order in particular however this is how enforcement may well be taken.

Dinnerhour Dave states Article 5(4) brings in yer leaseholder (resident owner occupier chappie) under the requirements of the Order

Failings under the order can only occur in places where the order applies such as communal areas in flats. the safety of those areas will be the responsibility of the freeholder, and lesser degree yer hapless leaseholder .

Any action for failings discovered by the Fire Authority such as non compliant flat entrance door would first of all be aimed at the freeholder - probably the likes of article 8(b) or 9(1) or Article 14(2)(b) would be used / quoted / cited as the failing and there are many other articles that could apply.

There is good reason the freeholder is targeted first rather than yer leaseholder cos there may be terms of the leasehold agreement that yer freeholder could impose (Civil law approach) to force leaseholders to replace front doors. Plus it saves the fire authority from looking the bad guys for political reasons / image.

If this aint possible the freeholder will says despite its best efforts they cannot remedy the failing and at this point the Fire Authority would probably issue an enforcement notice - this would still be served on the freeholder at this stage cos its a nice straight forward way of proving the commission of an offence has taken place (failing to comply with an enforcement notice is a straight forward  an offence) - remember a non f/r flat door may constitute a failing under the order but not necessarily an offence.

So when freeholder once again says gee thanks for serving the notice on us fellas but we still cant do beggar all about this door the fire authority will deem that an offence has been committed cos the notice can't be complied with.

It will then say there there mr freeholder dont you fret we have decided you are off the hook cos its that naughty leaseholder thats caused you to fail. We will use that fab Article 32(10) to bring about prosecution against the leaseholder / resident purely because its the easiest way to prove the commission of an offence has taken place.

Of course the Order empowers fire authorities to enforce directly on the leaseholder in the first place but from a political view point its better if the freeholder is seen to be the nasty enforcer not yer fire brigade. Plus in court it can be proven all civil matters were exhausted first before potentially giving someone the prospect of a criminal record

[AnthonyB]

Certainly from experience enforcing authorities do follow Clevelandfire 3's model - a client protested that to make the changes needed at his site to avoid an EN he would in theory have to begin over 200 separate civil actions to enforce the lease, to which the FSO simply said 'Yep!'