Author Topic: Crisis RRO in HMOS  (Read 25929 times)

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2011, 10:14:44 AM »
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.

Offline nearlythere

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2011, 10:16:18 AM »
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.
We're not Brazil we're Northern Ireland.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2011, 12:24:46 PM »
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.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2011, 12:28:01 PM »
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?


Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2011, 12:38:12 PM »
You can do anything necessary for the purpose of enforcing the order.  :P

Offline Big A

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2011, 01:07:36 PM »
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.

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2011, 05:13:15 PM »
You can do anything necessary for the purpose of enforcing the order.  :P

Pah! You scamp Civvy stop ducking the question.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2011, 10:35:21 AM »
I wouldn't really say I am ducking the question, I am merely throwing little bits of doubt on alternative answers. :)

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2011, 03:22:37 PM »
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.

Offline CivvyFSO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2011, 11:00:01 PM »
I am happy that your are convinced.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2011, 08:49:58 PM »
the reason you dont have a right of access is because it isnt your job - let the eho deal with it

Midland Retty

  • Guest
Re: Crisis RRO in HMOS
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2011, 11:03:54 AM »
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.