FSO guides

[zimmy]

As far as I am aware, the housing has a responsibility to apply the new Housing risk rating system (replacing 12/92) which is effectively a risk assessment carried out by them which covers fire safety and will give the property a risk rating which will determine any enforcement action. Once the RR(FS)O comes in, the premises becomes 'ours'. The risk rating system will continue for the EHO's as it covers all the other aspects, cooking, washing etc. but fire safety will be our responsibility. There is an article in the order that negates any advice or requirements imposed by the EHO's and gives the RR(FS)O primacy. Another point is that landlords will be required to record their findings by virtue of the fact that they are registered and therefore have a 'licence' as defined in the order

[PhilB]

The HHSRS that you speak of is merely a tool for determining the level of risk, it does not give solutions to the problems found.

I disagree that once the Order comes into force in October FRS will look after fire safety in these premises. It is true that the RRFSO will apply to the common parts, but the Housing Act applies to all parts and that legislation requires adequate fire precautions.

It is true that larger HMOs will need a license and therefore the prescribed information must be recorded. This may assist housing officers when they come to assess the building using HHSRS.

It is not the Govt.s intention that FRS should be very involved in HMOs. The Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation.

FRS must be given an opportunity to make representations before licenses are issued, and must be consulted before enforcement action is taken.

Housing officers and fire officers should be working together now to agree protocols for managing the fire risk in these premises.

[zimmy]

It is not the Govt.s intention that FRS should be very involved in HMOs. The Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation.

Housing officers and fire officers should be working together now to agree protocols for managing the fire risk in these premises.

It would be handy if the 'governments intention' was made clear. I am aware that many FRA's out there are going to take responsibility for HMO's unless told differently. I agree that we should be working with housing on a protocol but we shouldn't be coming up with about 44 different ones. It was noted that the original drafts of the CFOA directives included a protocol for HMO's but this seemed to disappear by the time the final versions were made available. Can anyone clarify this situation further?

[Big A]

If you look at FRS Circular 12 - 2006,section 2.2, it suggests that FRSs should be reporting inadequate (temporary) accomodation to the Housing Authorities and that FRSs fit battery smoke detectors as an interim measure.

Article 43 deals only with licence conditions and has nothing to do with Part 1 of the Housing Act, the part that empowers them to improve social housing. Or, to put it another way, the Housing Authorities do not need to put fire safety conditions on licences.
Another point is that, according to independent legal opinion, an Act takes legal preference over an Order.

[PhilB]

The problem as I see it is that you've got three different government departments dealing with fire, housing & licensing...and they don't communicate very well.

Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.

The Govt. believe that the Housing Act is the appropriate legislation for HMOs but the Order requires any licensing autrhority to give the FRS a chance to make representaion before issuing licenses.

The RRFSO does not apply to domestic premises i.e. the private living quarters in an HMO.

The order does apply to the common parts. To assess the safety of the common parts the FRS I would suggest needs to look in rooms that adjoin the common parts. The Order provides no power of entry to domestic premises!

Confused dot.com!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jokar]

I agree with PhilB.  Who does the door of a single private dwelling belong to?  Is it the Landlord as part of the common parts or the occupier as there private front door?

[black arts]

certainly not FRA
maybe employer, occupier, or owner  i.e it must be the landlord

Question for all the guides

do the travel distances,AFD systems, EL,  all reflect the same figures,
another words can I read just one book??    I except sutile changes

[val]

Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.!

Phil,

If this is the case, why under Article 42 (3) (b) does it say, "licensing" includes certification and registration and licensing is to be construed accordingly. It is quite specific, any registration or certification or licensing scheme takes second place where the RRO applies.

Also under IRMP Note 4, HMO's are 2nd or 3rd in the relative risk hierarchy and FRS are meant to develop their inspection policies around this.

Also, it is the government's intention that FRS should be involved in HMO's

Also, Many FRS (London, GMC, Lincs have been working for some time to develop locol protocols.

Also, CFOA do have a 'loose' working group to develop a national model for MOU between Housing and FRS

Also, many Housing Authorities have long established prescriptive guides on standards in HMO's and are struggling to reconcile these with HHSRS

[val]

Jokar,

Inside of door belongs to occupier, outside to landlord...simple really. Wait for the fisrt clued up landlord challenging a Housing Authority post 1st October who tries to enforce fire safety standards quoting Article 43.

Nuva villa for my learned friends!!

[wtfdik]

Question for all the guides

do the travel distances,AFD systems, EL,  all reflect the same figures,
another words can I read just one book??    I except sutile changes

Thats a bit like saying can I just read one BS5588.
The formats are the same but there are differences.
I actually quite like them for the peol;le they are attended for.

[wtfdik]

Inside of door belongs to occupier, outside to landlord...simple really.

talk about siting on the fence. Does that mean the FRS can only ask for the front bit to be FR if deemed neccessary.

[PhilB]

Article 43 of the Order suggests that licenses shouldn't impose fire safety measures. They were really talking about alcohol licenses but didn't actualy say that in the Order.!

Phil,

1)If this is the case, why under Article 42 (3) (b) does it say, "licensing" includes certification and registration and licensing is to be construed accordingly. It is quite specific, any registration or certification or licensing scheme takes second place where the RRO applies.

2)Also under IRMP Note 4, HMO's are 2nd or 3rd in the relative risk hierarchy and FRS are meant to develop their inspection policies around this.

3)Also, it is the government's intention that FRS should be involved in HMO's

4)Also, Many FRS (London, GMC, Lincs have been working for some time to develop locol protocols.

5)Also, CFOA do have a 'loose' working group to develop a national model for MOU between Housing and FRS

6)Also, many Housing Authorities have long established prescriptive guides on standards in HMO's and are struggling to reconcile these with HHSRS

1) I know that Val, but many people interpret this to mean that licenses or registration schemes cannot require fire safety measures, of course they can.

2) I know that too Val, they will be high up on a risk based inspection program, but FRS have no power of entry.

3) FRS will be involved with HMOs but the Housing Act is the most appropriate legislation...the RFSO does not apply to the domestic parts!!!!!!

4) Yes of course many have, but some have not.

5) I know.......good!

6) It would surely be better for some good new guidance to replace 12/92. I am not advocating precriptive standards but a set of reasonable benchmarks that could adopted nationally would assist consistency of enforcement and be of use to those who are required to comply. The HHSRS uses ADB as an ideal. That document is totally inappropriate for many existing HMOs

[jokar]

Blackarts, the easy answer is no.  There are subtle differences in each of the guides dependent on the risk.  For example each guide  has a para on basements, 2 x 30 min doors and 60 min floor.  However, the factory guide states that 1 x 60 min door at basement level is acceptable and a small basement can have a 30 min floor.  Also, the sleeping risk guide states that accommodation staircases have to be enclosed at all levels other then the ground but the other guides do not say this.  Read and weep at the minor changes.

[jokar]

FRS's will look at HMO's.  The major fire risk is in domestic premises and they will be bound by this to undertake risk inspection of HMO's.  How they interact with local authorities will be a question for each local authority.  RR(FS)O applies to all premises except single private dwellings and the Local Authority is not an enforcer for fire under this legislation.

[PhilB]

RR(FS)O applies to all premises except single private dwellings and the Local Authority is not an enforcer for fire under this legislation.

Not so Jokar. The RRFSO does not apply to domestic premises, the wording is important.

There will be power to prohibit or restrict the use of everywhere except premises consisting of or comprised in a house that is occupied as a single private dwelling. So FRS can prohibit the use of an HMO.

Apart from Article 31(Prohibition) The RRFSO will not apply to all parts of HMOs, it will only apply to the common parts. Therefore the Housing Act is the answer for ensuring adequate fire precautions are provided in the 'domestic' parts.