FSO guides

[Tom Sutton]

PhilB
Why will it apply to common parts surely they are part of the domestic premises.

[Big A]

Article 2 defines domestic premises as 'premises occupied as a private dwelling'. All the other parts, therefore, are covered by the Order.

[fred]

Seems logical to me that if the new Housing Act covers domestic dwellings (and common areas), and gives Local Authorities powers to issue Improvement and/or Prohibition notices under their own legislation, then FRS's have no need to get involved in HMO's at all - except in the case of the requirement for immediate Prohibition Notices (as opposed to the 28 day notification period the Housing Act requires).

[wee brian]

Fred - when di logic have anything to do with enforcement policy?

Some brigades are bound to idntify HMOs as their biggest problem and so put them on top of their inspection plan.

This will bring the whole system into disrepute.

At the moment we get EHOs applying 12/92 to flat conversion the day after building control sign them off.

The new act puts a stop to this but this just gets replaced with the overlap from the Order. Unless you count a HMO license as a "License" in which case it wont cover fire safety!!!!!

One step forward.......

[PhilB]

FRS's have no need to get involved in HMO's at all - except in the case of the requirement for immediate Prohibition Notices (as opposed to the 28 day notification period the Housing Act requires).

I agree Fred and love the idea of using logic...what a novelty!!! The new Housing Act gives housing officers immediate prohibition power so FRS should not be used for this purpose.

[Big A]

The Housing Act seems to be entirely self-contained and geared up towards LHAs being the appropriate authority. We still get our say, though, through the consultation required by section 10 of the Act - the LHAs have to consult the FRS before taking any (fire safety) enforcement action. Unfortunately FRSs will have a duty to enforce the RR(FS)O. Maybe we will get some indication of what the govt actually intended some time soon.

[fred]

The Housing Act seems to be entirely self-contained and geared up towards LHAs being the appropriate authority. We still get our say, though, through the consultation required by section 10 of the Act - the LHAs have to consult the FRS before taking any (fire safety) enforcement action. Unfortunately FRSs will have a duty to enforce the RR(FS)O. Maybe we will get some indication of what the govt actually intended some time soon.

Pigs are more likely to take wings ....I think there will also be an argument that FRS's should be consulted by the LA (under Art 42 of the RRO) before they (the LA) issue a HMO licence.  Just what we need ..... along with Care Standards and OFSTED etc we'll still have Agencies wagging our tails.  No change after all.

[PhilB]

The requirement under Article 42 is that FRS are given the opportunity to make representation before licenses are issued. Being given the opportunity to make representaion does not and should not always involve full consultaion. But FRS and EHOs need to set up protocols for dealing with this.

[fred]

Being given the opportunity to make representaion does not and should not always involve full consultaion. But FRS and EHOs need to set up protocols for dealing with this.

Absolutely agree PhilB - but with the ceaseless change of Goverment departmemts, new legislation, changes in Agency status we never stand still long enough to agree a protocol.  It took three years to produce a  Memorandum of Understanding with Care Standards in the SW.....by which time everyone was doing their own thing anyway.  It's a tough nut to crack, and joined up legislation could make it all so much easier.  Here's hoping .....

[val]

Can't believe it...I am in agreement with both Phil and Fred!

Having been involved in endless negotiations for various MOU's/parnerships/protocols etc. we have come to the conclusion that most are a waste of time. We intend to draw MOU's up in the future, spend a reasonable amount of time trying to get other agencies to sign up and then just tell them this is what they are getting! Care standards Agency are the worst by a country mile.

Disapplication of licensing conditions dealing with fire give us the opportunity at last.

In future, this is what we are going to do...work with us or we'll just do it anyway!

[fred]

Disapplication of licensing conditions dealing with fire give us the opportunity at last.

In future, this is what we are going to do...work with us or we'll just do it anyway!

Sounds good to me ..... just what we need - decisions !

[wee brian]

The HHSRS has all the answers.........

[Big A]

It certainly seems to but where does the RR(FS)O and FRS duty to enforce fit in?

A suggestion: FRS can be seen to be enforcing RR(FS)O through their consultations with the Housing Authorities (required by the Act before any fire safety action is taken). End of our involvement, except Article 31 (and only then when a housing officer can't be found)

What do you think?

[PhilB]

It will be interesting when a fire death occurs in an HMO when the RRFSO is in place. A relevant person will have been placed at risk of death or serious injury in a premises for which the FRS are the enforcing authority. The enforcing authority would be duty bound to take enforcement action in my opinion.

Furthermore I could see the FRS being criticised for failing to adopt a suitable risk based inspection programme!

As for the HHSRS having all the answers, I disagree. It is a means of identifying that deficiencies exist....it does not provide solutions to the problems identified.

[fred]

It will be interesting when a fire death occurs in an HMO when the RRFSO is in place. A relevant person will have been placed at risk of death or serious injury in a premises for which the FRS are the enforcing authority. The enforcing authority would be duty bound to take enforcement action in my opinion.

Furthermore I could see the FRS being criticised for failing to adopt a suitable risk based inspection programme!

As for the HHSRS having all the answers, I disagree. It is a means of identifying that deficiencies exist....it does not provide solutions to the problems identified.

Don't quite follow your drift here PhilB - a fire death in a HMO is in most cases likely to be caused by a fire originating in the area the fire death occurred - an area not covered by the RRO.  The Housing Act gives LA's adequate powers to issue improvement or prohibition notices on any part of the HMO - I don't see how FRS's could be criticised for not enforcing under the RRO when the Housing Act is far more appropriate - or am I missing something ?