HMO's with a business underneath

[stewbow]

I recently carried out a FRA on a small ground floor Hair Salon. A Simple layout with a front door and a back door. It had 2 stand alone manual call points fitted for raising the alarm in the event of a fire.

Today I have been informed that a FO has thrown out the FRA and instructed another company to carry out a further FRA. I contacted the FO and he wouldn't comment because he said that the propioter was contacting a solicitor, but he did say that on his visit he was accompanied by a Housing Enforcement Officer.

After talking to a different Housing Enforcement Officer, I am led to believe that the visit was as a result of a complaint by a tennent in one of the upstairs flats.

Apparantly the fire precautions within the flats are well below the required standard and have not yet been served with a notice under the HMO registration scheme, and the Housing Enforcement Officer went there to investigate and asked for a FO to go along aswell.

 The FRA that was carried out clearly states that it was only for the Hair Salon, The proprioter didn't mention anything about the upstairs flats (which are accessed from a seperate side entrance) and I was not told that they were owned by the same person as the owner of the Hair Salon.

Now as I understand it, under the RRO, a FRA should be carried out for the ground floor business, a FRA should be carried out on the communal area of the HMO, and the actual flats don't come into it, they are subject to a completely different set of requirements issued by the Housing Enforcement Officer (with the guidence of the Fire Officer)

 So apparantly my FRA was thrown out because I didn't survey the whole 4 storey building.

 Now obviously there should be a LD2 system throughout the whole building, including detection in the Hair Salon (that only has a half  hour ceiling). But under the RRO (let's assume that the flats were owned by a different landlord), I don't think that the RP of the ground floor business is responsible for the welfare of the tennents in the flats up above.

Your comments please

Thanks
Stuart

[kurnal]

Its a difficult one Stuart.
I have been in the same situation several times recently - and all you can do is point out the scope and limit of the risk assessment you are carrying out to the person employing you, who has no control whatsoever over other parts of the building.

I advised them to point out to the owner in brief terms the possible shortcomings of the building and made a token statement about it in the risk assessment. But if the owner wishes to ignore their responsibility and not carry out a risk assessment of areas under ther control, its not the problem of your client.

In one case, where the flats only access was shared by the shop,  I did actually, through goodwill,  contact the owner who wasnt interested, hadn't heard of the RRO and thought I was just trying to make a fast buck. So made a quiet call to the local FSO.

You can only visit those parts in the control of your client,  and you have no means and possibly no right to  communicate your concerns to a third party yourself- you can only advise your client. Your client has the duty to share the information you provide with other responsible persons in the building if it affects their safety.

[PhilB]

Of course the flats come into it!!!!!!!

Stuart you must be aware that the Fire Safety Order requires the responsible person to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. The safety of all relevant persons must be considered and 'relevant persons' includes anyone in the vicinity. Occupants of a flat, HMO, private dwelling or any other term you care to use are clearly relevant persons and therefore you have to take them into account in your assessment.

Yes there may be problems gaining access etc. but your report must address all relevant matters and any matters that you have not included should be clearly indicated in the report if it is to be deemed suitable and sufficient in my opinion.

[kurnal]

How can that work in reality Phil?
The hair salon owner is just one responsible person who is trying to do his duty in so far as he has control. He does not have access or right of access to the flats or the common areas of the flats.  Those areas are the sole province of other responsible persons- especially the owner. If the owner does not want to do his duty the salon RP cant do much about it?

The RP of the salon has a duty to inform and cooperate with other RPs in the building- if he uses nitro glycerine as a hair gel he has a duty to inform them of this and the steps he is taking to control the risk, but the fact that the floor has only half hours fire resistance is no more his responsibility than it is the occupier of the flat.  It is the floor that is the hazard,  its the building that is not fit for purpose- no problem as a salon but unsuitable for an HMO.  Its down to the owner.

[PhilB]

I know it's complicated Kurnal but the risk assessment, if it is to be suitable and sufficient , must surely consider such premises and all relevant persons, even if the RP has no control or right of access.

I agree in reality it is a problem but a competent assessor should recognise the problem and I would consider it to be a significant finding regardless of whether or not the RP had authority or responsibility for rectifying any deficiencies identified.

The problem is easily adressed if the report clearly sets out its scope and limitations.

Another area I would suggest that the cowboy assessor may come to a sticky end!

[val]

Hi Kurnal and Phil

A couple of points; firstly the occupiers of the flats are 'relevant people' within the meaning of the FSO, (if only by dint of being in the vicinity), secondly it can be an offence for any other person to cause the RP to commit an offence, so tenants in HMO's that refuse access and live a lifestyle that puts others at risk, can potentially be guilty whilst in their private areas, and thirdly, because this is so complex, we are actively seeking 'a delegation of limited powers' under Section 101 of the Local Gov Act 1982(?). This would work both ways with Housing Officers given limited powers under the FSO and FSO's given limited powers under the Housing Act 2004. Either party could wear whatever hat was most necessary.
That should keep the solicitors happy!

[PhilB]

Thanks for that Val, interesting.

I think the problem would not be so great if the power to enter dwellings had been retained in the Fire Safety Order.

As you know there is now no power of entry to domestic premises other than for article 31 (Prohibition/restriction) purposes.

Under the 71 Act we could enter single private dwellings if 24hrs notice was given.

[stewbow]

PhilB

When I said the Flats don't come into it, I was reffering to the fire precautions within the flats, not the people living in the flats. I take your point that the flat occupants could be regarded as relevent people, but I don't see how a fire risk assessment of the Hair Salon should also include a fire risk assessment of the flats and a fire risk assessment of the communal area.

Guide 1 - Offices and shops
Guide 3 - Sleeping accommodation------The common areas of houses in multiple occupation (HMO)

The New fire safety rules affect all non-domestic premises,       The flats are domestic

So are the goverment guides wrong or just misleading?

[val]

Stewbow
I prefer the term "...suitably vague"

[PhilB]

Spooky, I agree with Val................... again.!!!!

Unfortunately I feel that the new guides are wrong in some areas and certainly misleading in many.

[wee brian]

Val said

we are actively seeking 'a delegation of limited powers' under Section 101 of the Local Gov Act 1982(?). This would work both ways with Housing Officers given limited powers under the FSO and FSO's given limited powers under the Housing Act 2004.

Val - is this just your brigade or a CFOA thing

[val]

Wee Brian,

Government lawyers have accepted the legality and applicability of it in the case of Housing Act/FSO.  It will be referred to as an option as part of the protocol between Housing Authorities and Fire and Rescue Authorities. This should be published in a week or so.

[wee brian]

soundslike a dose of common sense.  How did that happen?

[adeb]

"It will be referred to as an option as part of the protocol between Housing Authorities and Fire and Rescue Authorities. This should be published in a week or so"
Any idea if it is out yet?

[Pip]

'This should be published in a week or so.'

a week in politics can be like a lifetime to the rest of us.