Guest Houses and Relevant Premises and Relevant Persons

[Ricardo]

Would appreciate the views of the forum on this one, a guest house scenario, whether single/ground and first or ground first and second, a typically big house, plenty of them up and down the land, where the owners live within the house, and let out various berdooms as the business.
The owner can occupy entirely the ground floor, and let out the upper floor/s or occupy part of the premises and let out other parts.

In the old days of fire certificates many stated the areas occupied by the owners as "private" and many owners would tell you this is my private accommodation, as if to say you cant touch me in here.

I have recently visited such a premises where the owners do indeed occupy the entire ground floor, and let out the upper 2 floors as guest accommodation. from the front lobby into the house 2 doors face you, 1 leads up stairs to the letting bedrooms and the other door leads through the ground floor to the owners private quarters.

My query is, are all persons -  guests and owners classed as "relevant persons"? I believe they are
and is the entire premises classed as "relevant premises" or is the private quarters classed as "domestic" where they cannot be touched by fire safety law? I find this bit more tricky, I didnt think that this was a true domestic scenario as we all have at home where it a purely "private domestic dwelling" I was looking at this as almost ancillary to the business, and if there were any fire safety issues in the "domestic" part of the entire "relevant premises" then for the safety of all "relevant persons" then I would be of the opinion the owners would need to address them in their "domestic /private /do not enter part of the house.

For example, we as fire safety persons are seeking to to get an L2 standard fire alarm/AFD system. and maybe door/s upgraded, to secure the safety of all "relevant persons", but If the "domestic parts cannot be classed as "relevant premises" then maybe we end up with a system that the guides  say should be L2 but due to the "domestic" areas we cant touch them, so not getting a full L2 system, or even a single escape stair where 1 room is deemed private under the owners control (bedroom or lounge) but adjactent rooms are let out, I would think that private /domestic or whatever, these areas must have adequate precautions incorporated if deemed necessary.
 I hope you get my drift, and where I'm coming from, oh and by the way, this scenario is not under RRFSO terms, but the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, but would appreciate views from all sides. Thanks

[kurnal]

No doubt about this, Enland or Scotland
If a fire in the owners accommodation could affect the safety of the persons elsewhere in the building then the fire precautions in the owners accommodation needs to be upgraded. Only time this will not be the case is if there is a one hour compartment floor between owners and guest accommodation and no interconnections. Only then would the owners accommodation be domestic and not need to be considered at all.

All are relevant persons. Thats immaterial to the fire safety arrangements of the building. In a block of flats all persons are relevant persons even though due to fire compartmentation only the common areas are subject to the Fire Safety Law.

[kurnal]

Ricky has asked me to clarify my answer. This is my response. As I have been known to talk out my backside I would be interested in any alternative views.

I build up my case in a series of steps. This is how I see it.
 

1- The RRO applies to the guest house as its not a single private dwelling.

2- Part of the building may be a private dwelling but other parts are not.

3- The RRO applies to those parts that are not a private dwelling.

4- The parts of the building that are not a private dwelling and are subject to the RRO are not completely separated from private dwelling.

5- Therefore a fire in the private  dwelling could affect the safety of persons in the parts that are subject to the RRO. The only way this risk can be avoided is by taking general fire precautions in the domestic parts or to completely separate them.

6- The owner is the responsible person under the RRO and has a duty to protect the relevant persons by the provision of general fire precautions.

7- The definition of a relevant person is everybody who is there legally or who is in the immediate vicinity and  could be at risk of being harmed by the fire.

8- The owner is there legally and  could be affected by a fire in the guest acommodation that is subject to the RRO. He is a relevant person.

9- A fire in the parts of the building that are subject to the RRO could affect the safety of persons in the domestic parts that are not subject to the RRO

10-The Owner is protected by the RRO when in those parts of the building used as the guest house, and when in his own dwelling  because unless the two parts are separated, he is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk from a fire  in the guest house.

11- The owner therefore has to install general fire precautions to ensure that a fire in his domestic quarters could not be a risk to persons in the guest accommodation and that other persons (Himself and his family) would not be at risk from a fire in his guest accommodation.

 

Its all an application of articles 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and17 together with definitons of general fire precautions, responsible and relevant persons.

 

In a block of flats all floors are compartment floors and all flats are enclosed in compartment walls with half hour fire doors and stairs and corridors kept sterile and ventilated. This arrangement is considered so safe that in the event of a fire in a flat nobody else need be alerted or evacuated. Thereofre the common areas only are subject to the RRO because a fire in a flat will not affect anybody else. In theory.

[Ricardo]

Kurnal

Many thanks for your most detailed reply, I fully agree with your observations, Its what I believed anyway, its the attempt to convince others that I need to overcome.

[nearlythere]

Ricky has asked me to clarify my answer. This is my response. As I have been known to talk out my backside I would be interested in any alternative views.

I build up my case in a series of steps. This is how I see it.
 

1- The RRO applies to the guest house as its not a single private dwelling.

2- Part of the building may be a private dwelling but other parts are not.

3- The RRO applies to those parts that are not a private dwelling.

4- The parts of the building that are not a private dwelling and are subject to the RRO are not completely separated from private dwelling.

5- Therefore a fire in the private  dwelling could affect the safety of persons in the parts that are subject to the RRO. The only way this risk can be avoided is by taking general fire precautions in the domestic parts or to completely separate them.

6- The owner is the responsible person under the RRO and has a duty to protect the relevant persons by the provision of general fire precautions.

7- The definition of a relevant person is everybody who is there legally or who is in the immediate vicinity and  could be at risk of being harmed by the fire.

8- The owner is there legally and  could be affected by a fire in the guest acommodation that is subject to the RRO. He is a relevant person.

9- A fire in the parts of the building that are subject to the RRO could affect the safety of persons in the domestic parts that are not subject to the RRO

10-The Owner is protected by the RRO when in those parts of the building used as the guest house, and when in his own dwelling  because unless the two parts are separated, he is in the immediate vicinity and could be at risk from a fire  in the guest house.

11- The owner therefore has to install general fire precautions to ensure that a fire in his domestic quarters could not be a risk to persons in the guest accommodation and that other persons (Himself and his family) would not be at risk from a fire in his guest accommodation.

 

Its all an application of articles 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15 and17 together with definitons of general fire precautions, responsible and relevant persons.

 

In a block of flats all floors are compartment floors and all flats are enclosed in compartment walls with half hour fire doors and stairs and corridors kept sterile and ventilated. This arrangement is considered so safe that in the event of a fire in a flat nobody else need be alerted or evacuated. Thereofre the common areas only are subject to the RRO because a fire in a flat will not affect anybody else. In theory.

Kurnal
Would you not consider that the relevant persons are staff and guests only and the priority is to protect them from a fire in the domestic area, and not neccessarily vice versa?
AS you say AFD in domestic area and manual call point on any independant entrance / exits and fire seperation between domestic and staff/guest escape routes.

[davio1960]

Hi Ricardo
I agree with Kurnel. All persons legally in a premises, that falls under the FSO, are relevent persons regardless of their position...
Even Gordon Brown in the Big House in London falls under the order only others enforce!

If some people consider the owner does not fall under the order what about his/her mum visiting or his/her own family...they may be placed at risk from any fire. I and most of my colleagues do not want to explain to a coroner that we protected the guests and staff but not the owner or his family.
This situation also brings in all sleeping/living accommodation above pubs and any accommodation above small restaurants and take away food establishments...The FSO covers every thing except the open field and forests but then ...Some-one may have an exception thats not on the official FSO application lists or in Clog guidance?
Regards Davio

[PhilB]

Whilst I agree with Kurnal that the safety of relevant persons relys on the fire safety measures in the domestic premises, you all seem to be missing the point that this is in Scotland and the Fire Safety Order (RRO is not really the correct term as there are many RROs) is not the relevant legislation.

The Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 defines relevant premises.....unlike the Fire Safety Order which does not.

Relevant premises excludes domestic premises. The private areas of the B&B are domestic premises as they are not shared with anyone else.

Yes the guests and the owners are all relevant persons but under Scottish law you can only make requirements in relevant premises.....the domestic parts are not such premises.

The Fire Safety Order requires, by virtue of article 17, fire safety measures to be maintained even if those features are in domestic premises. The Scottish legislation doesn't appear to have that power.

So someone please explain how you would require anything to be done in the domestic premises in Scotland.

In my opinion all you could do would be to prohibit the use of the relevant premises.


Kurnal you mention single private dwelling. In England and Wales we can prohibit the use of certain single private dwellings...we always could and we still can.

In Scotland they used to be able to prohibit the use of certain SPD but now it appears they cannot...they can only prohibit the use of relevant premises.

All the above is my opinion only of course, and I would be interested in anyones views particularly someone who knows more about Scottish law.

What would happen if the owner took his fire doors off the domestic premises and commenced to juggle petrol.....in England and Wales we could prohibit the use and serve an enforcement notice on the owner.....could you do the same in Scotland??

[nearlythere]

Hi Ricardo
I agree with Kurnel. All persons legally in a premises, that falls under the FSO, are relevent persons regardless of their position...
Even Gordon Brown in the Big House in London falls under the order only others enforce!

If some people consider the owner does not fall under the order what about his/her mum visiting or his/her own family...they may be placed at risk from any fire. I and most of my colleagues do not want to explain to a coroner that we protected the guests and staff but not the owner or his family.
This situation also brings in all sleeping/living accommodation above pubs and any accommodation above small restaurants and take away food establishments...The FSO covers every thing except the open field and forests but then ...Some-one may have an exception thats not on the official FSO application lists or in Clog guidance?
Regards Davio

What about blocks of flats where the only area for RA is the common escape route?

[Ken Taylor]

Is the 'private residential accommodation' a separate premises or part of one larger premises incorporating guest house provision? If the former is considered to be the case (considering the adequacy of fire separation, access arrangements, etc - ie following Kurnal's logic), the persons and premises appear to be 'relevant' and a common approach seems to be required.

[PhilB]

Is the 'private residential accommodation' a separate premises or part of one larger premises incorporating guest house provision? If the former is considered to be the case (considering the adequacy of fire separation, access arrangements, etc - ie following Kurnal's logic), the persons and premises appear to be 'relevant' and a common approach seems to be required.

It is a separate premises and it is in Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Forget fire separation, access arrangements and Kurnals logic....(with all due respect Kurnal of course!!).

Which part of the Act requires measures to be taken in the domestic premises???

[Ken Taylor]

Oops, Phil - I should have written 'latter' rather than 'former'. Is there clarity of interpretation in how to determine whether accommodation is separate these days?

[PhilB]

No Ken but the legislation differs in Scotland. The Fire Safety Order enables notices to be served on any premises for the safety of relevant persons...........the Scottish Act only applies to relevant premises....domestic premises are not relevant premises.


"54 Duties in relation to relevant premises (1) Where a person has control to any extent of relevant premises the person shall, to that extent, comply with subsection (2).
(2) The person shall—
(a) carry out an assessment of the relevant premises for the purpose of identifying any risks to the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises; and
(b) take in relation to the relevant premises such of the fire safety measures as in all the circumstances it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure the safety of relevant persons in respect of harm caused by fire in the relevant premises."

The private parts of the B&B are clearly domestic...and therefore not relevant premises...even though the occupants are relevant persons. I think!

[Ken Taylor]

The point I'm feebly trying to make (and understand) is that in any particular building there may be one or more premises and, perhaps, the residential accommodation may or may not be regarded as a separate premises and, therefore, may or may not be 'relevant' and, presumably a judgement needs to be made depending upon such matters as the degree, if any, of fire separation, access arrangements, etc. The owners might be living in a room off the guests' corridor that also provides an escape route and sharing the guests' bathroom or might have their own private entrance from the street with 1hr separation all round - or something between the two extremes. Presumably the first question will be something like 'Is the owner's accommodation a separate premises?' and, if not clearly so, a common alarm, AFD, etc will be needed. Or am I wrong?

[PhilB]

In England and Wales premises is defined as any place, and that would include parts of buildings. The Fire Scotland Act does not define premises but does define relevant premises and domestic premises.

Relevant premises does not include domestic premises.....domestic premises....defined exactly the same as the Fire Safety Order...definition taken from HASAW Act....i.e premises or parts of premises that are not shared.

Fire separation does not come into it....consider an open air market....each stall could be a separate premises.

As far as I can see...in Scotland requirements can only be made in relevant premises. In England & Wales requirements could be made in any premises.....even premises to which the order  does not apply by virtue of article 17.

[Ken Taylor]

I'm thinking Scotland too, Phil - only out of academic interest of course as you know I'm rather a long way from dear old Scotland. Without clear instruction as to what constitutes a premises and with interconnection and interrelationship within a building there needs to be judgement as to where one divides between domestic and non-domestic and whether it's within the intention (or letter) of the law to exclude what's within reasonable risk assessment necessary for the safety of persons present (relevant or otherwise). I do find it interesting, from this forum, to note the uncertainty that exists among those seeking to enforce current fire legislation and the associated lack of clear guidance. For those of us seeking to meet the duties or see that our clients do it remains even more so at times.